FoundationsOfLeninism PDF

Joseph
Stalin
FOUNDATIONS OF LENINISM
By the same author:
LENINISl\I, VOLUME I
LENINISM, VOLUME II
THE ROAD TO OCTOBER
FOUNDATIONS
OF
LENINISM
BY JOSEPH STALIN
•
INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHERS
NEW YORK
Copyright, 1932, by
INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHERS CO., INC.
Printed in the U. S. A.
TIDS BOOK IS COMPOSED AND PRINTED BY UNION LABOR

CONTENTS
AUTHOR'S INTRODUCTION. • • • • •
I. THE HISTORICAL ROOTS OF LENINISM 11
II. THE METHOD. • • • • • • 18

III. THEORY • • • • • • • 26
(1) The Importance of Theory. 26
(2) Criticism of the "Theory" of Spontaneity, or
the Role of the Vanguard in the Movement 28
(3) The Theory of the Proletarian Revolution. 30
IV. THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT • • • 44
(1) The Dictatorship of the Proletariat as the
Instrument of the Proletarian Revolution. . 44
(2) The Dictatorship of the Proletariat as the
Domination of the Proletariat Over the Bour-
geoisie . . . . . . . . . . . 48
(3) The Soviet Power as the State Form of the
Dictatorship of the Proletariat 53
V. THE PEASANT QUESTION • • • • • • • 58
(1) Presentation of the Problem . . . . . 58
(2) The Peasantry During the Bourgeois-Demo-
cratic Revolution . . . . . . . . 60
(3) The Peasantry During the Proletarian Revolu-
tion . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
( '1-) The Peasantry After the Soviet Power Has
Become Consolidated 67
VI. THE NATIONAL QUESTION • • • • • • • 73
(1) Presentation of the Problem . . . . . 73
(2) The Liberation Movement of the Oppressed
Peoples and the Proletarian Revolution 79
5
CONTENTS
PA~
VII. STRATEGY AND TACTICS 85
(I) Strategy and Tactics as the Science of Lead-
ership in the Class \Var 85
(2) Strategy and the Stages of Revolution 87
(3) Tactics and the Ebb and Flow of the Move-
ment 89
(4) Strategic Leadership 90
(5) Tactical Leadership 96
(6) Reformist Tactics and Revolutionary Tactics 100
VIII. THE PARTY 104
(I) The Party as the Vanguard of the Working
Class 105
(2) The Party as the Organised Detachment of
the Working Class 108
(3) The Party as the Highest Form of Class
Organisation of the Proletariat 112
(4) The Party as the Weapon of the Dictatorship
of the Proletariat 114
(5) The Party as the Expression of Unity of Will,
Which Is Incompatible with the Existence of
Factions 116
(6) The Party Is Strengthened by Purging Itself
of Opportunist Elements 118
IX. STYLE IN WORK 121
INDEX 125
INTRODUCTION
IN the Foundations of Leninism we are confronted with a

big subject. A whole volume, or even several, would be needed
to treat it thoroughly. My lectures therefore cannot serve
as an exhaustive exposition of Leninism; at best they will be
but a concise synopsis of the foundations of Leninism. Nev-
ertheless, I consider this synopsis useful in so far as it lays
down some of the basic points of departure, with which we
must familiarise ourselves if our study of Leninism is to be
successful.
Moreover, expounding the foundations of Leninism is not
the same as expounding the foundations of Lenin's philoso-
phy (Weltanschauung). Lenin's philosophy and the founda-
tions of Leninism are not co-extensive. Lenin was a Marxist
and Marxism is naturally the foundation of his philosophy.
But it does not follow in the least that an exposition of
Leninism ought to begin with an exposition of the founda-
tions of Marxism. To expound Leninism means to expound
that which is distinctive and new in the work of Lenin, his
contribution to Marxism, and all that is properly connected
with it. It is only in this sense that I shall speak here of
the foundations of Leninism.
What Is Leninism?
According to some it is the application of Marxism to the
peculiar conditions prevailing in Russia. This definiton con-
tains a grain of truth, but not the whole truth by any means.
Lenin has indeed applied Marxism to the actual state of
affairs in Russia and has applied it uncommonly well. But
if Leninism were only the application of Marxism to the
peculiar situation in Russia, it would be a national, a Russian
i
8 INTRODUCTION
phenomenon pure and simple; whereas we know that Leninis m
is international, deeply rooted in all events of world imp or-
tance, not only affecting matters Russian. That is why in
my opinion this definition is too narrow.
Others declare that Leninism is the revival of the revolu-
tionary elements found in the Marxism of the forties of t he
nineteenth century, in contradistinction to the Marxism of
subsequent years, when it grew moderate, so to speak, and
lost its revolutionary character. In discarding this stupid
subdivision of the teachings of Marx into two parts, revo-
lutionary and moderate, we must still recognise that this defi-
nition, in spite of its utter inadequacy and unsatisfactory
character, does contain a particle of truth. That particle
consists in the fact that Lenin has indeed revived the revo-
lutionary content of Marxism, which had been submerged by
the opportunists of the Second International. Yet it remai ns
but a particle of the truth. The whole truth about Leninis m
is that Leninism has not only revived Marxism, but has also
made a step forward in developing it further under the new
conditions of capitalism and of the class struggle of the
proletariat.
What, then, is Leninism in its last analysis?
Leninism is Marxism in the epoch of imperialism and of
the proletarian revolution, or, to be more exact, Leninism is
the theory and tactics of the proletarian revolution in qen-
eral, and the theory and tactics of the dictatorship of the
proletariat in particular. Marx and Engels worked in a
pre-revolutionary epoch (we have the proletarian revolution
in mind) when imperialism was still in an embryonic state,
when the workers were only preparing for the revolution,
when the proletarian revolution was not yet a direct, pract i-
cal necessity. Lenin, the disciple of Marx and Engels,
worked in an epoch of expansion of imperialism and develop-
ment of the proletarian revolution, an epoch when this revo-
lution, triumphant in one country, destroyed bourgeois de-
INTRODUCTION
mocracy there and ushered in the era of proletarian democ-
racy, the era of the soviets.
That is why Leninism is the further development of Marx-
ism.
Usually, the exceptionally militant and exclusively revo-
lutionary character of Leninism is emphasised, and rightly
so. But this peculiarity of Leninism arises from two reasons:
first of all, because Leninism has sprung from the pro-
letarian revolution, the imprint of which it could not fail to
retain; secondly, because it grew and became strong in the
clashes with the opportunism of the Second International, a
struggle which was and remains an essential condition prece-
dent for the success of the struggle against capitalism. It
should not be forgotten that a whole stretch of undivided
domination by the opportunism of the Second International
lies between Marx and Engels on the one hand and Lenin on
the other.
This opportunism has to be fought relentlessly and this is
one of the most important tasks of Leninism.
FOUNDATIONS
OF LENINISM
I. THE HISTORICAL ROOTS OF LENINISM
LENINIs.r has grown up and assumed definite form under
the conditions of imperialism, in which the contradictions of
capitalism have reached a most acute stage, when the pro-
letarian revolution has become an immediate practical ques-
tion, when the old period of preparing the working class for
the revolution had reached and grew into a new period of
direct onslaught upon capitalism.
Lenin used to call imperialism "moribund capitalism."
'Vhy? Because imperialism carries the contradictions of
ca pitalism to their extremes, after which revolution begins.
Of these contradictions there are three of particular im-
portance.
The first is the contradiction between labor and capital.
Imperialism denotes the omnipotence of the monopolist trusts
and syndicates, of the banks and of the financial oligarchy
in the industrial countries. In order to fight against this
omnipotence, the customary methods of the working class
(trade-unions and co-operative organisations, political
parties and the parliamentary struggle) were quite insuffi-
cient. Either place yourself at the mercy of capital, starve
and sink lower and lower, or adopt a new weapon-this is the
alternative imperialism puts before the vast army of the
proletariat. Thus imperialism leads the working class on to
revolution.
The second contradiction is the antagonism between the
11
12 FOUNDATIONS OF LENINISM
various financial groups and the imperialist powers in their
struggle for the sources of raw materials, for forei gn terri-
tory. Imperialism is the export of capital to the SOur ces
of raw materials, the mad struggle for exclusive posses sion
of these sources; the struggle for a redivision of the world
that has already been parceled out; a struggle conducted
with particular zeal by new financial groups and powers seek-
ing their "place in the sun" against the old ones which do
not wish to abandon their prey. This mad struggle between
various groups of capitalists inevitably harbors th e germ
of imperialist wars, wars for the annexation of foreign terri-
tory. Now, this state of things itself leads to the weakening
of the imperialists by one another, to the weakenin g of the
position of capitalism in general; it accelerates t he advent
of the proletarian rev olution and makes this revolut ion a
practical necessity.
The third contradiction is the contradiction between a few
powerful "civilised" nations and the hundreds of millions of
colonial and dependent peoples throughout the world. Im-
perialism means the most shameless exploitation and the
most inhuman oppression of hundreds of millions of men,
women and children in the colonies and dependent count r ies.
The purpose of this exploitation and oppression is t o squeeze
out super-profits. But in exploiting these countries im-
perialism is compelled to construct railways, factories and
workshops there and to create commercia l and indust rial
centres. The appearance of a class of proletarians, the rise
of a class of native intellectuals, the awakening of national
self-consciousness, the strengthening of the liberation move-
ment are all the inevitable results of this policy. The
strengthening of the revolutionary movement in all colonies
and dependent countries without exception manifestly testi-
fies to this fact. Now this circumstance is of impor t ance
to the proletariat in that it completely undermines the posi-
tion of capitalism by transforming the colonies and de-
THE HISTORICAL ROOTS OF LENINISM 13
pendent countries, the reserves of imperialism, into reserves
of the proletarian revolution.
Such in general are the principal contradictions of im-
perialism that have changed the old, "flourishing" capitalism
into moribund capitalism.
The importance of the imperialist war that took place
ten years ago lies among other things in the fact that it
gathered all these contradictions into a single sheaf and
threw them into the scales, thus accelerating and facilitating
the revolutionary battles of the proletariat.
In other words, imperialism has not only made revolution
a practical necessity; it has created favourable conditions
for a direct attack on the citadels of capitalism.
Such is the international situation that gave birth to
Leninism.
This is all very well, you may say, but how does Russia
fit into this picture-Russia which was not and could not
be the classical land of imperialism? How is Lenin, who
worked above all in Russia and for Russia, concerned with
this? Why has Russia been the home of Leninism? Why
did the theory and tactics of the proletarian revolution
spring into being in this country?
Because Russia was the focus of all these contradictions
of imperialism. Because Russia more than any other coun-
try was pregnant with revolution and she alone was in a
position to solve these contradictions by taking the path of
revolution.
In fact, tsarist Russia was the home of oppression of every
kind-capitalist, colonial and militarist-of oppression in its
most barbarous form. Here the omnipotence of capital was
merged with the despotism of tsarism, aggressive Russian
nationalism with the rule of the tsarist hangman over non-
Russian peoples, the economic exploitation of whole regions
of Turkey, Persia and China, with the tsarist military con-
quest of these regions. Lenin was quite right in saying that
tsarism was "feudal-militarist imperialism"! Tsarism was
the quintessence of the most negative sides of imperialism.
Again, tsarist Russia was an immense reserve force for
European imperialism, not only because it gave free entrance
to foreign capital (which controlled important branches of
Russian economy like fuel and metallurgy), but also because
it could furnish millions of soldiers to the imperialists of the
West. During the war, for example, twelve million Russ ian
soldiers shed their blood on the imperialist front to safe-
guard the limitless profits of the Anglo-French capitalists .
Furthermore, tsarism was not only the watchdog of im-
perialism in eastern Europe, but its agent as well in squeez-
ing millions from the population by way of exorbitant inte r-
est on loans floated in Paris, London, Berlin and Brussels.
Finally, tsarism was the faithful ally of western imperial-
ism in the partitioning of Turkey, Persia, China, etc . 'Vas
not the imperialist war carried on by tsarist Russia in
alliance with the Entente powers; was not Russia an essen-
tial factor in this war? Who does not know this?
That is why the interests of tsarism and of western im-
perialism interlocked and ultimately merged in the joi ntly
pooled interests of imperialism. Could western imperialism
resign itself to the loss of this powerful support in the E ast,
this source of strength and wealth that the old bourge ois
tsarist Russia represented, without resorting to every means,
to carryon a ruthless struggle against the Russian R ev0 4
lution, in order to defend and maintain tsarism? Obviously

not!
It follows that to strike at tsarism, it was necessa ry to
take up the cudgels against imperialism. To rise agai nst
tsarism was at the same time to rise against imperialis m,
since the overthrow of tsarism implied the overthrow of im-
perialism, in s.o far as the intention was not only t o de-
stroy tsarism but to extirpate it without leaving a t race.
Thus the revolution against tsarism drew nigh and was to
be transformed into a revolution against imperialism, into a
proletarian revolu:ion.. . .
Meanwhile RUSSIa was III the gnp of an Immense popular
revolution, a revolution headed by the most radical pro-
letariat in the world which could count upon the revolution-
ary peasantry of Russia as its sturdy ally. It is self-evident
that such a revolution could not come to a halt midway;
that in case of success it was bound to advance further and
raise its insurgent banner against imperialism.
It is for this reason that Russia had to become the focus
for the contradictions of imperialism in three respects: (1)
because these contradictions could be exposed more easily
in Russia than elsewhere in view of their especially repulsive
and intolerable character; (2) because Russia was the most
important bulwark of western imperialism, uniting as it did
western finance capital with the eastern colonies; (3) be-
cause only in Russia did the real power exist capable of
wiping out the contradictions of imperialism by pursuing
the path of revolution. From this it follows that in Russia
the revolution could not but become a proletarian revolution,
that it was bound to assume an international character and
that of necessity it had to shake the very bases of world
imperialism.
Under such circumstances, could the Russian Communists
have confined their operations within the narrow nationalist
limits of a Russion revolution? Quite on the contrary, all
factors favoured their stepping beyond these confines, espe-
cially the grave revolutionary crisis within and the war with-
out. These factors necessitated that they carry their strug-
gles onto the international arena, expose the ulcers of im-
perialism to full view, demonstrate the inevitable collapse
of capitalism, destroy social-chauvinism and social-pacifism,
and finally overthrow capitalism in their own country and
forge a new weapon for the proletariat to be used in its
struggles. This weapon, the theory and tactics of the pro-
letarian revolution, was necessary to lighten the tas k facin
g
the proletariat-the overthrow of capitalism. The Russia
Communists could not act otherwise, for this was th e on]n
path along which such significant changes in the intern?-
tional situation as would insure Russia against the rest ora_
tion of the bourgeois order could be expected.
That is why Russia became the home of Leninism ; and
that is why Lenin, the leader of the Russian Communists
became the creator of Leninism. '
The position in which Lenin found himself in relation to
Russia was similar to that of Marx and Engels in relation
to Germany during the forties of the last century. Like
Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century, Germany
was pregnant with the bourgeois revolution. In the Com-
munist Manifesto, Marx wrote:
"The Communists turn their attention chiefly to Ger many,
because that country is on the eve of a bourgeois revolut ion
that is bound to be carried out under more advance d con-
ditions of European civilisation, and with a more developed
proletariat than what existed in England in the seventeenth
and in France in the eighteenth century, and beca use the
bourgeois revolution in Germany will be but the prel ude to
an immediately following proletarian revolution." (The
Manifesto of the Communist Party, Authorised Translation,
1888, p. 42.-Ed.)
In other words, the centre of the revolutionary movement
was transferred to Germany.
There can be no doubt but that this circumstance, noted
by Marx in the above quoted passage, explains the fa ct that
Germany came to be the fatherland of scientific Socialism
and that the leaders of the German proletariat, Ma rx and
Engels, were its creators.
The same may be said of Russia, the Russia of the be-
ginning of the twentieth century, but on a higher plane.
Russia at that time was on the eve of the bourgeois revo-
lution : it had to accomplish this revolution under the more
advanced conditions then obtaining in Russia while dealing
at the same time with a more developed proletariat than did
Germany (not to mention England and France). Every in-
dication pointed to the fact that this revolution would serve
to ferment and act as a prelude to the proletarian revolution.
It was not a mere coincidence that Lenin in 1902, when the
Russian Revolution was still in its inchoate state, wrote the
following prophetic words in his pamphlet What Is To Be
Done?:
"History has confronted us (i.e. the Russian Marxists.-
J. Stalin) with an immediate task which is more reuolu-
tionary than all the immediate tasks that confront the pro-
letariat of any other country. The fulfilment of this task,
the destruction of the most powerful bulwark, not only of
European, but also (it may be said) of Asiatic reaction,
places the Russian proletariat in the vanguard of the inter-
national revolutionary proletariat." (Little Lenin Library,
Vol. 4, p. BO.-Ed.)
In other words, the centre of the revolutionary movement
was to be transferred to Russia.
The course of the revolution has, as we know, completely
vindicated this prediction of Lenin.
Is it astonishing, after all this, that a country which has
accomplished such a revolution and has such a proletariat
at its command should be the fatherland of the theory and
tactics of the proletarian revolution?
Is it astonishing that Lenin, the leader of this proletariat,
should, together with it, become the creator of this theory
and of these tactics and the leader of the international
proletariat?
II. THE METHOD
I SAID above that between Marx and Engels on the one

hand and Lenin on the other there extended a whole period
in which the opportunism of the Second International reigned
supreme. To be more precise, I will add that it was not so
much a question of the formal as of the actual domination
of opportunism. Formally, the Second Internat ional was led
by "orthodox" Marxists like Kautsky. Actu ally, however,
its fundamental work followed the line of opportunism.
Petty bourgeois by nature, the opportunists ada pt ed them-
selves to the bourgeoisie; as for the "orthodox" th ey adapted
themselves to the opportunists in order t o "maintain unity"
with the latter, to maintain "peace within t he Party"! In
short, the "orthodox" were bound indisso lubly through the
opportunists to the policy of the bourgeoisie.
It was a period of relatively peaceful capi t alist develop-
ment, a pre-war period, so to speak, when t he contradictions
of imperialism were not yet exposed to their full extent, when
economic strikes and trade unions developed more or less
"normally," when the Socialist parties enj oyed overwhelm-
ing electoral and parliamentary successes , when the legal
forms of struggle were exalted to the skies and when it was
hoped to "kill" capitalism by legal means . In other words,
it was a period when the parties of the Secon d International
were becoming gross and stodgy, and no long er thought
seriously about revolution, the dictatorship of the pro-
letariat, or the revolutionary training of the mass es.
Instead of a coherent revolutionary theory, they pro-
pounded contradictory theoretical postulates, fragments of
theory unrelated to the actual revolutionary struggle of the
masses, abstract and out-of-date dogmas . Fo r the sake of
18
THE METHOD 19
appearances, they always, of course, .refer~ed to the ~heory

of Marx, but only in order to rob It of Its revolutionary
spirit.
Instead of a revolutionary policy we saw effete philistin-
ism, the paltry dickerings of politicians, parliamentary coali-
tions. ow and again they adopted revolutionary resolu-
tions and slogans, to be buried as soon as adopted.
Instead of educating and teaching the Party true revo-
lutionary tactics from a study of its own mistakes, we find
a studied evasion of thorny questions, which were glossed
over and veiled. In order to keep up appearances they were
not averse to talking about these irksome questions, only to
wind up with some sort of "elastic" resolution.
Such was the psychological make-up, the method of work
and the armory of the Second International.
However, we entered upon a new period, the period of
imperialist wars and of revolutionary proletarian struggles.
The old methods of struggle proved quite inadequate and
ineffective in the face of the omnipotence of finance capital.
It was necessary to review the whole activity and the
method of work of the Second International, to drive out
it philistinism, its paltry narrow-mindedness, its political
dickering, its renegacy, its policy of coalitions, social
chauvinism and social-pacifism. It was necessary to take an
inventory of the armory of the Second International, to
reject all that was rusty and out-of-date, to forge new
weapons. Without this preliminary work, it was impossible
to embark upon war against capitalism. Without this work,
the proletariat ran the risk of finding itself inadequately
armed or even completely weaponless in future revolutionary
battles.
This general revision, this cleansing of the Augean stables
of the Second International, devolved upon Leninism.
In this setting the method of Leninism was born and nur-
tured.
What are the requirements of this method?
First of all, that the theoretical dogmas of the Seeo d
International be tested in the crucible of the revolut ionan
struggle of the masses, in the crucible of everyday expe: l
ence; that is to say, the restoration of harmony between
theory and practice which had been destroyed, and th
healing of the rift between them. Only in this way can e
truly revolutionary proletarian party, armed with a revo~
lutionary theory, be formed.
Secondly, the policy of the parties of the Second Inter-
national must be tested, not according to their slogans
and resolutions (these cannot be trusted), but according
to their deeds and actions, for only in this way can we win
and deserve the confidence of the proletarian masses.
Thirdly, the whole of the work of the Party must be
reorganised and attuned to a new revolutionary spirit in
the education and preparation of the masses for the revo-
lutionary struggle, for only in this way can the masses be
prepared for the proletarian revolution.
Fourthly, it requires self-criticism within the p rolet arian
parties, their education and instruction from their own mis-
takes, for only in this way can cadres and true leaders of
the Party be trained.
Such is the basis and the essence of the method of Len-
inism.
How was this method applied in practice?
The opportunists of the Second International have a series
of dogmas which they always use as a starting point. Let
us consider some of them.
First dogma (concerning the prerequisites for t he seizure
of power by the proletariat) : The opportunists say that the
proletariat cannot and ought not to seize power if it does
not itself constitute a majority in the country. No proofs
are adduced, for this absurd thesis cannot be justifie d either
theoretically or practically. Let us admit this for a moment,
THE METHOD 21
Lenin replies to those gentlemen of the Second International.

But suppose an historic situation arises (war, agrarian
cri i , ctc.) in which the proletariat, a minority of the popu-
lation is able to rally around itself the vast majority of the
worki~g masses, why should it not seize power then? Why
hould it not profit by the favourable internal and inter-
national situation to pierce the front of capitalism and
hasten the general debacle? Did not Marx say, about 1850,
that the proletarian revolution in Germany would be in a
" plendid" position if it could get the support of a "new
edition," so to speak, "of the Peasant War"? * Now, every
one knows that at that period the number of proletarians
in Germany was relatively less than in the Russia of 1917.
Has not the practical experience of the Russian prole-
tarian revolution shown that the favourite dogma of the
heroes of the Second International is devoid of all vital sig-
nificance for the proletariat? Is it not obvious that actual
practice in the revolutionary mass struggle smashes and de-
troy this outdated dogma?
Second dogma: The proletariat cannot retain power if it
does not possess adequate cadres of intellectuals and tech-
nicians ready and capable of organising the administration
of the country; and it is necessary to begin by forming these
cadres under the conditions imposed by capitalism and only
afterwards to seize power.
' Yell, suppose that is so, replies Lenin. But why not
reverse the position and first seize power, create favourable
conditions for the development of the proletariat and ad-
vance with seven-league strides to raise the cultural level of
the working masses and form cadres of leaders and admin-
i trators recruited from amongst the workers? Has not
~lractical experience in Russia demonstrated that these work-
Ing class cadres of leaders will show an extensive and inten-
Reference if! hera made to the Peasant War in G .
treated by Friedrich Engels in his The Peasant War in ~~U:~~~y~n 1525,
22 FOUNDATIONS OF LENINI SM
sive growth infinitely more rapid with the proletari t '
power than under a capitalist regime? Is it not obvious\ h III
practice in the revolutionary mass struggle triumphantl at
futes also this theoretical dogma of the oppo r tunist s? y reo
Third dogma: The method of the political genera l str 'k
is inadmissible for the pr?l:t,ariat because it is theoretica~l e
bankrupt (see Engels' cr iticism ) and dangerous in pra cti y
(it may disturb the normal course of the economic life :;
the country and deplete the coffe~s of the trade unions) ; it
cannot take the place of the parliamentary st r uggle, which
is the principal form of the class struggle of th e pro-
letariat.
Excell~nt, repl~ ~~e Leninists, But, in th e first place,
Engels did not crrticise any and every gene r al strike , He
criticised only a certain kind of general strike, namely the
economic general strike which the anarchists advocate in
place of the political struggle of the p r oleta riat ; so Why
bring in here the political general strike? In the second
place, what proof is there that the parliamentary st ruggle
is the principal form of struggle of the work ing class? Doe
not the history of the revolutionary movement show that the
parliamentary struggle is only a school, only a fulcrum for
the organisation of the extra-parliamentary struggle of the
proletariat, that under the capitalist syste m the essential
questions of the labour movement are settled by for ce, by
open struggle, the general strike, the insurrectio n of the
proletarian masses? In the third place, what autho rity can
be adduced to prove the statement that we wish t o replace
the parliamentary struggle by the met hod of the political
general strike? Where and when have the supp or ters of
the political general strike tried to substi t ut e ext ra -parlia-
mentary forms of struggle for pa rlia ment ary forms?
Fourthly, has not the revolution in Ru ssia shown that the
political general strike is the greatest school for the pro-
letarian revolution as well as a uniq ue means of mobilising
THE METHOD 23
and organising the proletarian masses on the eve of an ~~t~ck

on the citadel of capitalism? "Thy then these philistine
lamentations oyer the disruption of normal economic life
and the depletion of th~ coffers ~f th~ trade union~? Is
it not obyious that practIcal expcrrence III the revolutlO?ary
struggle disproyes also this dogma of the opportunists P
And so on and so forth.
Thi. is whv Lenin said that "revolutionary theory is not
a doO'ma," tl;at it "undergoes final formulation only when
brou~ht in close contact with practice in the actual mass
movement and in the actual revolutionary movement"
("Left" Communism: An Infantile Disorder); for theory
ought to be the handmaid of practice; for theory "ought to
answer the questions raised by practice" (Who Are the
Friends of the People?) ; for it ought to be verified by the
data obtained from practice.
A regards the political slogans and resolutions of the
parties of the Second International, it is enough to recall
the hi. tory of the famous watchword "war against war" in
order to reali e the utter falsity and baseness of the political
practices of these parties which veil their anti-revolutionary
work behind imposing revolutionary slogans and resolutions.
"'ho does not remember the showy demonstration at the
nil.Ie Congress • where the Second International threatened
the imperialists with the thunders of insurrection if they
decided to undertake a war, and where they proclaimed the
menacing watchword-"war against war"? But a short
time after, before the actual beginning of the war, the Basle
rc olution was thrown into the waste basket and the workers
ere upplied with a new watchword-the extermination of
each other for the greater glory of the capitalist fatherland.
I it not clear that revolutionary watchwords and resolu-
Int~rnational Conference of Socialist Parties held at Basle, Switzer-

I o~~i(t {;;~e~,~~e~;lt~~~~' 1912, when war threatened as a result of the
tions are not worth a farthing if they are not translat
into deeds,? It su!fices .to, contras~ the ~e,ninist policy ~
transformmg the imperialist war into CIVIl war with th
treacherous policy of the Second International duri ng the
war to understand the absolute vileness of the oppo rtun' e
politicians and the full grandeur of Leninism. Let me qU~t t
at this point a passage fr.om T~le Prole~arian R evoluti on an~
the Renef!ade Kautsky, m which Lenin severely lashes the
opportunist attempt of Kautsky, a leader of the Second In-
ternational, to judge I?arties n~t by their deeds but by their
paper slogans and their resolutions:
"Kautsky follows a typical petit-bourgeois, philistine pol-
icy; he imagines that by coining a watchword he can change
matters. The whole history of bourgeois democracy destroy
this illusion; to deceive the people, the bourgeois democrat
have always advanced and will continue to a dva nce all sort
of 'slogans.' The point is to test thei r sincerit y, to compare
their actions with their words, not t o be conte nt with the
phraseology of idealism and quackery , but to dig down to
their actual class content."
I refrain from speaking of the fea r of self-crit icism which
exists within the parties of the Second International ; of
their peculiar habit of hiding their mistakes , of evading
thorny problems; of their method of coverin g up the ir short-
comings by having the people believe that all is for the best
in their organisation, in this way sup pres sing healthy
thought and hindering the revolutionary t r aining of their
members provided by the process of profiting from t heir own
mistakes. This behaviour was subjected t o wit hering deri-
sion by Lenin, who wrote in "Left" Commun ism : an Infantik
Disorder:
"The attitude of a political party t owards its own mis-
takes is one of the surest and most imp ortant crite ria of its
seriousness, of its actual discharge of its duties to wards it
class and the labouring masses . To rec og nise a mistake
THE METHOD 25
openly, to lay bare its causes, to analyse the situation wh!ch

occa ioned it, to examine carefully the m~ans of correcting
thi. mi take--these are the marks of ~ serIOUS ,?~rty. T~at
i the fulfilment of duty; that con~,btutes trammg and m-
tructing the class and the masses.
Some ay that the disclosure of one's own mistakes and
that elf-criticism are dangerous to the Party, as it supplies
it enemies with weapons against the Party of the proletariat.
Lenin thought that these objections were insincere and were
wholly incorrect. This is what he wrote on this point in
1904 in his pamphlet One Step Forward, Two Steps Back-
ward, when our party was still weak and insignificant ~
"They (the opponents of the Marxists) are grinning and
gloating over our dissensions. They will attempt to exploit
for their own ends certain passages in my pamphlet on the
mi take and shortcomings of our Party. But the Russian
Marxists are already sufficiently steeled in battle not to let
them elves be disturbed by these pinpricks and, in spite of
them, will continue their tasks of self-criticism and of merci-
Ie ly e.·po ing their own deficiencies which will most as-
surcdly and inevitably be overcome with the growth of the
working class movement." ( Collected Works, First Russian
Edition, Yo1.V, p. 307.)
uch in general are the characteristic traits of the method
of Leninism.
The ub tance of Lenin's method was already contained
in the teachings of Marx and according to Marx himself
was "in its c scnce critical and revolutionary." From be-
ginning to end the method of Lenin is imbued with just this
critical revolutionary spirit. But it would be wrong to sup-
po c that Lenin's method was merely a rehash of Marx. As
a mattcr of fact, Lenin's method is not only a restoration
of Marx but a. ~ractical application and a further develop-
~ent .of U:e critical and revolutionary method of Marx, of
hi dialectic materialism.
III. THEORY
Tms topic is treated under three headings: (1) the im-
portance of theory for the proletarian movement, (2) cri t i-
cism of the "theory" of spontaneity, (3) the theory of t he
proletarian revolution.
(1) THE IMPORTANCE OF THEORY
Some are of the opinion that Leninism signifies the prece-

dence of practice over theory in the sense that the chief
thing in Leninism is the translation of the Marxist thes es
into deeds, on their "application"; that Leninism is rather
indifferent to theory. We know that Plekhanov often chaffed
Lenin for his "indifference" to theory and particularly to
philosophy. We also know that theory is no longer in
favour with a number of present-day practical Leninist s
who, because they are overwhelmed with practical work, ha ve
scarcely time to heed these matters. This peculiar opinion
of Lenin and Leninism is, I must declare, radically wro ng
and bears no relation to the truth. The tendency of tho se
practical workers to turn up their noses at theory ru ns
counter to the whole spirit of Leninism and is fraught wit h
serious dangers to our cause.
Revolutionary theory is the generalisation of the expe ri-
ences of the labour movement in all countries. It naturally
loses its very essence if it is not connected with revolutionary
practice, just as practice gropes in the dark if its path is
not illumined by revolutionary theory. But theory can be-
come the greatest force in the labour movement if it is in-
dissolubly bound up with revolutionary practice, for it alo ne
can give to the movement confidence, guidance, strength a nd
26
THEORY 27
understanding of the mner relations between events; it alone
can help practice to clarify the process and direction of
class movements in the present and near future. Lenin him-
self has often repeated his well-known phrase: "without a
revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary move-
ment." (What Is to Be Done? Little Lenin Library, p.
28.-Ed.)
He, better than anyone else, understood the extreme im-
portance of theory, particularly for a party like ours to
which has been assigned the role of vanguard of the inter-
national proletariat and which must work in a most com-
plicated internal and international situation. Foreseeing
this special role of our Party, he thought it necessary, as
far back as 1902, to recall that "the role of vanguard can
be fulfilled only by a party that is guided by an advanced
theory." (Ibid., p. 28.-Ed.)
Now that Lenin's prediction about our Party has come
true, it hardly needs to be proved that his views on theory
acquire especial significance and especial importance. Lenin
attached extreme importance to theory. The clearest proof
of this may perhaps be found in the fact that he himself
undertook, in the realm of materialist philosophy, the very
serious task of generalising all the most important achieve-
ments of science from the time of Engels down to his own
time, as well as writing a comprehensive criticism of the
anti-materialistic under-currents among Marxists. Engels
said that "materialism must take on a new aspect with each
1- new great discovery." We all know that none other than
Lenin presented this new aspect, as far as it concerned his
own time, in his remarkable work, Materialism and Empirio-
Criticism.* Moreover it ought to be mentioned that Plek-
,_ hanov, who was so ready to condemn Lenin's "indifference"
l- to philosophy, hesitated to make even a serious attempt to
e accomplish this task.
* V. T. Lenin, Colleoted Works, Vol. XIII.-E1d.
(2) CRITICISM: OF THE "THEORY" OF SPONTANEITY, OR T Il:

ROLE OF THE VANGUARD IN THE l\:fOVEMENT
The "theory" of spontaneity is the theory of opportunism

It is the theory of deference to the spontaneity of the lab our
movement, the theory that actually denies to the party of
the working class its leading role of vanguard of that Work_
ing class.
The theory of deference to spontaneity is in violent Con
tradiction to the revolutionary character of the labour
movement; it is opposed to the movement which follows the
line of struggle against the foundations of capitalism and
is in favour of the movement which follows exclusively the
line of "possible" demands which are "acceptable" to and
can be carried out under capitalism. It is, in short, for the
"line of least resistance." The theory of spontaneity rep.
resents the ideology of trade unionism.
The theory of deference to spontaneity is decidedly op-
posed to giving this spontaneous movement a consci ou l
methodical character. It does not want the Party to march
ahead of the working class, to rouse the masses to the p oint
of class-consciousness and to lead the movement in its wake.
It maintains that the class-conscious elements of the move-
ment ought not to prevent the movement from taking it
own course; furthermore, they want the Party to be sub-
servient to the spontaneous movement and to follow in it
trail. The theory of spontaneity is the theory of belittling
the role of the class-conscious element in the movement, the
ideology of "dragging at the tail," of "khvostism" *- the
logical basis of all opportunism.
In practice this theory, which appeared in Russia even
before the first revolution, led its adherents, the so-called
"economists," to deny the need for an independent workers'
party in Russia, to oppose the revolutionary struggle of the
* From the Russian word Khvost, meaning tail.-Eel.
THEORY 29
working class for t~e ~ve~throw of tsarism, to. preach pure

and simple trade umoms m m the movement and, m general, to
relegate the labou~ movement to. :he background under the
I emony of the Iiberal bourgeoisie,
le;'he fight of the old Iskra * and the brilliant criticism of
the theory of tailism, offered by Lenin in What Is to Be
Done? not only confounded so-called "Economism," but also
created the theoretica~ founda~ion for a truly revolutionary
movement of the Russian workmg class.
'Vithout this fight it would have been quite useless to think
~ of creating, in Russia, an independent workers' party
destined to play the leading part in the Revolution.
But the theory of deference to spontaneity is not peculiar
to Russia. It is extremely widespread, in a slightly differ-
ent form, it is true, in all the parties of the Second Inter-
national. I have in mind the so-called theory of the "forces
of production," debased by the leaders of the Second Inter-
national to justify everything and conciliate everybody, and
l which merely states facts that are already more than obvious
to everyone and rests content with having stated them.
t Marx said that the materialist conception could not limit
itself to explaining the world, but that it had to change it.
But Kautsky and Co. are not anxious for this change and
prefer to rest content with the first part of Marx's formula.
Here is one of the numerous examples of the application of
s the "theory" of the forces of production. Before the im-
perialist war the parties of the Second International threat-
e ened to declare "war against war" in case of a military con-
e flagration. But on the very eve of the imperialist war these
parties threw aside the watchword of "war against war," and
* The Iskra was the leading organ of the Russian Social-Democracy
from 1900 to 1903. It was founded upon the initiative of Lenin who
, was its theoretical leader and practical organiser. On November 1,
ie 1903, Lenin resigned from the paper and it continued publication until
October, 1905, formally as the central organ of the Party, but in
reality as the organ of the Mensheviks.-Ed.
substituted the opposite watchword: "war for the imperiall
fatherland." The effect of this change of slogans was t ha
millions of workers were sent to their death. But is anybod
guilty? Did anybody betray the working class? Oh, no
Everything was as it should have been. In the first pla c
because the International is an "instrument of peace ," a
not of war. Besides, in view of the "level of the for ces 0
production," which then prevailed, it was impossib le to ac
otherwise. And so the "guilt" is thrown on the "fo r ces 0
production."
This is precisely the explanation vouchsafed "us" by Mr
Kautsky's "theory of the forces of production." W hoeve
does not believe in this "theory" is not a Marxist.
What about the function of parties, their role in th
movement? But what could a party do against so decisi- I
a factor as the "level of the forces of production"?

A whole host of examples of this falsification of Ma rxi
could be quoted. It is hardly necessary to prove that thi
falsification of Marxism is obviously intended to hide th
nakedness of opportunism, is only a European adapt at io
of the theory of tailism which Lenin fought even before th
first Russian Revolution.
It is clear that the elimination of this falsified theo ry i
a prerequisite for the creation of truly revolutionary pa rtie
in the West.
(3) THE THEORY OF THE PROLETARIAN REVOLUTIO N
The Leninist theory of the proletarian revolution is basec :

on three fundamental theses.
First Thesis . The domination of finance capital in t h
advanced capitalist countries; the issue of stocks and bond a
as the principal operation of finance capital; the expo rt 0
capital to the sources of raw materials, which is one of th
bases of imperialism; the omnipotence of a financia l oli
THEORY 31
h a consequence of the domination of finance capital-
a ;~r~h~~ reveal the parasitic and brutal cha:ac~er of m?nop-
olist capitalism, make t~e yoke of ~he capItahst. sy?dIca.tes
and trusts much more m:olerable, mcrea~e the mdIg.nat~on
f the working class agamst the foundations of capitalism
n O d drive the masses to the proletarian revolution in which
o :l~ey see their only means of escape: (~f. V. I. Lenin, Im-
.e erialism, the Highest Stage of Capztalzsm.)
P As a result we have an intensification of the revolutionary
crisis in the capitalist countries and the growth of the ele-
ments of an explosi.on ,~n the internal, proletarian front in
e the "mother countries.
Second Thesis. The growth of the export of capital to
the colonies and subject countries, the extension of "spheres
, of influence" and colonisation to the extent of seizing all
the territory of the globe, the transformation of capitalism
into a world system of financial bondage and of the colonial
oppression of the vast majority of mankind by a few "ad-
vanced" countries-these factors have reduced the several
national economic systems and national territories to links
in a single chain called world economy and have divided the
population of the world into two camps: on the one hand,
a small number of "advanced" capitalist countries which
exploit and oppress vast colonies and dependencies; on the
other hand, the immense majority in the colonial and sub-
ject countries, compelled to fight to liberate themselves from
the imperialist yoke. In consequence we have an intensifica-
tion of the revolutionary crisis in the colonial countries and
G a strengthening of the spirit of revolt against imperialism
on the external front, the colonial front. (Cf. Imperialism.)
h Third Thesis. The monopolistic sway over "spheres of
d influence" and over colonies; the uneven development of the
o different capitalist countries which leads to a bitter struggle
h between the countries which have already seized the terri-
Ii ories of the globe, and those countries which want to re-
ceive their "share"; imperialist wars, the only method
restoring the disturbed "equilibrium"-all these reinfo
the third front, the inter-capitalist battle-line, which Weak
imperialism and facilitates the union of the first two fro
against imperialism, the front of the revolutionary p
letariat and that of colonial emancipation. (Ct . 1
perialism. )
From this we come to the inevitability of wars under '
perialism and to the inevitability of a coalition between t
proletarian revolution in Europe and the colonial revoluti
in the East, leading to the formation of a united world fro
of the revolution as against the world front of imper iali
From these deductions Lenin draws the general con clusi(
that "imperialism is the eve of the socialist revol ution
(Cr. Imperialism.)
Accordingly, the very approach to the question of
proletarian revolution, of the character of the revolutio
its extent, its depth and the scheme of the revol ut ion
general have undergone a corresponding change.
Formerly, the analysis of the premises of the prolet ari
revolution was approached from the point of view of t
economic situation in any particular country.
This method is now inadequate. To-day, it must sta
from the point of view of the economic situation in all, (
a majority of, countries-from the point of view of t
state of world economy, inasmuch as the individual countri
and individual national economies are no longer indepe nde
economic units but have become links of a single chain call
world economy; and inasmuch as the old "civilising" cap
talism has grown into imperialism, and imperialism is a wor
system of financial bondage and of colonial oppression
the vast majority of the population of the globe by a fe
"advanced" countries.
Formerly, it was customary to talk of the existence
absence of objective conditions for the proletarian revolutio
THEORY 33
in individual countries ~r, to. be mor~ ex~ct, in t?is or that

advanced country. ThIs p.omt of VIew IS no,: madequate.
It is now necessary to take into ac~ount the existence of the
b .ective conditions for the revolution throughout the whole
~v~tem of imper~alist wor!d ~con~my which forms an integ~al
• it for the eXIstence within this system of some countrres
~~a; are not sufficiently.developed from the industrial point
of view cannot form an msurmountable obstacle to the revo-
lution, if the system as a whole has become, or, to come
nearer the truth, because the system as a whole has already
r become, ripe for the revolution.
o Formerly, again, the proletarian revolution in this or that
advanced country was regarded as a separate and self-con-
n tained unit, facing a separate and distinct national capitalist
front, as its opposite pole. To-day this point of view is
t inadequate. To-day it is necessary to speak of proletarian
o world revolution, for the separate national fronts of capital
have become links in a single chain called the world front
of imperialism, to which should be opposed the united front
of the revolutionary movement in all countries.
Formerly, the proletarian revolution was regarded as the
consequence of an exclusively internal development in a
given country. At the present time this point of view is
( inadequate. To-day it is necessary to regard the pro-
t letarian revolution above all as the result of the development
of the contradictions within the world-system of imperialism,
e as the result of the snapping of the chain of the imperialist
world-front in this or that country.
Where will the revolution begin? Where, in what country,
>r can the front of capital be pierced first?
Formerly, the reply used to be-where industry is most
perfected, where the proletariat forms the majority, where
civilisation is most advanced, where democracy is most de-
veloped.
The Leninist theory of the revolution says-no! The
front of capital will not necessarily be pierced where indus tr
is most developed, and so forth; it will be broken where th
chain of imperialism is weakest, for the proletarian revolu.
tion is the result of the breaking of the chain of the irn,
perialist world front at its weakest point. It is poss ible
therefore that the country which begins the revolution, which
makes a breach in the capitalist front, may prove to be les
developed from the capitalist point of view than oth ers
which are more developed but have remained, neverthel es
within the framework of capitalism. '
In 1917 the chain of the imperialist world front happened
to be weaker in Russia than in the other countries. It was
there that it was broken and afforded an outlet to the p ro.
letarian revolution. Why? Because in Russia a very great
popular revolution was being developed, led by a revolu-
tionary proletariat in firm alliance with millions of peasants,
oppressed and exploited by the landed proprietors; because
the revolution found itself opposed by tsarism, the most
hideous representative of imperialism, devoid of all moral
authority and deservedly hated by the whole people. The
chain proved to be weakest in Russia, although that coun tr y
was less developed in a capitalistic sense than, for example,
France, Germany, England or America.
Where, in the near future, will the chain be broken next ?
Once more, precisely where it will be weakest. It is not
impossible that this may be in India, for example. Wh y?
Because there we find a young and militant revolutionary
proletariat in alliance with the movement for national liber a-
tion, which is unquestionably a very powerful ally and must
be taken seriously; because in that country the revolution
faces a notorious enemy, a foreign imperialism, devoid of all
moral authority and deservedly hated by the oppressed and
exploited masses of India.
It is just as possible that the chain will be broken in
Germany. Why? Because the factors which are at work
THEORY 35
in India, for instance, are beginning to become o.perative ~n
Germany as well. Of course, the tremendous difference In
the level of development between India and Germany cannot
but leave its impress on the progress and outcome of the
revolution in Germ~ny ..
That is why Lenm said that: .
"The evolution towards Socialism by the capitalistic coun-
tries of Western Europe will be completed . . . will not be
reached by the equable 'maturi~g' .of Socialism in these
countries, but through the exploitation of some states by
others, through the exploitation of the first state that is
defeated in the imperialist war in conjunction with the ex-
. ploitation of the entire East. The East, on the other hand,
has definitely entered the revolutionary movement as result of
. this first imperialist war; it has definitely been drawn into
the common whirlpool of the revolutionary world move-
e ment."
To put it briefly, the chain of the imperialist front should
break, as a rule, where the links are most fragile and in
e any event not necessarily where capitalism is most developed
or where there is a considerable percentage of proletarians
and relatively few peasants, and so on.
This is why statistical calculations based on the propor-
tion of the proletariat to the population of a given country
t lose, in the solution of the question of the proletarian revo-
lution, the exceptional importance so eagerly attached to
them by the statisticians of the Second International, who
_ have not understood imperialism and who fear revolution like
the plague.
To go further. Our heroes of the Second International
asserted (and keep on asserting) that between the demo-
cratic-bourgeois revolution and the proletarian revolution
there is a chasm, or at any rate a Chinese wall separating
one from the other by a period of time more or less pro-
tracted, in the course of which the bourgeoisie, having come
into power, develops capitalism, while the proletariat ac
mulates forces and prepares for the "decisive str ug ~
against capitalism. This interval extends over many ~
ades, if not longer. The "theory" of the Chinese wall is e~
viously devoid of any scientific meaning under imper iali 0
it is and can only b~ a means o~ concealing and camouflagin
the counter-revolutionary cravmgs of the bourgeoisie. It'
clear that in an epoch when imperialism, carrying With,l
itself the germ of collisions and wars, is sovereign; und
circumstances tantamount to the "eve of the socialis t revo
lution," when formerly "flourishing" capitalism is now on]
"moribund" capitalism, when the revolutionary movement '
growing in every country in the world, when imperiali
is allying itself with all reactionary forces without exceptior
down to and including autocracy and serfdom, thus makin
imperative the formation of a bloc of all revolutionary fore
from the proletarian movement of the 'Vest to the nationa
liberation movement of the East, at the moment when th
suppression of the surviving remnants of the feuda l regim
with its attendant serfdom becomes impossible witho ut a re
olutionary struggle against imperialism-it is clear, I say
that the bourgeois-democratic revolution, in a coun t ry mor
or less developed, should under such circumstances ten
toward, and be transformed into, the proletarian revolution.
The history of the revolution in Russia has given palpabl
proof of the correctness and incontrovertibility of th is postu
late. So Lenin was right when in 1905, on the eve of th
first Russian Revolution, he represented (in his brochure
Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democrat ic ReVQ
lution) the bourgeois-democratic revolution and the Sociali
revolution as two links in the same chain, as a single an
indivisible phase of the sweep of the Russian Rev olut ion:
"The proletariat must carry the democratic revolut ion t
completion, rallying behind itself the peasant masses so as t
crush the resistance of the absolute monarchy by force and
THEORY 37
to overcome the vacillations of ~he. bourgeoi~ie. The p:o-

letariat must consummate t?e s~cIahst revo~utIon by :allymg
to itself the masses. constItutmg. the semi-proletarI~n ele-
ments of the population so as forcibly to bre~k t~e resistance
of the bourgeoisie and ove~c?me the vacillations of the
peasantry and petty bourgeOIsIe. Such are the tasks of t~e
proletariat, which the adherents of the new Iskra present in
uch a narrow form in all their arguments and resolutions
~n the scope of the revolution." (Collected Works, First
Russian Edition, Vol. VI.)
I will not speak here of other and later works of Lenin in
which the idea of transforming the bourgeois revolution into
the proletarian revolution is set forth still more emphati-
cally than in Two Tactics and forms one of the corner stones
of the Leninist theory of revolution.
It seems that certain Communists believe that this idea
occurred to Lenin only in 1916 and that previously he
thought that the revolution in Russia would remain within
a bourgeois framework and that power, consequently, would
pass from the hands of the organ of the dictatorship of the
proletariat and peasantry to the hands of the bourgeoisie
and not of the proletariat. This assertion has, it seems,
appeared even in our Communist press. But I am bound
to say that this assertion is absolutely incorrect and is abso-
lutely at variance with the facts.
I might refer to his well-known speech at the Third Party
Congress (1905), in which Lenin termed the dictatorship of
the proletariat and peasantry, that is to say, the victory
of the democratic revolution, not an "organisation for or-
der" but an "organisation for war."
Further, I could recall the article Social-Democracy and
the Provisional Revolutionary Government (1905) in which
to Lenin, depicting the prospective of the development of the
to revolution in Russia, assigns to the Party the task of strain-
ed ing every effort "to make the Russian Revolution not a
movement of a few mon~hs but of m~ny years, so that it rnay

lead, not merely to slight concessions on the part of the
powers. ~hat be, but to the complete overthrow of the e
author-ities."
Developing further the picture of this revolution, which
he connects with that of Europe, Lenin goes on to say :
"And if we succeed the revolutionary conflagration will
encompass Europe; the European worker, wearied to ex-
haustion under the bourgeois reaction, will rise in his turn
and show us 'how it's done'; then the revolutionary Upsurge
in Europe will react upon Russia and we will find that an
epoch of several revolutionary years has been prolonged to
an epoch covering several revolutionary decades . . .."
(Ibid.)
I could also cite a famous article published in N ovember
1915, ["Two Lines of the Revolution"-Ed.] in which Lenin
writes:
"The proletariat fights and will continue to fight heart
and soul for the conquest of power, the republic, the conf .
cation of the land, the participation of the 'non-prolet arian
popular masses' in the liberation of bourgeois Russ ia from
the yoke of this feudal-militarist 'imperialism' which is called
tsardom. The proletariat will immediately (emphasis mine.
J. S.) profit by that liberation of bourgeois Russia from the
yoke of tsarism and from the power of the landed proprio-
tors, not for the purpose of coming to the aid of the well-
to-do peasants in their struggle against the agricult ural
workers, but to accomplish the Socialist revolution in uni on
with the European proletariat." (Collected W orks, Fir t
Russian Edition, Vol. XIII, p. 214.)
Finally, I could recall a well-known passage from Pro-
letarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky where Lenin,
referring to the aforementioned quotation from T wo Tactics
about the scope of the Russian revolution, arrives at the
following conclusion:
THEORY 39
"Everything came to pass just as we had said it would.

The course taken by the revol.ution has confir~ed the cor-
rectness of our reasoning. .FIrst, the proletariat marched
with all the peasan~ry aga,m~t the monarchy, the landed
proprietor, the m:dueval re~Ime. (and to t~at extent .the
revolution was shll bourgeoIs, "": bourgeOl~-democra~lC).
Then, with the poorest peasants, ":Ith the semI-pro~etarIan~,
ith all the exploited, the proletarIat marched agamst capz-
;~lism, against its embodiments in the countryside, against
the rich in the village, the kulaks, the speculators (to that
extent the revolution becomes a socialist one). To attempt
to raise an artificial barrier between the first and second
revolutions, whose only line of demarcation is the degree of
preparation of the proletariat and t~e deg~ee of intim~cy
of its union with the poor peasants, IS to distort Marxism
beyond recognition, to debase it, to substitute liberalism in
its stead."
This seems to suffice. But, we are told, if that is so, why
did Lenin oppose the idea of the "permanent (uninterrupted)
revolution?"
Because Lenin wanted to utilise the revolutionary capaci-
ties of the peasantry "to the utmost" and make full use of
their revolutionary energy for the complete liquidation of
tsarism and the transition to the proletarian revolution;
whereas the adherents of "permanent revolution" did not
understand the important role of the peasantry in the Rus-
sian revolution, underestimated its revolutionary energy,
underestimated the strength and the capacity of the Russian
proletariat to lead the peasantry, and so hindered its (the
peasantry's) emancipation from the tutelage of the bour-
geoisie and its rallying around the proletariat.
. Because he wanted to crown. the revolution with the coming
into power of the proletariat, while the adherents of the
"permanent" revolution wanted to begin at once by the
establishment of the power of the proletariat, not realising
that by so doing they were closing their eyes to such "trifl
as the existence of survivals of serfdom, they overlookede.
their calculations, so important a force as the Russ ian p~
antry, nor did they realise that their persistence in t~.
policy would retard the winning over of the peasa nt ry t
the side of the proletariat.
Lenin then opposed the adherents of "permanent " revo
Iution not because they asserted the permanence of the revo
Iution, a thesis which he himself never ceased to sUppor
but because they underestimated the role of the pea santry
the proletariat's greatest reserve power, and because the
failed to grasp the idea of the hegemony of the pro let aria'
The idea of the "permanent" revolution is not new. I
was propounded for the first time by Marx in 185 0 in tht
well-known "Address to the Communist League." This doc-
ument was the source from which the "permanent ists" de
rived the idea of the uninterrupted revolution. It should
however, be noted that though taken from Marx it underwen
such modification at the hands of our "permanentists" as t
vitiate it and render it "unfit" for practical use. The skilfu
hand of Lenin was needed to make good this error , to sepa-
rate Marx's idea of the uninterrupted revolution from it
dross and make it a corner stone of his theory of the revo-
lution. This is what Marx says in regard to uninte r rupted
revolution in his "Address." After enumerating t he revolu-
tionary democratic demands which the Communists ought to
put forward, he says:
"While the petty-bourgeois democrats, after obtaining
most of the demands enumerated above, wish to end the revo-
lution as quickly as possible, our interests require and our
task is to make that revolution an uninterrupted one until
all the more or the less possessing classes have been removed
from their position of dominance, until the proletariat ha
conquered state power, until the associations of pr olet arian
not only in one country but in all the domina nt countries
THEORY 41
of the world will be sufficiently advanced to put an. end to

com etition among proletarians of all .these countries and
untX at least the chief force~ of ~,roducbon are concentrated
in the hands of the proletarIans.
That i to say:
( ) Marx in spite of what our Russian "permanentists"
Ilv,adid not' at all prop.ose to b~gin the re~olution in the
G~rmany of the fifties WIth the direct establishment of the
proletarian power.
(b) )Iarx proposed the establishment of the proletarian
litical power merely as the crowning event of the revolu-
:n, step by step hurling one secti?n of the bo~rgeoisie after
another from its height of power, III order to light the torch
of revolution in every country after the proletariat has come
to power. Now this is perfectly consistent with all that
Lenin taught, with all that he carried through in the course
of our revolution in carrying out his theory of the pro-
letarian revolution in an imperialist environment.
So then our Russian "permanentists" have not only under-
e timated the role of the peasantry in the Russian revolution
and the importance of the conception of the hegemony of
the proletariat, but have modified (for the worse) the Marx-
ian idea of "permanent" revolution and deprived it of all
practical value.
That is why Lenin ridiculed their theory, ironically calling
it "brilliant" and "splendid," but asked them why they did
not "reflect on the reasons why passing life for so many
decades has left this splendid theory by the wayside."
(Lenin's article written in 1915, ten years after the ap-
r pearance of the theory of the "permanentists" in Russia.)
That is why he thought this theory was semi-Menshevist
and said that it "borrowed from the Bolsheviks the call to
the decisive revolutionary proletarian struggle and to the
conquest of power, and from the Mensheviks the denial of the
s role of the peasantry."
42 FOUNDATIONS OF LENIN I SM
This then. is how Le~n concei~ed t~e transformatio
the bourgeois-democratic revolution into the prolet
revolution and the utilisation of the bourgeois revoluti a
n
its "immediate" transition to the proletar ia n revoluti:
. Let .us continue. Formerly,. the tri?mph ~f the revol:t
m a single country was considered imposs ible, for, it
said, the combined action of the proletar ia ns of all 0
least of a majority, of the advanced countries Was ne~e r
to defeat the bourgeoisie. This point of view no longer
lies with the facts. It has now become necessa r y to Cone
the possibility of victory over the bourgeoisie in a i
country because the uneven and sporadic development of
capitalist countries under imperialism, t he aggravation
the catastrophic internal contradictions of imperialism, Ie
ing inevitably to war and the strengthening of the revo
tionary movement in every country of the world, lead
only to the possibility, but to the necess it y of the viet
of the proletariat in individual countries. The history of
Russian Revolution is a striking proof of that. In
connection it need only be borne in mind th at there are c
tain indispensable prerequisites for the overthrow of
bourgeoisie, in the absence of which the p r olet ar iat cann I
even dream of seizing power. This is wha t Lenin says
these prerequisites in his pamphlet, " Left" Communism~
"The fundamental law of revolution, con fir med by all re
lutions and particularly by all three R ussian revolutio
of the twentieth century, is as follows: For t he revolution
is not sufficient that the exploited and oppressed masse
derstand the impossibility of living in the old way and d
mand changes; for the revolution it is necess a ry that t
exploiters should not be able to live and rule as of old. Onl
when the 'lower classes' do not want the old order, an
when the 'upper classes' cannot hold sway as of old, on
then can the revolution succeed. This truth may be expre
in other words: Revolution is impossible wit hout a geneT
THEORY 43
. al crisis affecting both the exploited and the etoploiter,

naf;nhasis mine.-J.S.) Consequently, for the revolution it
~~ ~ntial, first, that a majority o~ the w~rk:rs (or, .a~ any
1 ate, a majority of the class-conscIOus, thinking, p.ohtIcally
:etive workers) should fully under~tand th~ ne~essIty for. a
revolution and be ready to sacrifice theIr. lives for It;
eeond, that the ruling classes be undergomg a govern-
mental crisis which draws even the most backward masses
into politics ••• weakens the government, and makes pos-
ible it udden overthrow by the revolutionist~.':
But overthrowing the power of the bourgeoisie and estab-
li hing the power of the proletariat in a single country does
not vet guarantee the complete victory of Socialism. After
entr~nehing itself in power and leading the peasantry after
it, the proletariat of a victorious country can and must
build up a socialist society. But does that mean that in this
way the proletariat can secure a complete and final victory
for Socialism; i.e., can it definitely set up Socialism with the
forces of only one country and fully guarantee that country
against intervention, which means against restoration? Cer-
tainly not. That would require victory for the revolution in
at least several countries. It is therefore the essential task
of the victorious revolution in one country to develop and
upport the revolution in others. So the revolution in a
victorious country ought not to be considered as a self-
contained unit, but as an auxiliary and a means of hastening
the victory of the proletariat in other countries.
Lenin has tersely expressed this thought by saying that
the task of the victorious revolution consists in doing the
"utmost attainable in one country for the development, sup-
port and stirring up of the revolution in all countries."
n (The Pr~letarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky.)
These m general are the salient features of Lenin's theory
of the proletarian revolution.
IV. THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARL
I ~L discuss th.ree fund~mental points bearing on

question: (1) the dictatorship of the prolet a riat as th
e
strument of the proletarian revolution; ( 2 ) the dictator h'
of the proletariat as the domination of the proletariat
the bourgeoisie; (3) the soviet power as the state for~
the dictatorship of the proletariat.
,(1 ) THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLET ARIAT AS TilE

INSTRUMENT OF THE PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION
The question of the proletarian dictatorship is abo'"e

a question of the basic content of the prolet arian revoluti
The proletarian revolution, its movement , its sweep and
achievements become realities only through the dictator h
of the proletariat. The dictatorship of t he proletariat is t
chief fulcrum of the proletarian revol ut ion, its organ a
instrument, called into existence, first, to cr ush the resista
of the overthrown exploiters and to cons olida t e its achie
ments; secondly, to lead the proletarian r evolution to
completion, to lead the revolution onwa r d to the compI
victory of Socialism. Victory over the bourgeoisie and t
overthrow of its power may be gained by revolution e
without the dictatorship of the proletariat . But such re
lution will not be in a position to crush th e resistance of t
bourgeoisie, maintain its conquests and move on to t
decisive victory for Socialism, unless at a certain stage
its development, it creates a special organ in the form of th
dictatorship of the proletariat, as its principal bulwark.
"The question of power is the fundamental question of t
revolution" (Lenin). Does this mean th at the only thi
44
DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT 45
.r d i to seize power? No, it does not. The seizure of
req::r is only the beginning. For a number ~f reasons, the
po' eoi ie, overthrown in one country, ~emaI~s for a con-
b.ou~~ble time stronger than t.he proletana: whI.ch has ove~-
Idown it. Therefore, the Import~nt. t~m~ IS to retaI.n
tl:~er, to consolidate it and make It mvmcIb~e. What IS
~e uircd to attain this end? At least t~,ree ~aI~ tasks con-
fr~nting the proletariat "on the morrow of It~ victory must
be fulfilled. They are: (a). to. break the resistance of the
landed proprietors and c~pItalIsts n~w ?"erthrown and ex-
propriated by the revolutIon, and to lIq.UIdate every attempt
th make to restore the power of capibal ; (b) to orgamse
co;"truction in such a way as will rally all toi~er~ ar~und the
pr oletariat and prepare the way for the liquidation, the
e. tinction of classes; (c) to arm the revolution and to or-
gani e the army of the revolution for the struggle against
the external enemy and for the struggle against imperialism.
T he dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary in order
to carry out and fulfil these tasks.
"The transition from capitalism to Communism," says
Lenin, " repr esent s an entire historical epoch. Until this
epoch has terminated, the exploiters will inevitably cherish
the hope of restoration, and this hope will be converted into
att empts at restoration. And after their first serious defeat,
t he overthrown exploiters (who had not expected their over-
throw, who never believed it possible, who would not permit
the t hought of it) will throw themselves with redoubled
energy, with furious passion and implacable hatred into the
battl e for the recovery of their lost 'paradise,' on behalf of
t t heir families who had been leading such a sweet and easy
life and whom now the 'common herd' is condemning to ruin
and destit ut ion (or to the 'indignity' of work). In the wake
of the capitalist exploiters will be found the broad masses
of the petty-bourgeoisie, of whose vacillation and hesitation
n the histo rical experience of every country for decades bears
witness; to-day they march behind the proletariat, to -mor
they will take fright at the difficulties of the revolut:
become panic-stricken at the first defeat, or near-defe at)
the workers; their nerves on edge, they run amuck, whi~'
from one camp to the other."
Now the bourgeoisie has reasons for making attempts
restoration, because for a long time after its overt hrow
remains stronger than the proletariat which had 0"
thrown it.
"If the exploiters are vanquished in only a single countr
writes Lenin, "which of course is the typical case, a
simultaneous revolution in a number of countries is a ra
exception, they still remain stronger than the exploi ted."
Wherein then resides the strength of the overthroi
bourgeoisie?
First, " .•• in the power of international capital, in t
strength and durability of the international ties of t
bourgeoisie." Secondly, in the fact that " . . . for a lOt
time after the revolution the exploiters will inevitably reb'
a number of enormous and real advantages: they will ha
money left (it is impossible to do away with money all
once) ; some movable property, often of considerable valu
there remain their connections, their organising and man
agerial ability and the knowledge of all the 'secrets' 0
administration (of usages, of procedure, of ways and mean
of possibilities); there remain their superior educatio
their kinship to the highest ranks of the technical persona
(who are aping the life and mental attitude of the hour
geoisie) ; there remains their immeasurable superiorit y in H
art of war (this is very important), etc., etc." Thirdl
" . . . in the strength of habit, in the strength of small-seal
production. For of small-scale production there st ill remain
in the world, unfortunately, a very great deal, and small-sea
production gives birth to capitalism and bourgeoisie eOD
tinuously, daily, hourly, in an elemental fashion , and on
ss scale. • . . To abolish classes means not only to drive
Ill; the landlords and c~pitalists-these we ?ave abolished
~'ith comparative ease-It means also to get nd ~f the petty
ommodity producers, and they canno! be .dnven out or
;rushed. There must be an understandmfJ. WIth them; they
can (and should) be remoulded ~nd. retramed only by very
low, gradual, cautious orgamsatIonal work." ("Left"
Communism.) .
TI at is why Lenin declares:
";he dictatorship of the proletariat is the fiercest,
harpe t and most merciless war of the new class against its
more powerful enemy, the bourgeoisie, whose resistance is
increased ten~fold by its overthrow. . . . The dictatorship
of the proletariat is a stubborn struggle-sanguinary and
bloodless, violent and peaceful, military and economic, edu-
cational and administrative-against the forces and tradi-
tions of the old society." ("Left" Communism.)
It need hardly be emphasized that there is not the slightest
po sibility of accomplishing these tasks in a short period
of time, within a few years. We must therefore regard the
dictatorship of the proletariat, the transition from capi-
talism to Communism, not as a fleeting period replete with
" uper-revolutionary" deeds and decrees, but as an entire
o hi torical epoch full of civil wars and external conflicts, of
per istent organisational work and economic construction,
of attacks and retreats, of victories and defeats. This his-
torical epoch is necessary not only to create the economic
and cultural prerequisites for the complete victory of
ocialism, but also to afford the proletariat the possibility:
fir t, to educate itself and become steeled into a force capable
of governing the country; secondly, to re-educate and re-
n mould the petty-bourgeois strata along such lines as will
a ure the organisation of socialist production.
"You will have to go through fifteen, twenty or even fifty
year of civil and international war," writes Marx. "not only
to change relationships but also to change your OWn
to render yourselves fit to assume the political reins."
Lenin goes on to develop Marx's thought st ill furth
"Under th~ ~ictatorship of the proletariat Wewill h:::
re-educate millions of peasants and petty-propriet ors h
dreds of thousands of office workers, officials and bou~
intellectuals; to subordinate all these to the prolet arian gt
and to proletarian leadership; to overcome the ir bour
habits and traditions," just as much as it will be neCeg
.•. "to re-educate in a protracted struggle, und er the
trolling auspices of the dictatorship of the proletariat C
proletarians themselves, for they will not be able to rid th
selves of their own petty-bourgeois prejudices at the fi
stroke as if by magic, or at the behest of the Virgin Marv
by a slogan, resolution or decree; it can be done only i~ l
course of a long and difficult mass struggle aga inst t he In

of petty-bourgeois influences." (Collected Wor ks, Pi
Russian Edition, Vol. XVII, p. 198.)
(2) THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIA T AS THE

DOMINATION OF THE PROLETARIAT
OVER THE BOURGEOISIE
From the foregoing it is quite obvious that the dictat

ship of the proletariat is not a mere change of pers onalit
in the government, a change of "cabinet," etc., leavi
inviolate the old order of things economically as well
p olitically. The Mensheviks and opportunists of all co
tries, who fear dictatorship like the plague an d who, in th
trepidation, palm off the conception of the "conquest
power" for the conception of the dictatorship of the pr
letariat, habitually reduce the "conquest of power" to
change of "cabinet," or to a new ministry composed
people like Scheidemann and N oske, Mac D onald and He
derson and their ilk taking over the helm of state. Need
n to explain that these an~ similar ~abinet changes h~ve
~:t~ing in common with the dICtatorshIp of the proleta~'Iat
with the conquest of real power by a real pr-olct.a.riat P
~~ith the ~ IacDonalds. and Hendersons in I?ower ~nd the old
ourcreois order of thmgs allowed to remaI~, their so-called
~oYc;nmcnts cannot be a~!thing but a servile apparatus in
e h nd of the bourgeOIsIe, a screen to cover up the sores
:~ei:pcrialism, a weapon in the hands of the bourgeoisie
a ainst the revolutionary movement of the oppressed and
g loitcd masses. Capitalism needs such governments to
e~;ccn it, when it finds it inconvenient, unprofitable or dif-
ficult to oppress and exploit the masses without the aid of
uch a blind. It is true that the appearance of such govern-
ments is symptomatic; it indicates that "all is not well"
(that is, with th~ capital~sts). But governments of this co~
plexion necessarIly remain, none the less, camouflaged capI-
talist governments. The government of a MacDonald or a
cheidemann is as far removed from the conquest of power
by the proletariat as the earth from the sky. The dictator-
hip of the proletariat is not a mere change of government
but a new state, with new organs of power, both central and
local ; it is the proletarian state which has risen upon the
ru ins of the old state, the state of the bourgeoisie.
T he dictatorship of the proletariat does not arise on the
ba is of the bourgeois order; it arises while this order is
being torn down, after the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, in
the process of the expropriation of the landlords and capi-
t ali t , during the process of socialisation of the principal
inst rument s and means of production, in the process of the
violent proletarian revolution. The dictatorship of the pro-
f letar iat is a revolutionary power based on violence against
th e bourgeoisie.
T he state is an instrument in the hands of the ruling class
e to break the resistance of its class enemies. In this respect the
dict at orship of the proletariat in no way differs, in essence,
50 FOUNDATIONS OF LENIN I SM
from the dictatorship of any other class, for the prolet '
state is an instrument for the suppression of the bon- a~
Yet there is an essential difference between the two, w~i:;
that all class states that have existed heretofore have b
dictatorships of an exploiting minority over the expl '
majority, whereas the dictatorship of the prolet ariat iO
dictatorship of the exploited maj ority over an exploir
minority.
To put it briefly: the dictatorship of the proletariat is
domination of the proletariat over the bour geoisie, a do
nation that is un trammelled by law and based on viole
and enjoys the sympathy and support of the toilin g and
ploited masses (Cf. Lenin, State and R evolution ) .
From this two fun damental deductions ma y be drawn.
First deduction: the dictatorship of the p rolet ariat c
not be "complete" democracy, a democracy for all, for ri
and poor alike; the dictatorship of the proletar iat "muJ
a state that is democratic in a new way [ emphas is mi
-J.S.] , i.e., democratic fo r the proletariat and the poor
general; and dictatorial in a new way, ie., against the bou
geoisie . . ." (State and Revolution).
The outpourings of K aut sky & Co. on un iver sal equalil
on "pure" democracy, on "perfect" democracy and the l'
are but bourgeois screens to conceal the indub it able fact th
equality between exploiters and exploited is impossib le. T
theory of "pure'~ democracy is the theory of t he labour ari
tocracy which was tamed and fattened by the imperial'
plunderers. It has been elaborated to hide t he sores of cal
talism, to camouflage imperialism and lend it mora l st reng
in its struggle against the exploited masses . U nder the cap
talist system there is not, nor can there be, t rue "freedom
for the exploited, if for no other reason than t ha t the buill
ings, printing plants, paper supplies, etc., indispe nsable fc
the actual enj oyment of this "freedom," are rese rved for t
exploiters. Under the capitalist system the exploit ed rna,
nor can they really participate in the administration
do not~ountry, if for no other reason than that the gove.rn-
of the are set up, not by the people but by the Rothschilds
ment tinne es, the Morgans a~d Ro~ke~ellers. Democracy
and th capitalist system IS capitalist democracy, the
un;:~rac~' of an exploiting mino~ity bas~d ~pon the c~rtai1
~eent of the rights of the exploited maJ~nty and. directed
ullin t this majority. Only under the dI.ctatorshIp of the
ll;oletariat is real "freedom" for the exploited and real par-
~. tion in the administration of the country by the pro-
:;~~~ans and peasants possi~le. Under. the dictatorship of
the proletariat democ~acy IS .pr~letanan democrac~~the
dcmocracy of the explOIted maJ?~lty b~sed .upon the limita-
tion of the rights of an exploiting minority and directed
again t this minority.
Second deduction: the dictatorship of the proletariat can-
not come about as a result of the peaceful development of
bourgeoi society and of bourgeois democracy; it can come
only as the result of the break-down of the bourgeois state
ma~hine, of the bourgeois army, of the bourgeois civil admin-
i tration and of the bourgeois police.
"The working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-
made state machinery and wield it for its own purposes,"
write :\1arx and Engels in the Civil War in France. The
proletarian revolution must not merely "transfer the mili-
tary-bureaucratic apparatus from one hand to the other, as
ha been the case hitherto, but smash it. . . . This is a
condition precedent to any really popular revolution on the
continent ," says Marx in his letter to Kugelmann (April
]2, ]871).
Marx' s qualifying phrase about the continent gave to the
opportunist s and Mensheviks of all countries a pretext to
cry aloud that Marx admitted the possibility of the peaceful
v evolution of bourgeois democracy into a proletarian democ-
52 FOUNDATION 5 OF LENINISM
racy at least in certain countries which do not come within
theEuropean continental system (England, United St ates)
.Jar x did in fact concede that possibility, and he ha d good
grounds for doing so in regard to the England an d th(
~nited States of 1870-80, when monopoly capitalism and
Illlperialism did not yet exist and when these countries, owin
tothe play of special forces in their development, had as ye
no developed militarism or bureaucracy. That is how mat
ters stood before a developed imperialism made its ap pear
ance. But later, after a lapse of thirty to forty years, when
thestate of affairs in these countries had undergone a ra dica
change, when imperialism was developing and was embr acin
all capitalist countries without exception, when militarism
and bureaucracy raised their heads in England and th
Cnited States also, when the special conditions of pea cefUl
development in England and the United States had dis
appeared-then the qualification in favour of these count rie
had to fall to the ground.
"To-day, in 1917," says Lenin, "in the epoch of the firs
great imperialist war, this exception made by Marx is TIl
tnore valid. Both England and America, the greatest an
last representatives of Anglo-Saxon 'liberty' in the sens
of the absence of militarism and bureaucracy, have to -da
Plunged headlong into the European quagmire of mud an
blood, into the bureaucratic-militaristic institutions to whic
everything is subordinated and which trample every t hin
underfoot, To-day, both in England and America, th
'preliminary condition of any real people's revolution' is th
hreak-up, the shattering of the 'available ready-made st at
lhachinery,' brought in those countries, between 1914 an
1917, to general 'European' imperialist perfection." (Stat
and Revolution.)
In other words, the law of violent proletarian revolutior
the law of destruction of the machinery of the bourgeo
state as a condition prece~ent for such revo~ution, .is an .in-
eyitable law of the revolutionary movement III the imperial-
, t countries of the world.
IS Of course, in the distant future, if the proletariat will be
,'etorious in the most important capitalist countries and
;; the present capitalist encirclement will give way to a social-
ist encirclement, a "peaceful" course of development will be
uite possible for some of the capitalist countries whose
~apitalists, in ~iew ~f the '.'unfavourable" i~ternational situa-
tion, will consider It advisable "voluntarIly" to make sub-
stantial concessions to the proletariat. But this supposition
deals only with the distant and problematic future; it has
no bearing on the immediate future, or virtually none.
Lenin is therefore right in saying:
"The proletarian revolution is impossible without the vio-
lent destruction of the machinery of the bourgeois state and
its replacement by new machinery" (The Proletarian. Revolu-
tion and the Renegade K aut sky ).
(3.) THE SOVIET POWER AS THE STATE FORM: OF THE

DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT
The victory of the dictatorship of the proletariat signifies

the suppression of the bourgeoisie, the destruction of the
bourgeois state machinery and the displacement of bour-
geois democracy by proletarian democracy. That is clear.
But what organisations are to be employed for this colossal
undertaking? There can hardly be any doubt that the old
forms of proletarian organisation which grew up with bour-
geois parliamentarism as their base are not equal to this task.
What new forms of proletarian organisation are required
to break up the machinery of the bourgeois state, to smash
that machinery, to displace bourgeois democracy by pro-
~etarian democracy and, above all, to serve as the foundation
of the state power of the proletariat?
~his new form of organisation of the proletariat is the
soviets.
Why are the soviets stronger than the old forms of organ_
isation? Because the soviets are absolutely all-embracing
mass organisations of the proletariat and because they and
they alone embrace all workers without exception.
The soviets are the only mass organisations that ta ke in
all the oppressed and exploited, workers and peasants, so].
diers and sailors; and for this reason the vanguard 0'
the masses of the proletariat can most easily and most Corn.
pletely bring to fruition its political direction of the struggle
of the masses.
The soviets are the most powerful organs of the revolu.
tionary mass struggle, of the mass political demonstrations,
and of the mass uprising; they are organs capable of break-
ing the omnipotence of finance capital and its poli t ical
satellites.
The soviets are the organisations which organise the
masses themselves directly, i.e., the most democratic, signi-
fying the most authoritative, organisations of the mas ses,
that provide them with the maximum facilities for partici-
pating in the building up of the new state and its admi nis-
tration; they develop to their fullest extent the revolutionary
energy, the initiative and the creative faculties of the masses
in the struggle for the destruction of the old system, in the
struggle for the new proletarian system.
The soviet power is the unification and the crystallisation
of the local soviets into one general state organisation, int o
a state organisation of the proletariat as the vanguard of
the oppressed and exploited masses and as the ruling class -
their unification into the soviet republic.
The soviet power is in essence the fact that the largest
and most revolutionary mass organisations of precisely th ose
classes that were oppressed by the capitalists and lan ded
proprietors now constitute the "permanent and sole foun da-
tion of all state power, of ~he .entire state apparat~s"; that
" recisely those masses which m the most democratic repub-
li~s, according to. the letter of ~he ~aw, enjoy equal rights,
but by divers~ tnc~s. and. machina.tions are. I?revent:d from
participating m pol.ItIca~ life and from exercI.smg their demo-
cratic rights and liber ties, are now drawn into permanent,
trammelled and, what is more, decisive participation in
~l~e democratic administration of the state." [Italics
mine.-J.S. ] ( Collected Works, First Russian Edition, Vol.
XVI, p. 44.)
For this reason the soviet power is a new form of state
organisation different in principle from the old bourgeois
democratic and parliamentary form-a new type of state
adapted, not to the task of the exploitation and the oppres-
sion of the toiling masses, but to the task of completely
emancipating them from all oppression and exploitation
and to the tasks which face the dictatorship of the prole-
tariat.
Lenin rightly says that with the appearance of the soviet
power "the epoch of bourgeois-democratic parliamentarism
has come to an end and a new chapter in world history has
commenced."
What are the main characteristics of the soviet power?
The soviet power has a most pronounced mass character
and is the most democratic of all state organisations possible
while classes continue to exist; it is the arena in which the
workers and exploited peasants, in a closely knit alliance,
co-operate in their struggle against the exploiters and find
support for this work in this alliance and in this co-opera-
tion; yet at the same time it is the power of the majority
of the population over a minority, it is the state of that
it majority, the expression of its dictatorship.
The soviet power is the most international of all state
~d organisations in class society, for by extirpating every kind
of national oppression and basing itself on the co-operation
of the toiling masses of the various nationalities, it faci litate
the unification of these masses into a single union of st ates
The soviet power by its very structure facilitates the lead:
ership of the oppressed and exploited masses by the van.
guard of these masses, i.e., the proletariat-the most com.
pact and most class-conscious nucleus of the soviets.
"The experience of every movement of the opp ressed
classes, the experience of the world socialist movement tea che
us," says Lenin, "that only the proletariat is able to unite
the scattered, backward strata of the toiling and expl oited
population into one mass and to lead them" (Colle cted
Works, First Russian Edition, Vol. XVI, p. 45). The
structure of the soviet power facilitates the practical ap pli,
cation of the lessons to be drawn from this experience.
The Soviet power combines the legislative and executive
functions in a single state body and replaces territorial
electoral divisions by units of production, i.e., factories and
workshops, and thereby connects the workers and the lab our-
ing masses in general directly with the apparatus of state ad-
ministration and teaches them how to administer the countr y.
Only the soviet power is capable of releasing the army
from its position of subordination to bourgeois command
and convert it from an instrument of oppression of the
people, which it is under the capitalist system, into an inst ru-
ment for the liberation of the people from the yoke of the
bourgeoisie both native and foreign.
"Only the soviet state organisation can definitely dest roy
at one blow the old, i.e., the bourgeois administrative and
judicial apparatus" (Ibid.).
Only the soviet form of state, by drawing the mass org an-
isations of the toilers and of the exploited into constant and
unconditional participation in the administration of the
state, is capable of preparing the ground for the dying out
of the state which is one of the basic elements of the fut ure
stateless communist society.
The soviet republic is ~hu~ the political form, so long
ht and finally found, within the framework of which the
:~~~omic ema~ci~ati~n of the prolet~riat and the c?mplete
victory of Soc.Iahsm IS to be .accomphsh~d. The Pans Com-
une handed It down to us m embryomc form. The soviet
Jl1 wer is its development and culmination.
poThat is why Lenin says that: "The republic of soviets of
workers', soldiers' and peasants' deputies not only repre-
ents a higher type of democratic institution . . . but is
:1sothe only form capable of insuring the least painful tran-
sition to Socialism." (CoUected Works, First Russian Edi-
tion, Vol. XV, p. 46.)
IE
It
V. THE PEASANT QUESTION
I WILL deal with four phases of this subject: (1) t he pres

entation of the problem, (2) the peasantry during the b OUt
geois-democratic revolution, (3) the peasantry during th
proletarian revolution, (4) the peasantry after the soviE:
power has become consolidated.
(1) PRESENTATION OF THE P R OB L E M
Some think the fundamental thing in Leninism is th

peasant question; that the point of departure in Le ninism
is the question of the peasantry, its role, its relative impor
tance. This is absolutely untrue. The fundamental question
in Leninism, its point of departure, is not the peasant ques
tion but the question of the dictatorship of the prolet ariat.
the conditions under which it can be established an d con
solida ted. The peasant question, as a question of the allie
of the proletariat in its struggle for power, is a subs idiarj
question.
This circumstance, however, does not by any means dep rive
the peasant question of the serious and vital importance i
undoubtedly has for the proletarian revolution. It is well
known that on the eve of the first revolution ( 1905)
the Russian Marxists began seriously to study the pea sant
question. At that time the question of the overthrow 0
tsarism and the establishment of the hegemony of the prole
tariat urgently confronted the Party, but the quest ion 0
finding an ally for the proletariat in the imminent bou rgeoi
revolution assumed vital importance. We also know th a'
the peasant question in Russia became still more urgent duro
58
THE PEASANT QUESTION 59
. the proletarian revolution, when the question of the die-
lnforship of the proletariat, of how to establish and maintain
!a led to the question of allies for the proletariat in the im-
It;nding proletarian revolution. ~ne thing is obvious: that
P body about to prepare to seize power cannot but be
~~~rcsted in the question as to who his real allies are.
1DIn this sense the peasant question is part of the general
cstion of the dictatorship of the proletariat and, as such,
~su one of the most vital questions of Leninism.
I The indifference and even direct disregard with which the
arties of the Second International treated the peasant ques-
~on cannot be fully explained by the special circumstances
attcnding developments in the West. It is to be explained
bv the fact that these parties did not believe in the dictator-
ship of the proletariat, that they feared revolution and did
not intend to lead the proletariat to power. Those who arc
afraid of the revolution, who do not want to lead the prole-
tariat to power, cannot be interested in the question of the
allies of the proletariat in the revolution-the question of
allies leaves them cold; to them it is an academic question.
Our heroes of the Second International thought that a sar-
castic attitude toward the peasant question was a mark of
good breeding, a token of "true" Marxism. As a matter of
fact, there is not a grain of Marxism in this, for indifference
towards an important question like the peasant question on
the eve of the proletarian revolution is nothing more nor
less than a covert denial of the dictatorship of the prole-
tariat-an infallible sign of direct treason to Marxism.
The question may be formulated as follows: have the revo-
lutionary possibilities of the peasantry already been ex-
hausted, as a consequence of certain conditions of its
existence, or not? If they have not been exhausted, is there
any hope, any basis for utilising these possibilities for the
proletarian revolution, for transforming the peasantry, this
exploited majority, from reserves for the bourgeoisie which
they have been during the bourgeois revolutions of the We
and still are even now, into reserves of the proletariat- int
its ally?
Leninism replies to this question in the affirmative; i.e.
in the sense that it recognises the revolutionary potentialitie'
to be found in the ranks of the majority of the peasantr y
that it recognises the possibility of utilising them in the
interests of the proletarian dictatorship. The history of the
three revolutions in Russia fully substantiates the deduct ion
made by Leninism in this regard.
Hence the practical deduction, that the toiling masses of
the peasantry must be supported in their struggle aga inst
slave drivers and exploiters, in their struggle for delivera nce
from their misery and oppression. This does not mean, of
course, that the proletariat should support any and every
peasant movement. We are now speaking of supporting a
movement or a struggle of the peasantry which, directly or
indirectly, will lighten the task of the emancipatory movo,
ment of the proletariat, which in one way or another br ings
grist to the mill of the proletarian revolution and which
facilitates the transformation of the peasantry into reserves
and allies of the working class.
'(2) THE PEASANTRY DURING THE BOURGEOIS-DEMOCRATI C

REVOLUTION
This period extends from the first Russian revolution

(1905) up to and including the second (February, 191 7).
The characteristic feature of this period is the liberation
of the peasantry from the influence of the liberal bourgeoisie,
the desertion of the Cadets * by the peasantry, the turn made
by the peasantry towards the proletariat, towards the party
of the Bolsheviks. The history of this period is the histo r
* Constitutional Democrats.-Ed.
f the struggle between the Cadets (the liberal bourgeoisie)
o d the Bolsheviks (the proletariat) for the peasantry. The
::tcome of this conflict was decided by the period of the
Dumas, for the period of the four Dumas served as an excel-
lent object lesson for the peasantry, and this lesson brought
hometo them the fact that they would never receive land or
l'berty at the hands of the Cadets, that the Tsar was whole-
~eartedly on the side of the landlords and that the Cadets
were supporting the Tsar; that the only force on which it
could count was the city workers, the proletariat. The im-
perialist war merely confirmed the lessons of the Duma period
by completing the deserti~n of the J?easa~try from the ?our-
geoisie and by completmg the isolation of the liberal
bourgeoisie. For the years of the war brought out the utter
futility and the absolute frustration of all hopes of obtaining
peace from the Tsar and from his bourgeois allies. Without
these lessons taught them by their own experience during the
Duma period, the hegemony of the proletariat would have
beenimpossible.
In this way the alliance of the workers and peasants during
the bourgeois-democratic revolution took shape; in this way
grew up the hegemony (leadership) of the proletariat in the
commonstruggle for the overthrow of tsarism, the hegemony
whichled to the February Revolution of 1917.
We know that the bourgeois revolutions of the West
(England, France, Germany and Austria) proceeded along
a different road. There the hegemony during the revolution
belonged not to the proletariat which did not, and by reason
of its weakness could not, represent an independent political
factor, but to the liberal bourgeoisie. Emancipation from
servitude was bestowed upon the peasantry not as the gift
of the proletariat, which was few in number and unorganised,
but as the gift of the bourgeoisie. The peasantry marched
against the old regime side by side with the liberal bour-
geoisie. The peasantry acted as the reserve of the bour-
geolSle. In view of this, the revolution in those count rie
resulted in a ~r~mendous increase in the political influence
of the bourgeoisie.
In Russia, on the contrary, the bourgeois revolut ion had
exactly opposite results. The revolution in Russia ha d the
effect, not of strengthening but of weakening the bourgeoisie
as a political factor, it did not lead to an augmentation of it
political reserves but to the loss of its main reserve force
the peasantry. The bourgeois revolution in Russia bro ugh{
to the fore, not the liberal bourgeoisie, but the revolu tionary
proletariat, with the millions of the peasantry ra llied
around it.
This, by the way, explains the fact that the bourgeoi
revolution in Russia outgrew its bounds and became a pr ole-
tarian revolution in a comparatively short time . The
hegemony of the proletariat was the inception of an d the
stepping stone leading to the dictatorship of the prolet ariat.
How is this peculiar phenomenon of the Russian r evolu-
tion, without precedent in the history of the bourgeois revo-
lutions of the West, to be explained? Whence this
peculiarity?
The explanation is to be found in the fact that the bour-
geois revolution in R ussia was progressing under more
advanced conditions of class struggle than in the 'Vest; t hat
the Russian proletariat, already at that time, had su cceeded
in becoming an independent political factor, while the liberal
bourgeoisie, frightened by the revolutionary spirit of t he
proletariat, lost all semblance of being revolutionary (esp e-
cially after the lessons of 1905) and entered into an alliance
with the Tsar and the landowners against the revol ut ion,
against the workers and peasants.
The following circumstances shou ld be borne in mind as
having determined the peculiarity of the Russian bou rgeois
revolution:
(a) The unprecedented concentration of Russian ind ust ry
the eve of the revolution. For instance it was shown that
?nRussia more than 54% of all workers were employed in
I:terprises employing over 500 workers. each, whereas in so
e. hl developed a country as the Umted States no more
)l1g ~3% of all the workers were employed in similar enter-
t);~:es. It hardly re~uires proof that t?is circumstan~e alone
P ether with the eXIstence of a .revolutIonary party like that
:~gthe Bolsheviks changed .the work~n.g c1~ss of Russia into
the most important factor III the polIb~al ~lfe ?f the country.
(b) The monstrous forms of exploitation III these enter-
rises, coupled with the intolerable police system of the
fsllrist government, the fact that every serious strike grew
into an imposing political demonstration, steeled the working
class until it became a force that was revolutionary to the
core.
(c) The political flabbiness of the Russian bourgeoisie
which after the Revolution of 1905, took the form of servility
to tsarism and downright counter-revolutionary activity,
which is to be explained, not only by the revolutionary spirit
of the Russian proletarian that had cast off the Russian
bourgeoisie and hurled them into the arms of tsarism, but
also by the direct dependence of this bourgeoisie upon gov-
ernment contracts.
(d) The survival in the countryside of most outrageous
and most unbearable survivals of serfdom with the con-
comitant complete sway of the landed gentry-circumstances
that threw the peasantry into the arms of the revolution.
(e) Tsarism, stifling every sign of life, and by its tyranny
increasing the burden of the yoke of capitalism and land-
lordism, which directed the struggle of the workers and
peasants into a single torrent of revolution.
(f) The imperialist war, which fused all these contradic-
tions in the political life of Russia into one big revolutionary
crisis and which gave a tremendous impetus to the revolution.
Where should the peasantry turn under these circum-
stances; where should it. seek support .against t he a
powerful landowners, against the despotism of the t
against the devastating war that had played havoc with ~
l
economic existence? To the liberal bourgeoisie? But th
was its enemy, as years of experience with all four DU!ll a
had eloquently proved. To the Socialist-Revolutiona:
Party? They were "better" than the Cadets, of course , an
their programme was rather more suitable, in fact almost
peasants' programme; but what could the Socialist-Revol
tionary Party offer, since it contemplated finding sUPpor
only among the peasants, for it was weak in the cities , th
main recruiting ground of the enemy? 'Vhere is the ne
force that will stop at nothing, neither in town nor count-
which will boldly march in the front ranks to give battle t
the tsar and the landowners, which will help the peasanh
extricate itself from bondage, from land-hunger, fr om op-
pression, from war? Was there such a force in Russia, an
how? Yes, there was. It was the Russian proletariat, whi~
back in 1905 had shown its might and its generalship i
fighting matters out to a decision-its fearlessnes s an
revolutionary-mindedness.
At any rate, there was no other force.
That is why the peasantry, while deserting the Cadets an
attaching themselves to the Socialists-Revolutionists, never
theless saw the necessity to fall in line with and accept th
guidance of this courageous leader of the revolution, th
revolutionary proletariat.
These are the circumstances that determined the pec ulia
course of the Russian bourgeois revolution.
(3) THE PEASANTRY DURING THE PROLETARIAN

REVOLUTION
This period extends from the February Revolution of 19t

to the October Revolution of 1917. It is a comparativ
hort period, lasting a~t?gethe~ eight months; but fr~m the

S oint of viewof the political enl~ghtenmenta~d revolutionary
fraining which the masses received, th:se .eIght months can

easily be matched ~o decades of constItutIO~al development
along the usual lines, fo.r .they denote eight months of
roll/tion. The characteristic feature of this period was the
;~rther revolution~sa.tion of the. peasantry, their disillusion-
mentwith the SocIalIst-Rev?lutIon~ry Party, their desertion
from that Party and. their 't'eerzng around and rallying
closely to the proletar-iat as the only force which remains
revolutionary to the very end and is capable of leading the
country towards peace. The history of this period is the
history of the struggle between Socialists-Revolutionists
(petty-bourgeois democracy) and the Bolsheviks (proletarian
democracy) for the peasantry-for winning the majority of
the peasantry. The outcome of this struggle was decided
bv the coalition period, the Kerensky period-the refusal
of the Socialists-Revolutionists and the Mensheviks to confis-
cate the land of the landowners, the fight of the Socialists-
Revolutionists and the Mensheviks to continue the war, the
June offensive, the introduction of the death penalty for
soldiers,the Kornilov mutiny.
In the preceding period, the fundamental question of revo-
lution had been the overthrow of the Tsar and of the land-
owners. Now, during the post-February period of the
revolution, when there was no longer any Tsar, and when
the interminable war spelt ruin for the economic forces of
the country and brought the peasantry to the brink of desti-
tution, the liquidation of the war became the fundamental
question of the revolution. The centre of gravity shifted
visibly from questions purely internal in character to the
fundamental question of the war. "Stop the war," "Let's
get out of this war" were the cries heard everywhere through-
out the war-weary land and among the peasants more than
elsewhere.
But in order to wrench themselves .l~ose from the war i
was necessary to overthrow the Provisional Government, i
was necessary to overthrow the power of the bourgeoisie, t'
overthrow the power of the Socialists-Revolutionists and 0°
the Mensheviks, as they and they alone were dragging 0
the war to a "victorious finish." There was practically n
other way to get out of the war except by overthrowing th
bourgeoisie.
This was a new revolution, a proletarian revolution, for it
ousted from power the last, the extreme left-wing of the iIn-
perialist bourgeoisie, the Socialists-Revolutionists and th
Mensheviks, in order to set up a new proletarian power , th
soviet power; in order to set up in power the party of thf:
revolutionary proletariat, the party of the Bolsheviks , the
party of the revolutionary struggle against the imperialist
war and for a democratic peace. The majority of the peas-
antry supported the struggle of the workers for peace and
for the power of the soviets.
There was no other way out for the peasantry; there
could be no other way out.
The Kerensky period was therefore an excellent objec t les-
son for the toiling masses of the peasantry, as they could
see with their own eyes that the country would never ext ri-
cate itself from the war with the Socialists-Revolutionists
and the Mensheviks in power, that they, the peasants, would
get neither land nor liberty, that the Mensheviks and the
Socialists-Revolutionists differed from the Cadets only in the
use of honeyed phrases and false promises while in rea lity
pursuing the same imperialist policies as the Cadets; t hat
the only power that could get the country again on its feet
was the power of the soviets. As the war dragged on, it
confirmed this lesson, spurred on the revolution and drove
millions of peasants and soldiers to take the road of revo lu-
tion and get into direct intimate contact with the proletariat,
e isolation of the Socialists-R~volutionists a?d Mensheviks
'1'h an unalterable fact. WIthout the object lessons of
~~:~:lition peri~d the dictatorship of the proletariat would
, been impossIble.
hll~:ch are the circumstances t~at facilit~ted the process of
transformatio~ of the bourgeois revolution into the prole-
tarian revolution. . . .
This is how the dictatorship of the proletariat took shape
in Russia.
(4) THE PEASANTRY AFTER THE SOVIET POWER

HAS BECOME CONSOLIDATED
During the first period of the revolution, everything

hinged primarily upon the overthrow of tsarism. Later,
after the February Revolution, the main thing was to extri-
cate the country from the imperialist war by overthrowing
the bourgeoisie. Now, after the Civil War has been brought
to an end and the soviet power has been consolidated, the
question that stands in the forefront is economic construc-
tion-the strengthening and the development of nationalised
industry. For this purpose industry must be linked up with
agriculture through state regulated trade, the requisition of
food products must be replaced by the tax in kind, which is
to be gradually reduced and ultimately be transformed into
a system of exchanging the products of industry for the
products of agriculture; trade must be revived and co-opera-
tion developed, the masses of the peasantry be drawn into
the co-operative societies-this is how Lenin outlined the im-
mediate tasks of economic construction in the course of
laying down the foundation for socialist production.
Some say that this task may prove beyond the strength
of a peasant country like Russia. Some sceptics even assert
that it is simply utopian, impossible, for peasants will be
peasa.nts-they are small producers and cannot, therefore,
be ?f ~se in orga~ising the work of laying the foundation of

SOCIalIst production,
But the sceptics are mista~en;. they fail to. ta ke int o ac
count several factors of capital Importance In the case
issue. Let us examine the most important of the se = a
First, the peasantry of the Soviet Union should not b
confused with the peasantry of the West. A peas ant ry th
has been schooled in three revolutions, that has foug~
against the Tsar and the power of the bourgeoisie side b
side with the proletariat, under the leadership of the prole-
tariat, a peasantry that received land and p eace at th
hands of the proletarian revolution and by reas on of thi
became the reserves of the proletariat-such a peasa ntr
must necessarily be different from a peasantry which durin"
the bourgeois revolution fought under the leade rs hip of the
liberal bourgeoisie, which received land at the ha nds of thaI
bourgeoisie and in view of this became a reserve of the bour
geoisie. It hardly requires proof that the soviet peasa ntr
which is accustomed to appreciate the political frie ndship
and political collaboration with the proletariat and which
obtained its freedom thanks to that friendship an d collabon,
tion, cannot but serve as exceptionally favourable materi
for economic collaboration with the proletariat.
Engels said that "the conquest of political p ower by th
Socialist Party has become a question of the immediate fu·
ture." And that "to capture power the Party must fro
the start go from the city into the country a nd becom
strong in the countryside." ( " T he Peasant Quest ion," b.
Engels.) He wrote this in the nineties of the last centur:
having the western peasantry in mind. Is there a ny doub
that the Russian Communists, after accomplishing an enor
mous amount of work in the course of three revol ut ions, ha.
succeeded in creating an influence and backing in the rura
districts that our western comrades never dare d rea m of
How can it be denied that this circumstance enor mous!
"t tes the organisation of economic co-operation between
facIh a king-class and the peasantry of Russia?
th~~:rsceptics, howe~er, m~intain .th~t the small ?easantry
, It factor incompatible with socialist construction. But
;~ ten to what Engels has to say about t.he small peasantry of
the West:
"We are resolutely on the side of the small peasant ; we
'11 do all we can to make his life more bearable, to facilitate
",I transition to the co-operative system when he decides to
~~opt this; simila:ly, if he is not y~t in. a position to. make
hisdecision we will endeavour to gIve him as much time as
t :ssible to think it over on his bit of land. We will act in
fhisway, not only because we think that the small independ-
ent peasant c~n ra~ge himself on our side, but also because
it is in the direct mterests of the Party. The greater the
~umber of peasants we can save from being reduced to the
.tate of proletarians and whom we will win to our side even
while they are still peasants, the more easily and the more
rapidly will the social transformation be accomplished. It
would be futile to wait for this transformation until capi-
talist production has everywhere developed to its maximum
extent,until the last petty-artisan and the last small peasant
have fallen victims to large-scale capitalist production. The
material sacrifices which will have to be made out of public
funds to effect this in the interests of the peasants may
appear to be a squandering of money from the point of view
of capitalist economy, whereas it is indeed an excellent way
of employing capital because it will save perhaps ten times
the amount spent when the social system as a whole is trans-
formed. In this sense, therefore, we can afford to be very
generous to the peasants." ("The Peasant Question.")
This is what Engels said, having the western peasantry
in mind. Is it not clear that nowhere can that which Engels
saidbe realised so easily and so completely as in the land of
the dictatorship of the proletariat? Is it not obvious that
"0 FOUNDATIONS OF LENINISM
only in Soviet Russia can "the small independent peas ant
range himself on our side," can the "material sacrifi ces"
necessary for that be made; and the "generosity towards the
peasants" required to attain that end be shown immediately
and to the fullest extent? Is it not true that these and
similar measures in favour of the peasantry are alrea dy
being carried out in Russia? How can it be denied that thi
circumstance in turn will facilitate and further economic
construction in the land of the Soviets?
Second, agriculture in Russia must not be confused with
agriculture in the West. There agriculture develops along
the usual lines of capitalism, situated as it is in an envir o- ;
ment of profound differentiation among the peasantry, with
immense landed estates at the one extreme and pauperism,
destitution and wage slavery at the other. It is natural
therefore that ruin and deterioration should exist there. Not
so in Russia. With us agriculture cannot develop along this
path, if for no other reason than that the existence of the
soviet power and the nationalisation of the principal inst ru-
ments and means of production will not permit of such a
development. In Russia the development of agriculture must
take a different course, the course of co-operation between
millions of small and middle peasants, the course of develop-
ing mass co-operation in the countryside supported by the
state in the form of credits on easy terms. Lenin rig htly
pointed out in his article on co-operation that with us the
development of agriculture must take a different course , a
course that will draw the majority of the peasants into
socialist construction through co-operation, a course t hat
will constantly introduce into agriculture the principles of
collectivism, at first in the sphere of marketing and after-
wards in the sphere of raising agricultural products.
Several new phenomena observed throughout the country in
connection with work done on agricultural co-operation are
of extreme interest in this respect. We all know that new im-
mense agricultural co-operative organisations are springing
up, covering various b~anches of agriculture: flax, potatoes,
butter and others having a great future before them. Of
these the Central Co-operative for Flax-Growing comprises a
complete network of peasant flax-growers' associations. The
Central Co-operative supplies the peasants with seed and
implements; afterwards it buys the flax raised by these peas-
ants, disposes of it on the market in mass quantities, guaran-
tees to the peasants a share in the profits and in this way
links peasant economy with state industry through the agri-
cultural co-operative. What shall we call this form of organi-
sation of production? This, in my opinion, is the domestic
system of large-scale state-socialist production in the sphere
of agriculture; in this I draw an analogy between our system
and the domestic system under capitalism in, let us say, the
textile industry, where the artisans received their materials
and tools from the capitalist and turned over to him the
entire product of their labour, thus being in fact semi-wage·
earners working at home. This is one of numerous guide
posts indicating the road of development our growing agri-
culture must take. Similar guides could be mentioned in
regard to other branches of agriculture.
It is hardly necessary to prove that the vast majority of
the peasantry will eagerly take to this new road of develop-
ment and will abandon the old road of large landed estates
and wage slavery, the road of poverty and ruin.
This is what Lenin says about the course of our agricul-
tural development:
"The state is in possession of the principal means of pro-
duction; power in the state is in the hands of the proletariat;
this proletariat is allied with the many millions of small
peasants, the proletariat's leadership over the peasantry is
assured, etc. Is this not all we need to build out of the
co-operative movement-yes, out of the co-operative move-
ment alone, which formerly we used to frown upon as being
tainted with commercialism and which now under the N .E. p .
(N ew Economic Policy) we rightly frown upon from a cer-
tain angle-is this not all we need to build up a complete
socialist society? That is not yet the equivalent to building
socialist society, but it is all that is necessary and sufficient
to build it." ("On Co-operation," Collected Works, Vol.
XVIII, Part II, p. 129.)
Further on, in speaking of the necessity of lending finan-
cial and other support to the co-operatives as a "new pr in-
ciple of organisation of the people" and a new "social sys-
tem" under the dictatorship of the proletariat, Leni n con-
tinues:
"Every social system comes into being only wit h the
financial support of a definite class. It would be f ut ile to
recount the hundreds upon hundreds of millions of ru bles
that represent the cost of the birth of 'free' capitalism. We
must now realise that at the present time the socia l syst em
to which we must give more than usual support is the co-
operative system and aet accordingly. But we must sup port
it in the real sense of the word, i.e., it must not be taken to
mean that we must support any kind of co-operative trade,
but that we must support such co-operative trade which
really embraces larger masses of the p op ulat ion." (I bid.)
What do these things prove?
That the sceptics are wrong;
That Leninism is right in regarding the masses of toi ling
peasants as the reserve of the proletariat;
T hat a proletariat in power can and must use this rese rve
in order to link industry with agriculture, to raise socialist
construction and to lay down for the dictatorship of the
proletariat that necessary foundation without which the
transition to socialist economy is impossible.
VI. THE NATIONAL QUESTION
I WILL deal with the two principal phases of this question:

(1) the presentation of the problem; (2) the liberation
movement of the oppressed peoples and the proletarian revo-
lution.
(1) PRESENTATION OF THE PROBLEM
In the course of the last twenty years the national ques-

tion has undergone a series of changes of very great impor-
tance. The national question in the period of the Second
International and the national question in the period of
Leninism are by no means the same thing. They differ pro-
foundly from each other, not only in their scope, but also in
their inherent character.
Formerly, the national question was usually confined to a
small group of questions chiefly affecting "civilised" nation-
alities. The Irish, the Hungarians, the Poles, the Finns, the
Serbs and several other oppressed nationalities in Europe
made up the list of nations in whose destinies our stalwart
leaders of the Second International were interested. The
countless millions of Asiatic and African peoples that were
suffering under the yoke of national oppression in its crudest
and most horrible form, usually remained outside of the
scope of their discussions. They could not make up their
minds to put whites and blacks, "civilised" and "uncivilised,"
on the same plane. Two or three meaningless noncommittal
resolutions, which carefully evaded the question of colonial
emancipation, were all the leaders of the Second Interna-
tional could boast of. Such duplicity and half-measures with
respect to the national question must now be considered
liquidated. Leninism laid bare this shocking incongruity,
73
tore down the wall between whites and blacks, between Euro~
peans and Asiatics, between the "civilised" and " uncivilised"
slaves of imperialism and thus linked up the national ques-
tion with the question of the colonies. At the same t ime the
national question has been changed from a private quest ion
affecting the internal policies of a particular state, int o a
public international question, into a world question of the
emancipation of the oppressed peoples in the depe ndencies
and colonies from the yoke of imperialism.
Formerly, the principle of self-determination of nations
was wrongly interpreted, and not infrequently it was nar-
rowed down to the right of nations to autonomy. Certa in
leaders of the Second I nt er nat ional went so far as to convert
the right of self-determination into a right to cult ura l aut on-
omy, i.e., they would accord to the oppressed na t ion the
right to have its own cultural institutions while t he dominant
nation would retain all political power in its own ha nds.
The result was that the idea of self-determination Was in
danger of becoming a means for justifying a nnexat ions
rather than a means of fighting against annexations. This
confusion has now been cleared up. Leninism has broadened
the conception of self-determination, and interprets it as the
right of the oppressed peoples in dependent count ries and
colonies to complete separation, as the right of na t ions to
independent existence as states. This has pre cluded the
possibility of annexations being justified on the gro unds that
the right of self-determination merely means the rig ht to
autonomy. The very principle of self-determination was
thus changed from a means to deceive the masses, tha t it un-
doubtedly was in the hands of the social-chauvinists du ring
the imperialist war, into an instrument for exp osing all
imperialist designs or chauvinist machinations, a means of
political education of the masses in the spirit of int er na-
tionalism.
Formerly, the question of the oppressed nations used to
THE NATIONAL QUESTION 75
be regarded purely as a question of law. Solemn proclama-
tions of "national equality under the law" and innumerable
declarations about the "equality of nations" were common
stock-in-trade of the parties of the Second International,
which served to gloss over the sheer mockery of talking about
the "equality of nations" under imperialism while one group
of nations (a minority) lives upon the backs of another
groUp of nations whom they exploit. This bourgeois legal-
istic point of view on the national question has now been
completely exposed. Leninism brought the national question
down from the lofty heights of high sounding declarations
to the solid ground of facts and declared that pronounce-
ments about the "equality of nations" which are not rein-
forced by the direct support of the proletarian parties to the
liberation movement of the oppressed nations are meaning-
less and false. In this way the question of the oppressed
nations became a question of rendering support and assist-
ance, real and continuous, to the oppressed nations in their
struggle against imperialism, their struggle for real equality
of nations and for their independent existence as states.
Formerly, the national question was regarded from the
reformist point of view; it was regarded as an independent
question entirely separated from the general question of
capitalist rule, of the overthrow of imperialism and the
proletarian revolution. It was tacitly understood that the
victory of the proletariat in Europe was possible without a
close al1iance with the liberation movement in the colonies,
that the national-colonial question would solve itself "auto-
matical1y," without anybody noticing it, quietly, off the
beaten track of the proletarian revolution, entirely separate
from the revolutionary struggle with imperialism. To-day
we can say that this anti-revolutionary outlook has been
exposed. Leninism has proved, and the imperialist war and
the revolution in Russia have confirmed it, that the national
question can be solved only in connection with and on the
basis of the proletarian revolution and that the road to
victory in the 'Vest leads through the revolutionary alliance
with the liberation movement of the colonies an d dependent
countries against imperialism. The national question is part
and parcel of the general question of the proletaria n revolu_
tion and of the question of the dictatorship of the prole-
tariat.
The question then is as follows: are the revolutiona r y pos-
sibilities inherent in the revolutionary liberation movement of
the oppressed countries already exhausted or not; and if not
is there any hope, any basis on which these possibilit ies rna;
be made available to the proletarian revolution, on which the
dependent and colonial countries may be transformed from a
reserve of the imperialist bourgeoisie into a rese r ve of the
revol utionary proletariat, into an ally of the latter ?
L eninism replies to this question in the affirmative, that is
to say that there are inherent within the national-liber ation
movement of the oppressed countries, revolutionary capabili-
ties that can be utilised for the purpose of overthrowing the
common enemy and for the overthrow of imperialism. The
process of the development of imperialism, the imp er ialist
war and the revolution in R ussia comp letely con fir m the de-
ductions of Leninism on this sco re.
H ence the proletariat must support, wholehea r t edly and
actively support, the national liberation movement of the op-
pressed and dependent peoples.
This of course does not mean that the proletar iat must
support every national movement that may arise. It means
that support must be given to such national movement s, the
aim of which is to weaken imperialism and bring about its
overthrow, and not such that strive to strengthen and pre-
serve it. Cases occur when the national movements in certain
oppressed countries conflict with the interests of the develop-
ment of the proletarian movement . I n such cases supp ort is
of course entirely out of the question. The quest ion of the
. hts of nations is not an isolated question, complete in
~::elf; it is a part of t~e g?neral qu~stion of the proletarian
volution, a part which IS subordmate to the whole and
:us t be dealt with from the point of view of the whole ques-
tion. In the forties of the last century Marx supported the
national movement of the Poles and the Hungarians and was
opposed to the national movement of the Czechs and the
Jugo-Slavs. Why? Because the Czechs and the Jugo-Slavs
"ere then "reactionary nations" in Europe, outposts of abso-
lutism; whereas the Poles and the Hungarians were "revolu-
tionary nations," fighting against absolutism; because sup-
port of the national movement of the Czechs and Jugo-Slavs
at that time would have been equivalent to giving indirect
support to tsarism, the most dangerous enemy of the revolu-
tionary movement in Europe.
"The various demands of democracy," writes Lenin, "in-
cluding the right of self-determination, are not absolute in
themselves, but are particles of the general democratic (now
general socialist) 'World movement. In certain concrete in-
stances a particle rnav contradict the whole in which case it
must be cast off."
This, then, is the problem in regard to the question of the
various national movements, of the possibly reactionary
character of these movements, that is, of course, if they are
examined concretely, from the point of view of the interests
of the revolutionary movement and not from the formal point
of view, that is, from the point of view of abstract rights.
The same must be said of the revolutionary character of
the national movements in general. The unquestionably revo-
lutionary character of the overwhelming majority of national
movements is as relative and peculiar as the possible reac-
tionary character of certain national movements. While
imperialist oppression continues, the revolutionary character
of a national movement by no means presupposes the exist-
ence of proletarian elements in the movement, of revolution-
ary or republican programmes, of a democratic basis. Th
struggle the Emir of Afghanistan is waging for the inde~
pendence of his country is objectively a revolutionary str ug_
gle, despite the monarchistic views of the Emir and his
entourage, for it weakens, disintegrates and undermines
imperialism, whereas the struggle waged by such "extreme"
democrats and "socialists," "revolutionaries" and republi_
cans, like, for example, Kerensky and Tseretelli, R enaudel
and Scheidemann, Tchernov and Dan, Henderson and Clynes
during the imperialist war, was a reactionary struggle, for it
resulted in putting imperialism in a favourable light, in
strengthening it, and in carrying it to victory. F or the
same reason, the struggle the Egyptian merchants and
bourgeois intellectuals are waging for the independe nce of
their country is objectively revolutionary despite the bour-
geois origin and bourgeois calling of the leaders of the Egyp-
tian national movement, and despite the fact that the y are
opposed to Socialism; whereas the fight the English
Labour Government is waging to perpetuate Great Britain's
domination over Egypt is for the same reasons a reac-
tionary struggle despite the proletarian origin a nd the
proletarian calling of the members of that governme nt and
despite their lip service to Socialism. I will not deal in detail
with the national movement in other more extensive colonial
and dependent countries like India and China, every step of
which along the road to liberation, even though it runs coun-
ter to the formal demands of democracy, is a steam hammer
blow at imperialism, i.e., is undoubtedly a revolutionary step.
Lenin was right in saying that the national movement of
the oppressed countries should be evaluated not fr om the
point of view of formal democracy but from the point of view
of the actual net results obtained as shown by the general
balance sheet of the struggle against imperialism, that is to
say, "not in an isolated way but on a world scale."
'(2) THE LIllERATlON MOVEMENT OF THE OPPRESSED

PEOPLES AND THE PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION
In solving the national question Leninism proceeds from

the following postulates:
(a) the world is divided into two camps; the camp of a
handful of civilised nations which own and control finance
capital and exploit the vast majority of the population of
the globe, and the camp of the oppressed and exploited
peoples i? t?e colonies and dependent countries that comprise
that maJorIty;
(b) the colonies and the dependent countries, oppressed
and exploited by finance capital, constitute the greatest re-
serve power and the most important source of strength of
imperialism;
(c) the revolutionary struggle of the oppressed peoples
in the dependent and colonial countries against imperialism
is the only road that leads to their emancipation from op-
pression and exploitation;
(d) the principal colonial and dependent countries have
already entered upon the path of the national liberation
movementwhich will inevitably bring about a crisis in world
imperialism;
(e) the interests of the proletarian movement in the ad-
vanced countries and of the national liberation movement in
the colonies require that these two aspects of the revolu-
tionary movement shall form a united front against the
common enemy, against imperialism;
(f) the victory of the working class in the developed
countries and the liberation of the oppressed peoples from
the yoke of imperialism are impossible without the formation
and the consolidation of the united revolutionary front;
(g) the formation of a united revolutionary front is im-
possible unless the proletariat of the oppressor nations ren-
der direct and determined support to the liberation move-
ment of the oppressed peoples against the imperialism "of
their own country," for "a nation that oppresses other
nations can never be free" (Marx) ;
(h) this support implies the advocacy and fulfilment of
the slogan of the right of nations to secession and of inde-
pendent existence as a state;
(i) until this slogan has been fulfilled, the unification and
collaboration of nations within a single world system of
economy, which represents the material basis for the victory
of Socialism, will be impossible;
(j) this unification can only come about voluntarily and
must be based on mutual confidence and fraternal int erre-
lations between the nations.
This gives rise to two aspects, two tendencies in t he na-
tional question: the tendency towards political emanci pation
from the shackles of imperialism and towards the forma tion
of an independent national state, which tendency has its
origin in the reaction against imperialist oppression and
colonial exploitation; secondly, the tendency towards eco-
nomic rapprochement among the nations due to the forma-
tion of a world market and of world economics.
"Developing capitalism," says Lenin, "has reveale d two
historical tendencies in the national question. The first is
the awakening of national life and of national movements,
the struggle against all national oppression, the creation of
national states. The second is the development and multi-
plication of all sorts of relations between nations, the
breaking down of national barriers, the creation of the inter-
national unity of capital and of economic life in general, of
politics, of science and so forth. Both tendencies a re the
universal law of capitalism. The first predominates at the
beginning of its development, the second is the earmark of
capitalism fully mature and on the road to its transforma-
tion into socialist society." ("Critical Remarks on the
National Question," Collected Works, First Russian Edition,
Vol.XIX, p. 36.)
For imperialism these two tendencies represent irrecon-
cilable contradictions because imperialism cannot subsist
without the exploitation of colonies and their forcible reten-
tion within the framework of "one integral unit." Imperial-
ism can bring the nations closer to each other only through
annexations and colonial expansions, without which it is gen-
erally speaking inconceivable.
For Communism on the contrary these tendencies are only
two stages of a single process-that of the emancipation of
the oppressed peoples from the yoke of imperialism. Com-
munism is aware of the fact that universal economic fusion
of the various nations is possible only on the basis of mutual
confidence and voluntary agreement; that the formation of a
voluntary union of the peoples must be preceded by the
separation of the colonies from the "integral" imperialist
"unit," by the transformation of the colonies into independ-
ent states.
This necessitates a stubborn, incessant and determined
struggle against the imperialist jingoism of the "Socialists"
of the dominant nations (England, France, America, Italy,
Japan, etc.), who have no desire to fight their imperialist
governments nor support the struggle of the oppressed peo-
ples in "their" colonies for emancipation and for state sepa-
ration.
Unless such a struggle is carried on it will be impossible
to educate the working class of the dominant nations in the
spirit of true internationalism, in the spirit that seeks close
contact with the toiling masses of the dependent countries
and colonies, in the spirit of actual preparation for the
proletarian revolution. The revolution would not have tri-
umphed in Russia, and Kolchak and Denikin would not have
been crushed, if the Russian proletariat did not have on its
side the sympathies and the support of the oppressed peoples
in the former Russian empire. B~t to obtain the sympathies
and the support of these peoples It had first of all to bre k
the chain forged by Russian imperialism and free these pe:.
ples from the yoke of national oppression. 'Without t his it
would have been impossible to firmly establish the soviet
power, to implant true internationalism and to create that
remarkable organisation for the collaboration of nat ions
which is called the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics and
which is the living prototype of the future union of all na-
tions in a single world economic system.
Hence the necessity of fighting against the national insu-
larity and narrowness of the Socialists in the opp ressed
countries who have no desire to look beyond their na tional
"village pump" and who do not understand the connection
between the liberation movement of their country and the
proletarian movement in the dominant countries.
Unless such a struggle is waged it will be impossible for
the proletariat of the oppressed nations to pursue an inde-
pendent policy and maintain class solidarity with the prole-
tariat of the dominant countries in the fight for the
overthrow of the common enemy, in the fight for the over.
throw of imperialism; without such a struggle internation-
alism would be impossible.
This is the way to educate the toiling masses of the domi-
nant and of the oppressed nations in the spirit of r evolu-
tionary internationalism.
Speaking of the twofold task that Communism must carry
out in educating the workers in the spirit of internationalism,
Lenin said:
"Can this education in its concrete application be the
same in the great nations that oppress others and in the
small nations that are being oppressed; in the nations that
annex and in the nations that are being annexed?
"Obviously not! The march towards the single goal-
complete equality, the close rapprochement and the subse-
quent fusion of all nations-obviously proceeds by diverse
paths, just as when we draw a line from the side of a page
towards the middle we must move the point of the pencil
towards the right from the left-hand margin and towards the
left from the right-hand margin. If a Socialist of a great
annexing oppressor nation, in advocating the fusion of na-
tions, forgets even for one moment that 'his' Nicholas II,
'his' Wilhelm II, George V, Poincare and others are also in
favor of 'fusion' with small nations (by annexing them),-
Nicholas II for 'fusion' with Galicia, Wilhelm II for 'fusion'
with Belgium, etc.,-that Socialist will be a ridiculous doc-
trinaire in theory and an abettor of imperialism in practice.
"The weight of internationalist education of the workers
in the oppressor countries must be placed upon the propa-
ganda and advocacy of the right of secession for oppressed
nations. Without this there is no internationalism. It is
our right and duty to treat every Socialist of an oppressor
nation who does not carryon such propaganda as an im-
perialist and as a scoundrel. This is an unconditional de-
mand, even though the chances of such secessions being pos-
sible and 'realisable' before the introduction of Socialism be
equal to one in a thousand. • . .
"On the other hand, the Socialist of a small nation must
place the weight of emphasis in his agitation upon the second
half of our general formula: the 'voluntary association' of
nations. He can, without violating his duties as an inter-
nationalist, favour both the political independence of his
own nation, and its inclusion in neighbouring states-X, Y,
Z, etc. But in every instance he must fight against petty
national narrowness, aloofness and insularity, he must
fight for the whole and the general, for the subordination of
particula:.: interests to general interests.
"People who have not thought over the question properly
see a 'contradiction' between the duty of Socialists of the
oppressor nations to insist upon the 'right of secession' and
84 FOUNDATIONS OF LENIN IS M
the duty of Socialists of the oppressed na t ions to insist u
the 'right o~ union.' But a little.reflectio.n wil! convince t~:~
that there IS no other road to mternatIonalIsm and to th
fusion of nations, that there is no othe r r oad which leade
to this goal from the present position, nor ca n there be an S
other." ("The Discussion on Self-Dete rmina tion Summ~
Up," Collected Works, First Russian Edition, Vol. XIX
pp . 166-198.) ,
VII. STRATEGY AND TACTICS
I WILL take up six questions pertaining to this subject r

(I) strategy and tactics as the science of leadership in the
clasS war; (2) strategy and the stages of revolution; (3)
tactics and the ebb and flow of the movement; (4) strategic
leadership; (5) tactical leadership; (6) reformist tactics
and revolutionary tactics.
(I) STRATEGY AND TACTICS AS THE SCIENCE OF

LEADERSHIP IN THE CLASS WAR
The period of the domination of the Second International

was mainly the period of the formation and instruction of
the proletarian armies in an environment of more or less
peaceful development. This was the period when parlia-
mentarism was the outstanding form of class struggle.
Questions of great class conflicts, of preparing the prole-
tariat for revolutionary combats, of the ways and means
leading to the conquest of the dictatorship of the proletariat,
were not in the forefront in those days. The task was re-
duced to utilising all paths of legal development to form and
instruct the armies of proletarians; to utilise parliamen-
tarism in conformity with conditions under which the prole-
tariat was (and, as it seemed then, was destined to remain)
in the opposition. It need hardly be pointed out that during
such a period and with such a conception of the tasks of the
proletariat, there could be neither complete strategy nor
any elaboration of tactics. There were fragmentary and
detached ideas about tactics and strategy, but no tactics
or strategy per se,
The fatal error of the Second International lies not in
85
having adopted the tactics of utilising in its time t he parlia,
mentary forms of struggle, but in overestimating the im-
portance of these forms, in having considered t hem virt ually
the only forms; and when the period of open r evolutionary
combats arrived and the question of extra-parliament ary
forms of struggle came to the fore, the parties of t he Second
International turned their backs on these new tas ks and
refused to shoulder them.
Only in the subsequent period, the period of di rect action
by the proletariat, in the period of proletarian revolut ion
when the question of the overthrow of the bourgeoisie be~
came a question of immediate application, when t he question
of the reserves of the proletariat (strategy) beca me one of
the most burning questions, when all forms of struggle and
of organisation, parliamentary and extra-parliament ary
(tactics) assumed definite shape--<>nly in this period could
a complete strategy and detailed tactics for the str uggle of
the proletariat be elaborated. It was precisely in that
period that Lenin dragged into the light of day t he brilliant
ideas of Marx and Engels on tactics and strate gy that had
been immured by the opportunists of the Second Interna-
tional. But Lenin did not rest content with res t oring the
isolated tactical theses of Marx and Engels. He developed
them further and supplemented them wit h new ideas and
new theses, correlating them all in a syste m of rules and
guid ing principles for the leadership of the class st ruggle of
the proletariat. Lenin's pamphlets, like What Is To Be
Doner, T wo Tactics, I mperialism, State and R evolution, The
Prol etarian Revolution and the Renegade K autsky, "Left:'
Communism, etc., will doubtlessly be treasured as priceless
contributions to the general store of Marxism and to its
revolutionary arsenal. The strategy and tactics of Lenin-
ism constitute the science of leadership in t he revolut ionary
struggle of the proletariat.
STRATEGY AND TACTICS 87
(2) STRATEGY AND THE STAGES OF REVOLUTION
Strategy is the determination of the direction of the

main blow of the proletariat at a given stage of the revolu-
tion; the elaboration of a corresponding plan of disposition
of the revolutionary forces (the main and secondary re-
serves) ; the struggle to carry out this plan during the whole
period of the given stage of the revolution.
Our revolution had already passed through two stages
and, after the October Revolution, entered upon a third
stage. Our strategy was changed accordingly.
First stage, 1903 to February, 1917.
Aim: to overthrow tsarism and completely liquidate the
survivals of medirevalism.
The main force of the revolution: the proletariat.
Immedia te reserve: the peasantry.
Direction of the main blow: the isolation of the liberal-
monarchist bourgeoisie which was striving to win over the
peasantry and liquidate the revolution by compromising with
tsarism.
Plan for the disposition of forces: alliance of the working
class with the peasantry. "The proletariat must carry the
democratic revolution through to its consummation and at-
tach to itself the masses of the peasantry in order to crush
by force the resistance of autocracy and to counteract the
wavering of the bourgeoisie." (Two Tactics.)
Second stage, February, 1917, to October, 1917.
Aim: to overthrow imperialism in Russia and to withdraw
from the imperialist war.
The main force of the revolution: the proletariat.
Immediate reserve: the poorest section of the peasantry.
Probable reserve: the proletariat of neighbouring coun-
tries.
Favourable circumstances: the protracted war and the
crisis of imperialism.
Direction of the main blow: isolation of the p etty bour-
geois democrats (Mensheviks and Socialists-Revolut ionist s)
who were striving to win over the toiling peasantry and put
an end to the revolution by compromising with imperialism.
Plan for the disposition of forces: alliance of the prole-
tariat with the poorest section of the peasant r y. "The
proletariat must accomplish the socialist revolut ion by rally-
ing to itself the masses of the semi-proletarian element s of
the population in orde r to break the resistance of th e bour-
geoisie by force and counteract the wavering of th e peas-
antry and petty-bourgeoisie." (Ibid.)
T hird stage, after the Oct ober Revolution.
Aim: consolidation of the dictatorship of t he prol etariat
in one country, using it as a fulcrum for the overthrow of
imperialism in all countries. The revolution goes beyond the
confines of one country and the period of world revolution
commences.
The main force of the revolution: the dictat ors hip of the
proletariat in one country and the revolutionar y movement
of the proletariat in all countries.
Main reserves: the semi-proletarian and small p easant
masses in the advanced countries and the libera t ion move-
ment in the colonies and dependent countries.
D irect ion of the main blow: the isolation of the petty-
bourgeois democrats and the isolation of the parties of the
Second International which constitute the main supp or t of
the policy of compromise with imperialism.
Plan for the disposition of forces: alliance of the prole-
tarian revolution with the liberation movement of t he colonies
and the dependent countries.
Strategy deals with the main forces of the revolut ion and
their reserves. It changes with the transition of the r evolu-
tion from one stage to another, but remains essentially un-
changed throughout the entire duration of a g iven st age.
(3) TACTICS AND THE EBB AND FLOW OF THE

MOVEMENT
Tactics is the determination of the line of conduct of the

prol etariat for the comparatively short period of the ebb
or flow of the movement, of the rise or decline of the revo-
lution; it is the struggle for carrying out this line by re-
placing old forms of struggle and of organisation by new
ones, old slogans by new ones, by linking these forms to one
another, etc. While the aim of strategy is to win the war,
let us say against tsarism or against the bourgeoisie, to
carry the struggle against tsarism or against the bour-
geoisie to its bitter end, tactics concern themselves with less
far-reaching aims, as they endeavour not to win the war as a
whole but rather win a particular battle; or to carry through
a particular campaign or action corresponding to the con-
crete circumstances of the rise or decline of the revolution.
Tactics are a part of strategy, subordinate and subservient
to it.
Tactics change according to the ebb and flow. While, for
instance, during the first stage (1903 to February, 1917),
the strategy remained unchanged, tactics changed repeat-
edly during that period. From 1903 to 1905 the Party pur-
sued offensive tactics, the tide of the revolution was flowing,
the movement rose, and tactics had to be adapted to these
circumstances. Accordingly, also the forms of struggle were
revolutionary, in compliance with the requirements of the
flowing tide in the revolution. Local political strikes, politi-
cal demonstrations, the general political strike, the boycott
of the Duma, insurrection, revolutionary fighting slogans-
such were the successive changes which the struggle under-
went during that period. These changes in the forms of
struggle were accompanied by corresponding changes in the
forms of organisation. Factory and shop committees, revo-
lutionary peasant committees, strike committees, councils
(soviets) of workers' deputies, a workers' party agitating
more or less openly-such were the forms of organisation
during that period.
In the period from 1907 to 1912 the Party was compelled
to resort to tactics of retreat as we then experienced a decline
in the revolutionary movement, the tide of the revolution was
at ebb, and tactics necessarily had to take this fact into
consideration. The forms of struggle as well as the forms
of organisation were overhauled in like fashion. In place of
the boycott of the Duma we now have participation in the
Duma; in place of open, direct, revolutionary action outside
of the Duma we have speech-making and the parliamentary
routine in the Duma, economic strikes, or simply a lull in
activities. Of course, the Party had to go underground dur-
ing that period while cultural, educational, co-operative,
insurance and other organisations permitted by the law took
the place of revolutionary mass organisations.
The same must be said of the second and third stages of
the revolution during which tactics changed dozens of times
whereas the strategic plans remained unchanged. Tactics
deal with the forms of struggle and the forms of organisation
of the proletariat, with their changes and correlations.
Tactics may have to be changed several times in the period
of a given stage of the revolution according to the ebb and
flow, the rise and fall of the revolution.
(4) STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP
The reserves of the revolution are:

Direct: (a) the peasantry and in general the intermediate
strata of the population; (b) the proletariat of the neigh-
bouring countries; (c) the revolutionary movement in the
colonies and dependent countries; (d) the gains and achieve-
ments of the dictatorship of thc proletariat, part of which
the proletariat may renounce temporarily whilst retaining
preponderance of power, in order to buy off a powerful
enemy and thus gain a respite; and
Indirect: (a) the contradictions and conflicts between the
non-proletarian classes of the population that can be utilised
by the proletariat to weaken an adversary or to strengthen
its own reserves; (b) contradictions, conflicts and wars (the
imperialist war for instance) between bourgeois states inimi-
cal to the proletarian state which can be utilised by the
proletariat in its offensive or in manoeuvring in the event
of a forced retreat.
There is no need to deal in detail with the reserves of the
first category, as their significance is understood by every
one. As for the reserves of the second category the signifi-
cance of which is not always understood, it must be said that
sometimes they become of prime importance in the course
of the revolution. For instance, the supreme importance of
the conflict between the petty-bourgeois democrats (Social-
Revolutionists) and the liberal-monarchist bourgeoisie (the
Cadets) during the first revolution and afterwards, cannot
be denied, for it undoubtedly played its part in the liberation
of the peasantry from the influence of the bourgeoisie. Still
less can the important fact be denied that the principal
groups of imperialists were engaged in mortal combat among
themselves at the time of the October Revolution when the
imperialists, busy with their internecine strife, were not in
a position to concentrate their forces against the young
soviet power, for which very reason the proletariat was en-
abled to devote its entire attention to the organisation of its
forces and the fortification of its power, and to making
preparations for the rout of Kolchak and Denikin. \Ve
must, therefore, assume that now, when the contradictions
between the imperialist groups become more and more pro-
nounced, when a new war among them is becoming inevitable,
reserves of this description will become more and more im-
portant for the proletariat.
The task of strategic leadership is to utilise properly all
these reserves for the achievement of the basic aims of the
revolution at a given stage of its development.
What does proper utilisation of the reserves mean? It
means complying with several necessary conditions of which
the following may be deemed the principal ones:
First: the concentration of the main forces of the revolu-
tion at the decisive moment at the most vulnerable point of
the enemy, when the revolution has already become ripe, when
the offensive is in full swing, when insurrection knocks at the
door and when the moving up of reserves to the front line
holds success or failure in the balance. The strategy of the
Party during the period covering April to October, 1917,
well illustrates this manner of utilising reserves. At that
time the most vulnerable point of the enemy was undoubt-
edly the war. It was undoubtedly on this very question, a
fundamental one, that the Party rallied the broadest masses
of the population around the proletarian vanguard. The
strategy of the Party during that period was, while training
the vanguard in street action by means of demonstrations,
etc., to bring up the reserves to the vanguard by means of
the soviets in the rear and the soldiers' committees at the
front. The outcome of the revolution has shown that proper
use was made of the reserves.
This is what Lenin, paraphrasing the well-known theses of
Marx and Engels on insurrection, says about this condition
of the strategic utilisation of the forces of the revolution:
"(1) Never play with insurrection, but having commenced
it, make up your mind that it must be carried through to the
end. (2) Accumulate a preponderance of forces at the deci-
sive place, at the decisive moment, for otherwise the enemy, by
virtue of his superior preparations and organisation, will
annihilate the insurgents. (3) Once the insurrection has
begun you must act with the utmost determination and at all
Costs take the offensive. Defense means death to armed
insurrection. (4) Try to take the enemy by surprise, seize
the moment when his troops are scattered. (5) Each day
achieve some measure of success, however small, (one might
say each hour in the case of a single town) and at all costs
maintain the superior morale." (Collected Works, First Rus-
sian Edition, Vol. XIV, Part 2, p. 270.)
Second: the selection of the moment for striking the de-
cisive blow, the moment for initiating the insurrection so
timed as to coincide with the moment when the crisis has
attained its highest pitch, when the preparedness of the
vanguard to fight it out to the very end, the preparedness
of the reserves to support the vanguard and when the con-
sternation in the ranks of the enemy are evident.
"The time for the decisive battle," says Lenin, may be
deemed to be "fully ripe" when "all the class forces hostile
to us have become sufficiently confused, are sufficiently at
loggerheads with each other, have sufficiently weakened them-
selves in a struggle beyond their capacities"; when "all the
vacillating, wavering, unstable, intermediate elements-
the petty-bourgeoisie, petty-bourgeois democracy, in con-
tradistinction to the bourgeoisie-have sufficiently exposed
themselves before the people, have sufficiently disgraced them-
selves through their practical bankruptcy"; when "among
the proletariat a mass mood in favour of supporting the most
determined, unreservedly bold, revolutionary action against
the bourgeoisie has begun to develop and gain strength.
Then, indeed, the time is ripe for revolution; then, indeed, if
we have correctly gauged all the conditions briefly outlined
above, and if we have chosen the right moment, our victory is
assured." ("Left" Communism.)
The accomplishment of the October insurrection may be
taken as a model of such strategy.
Failure to observe this condition leads to a dangerous
error called "loss of tempo," as when the Party lags behind
the course of the movement or runs far ahead of it, courting
the danger of failure. An example of this "loss of tempo,"
of the inopportune choice of the moment of insurrection, may
be seen in the attempt made by a section of our comrades to
commence an uprising set for the time of the arrest of the
Democratic Conference in August, 1917, when hesitation Was
still rife in the soviets, when the front was still at the cross-
roads and the reserves had not yet been brought up to the
vanguard.
Third: a course having been mapped out, it must be pur-
sued no matter what difficulties and complications may be
encountered on the road. This is necessary so that the
vanguard may not lose sight of the ultimate aim of the
struggle and the masses may not stray from the road while
marching to that goal and attempting to rally around the
vanguard. Disregard of this condition leads to a grievous
error well known to sailors as "losing course." As an ex-
ample of this ''loss of course" we may mention the erroneous
conduct of our Party immediately after the Democratic
Conference when it (the Party) adopted a resolution to
participate in the Preliminary Parliament. For the moment
the Party seemed to have forgotten that the Preliminary
Parliament represented an attempt of the bourgeoisie to lead
the country away from the path of the soviets to the path
of bourgeois parliamentarism, that participation by the
Party in any such institution might result in a reshuffling of
all the cards and mislead the workers and peasants who were
waging a revolutionary struggle under the slogan: "All
Power To The Soviets." This error was corrected by the
withdrawal of the Bolsheviks from the Preliminary Parlia-
ment.
Fourth: manreuvring with the reserves calculated to effect
a correct retreat when the enemy is strong, when retreat is
inevitable, when the disadvantages of engaging in a battle
forced upon us by the enemy are known beforehand, when
STRATEGY A1TD TACTICS 95
retreat is the natural way under the given alignment of
forces to ward off a blow from the vanguard and keep the
reserves intact.
"The revolutionary parties," says Lenin, "must complete
their education. They have learned to attack. Now they
must understand that it is necessary to supplement this
knowledge with a knowledge of how best to retreat. They
must understand-and the revolutionary class by its own
bitter experience learns to understand-that victory is im-
possible without having learned both how to attack and
how to retreat correctly." ("Left" Communism.)
The object of this strategy is to gain time, to disintegrate
the enemy, and to accumulate forces in order to assume the
offensive later.
The signing of the Brest-Litovsk Peace may be taken as
an illustration of this strategy, for it enabled the Party to
gain time, to make use of the clashes in the camps of the
imperialists, to disintegrate the forces of the enemy, to re-
tain the support of the peasantry and accumulate forces in
preparation for the attacks upon Kolchak and Denikin.
"In concluding a separate peace," said Lenin, "we free
ourselves as far as is possible at the present moment from
both groups of imperialist belligerents, we make use of their
enmity and warfare which hamper concerted action by them
against us and for a certain period have our hands free to
advance and to consolidate the socialist revolution."
("Theses on Peace," Collected Works, First Russian Edition,
Vol. XV, p. 63.)
"Now even the biggest fool can see that the Brest-Litovsk
Peace was a concession that strengthened us and broke up
the forces of international imperialism," said Lenin, three
years after the Brest-Litovsk Peace.
These are the' principal conditions underlying correct
strategic direction.
(5) TACTICAL LEADERSHIP
Tactical leadership is a part of strategic leadership, sub-

ordinated to the problem of, and the demands made upon,
the latter. The task of tactical leadership is to handle all
the forms of struggle and of organisation of the proletariat
and assure their correct utilisation in order to achieve the
maximum results obtainable with the relative strength of
forces available, the maximum necessary in preparing for
strategic success.
What does the correct utilisation of the forms of struggle
and of organisation of the proletariat mean? It means ful-
filling several necessary conditions of which the following
may be considered the principal ones:
First: to bring to the forefront those forms of struggle
and of organisation which are best suited to the conditions
prevailing during the ebb or flow of the movement and,
therefore, calculated to facilitate and assure the shifting of
the masses to revolutionary positions, the shifting of mil-
lions to the revolutionary front and their assignment to
various posts at the revolutionary front.
The point here is not that the vanguard shall realise the
impossibility of preserving the old order of things and the
inevitability of its collapse, but that the vast masses shall
understand this inevitability and display their readiness to
support the vanguard. But the masses can understand this
only through their own experiences. The task is to enable
the vast masses to understand from their own experiences the
inevitability of the overthrow of the old regime, to bring
into being such methods of struggle and forms of organisa-
tion as will make it easier for the masses to learn from their
own experiences the correctness of the revolutionary slogans.
The vanguard would have become detached from the work-
ing class and the working class would have lost contact with
the mass, if the Party had not decided at the time to partici-
pate in the Duma and if it had not decided to concentrate its
forces on parliamentary work and to carrying on the strug-
gle on the basis of this work in order to enable the masses the
more easily to see from their own experiences the futility of
the Duma, the falsity of the Cadet promises, the impossibility
of compromise with tsarism and the urgency of an alliance
between the peasantry and the working class. Had these
experiences not been imparted to the masses during the period
of the Duma, the Cadets might never have been unmasked
and the hegemony of the proletariat would not have been
achieved.
The danger of the "otzovist"· tactics consisted in that
they threatened to isolate the vanguard from the millions
that it had in reserve.
The Party would have been isolated from the working class
and the working class would have lost its influence among
the broad masses of the peasants and soldiers, if the prole-
tariat had followed in the footsteps of the "Left" Commu-
nists who called for insurrection in April, 1917, when the
process of unmasking the Mensheviks and the Socialists-
Revolutionists as advocates of wa r and of imperialism was
not yet complete and when the masses had not yet had suf-
ficient time to learn from their own experience how false the
speeches of the Mensheviks and the Socialists-Revolutionists
about peace, land and freedom were. Had it not been for
the experiences of the masses gained during the Kerensky
period, the Mensheviks and Socialists-Revolutionists would
not have become isolated and the dictatorship of the prole-
tariat would have been impossible. Therefore the tactics of
"patiently explaining" the mistakes of the petty-bourgeois
parties and of open struggle in the soviets were the only
correct tactics.
• From the Russian otoscat, to recall, a tendency in the Russian Party
to recall the Social-Democratic deputies from the Duma.-Ed.
The danger of the tactics of the "Left" Communists lay
in that they threatened to reduce the Party from the posi-
tion of leader of the proletariat, to that of a band of inane,
uprooted conspirators.
"With the vanguard alone, victory is impossible," says
Lenin. "To throw the vanguard alone into the decisive
conflict-as long as the whole class, as long as the broad
masses have not yet taken up a position either of direct
support of the vanguard or at least of benevolent neutrality
toward it and of absolute incapability of supporting the
enemy-would not merely be folly but an actual crime. And
in order that actually the whole class, that actually the broad
masses of toilers and those oppressed by capitalism may
come to such a position, propaganda and agitation alone are
not sufficient. For this, the masses must have their own
political experience. Such is the fundamental law of all
great revolutions, confirmed now with striking force and
vividness not only in Russia but also in Germany. It has
been necessary-not only for the uncultured, often illiterate,
masses of Russia but for the highly cultured, entirely literate,
masses of Germany-to realise, through their own painful
experience, the absolute impotence and characterlessness, the
absolute helplessness and servility before the bourgeoisie, the
absolute baseness of the government of the knights of the
Second International, the absolute inevitability of a dic-
tatorship of the extreme reactionaries (Kornilov in Russia,
Kapp and Co. in Germany) as the only alternative to a dic-
tatorship of the proletariat, in order to turn them resolutely
toward Communism." ("Left" Communism.v
Second: to locate at any given moment that single link in
the chain of events which if seized upon will enable us to
control the whole chain and prepare the ground for the
achievement of strategic success.
The point here is to single out from tasks confronting the
Party precisely the one that must be handled next, which,
STRATEGY A1\TJ) TACTICS 99
if done, will assure the successful fulfillment of the remaining
tasks.
The importance of this postulate may be illustrated by
two examples, one of which takes us back to the distant past
(the period of the formation of the Party) and the other to
the immediate present (the period of the New Economic
Policy).
In the days when the Party was being formed, when the
confusing multiplicity of circles and organisations had not
yet been unified, when primitive methods and small circles
were disintegrating the Party from top to bottom, when an
ideological confusion was the chief characteristic of our
inner-Party life, the master link in the chain and the princi-
pal task of all the tasks then confronting the Party was the
establishment of an all-Russian illegal newspaper. Why?
Because under the conditions then obtaining an harmonious
Party nucleus capable of uniting these innumerable circles
and organisations into a single organisation could be set up
only through an all-Russian illegal newspaper. Only in this
way could the conditions prerequisite for ideological and
tactical unity be created and the groundwork for the forma-
tion of a real Party be laid.
During the period of transition from war to economic
construction, when industry was in a state of collapse and
agriculture was suffering from the shortage of city manu-
factures, when the union between state industry and peasant
farming became the fundamental condition for successful
socialist construction-at that time the master link in the
chain of events, the fundamental task, was to develop trade.
Why? Because under the conditions of the New Economic
Policy the unity between industry and agriculture could not
be established otherwise than through trade, because, under
N.E.P., production without sale is the death of industry;
because industry can be expanded only through the exten-
sion of sales, through the development of trade, because only
after strengthening our position in the sphere of trade, only
after securing control of trade, only after seizing upon this
link was there any hope of linking up industry with the rural
market and successfully solving other urgent problems so
that the conditions necessary for the building of the founda-
tions of socialist economy may be created.
"It is not enough to be a revolutionary and an adherent of
Socialism or of Communism in general," says Lenin. "What
is needed is the ability to find at any moment that particular
link in the chain which must be grasped with all one's might
to gain control of the whole chain and pass without a hitch
to the next link. . . . For the present . . . this link is
the revival of internal trade under correct state regulation
(guidance). Commerce is the link in the historical chain of
events in the transitional forms of our socialist construction
which we must grasp with all our might." (Collected Works,
First Russian Edition, Vol. XVIII, Part 1, p. 379.)
These are the main conditions which assure correct
tactical leadership.
(6) REFORMIST TACTICS AND REVOLUTIONARY TACTICS
What is the difference between revolutionary tactics and

reformist tactics? Some are of the opinion that Leninism
is opposed to reforms, opposed to compromises and to agree-
ments in general. That is absolutely untrue. Bolsheviks
know as well as anybody else that "every little bit helps,"
that under certain conditions reforms in general, and com-
promises and agreements in particular, are necessary and
useful.
"To carryon a war for the overthrow of the international
bourgeoisie," says Lenin, "a war a hundred times more diffi-
cult, prolonged, and complicated than the most stubborn of
ordinary wars between states, and to refuse beforehand to
manoeuvre, to utilise the conflict (even though temporary)
of interests between one's enemies; to refuse to temporise and
compromise with possible (even though temporary, unstable,
vacillating, and conditional) allies-is not this ridiculous in
the extreme? Is it not as though, in the difficult ascent of a
heretofore unexplored and inaccessible mountain, we were to
renounce beforehand the idea that at times we might have to
go in zigzags, at times to retrace our steps, giving up the
course once selected and trying various others?" ("Left"
Communism.) It is not a question, of course, of reforms or
compromises and agreements, as such, but of the use which
is made of reforms and compromises.
To a reformist, reforms are everything while revolutionary
work is just something to talk about, a diversion. There-
fore, with reformist tactics under the existing bourgeois
system, reforms inevitably serve as an instrument for
strengthening that regime, an instrument that disintegrates
the revolution.
To a revolutionary the opposite is the case; the main thing
is revolutionary work and not reforms, for reforms are mere
by-products of the revolution. Therefore, with revolution-
ary tactics under the existing bourgeois system, reforms
inevitably serve as instruments that disintegrate this system,
intruments that strengthen the revolution-a stronghold for
the further development of the revolutionary movement .
The revolutionist will accept a reform in order to use it
as a means wherewith to link legal work with illegal work, in
order to use it as a screen behind which his illegal activities
for the revolutionary preparation of the masses for the
overthrow of the bourgeoisie may be intensified.
This is what the revolutionary utilisation of reforms and
agreements in an imperialist environment means .
The reformist on the other hand will accept reforms as a
pretext for renouncing all illegal work, to thwart the prepa-
ration of the masses for the revolution and to "rest in the
102 FOUNDATIONS OF LENINISM:
shade" of these reforms that have been "so graciously be-
stowed."
This is what reformist tactics means.
This is the position in regard to reforms and agreements
under imperialism.
The situation changes somewhat, however, after the over-
throw of imperialism, under the dictatorship of the prole-
tariat. Faced by certain conditions and certain attendant
circumstances, the proletarian power may find itself con-
strained to abandon the straight and narrow path leading
to the revolutionary reconstruction of the existing order and
take the path of gradual change, the "path of reform," as
Lenin says in his famous article "On the Importance of
Gold"-a winding path, a path of reforms and concessions
to the non-proletarian classes in order to disintegrate these
classes, give the revolution a respite, collect our forces and
prepare for a new attack. It cannot be denied that, in a
sense, this is a reformist path. There is a fundamental dif-
ference that we must bear in mind, however, and that is that
in this case the reform emanates from the proletarian
state, that it strengthens the proletarian state, that it
procures for it a necessary breathing space, that its purpose
is to disintegrate, not the revolution, but the non-proletarian
classes.
Under such circumstances reforms are converted into their
exact opposites.
The proletarian power is able to adopt such a policy be-
cause and only because the sweep of the revolution in the
preceding period was sufficiently vast and allowed sufficient
leeway to permit of retreat-offensive tactics were tempo-
rarily dropped and defensive tactics, detour tactics, were
adopted.
Thus, while formerly, under the bourgeois regime, reforms
were a by-product of the revolution, now, under the dictator-
ship of the proletariat, the fountain head of these reforms is
STRATEGY A~TJ) TACTICS 103
the revolutionary conquests of the proletariat, which serve
as accumulated reserves in the hands of the proletariat.
"Only Marxism has defined the relation of reforms to
revolution accurately and correctly," says Lenin, "although
Marx could see this relation only from one angle, viz., from
the conditions prevailing in the period preceding the more
or less durable and prolonged victory of the proletariat, at
least in a single country. In such an environment the follow-
ing was the basis of a correct relation: reforms are a by-
product of the revolutionary class struggle of the prole-
tariat• . • . After the victory of the proletariat, in even a
single country, something new enters into the relation of re-
forms to revolution. In principle everything remains as
before, but a change of form takes place which Marx could
not foresee, but which can be conceived only in an atmos-
phere of Marxist philosophy and policy. . . . After the
victory they [that is, the reforms-J.S.] (while still remain-
ing 'by-products' on an international scale) assume in the
victorious country the additional character of a necessary
and legitimate respite where it is palpably evident that, after
the maximum exertion of effort, there are not sufficient
forces for the revolutionary transition to the next stage.
Victory opens up such a 'reserve of power' that something
is left to hold on to even under a forced retreat-something
to hold on to both in the material and moral sense."
VIII. THE PARTY
IN the pre-revolutionary period, in the period of more or

less peaceful development, when the parties of the Second
International were the predominant force in the labour move-
ment and parliamentary forms of struggle were considered
the principal forms, conditions were such that the Party
neither enjoyed nor could enjoy that great and decisive
importance which it acquired afterwards in the midst of
open revolutionary combat. In defending the Second Inter-
national against the attacks that were made upon it, Kautsky
says that the parties of the Second International are instru-
ments of peace and not of war, that for that very reason they
were powerless to take any far-reaching step during the war,
during the period of open revolutionary action by the prole-
tariat. That is absolutely true; but what does it prove?
It proves that the parties of the Second International are
not suitable for the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat,
that they are not militant parties of the proletariat leading
the workers to power, but an election apparatus suitable for
parliamentary elections and parliamentary contests. This
in itself explains why, in the days when the opportunists of
the Second International were dominant, it was not the Party
but the parliamentary fraction that was the fundamental
political organisation of the proletariat. It is well known
that the Party at that time was really an appendage or an
auxiliary of the parliamentary fraction. It is superfluous
to add that under such circumstances and with such a party
at its head, it was utterly impossible to prepare the prole-
tariat for revolution.
With the dawn of the new period, however, matters
changed radically. The new period is a period of open colli-
104
THE PARTY 105
sions between the classes, a period of revolutionary direct
action by the proletariat, a period of proletarian revolution;
it is the period of the immediate mustering of forces for the
overthrow of imperialism, for the seizure of power by the
proletariat. This period confronts the proletariat with new
tasks such as the reorganisation of all party work, of giving
it a new, a revolutionary turn; of educating the workers in
the spirit of the revolutionary struggle for power; of pre-
paring and moving up the reserves; of establishing the
alliance with the proletarians of neighbouring countries;
establishing durable contact with the liberation movement in
the colonies and dependent countries, etc., etc. To imagine
that these new tasks can be undertaken by the old Social-
Democratic parties, steeped as they are in the peaceful
atmosphere of parliamentarism, can lead only to despair and
to inevitable defeat. One might as well consent to be com-
pletely stripped of arms as stand by the leadership of the old
parties after shouldering such tasks. It goes without saying
that the proletariat could not accept such a position. Hence
the necessity for a new party, a militant party, a revolu-
tionary party, bold enough to lead the proletarians to the
struggle for power, with sufficient experience to be able to
cope with the complicated problems that arise in a revolu-
tionary situation, yet sufficiently flexible to steer clear of
any submerged rocks on the way to its goal.
Without such a party it is futile to think of overthrowing
imperialism and achieving the dictatorship of the pro-
letariat.
This new party is the party of Leninism.
What are the special features of this new party?
(1) THE PARTY AS THE VANGUARD OF THE WORKING CLASS
The Party must first of all constitute the vanguard of the

working class. The Party must absorb all the best elements
of the working class, their experience, their revolutionary
spirit and their unbounded devotion to the cause of the
proletari~t. But in order that it may really be the van-
guard, the Party must be armed with a revolutionary theory,
with a knowledge of the laws of the movement, with a knowl-
edge of the laws of the revolution. Without this it will be
impotent to lead the struggle of the proletariat and to draw
the proletariat after it. The Party cannot be a real Party
if it limits itself to registering what the masses of the work-
ing class think or experience, if it drags along at the tail
of the spontaneous movement, if it does not know how to
overcome the inertia and the political indifference of the
spontaneous movement; or if it cannot rise above the ephem-
eral interests of the proletariat, if it cannot raise the masses
to the level of the class interests of the proletariat. The
Party must take its stand at the head of the working class,
it must see ahead of the working class and lead the proletariat
and not trail behind it. In preaching "tailism" the parties
of the Second International have shown that they are ex-
ponents of bourgeois politics which condemn the proletariat
to being a tool in the hands of the bourgeoisie. Only a party
conscious of its function as front line troops of the prole-
tariat and capable of raising the masses to the level of the
class interests of the proletariat is equipped to divert the
stream of the working class from its trade union course and
convert it into an independent political force. The Party is
the political leader of the working class.
I have spoken above of the difficulties encountered in the
struggle of the working class, of the complicated nature of
this struggle, of strategy and tactics, of reserves and ma-
nreuvring operations, of attack and defence. These condi-
tions are no less complicated, if not more so, than war opera-
tions. Who can understand these complicated conditions,
who can give correct guidance to the vast masses of the
proletariat? Every army at war must have an experienced
THE PARTY 107
staff, if it is to avoid certain defeat. All the more reason,
therefore, why the proletariat must have such a general staff
if it is to prevent itself from being routed by its accursed
enemies. But where is this general staff? Only the revolu-
tionary party of the proletariat can serve as this general
staff. A working class without a revolutionary party is
like an army without a general staff. The Party is the mili-
tary staff of the proletariat.
But the Party cannot be merely a vanguard. It must at
the same time be the vanguard of the class, be part of that
class, intimately bound to it with every fibre of its being.
The distinction between the vanguard and the main body of
the working class, between Party members and non-Party
members, will continue as long as classes exist, as long as the
proletariat will continue replenishing its ranks with new-
comers from other classes, as long as the working class as a
whole is deprived of the opportunity of raising itself to the
level of the vanguard. But the Party would cease to be a
party if this distinction were widened into a rupture; if it
were to isolate itself and break away from the non-Party
masses. The Party cannot lead the class if it is not con-
nected with the non-Party masses, if there is no close union
between the Party and the non-Party masses, if these masses
do not accept its leadership, if the Party does not enjoy
moral and political authority among the masses. Recently
two hundred thousand new workers entered our Party. The
remarkable thing about this is that these workers did not
come into the Party, they were sent there by the thousands
of other non-Party members who took an active part in the
acceptance of the new members; unless an application for
membership was endorsed by them, the applicant was not
accepted. This fact proves that the broad masses of non-
Party workers regard our Party as their Party, as a party
near and dear to them, in the expansion and consolidation of
which they are vitally interested and to whose leadership they
willingly entrust their destinies. It goes without saying that
without these intangible moral ties connecting the Party with
the non-Party masses, the Party could never become the
decisive force of its class. The Party is an inseparable part
of the working class.
"We are the party of a class," says Lenin, "and therefore
almost the entire class (and in times of wart during the
period of civil war, the entire class) must act under the
leadership of our Party, must tie up with our Party as
closely as possible. But we would be guilty of Manilovism -
and 'tailism' if we were to suppose that at any time under
capitalism nearly the whole class, or the whole class, will be
able to rise to the class-consciousness and degree of activity
of its vanguard, of its Socialist Party. No sensible Socialist
has ever doubted that under capitalism even the trade union
organisations (which are more primitive and more accessible
to the intelligence of the undeveloped strata) are unable to
absorb nearly the whole, or the whole working class. Merely
deceiving ourselves, shutting our eyes to the immensity of our
task and whittling it down will only result in our forgetting
the distinction between the vanguard and the bulk of the
masses gravitating toward itt forgetting the constant duty
of the vanguard to raise these vast strata higher and higher
until they reach its own level." (One Step Forward, Two
Steps Backward.)
(2) THE PARTY AS THE ORGANrsED DETACHMENT OF THE

WORKING CLASS
The Party is not only the vanguard of the working class .

If it really desires to lead the struggle of the class it must
at the same time be the organised detachment of its class.
Under the capitalist system the Party's tasks are huge and
* Manilov, the hero in Gogol's Dead Souls, typifies the murky senti-
nentalist, full of good intentions, but incapable of doing anything.-Ed.
THE PARTY 109
varied. The Party must lead the struggle of the proletariat
under the exceptionally difficult circumstances of inner as
well as outer development, it must lead the proletariat in its
attack when the situation calls for an attack, it must with-
draw the proletariat from the blows of a powerful opponent
when the situation calls for retreat; it must imbue the
millions of unorganised non-Party workers with the spirit
of discipline and method in fighting, with the spirit of or-
ganisation and perseverance. But the Party can acquit
itself of these tasks only if it itself is the embodiment of
discipline and organisation, if it itself appears as the or-
ganised detachment of the proletariat. Unless these condi-
tions are fulfilled it is idle to talk about the Party really
leading the vast masses of the proletariat. The Party is the
organised detachment of the working class.
The conception of the Party as an organised whole has
become firmly fixed in Lenin's well-known formulation, in
point one of our Party Constitution, in which the Party is
regarded as the sum total of the organisations, and the Party
member as a member of one of the organisations of the Party.
The Mensheviks, who had objected to this formulation as
early as 1903, moved to substitute for it a "system" of self-
enrollment into the Party, a "system" of conferring the
appellation "party member" well nigh promiscuously upon
every "professor" and "student," upon every "sympathiser"
and "striker" who gave support to the Party in one way or
another, but who did not belong and had no inclination to
belong to anyone of the Party organisations.
We need not stop to prove that had this odd "system"
become firmly entrenched in our Party it would have been
inundated with professors and students, it would have de-
generated into a widely diffused, amorphous, disorganised
"body" lost in a sea of "sympathisers," that would have
obliterated the line of demarcation between the Party and
the class and would have frustrated the aim of the Party
to raise the unorganised masses to the level of the vanguard.
It goes without saying that under such an opportunist
"system" our Party would not have been able to accomplish
its mission as the organising nucleus of the working class
during the course of our revolution.
"From Martov's point of view," says Lenin, "the boun-
dary line of the Party remains absolutely unfixed inasmuch
as 'every striker could declare himself a member of the
Party.' What advantage is there in this diffuseness? The
broadcasting of an 'appellation,' carries the danger of intro-
ducing the disruptive idea of identifying the class with the
Party." (Ibid.)
But the Party is not merely the sum total of Party organ-
isations. The Party at the same time represents a single
system of these organisations, their formal unification into a
single whole, permitting of higher and lower organs of lead-
ership, of the submission of the minority to the majority,
where decisions on questions of practice are obligatory upon
all members of the Party. Unless these conditions are ful-
filled the Party is unable to form a single organised whole
capable of exercising a systematic and organised leadership
of the struggle of the working class.
"Formerly," says Lenin, "our Party was not a formally
organised whole, but only the sum of the groups constituting
its part. Consequently, ideological influence was the only
bond between these groups. Now, however, we have become
an organised Party which implies the creation of a power,
the conversion of the authority of ideas into the authority
of power, the subordination of the lower bodies of the Party
to the higher bodies." (Ibid.)
The principle of the minority submitting to the majority,
the principle of leading Party work from a centre, has been
a subject of repeated attacks by wavering elements who ac-
THE PARTY 111
cuse us of "bureaucracy," "formalism," etc. It hardly
needs to be proved that systematic Party work as a whole
and the leadership of the struggle of the working class would
have been impossible without the enforcement of these prin-
ciples. On the organisational question Leninism stands for
the strict enforcement of these principles. Lenin terms the
fight against these principles "Russian nihilism" and "gentle-
man's anarchism," which deserve only to be ridiculed and
thrown aside.
This is what Lenin has to say about these wavering ele-
ments in his book entitled One Step Forward, Two Steps
Backward:
"The Russian nihilist is especially addicted to this gentle-
man's anarchism. To him the Party organisation appears
to be a monstrous 'workshop,' the subordination of the part
to the whole and the submission of the minority to the ma-
jority appears to him to be 'serfdom'; the division of labour
under the leadership of a centre evokes bitter lamentations
about people being reduced to mere 'cogs and pegs'; the bare
mention of the Party rules on organisation calls forth a con-
temptuous grimace and some disdainful remark to the effect
that we could get along without rules . . . . It seems clear,
however, that these outcries against that notorious bureau-
cracy are but an ill-disguised attempt to conceal the personal
distastes of those who make them and for the personnel of
these centres; they are nothing but a figleaf . . . .
"'You are a bureaucrat,' they say in effect, 'because you
were appointed by the Congress without my consent and
against my wishes; you are a formalist because you seek
support in the formal decisions of the Congress and not in
my approval; you do things mechanically in a rough-shod
way because your authority is the "mechanical" majority of
the Party Congress and you do not consult my desire to be
co-opted; you are an autocrat because you do not want to
deliver the power into the hands of the old inner circle.'" ..
(Ibid.)
(3) THE PARTY AS THE HIGHEST FORM OF CLASS

ORGANISATION OF THE PROLETARIAT
The Party is the organised detachment of the working

class. But the Party is not the only organisation of the
working class. The proletariat has in addition a great num-
ber of other organisations which are indispensable in its
struggle against the capitalist system-trade unions, co-op-
eratives, factory and shop organisations, parliamentary
fractions, non-party women's associations, the press, cul-
tural and educational organisations, youth leagues, military
revolutionary organisations (in times of direct revolutionary
action), soviets of deputies, which is the state form of or-
ganisation (where the proletariat is in power), etc. Most
of these organisations are non-party and only a certain part
of them adheres directly to the Party and thus may be
regarded an offshoot of it. All these organisations, under
certain conditions, are absolutely necessary for the working
class, as without them it is impossible to consolidate the
class position of the proletariat in the diversified spheres of
struggle and without them it is impossible to steel the prole-
tariat as the force whose mission it is to replace the bour-
geois order by the socialist order. But how can unity of
leadership become a reality in the face of such a multiplicity
of organisations? What guarantee is there that so great a
number of organisations will not lead to contradiction in
leadership? It might be argued that each of these organisa-
tions carries on its work in its own field in which it spe-
* The "inner circle" here referred to is that of Axelrod, Martov,
Potressov (leading Mensheviks-Ed.) and others who would not submit
to the decisions of the Second Congress and who accused Lenin of being
a "bureaucrat."
THE PARTY 113
cialises and that they do not interfere with one another.

That of course is true. But it is likewise true that the
activities of these organisations ought to be directed into a
single channel, as they serve one class, the proletariat. The
question then arises: who is to determine the line, the gen-
eral direction along which the work of all these organisations
is to be conducted? Where is that central organisation with
the necessary experience to work out such a general line and
also able, because of its authority, to prevail upon all these
organisations to carry out this line, so as to attain unity of
direction and preclude the possibility of working at cross
purposes.
This organisation is the Party of the proletariat.
The Party possesses all the necessary qualifications for
this purpose, because, in the first place, it is the common
meeting ground of the best elements in the class that have
direct connections with the non-party organisations of the
proletariat and frequently lead them; because, secondly, the
Party, as the meeting ground of the best members of the
working class, is the best school for training leaders of the
working class capable of directing every form of organisa-
tion of their class; because, thirdly, the Party, as the best
school for training leaders of its class is, by reason of its
experience and authority, the only organisation capable of
centralising the leadership of the struggle of the proletariat
and in this way transform each and every non-party organi-
sation of the working class into a serviceable functioning
body, a transmission belt linking it with the class. The
Party is the highest form of class organisation of the prole-
tariat.
This docs not mean, of course, that non-party organisa-
tions like trade unions, co-operatives, etc., must be formally
subordinated to Party leadership. It means simply that the
members of the Party who belong to these organisations and
doubtless exercise influence in them, should do all they can
114 FOUNDATIONS OF LENI TISM
to persuade these non-party organisations to draw nearer to
the Party of the proletariat in their work and voluntarily
accept its political guidance.
That is why Lenin says that "the Party is the highest
form of class association of proletarians" whose political
leadership ought to extend to every other form of organisa-
tion of the proletariat.
That is why the opportunist theory of the "independence"
and "neutrality" of the non-party organisations (which
theory is the progenitor of independent parliamentarians
and publicists who are isolated from the Party, and of
narrow-minded trade unionists and officials of co-operatives
whose psychology has become warped into that of petty-
shopkeepers) is wholly incompatible with the theory an d
practice of Leninism.
(4) THE PARTY AS THE ,\VEAPON OF THE DICTATORSHIP

OF THE PROLETARIAT
The Party is the highest form of organisation of t he

proletariat. The Party is the fundamental leading force
within the class of the proletariat and within the organisa-
tions of that class. But it does not follow by any means
that the Party can be regarded as an end in itself, as a
self-sufficing force. The Party is not only the highest for m
of class association of the proletarians; it is at the sa me
time a weapon in the hands of the proletariat for the conquest
of the dictatorship where that has not yet been achieve d ;
for the consolidation and extension of the dictatorship where
it has been already achieved. The Party would not ra nk
so high in importance and it could not overshadow all othe r
forms of organisation of the proletariat if the latter were
not face to face with the question of power, if the existence
of imperialism, the inevitability of wars and the presence of
a crisis did not demand the concentration of all the forces of
THE PARTY 115
the proletariat on one point and the gathering together of
all the threads of the revolutionary movement to repose them
in one hand, to overthrow the bourgeoisie and to establish
the dictatorship of the proletariat. The working class
needs the Party first of all as its general staff, which it must
have to effect a successful revolution. The Russian prole-
tariat would never have established its revolutionary dicta-
torship without a Party capable of rallying to itself the
mass organisations of the proletariat and of centralising the
leadership of the entire movement during the progress of
the struggle.
The proletariat needs the Party not only to achieve the
dictatorship, it needs it still more to maintain and extend its
dictatorship in order to attain complete victory for
Socialism.
"Certainly now almost everyone realises," says Lenin,
"that the Bolsheviks could not have maintained themselves
in power for two and a half years, not even for two and a
half months, without the strictest discipline, in truth iron
discipline in our Party, and without the fullest and unre-
served support rendered it by the great bulk of the working
class, that is, by all those belonging to this class who think,
who are honest, self-sacrificing, influential, and capable of
leading and attracting the backward masses." ("Left"
Communism. )
Now what is meant by "maintaining" and "extending" the
dictatorship? It means to imbue these millions of prole-
tarians with the spirit of discipline and organisation; it means
making the proletarian masses immune against the deterio-
rating influences of petty-bourgeois spontaneity and petty-
bourgeois habits; it means that the organising work of the
proletarians to re-educate and remould the petty-bourgeois
strata must be reinforced; it means that assistance must be
given to the masses of the proletarians in educating them-
selves so that they may become a force capable of abolishing
classes and of preparing the ground for the organisation of
socialist production. But it is impossible to accomplish all
this without a Party, which is strong by reason of its co-
hesion and discipline.
"The dictatorship of the proletariat," says Lenin, "is a
stubborn struggle-sanguinary and bloodless, violent and
peaceful, military and economic, educational and administra_
tive-against the forces and traditions of the old society.
The force of habit of millions and of tens of millions is a
formidable force. Without an iron Party steeled in the
struggle, without a Party enjoying the confidence of all
honest elements in the working class, without a Party capable
of keeping track of and influencing the mood of the masses,
it is impossible to conduct such a struggle successfully."
("Left" Communism.)
The proletariat needs the Party for the achieving and
maintenance of the dictatorship. The Party is the instru-
ment of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
From this it follows that when classes disappear and the
dictatorship of the proletariat will die out, the Party will
also die out.
(5) THE PARTY AS THE EXPRESSION OF UNITY OF WILL,

WHICH Is INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTENCE
OF FACTIONS
Achievement and maintenance of the dictatorship of the

proletariat are impossible without a party strong in its
cohesion and iron discipline. But iron discipline in the
Party is impossible without unity of will and without abso-
lute and complete unity of action on the part of all members
of the Party. This does not mean of course that there will
never be any conflict of opinion within the Party. On the
contrary, iron discipline does not preclude but presupposes
criticism and conflicts of opinion within the Party. Least
THE PARTY 117
of all does it mean that this discipline must be "blind" disci-
pline. On the contrary, iron discipline does not preclude
but presupposes conscious and voluntary submission, for
only conscious discipline can be truly iron discipline. But
after a discussion has been closed, after criticism has run its
course and a decision has been made, unity of will and unity
of action become indispensable conditions without which
Party unity and iron discipline in the Party are incon-
ceivable.
"In the present epoch of intensified civil war," says Lenin,
"the Communist Party can discharge its duty only if it will
be organised with the highest degree of centralisation, ruled
by iron discipline bordering on military discipline, and if its
Party centre will prove to be a potent authoritative body
invested with broad powers and enjoying the general confi-
dence of the Party members." ("Conditions of Admission
into the Communist Internationa1.")
This is the position in regard to discipline in the Party in
the period of the struggle preceding the conquest of the
dictatorship.
The same thing applies, but to a greater degree, to disci-
pline in the Party after the establishment of the dictatorship.
In this connection Lenin said: "Whoever in the least weakens
the iron discipline of the Party of the proletariat (especially
during its dictatorship) actually aids the bourgeoisie against
the proletariat." ("Left." Commwnism.)
It follows that the existence of factions is incompatible
with Party unity and with its iron discipline. It need hardly
be emphasised that the existence of factions leads to the
creation of a number of centres, and the existence of a num-
ber of centres connotes the absence of a common centre in
the Party, a breach in the unity of will, the weakening
and disintegration of discipline, the weakening and disin-
tegration of the dictatorship. It is true that the parties
of the Second International, which are fighting against the
dictatorship of the proletariat and have no desire to lead
the proletarians to power, can permit themselves the luxury
of such liberalism as freedom for factions, for they have no
need of iron discipline. But the parties of the Communist
International, which organise their activities on the basis of
the task of achieving and strengthening the dictatorship of
the proletariat, cannot afford to be "liberal" or to permit
the formation of factions. The Party is synonymous with
unity of will, which leaves no room for any factionalism or
division of Party control.
Hence Lenin's dissertation on the "danger of factionalism
from the point of view of Party unity and of the realisation
of unity of will in the vanguard of the proletariat as the
primary prerequisite for the success of the dictatorship of
the proletariat," which is embodied in a special resolution of
the Tenth Congress of our Party, "On Party Unity."
Hence Lenin's demand for the "complete extermination of
all factionalism" and the "immediate dissolution of all
groups, without exception, that had been formed on the
basis of this or that platform" on pain of "unconditional
and immediate expulsion from the Party." (Ct. The resolu-
tion "On Party Unity.")
(6) THE PARTY Is STRENGTHENED lIY PURGING ITSELF OF

OPPORTUNIST ELEMENTS
The opportunist elements in the Party are the source of

Party factionalism. The proletariat is not an isolated class.
A steady stream of peasants, small tradesmen and intellec-
tuals, who have become proletarianised by the development
of capitalism, flows into the ranks of the proletariat. At the
same time the upper strata of the proletariat-principally
the trade union leaders and labor members of parliament-
who have been bribed by the bourgeoisie out of the super-
profits extracted from the colonies, are undergoing a process
THE PAHTY 119
of decay. "This stratum of bourgeoisified workers," says
Lenin, "this 'labour aristocracy,' who arc completely petty
bourgeois in their mode of life, their incomes and their whole
outlook on life,-is the main bulwark of the Second Interna-
tional and in our time the main social (not military) bulwark
of the bourgeoisie. For these people are veritable agents of
the bourgeoisie in the labour movement, labour lieutenants of
the capitalist class, the real carriers of reformism and chau-
vinism." ("Imperialism and Capitalism," Collected Works,
First Russian Edition, Vol. XVII, pp. 248-49.)
All these petty-bourgeois groups somehow or other pene-
trate into the Party into which they introduce an element of
hesitancy and opportunism, of disintegration and lack of
self-confidence. To them factionalism and splits, disorgani-
sation and the undermining of the Party from within are
principally due.
Fighting imperialism with such "allies" in one's rear is as
bad as being caught between two fires, coming both from the
front and rear. Therefore no quarter should be given in
fighting such clements and their relentless expulsion from
the Party is imperative, as these are conditions precedent
for the successful struggle against imperialism.
The theory of "overcoming" these opportunist elements by
ideological efforts within the Party; the theory of "living
down" these elements within the confines of a single Party
are bad and dangerous theories that threaten to reduce the
Party to paralysis and chronic infirmity, that threaten to
abandon the Party to the corrosive influences of opportu-
nism, that threaten to leave the proletariat without a revolu-
tionary party, that threaten to deprive the proletariat of
its stoutest weapon in the fight against imperialism. Our
Party could not have come out into the open, it could not
have seized power and organised the dictatorship of the
proletariat, it could not have emerged victorious from the
civil war if it had had within its ranks people like Martov
and Dan, Potressov and Axelrod. Our Party succeeded in
creating true unity and greater cohesion in its ranks tha n
ever before mainly because it undertook in time to cleanse
itself from opportunist pollution and expelled the liquidato rs
and Mensheviks from its ranks. If the proletarian pa r t ies
are to develop and become strong, they must purge th em-
selves of opportunists and reformists, social-imperialist s,
social-chauvinists, and social-pacifists. The party becomes
strong by ridding itself of opportunist elements.
" 'Vith reformists and Mensheviks in its ranks," sa ys
Lenin, "we cannot be victorious in the proletarian revolut ion
nor can we defend it against attack. This is clearly so on
principle, and it has been confirmed by the experiences of
R ussia and Hungary. . .. R ussia found itself in a tight
place many a time, when the soviet regime would have been
overthrown for certainty had the Mensheviks, reformists or
petty-bourgeois democrats remained within our P a r ty. . . .
It is generally admitted that in Italy events are heading
toward decisive battles with the bourgeoisie for the capture
of state power. At such a time not only does the remov al of
the Mensheviks, reformists and Turatists from the P arty
become absolutely necessary but it may even be useful to
remove certain excellent Communists who might and who
do waver in the direction of desiring to maintain 'unity'
with the reformists,-to remove these from all resp onsible
positions. . . . On the eve of the revolution, in the midst
of the desperate struggle for victory, the slightest hesita ncy
within the Party is apt to ruin everything, to cause the r evo-
lution to miscarry and to snatch the power from the ha nds
of the proletariat, since that power is as yet insec ure and
the attacks upon it are still extremely violent. The ret ire-
ment of wavering leaders at such a time does not weaken but
strengthen the Party, the labour movement and the revolu-
tion." ("The False Speeches About Freedom," Collect ed
Works, First Russian Edition, Vol. XVII, pp. 372-3.)
IX. STYLE IN WORK
WE are not concerned here with literary style. What I

have in mind is style in the work, those particular and pe-
culiar features inherent in the practice of Leninism which
give rise to the special type of the Leninist worker. Lenin-
ism is a school of theory and practice which trains a special
type of worker for the Party and the state and creates a
special Leninist style. 'What are the special features of
this style?
There are two special features: (a) the wide outlook of
the Russian revolutionist and (b) American practicality.
The style of Leninism combines these two special features
in Party and State work.
The wide outlook of the Russian revolutionist is an anti-
dote against routine, conservatism, mental stagnation and
slavish submission to ancestral traditions. This outlook is
the vivifying force which awakens thought, pushes forward,
breaks with the past and opens up perspectives. Without it
no progress can be made. But the chances are that in prac-
tice it will degenerate into empty "revolutionary" phrase-
mongering if not combined with applied American practi-
cality in work. Examples of this degeneration are only too
numerous. 'Who does not know the disease of "revolution-
ary" construction and "revolutionary" planning which
springs from the belief that by means of decrees everything
can be arranged and reformed. A Russian writer, I. Ehren-
burg, in his story, "The Perfect Communist Man," has por-
trayed the type of "Bolshevik" afflicted with this "disease,"
who set himself the task of finding a formula that would
lead to the ideological perfection of man, but he "suc·
cumbed" to his "task." Some gross exaggerations are spun
121
into this yarn, but it describes the disease very well. But
no one has so ruthlessly and bitterly ridiculed those afflicted
with this disease as did Lenin. Lenin stigmatised this un-
wholesome belief in plans and decrees as "Communist vanity."
Lenin said: "By Communist vanity I mean the case of a
man who is still a member of the Communist Party, who has
not yet been expelled from the Party and who imagines that
he can solve all his problems by merely turning out Com-
munist decrees." (Collected Works, First Russian Edition,
Vol. XVIII, Part 1, p. 354.)
Lenin usually contrasted hollow "revolutionary" mouth-
ings with plain everyday work, emphasising in this way that
"revolutionary" creativeness is alien to the letter and spirit
of genuine Leninism.
"Let us have less high-falutin phrases and more of simple
everyday deeds . . ." says Lenin. "Let us pay less attention
to political clatter and more to the simpler but more tangible
. . . facts of Communist construction . . ." (Collected
Works, First Russian Edition, Vol. XVI, p. 256.)
American practicality on the other hand is an antidote to
"revolutionary" phrase-mongering and flights of "revolu-
tionary" fancy. American practicality is that indomitable
spirit that does not know nor will not be deterred by any ob-
stacle, that plugs away until with business-like perseverance
any and every impediment has been removed, that simply
must go through with a job once it has been tackled even if
it be of minor importance, and without which serious con-
structive work cannot be thought of. But American practi-
cality incurs the great risk of degenerating into narrow and
unprincipled commercialism unless it is imbued with the wide
outlook of the Russian revolutionist. Who has not heard
of that disease of narrow practicality and unprincipled com-
mercialism which has caused the degeneration of certain
"Bolsheviks" and their abandonment of the cause of the
revolution? 'Ve find a reflection of this peculiar malady in a
STYLE IN WORK 123
tale by B. Pilniak entitled The Barren Year, which depicts
types of Russian "Bolsheviks" full of zeal and resolve to do
things, who "function" quite "energetically," but without
vision, without knowing "what it was all about" and there-
fore stray from the path of revolutionary work. No one has
been more incisive in his ridicule of this disease of commer-
cialism than Lenin. He branded it as "narrow practi-
cality," "brainless commercialism"; he usually contrasted it
with vital revolutionary work and the necessity of having a
revolutionary perspective in all activities involved in our
daily work, emphasising at the same time that this unprin-
cipled commercialism is as repugnant to genuine Leninism as
are flight s of "re yolut iona ry" fancy.
The combination of the wide outlook of the Russian revo-
lutionist and American practicality is the quintessence of
Leninism in Party and State work.
Only this union will produce the finished type of Leninist
worker, the Leninist style of work.
INDEX
A ist-imperialism, 12, 31; struggles

of, 73-84.
"Address to Communist League," Communist International, 117,
40. 118; conditions of admission in,
Agriculture, in Russia and West, 117.
70. Communist Manifesto, 16.
Anarchism, 111. Communist Party, 104-123; as
Antagonisms, under capitalism, 12, highest form of class organisa-
31-32. tion of proletariat, 112-114; as
Army, under Soviet power, 56. organised detachment of working
class, 112; as unity of will, 116-
118; as vanguard of working
class, 104-108; as weapon of
Basle Congress, 23. dictatorship of proletariat, 114-
Beginning of Revolution, 33-34. 116; incompatibility of existence
Bolsheviks, 94,100,122. of factions within, 116-118;
Bourgeoisie, breaking resistance of, purging of opportunist elements
45; resistance of, 47; strength of within, 118-120; Third Congress
after Revolution, 46-47; suppres- of, 37.
sion of by dictatorship of pro- Communist vanity, 122.
letariat,53. Communism, education of workers
Bourgeois revolution, 61, 62; in in internationalism under, 82;
Russia, 16-17. emancipation of oppressed people
Brest-Litovsk Peace, 95. under, 81.
Conquest of power, 38.
Contradictions, within imperial-
ism, 11-13, 33, 81, 91; in pre-
Cadets, 60, 61, 64, 91, 97. revolutionary Russia, 15.
Capitalism, causes for breakdown Cooperatives, 70, 71, 72.
of, 12. Crisis, intensification of in capital.
Central cooperatives, 71. ist countries, 31; pre-requisite
Chauvinism, 15. for revolution, 32-34.
Civil war, 67. Criticism, within Communist Party,
Civil War in France, 51. 116,117.
Class organisation of proletariat, Cultural autonomy, of oppressed
112-114. people, 74.
Class war, strategy and tactics of,
85-86.
Classes, extinction of, 45, 47. D
Coalition, between proletariat and
colonial people, 32. Demands, under capitalism, 28.
Colonial people, causes for revolu- Democracy, nature of under capital-
tionary developments among, 12- ism, 51; proletarian, 51.
13; oppression of under capital. Democratic demands, 40.
125
126 INDEX
Democratic revolution, 36; trans- 12; the eve of socialist revolu-
formation of into proletarian tion, 32.
revolution, 42. Imperialism, the Highest Stage of
Developing capitalism, historical Oapitalism, 31, 32, 86.
tendencies of, 80. Imperialist powers, contradictions
Dictatorship of Proletariat, 37, 44- between, 12.
57. Imperialist war, 13,32,63.
Discipline, in Communist Party, Importance of theory, for prole-
116-117. tarianmovement,26-27.
Dogma, as opposed to revolut.ion- India, possibilities of revolution in,
ary theory, 23; of Second Inter- 34.
national, 20 ff. Industry, in pre-revolutionary Rus-
Domination of finance capital, 30- sia,62·63.
31. "Inner Circle" 112
Dumas, 61, 64, 89, 90, 97. Intellectuals, ' attit~de toward, 21-
22.
International capital, reserve
strength of, 46.
East, possibilities of revolution in, Internationalism, 82, 83.
35. Iskra, 29, 37.
Ebb and flow, 96; tactics of during
revolutions, 89-90.
Economism, 29.
Economists, theories of, 28-29. Judicial apparatus, under Soviet
Engels, 16,22,27,51,68,69,92. State, 56.
Export of capital, 30; to colonies,
31. K
Kautsky, 24, 29, 30, 50,104.
Factionalism, impermissibility of, Kerensky, 78, 94; period of, 65, 66.
118. "Khyoatism," 28.
February Revolution, 61. Kornilov insurrection, 65.
Finance capital, 30-31. Kugelmann, 51.
Financial groups, antagonism be-
tween under capitalism, 11-12.
Forces of production, theory of, 29,
30. Labour and capital, contradictions
between, 11.
G Labour aristocracy, bulwark of
Second International, 119.
General strike, 22-23. "Left" Oommunism: An Infantile
Germany, possibilities of revolution Disorder, 23, 24, 42, 47, 86, 93,
in, 34-35; revolutionary move- 95,98,101,115,116,117.
ment in, 16. "Left" Communists, 97, 98.
Legal means, attempts of Second
H International to attack capital-
ism through, 18.
Historical Roots of Leninism, 11- Lenin, 17, 18,24,25,26,27,29,31,
17. 35,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,
45,46,47,48,52,56,70,71,72,
77,78,80,92,95, 100, 102, 103,
Imperialism, basis of, 30; contra- 109,110, Ill, 115, 117, 119,
dictions of, 11-13; objectives of, 120,122,123.
INDEX 127
Leninism, attitude on .pea sant ques-
ti on, 58-72; hi st or ical roots o~,
11-17' meth od of, 18-25; on pOSI- Paclflcism, 15.
t.ion 'a nd r ole of Communist Paris Commune, 57.
Party, 104-123; position. of on Parliamelltarism,85,86.
Di ct at or shi p of Prolc~aTlat, 44- Part ies, function and rule of, 30.
47 ; posi t ion of on n at ion al qu~ s Party Congress, Ill.
tion 73-84; st ra t egy and tactics Peasant question, 58-72.
of, 85-103 ; th eory of, ~6-43 . . Pea sant ll'ar in Germany, 21.
Li~~~I~\i~~s,~~~~~ent, ID colonial Peasantry, as allies of prol etariat,
58 ti.: during bourgeois demo-
"Los s of Tempo, " in revolutionary cratic revolution, 60-64; after
strategy, 93-94.
~~~s~l~:;'~~~eo:f sf~'iS~,;~t~~?o~
::r~a:::;~l~t~~: 6t~~~grlJ:o~t
40,41.
"~Ianilovi sm," 108. Permanent revolution, adherents of
i.i~~~~vi6~\08, \1~'21, 25, 29, 40, 47, theory of, 39-43.
Petty bourgeois influence, struggle
48,51,52,77:80,92. . . against, 48.
Marxism, relation of LCDImsm to, Plekhanov, 26, 27.
J[:;:~ialism and Empirio-Oriti-
Power, position of opportunists to-
ward seizure of, 20-21; question
M~~~~;rd, role of, 48-49.
of44 ft.
Prcliminary parliament, 94.
Mensheviks, 41, 48, 51, 65, 66, 67, Proletarian democracy, 51.
87,97,109,120. Proletarian Revolution and the
Method, of Marxism, 18-25. RenegadeKautsky,24,38,43,53,
Monopoli st capitalism, 30-31. 86.
Monopoly, under capitalism, II. Proletarian Revolution, theory of,
"Moribund capitalism," II. 30ft·
Provisional government, 66.
N Purging, of opportunist elements
within Communist Party, 118-
National states, cre a t ion of, 80. 120.
National que stion, 73-84.
New Economic Policy, 72, 99.
Nihilism, Ill.
R
Reformist tactics, difference of from
Objectivc conditions, rOle of for revolutionary tactics, 100-103.
proletarian revolution, 32-33. Reserves, of Revolution, 90-91.
One Step Forward, Two Steps Back- Resolutions, of Second Interna-
ward, 25, 108, Ill. tional,23.
Opportunism, basis of, 28; of Sec- Restoration of power, attempts of
ondIntcrnational,18ft· bourgeoisie at, 45-46.
OP~~~~I~i:i p~~;;,i~~8_f~0. from Retreat, recognition of necessity
for in Leninist tactics, 94-95.
Oppressed peoples, struggles of, 73- Revolutionary tactics, 100-103.
84. Roots of Leninism, Il-17.
"Otzovist" tactics, 97. Russia, as home of Leninism, 13 fl.
128 INDEX
Strikes, general, 22-23.
Struggles of proletariat, various
Science of leadership, strategy and methods of, 22-23.
tactics of in class war, 85-86. Subject countries, 31.
Secession, right of for oppressed
nations,80,83.
Second International, 35; errors in
strategy and tactics of, 85-86; on Tactical leadership, 96-100.
national question, 73, 74, 75; op- Tactics, of Leninism, 85-103.
portunism of, 18 fI.j parties of, "Tailism," in parties of Second In-
104-105; position of toward peas- ternational, 106.
antry,5!l. Technicians, attitudes toward, 21-
Seizure of power, position of op- 22.
portunists toward, 20-21. Tenth Congress, of Communist
Self-criticism, 20, 25; fear of by Party, 37, 118.
Second International, 24. Theory, of Leninism, 26-43; of
Self-determination, of oppressed spontaneity, 28-30.
peoples, 74. Trade unionism, ideology of, 28.
Slogans, !l4; of Second Interna- Transition period, from capitalism
tional,23. to Communism, 47.
Small scale production, 46-47. Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in
Social-chauvinism, 15. Democratic Revolution, 36, 37,
Social-Democracy and Provisional 38,86,87.
Revolutionary Government, 37.
Social-Democratic parties, 104-105. U
Social-pacificism, 15.
Social Revolutionists, 91. Uneven development, of capitalist
Socialism, prerequisites for com- countries, 31.
plete victory of,43,44 fl.>' rOle of United front, of proletariat and
Communist Party in attainment colonial people, 32, 79-80; of
of complete victory for, 115. revolutionary movements in all
Socialist Revolutionary Party, 64, countries, 33.
65; struggles of with Bolsheviks,
66,67. v
Socialist society, transformation to,
80. Vanguard, role of, 28-30; of work-
Soviet power, main characteristics ing class, 105-108.
of, 55-57; as the state form of Vanity, communist, 122.
the dictatorship of the prole- Violence, against bourgeoisie, 49.
tariat, 53-57.
Soviets, 54-57. W
Spheres of influence, 31.
Spontaneity, criticism of theory of, War, causes of under capitalism,
28-30. 12; imperialist, 13; inevitability
Stages of revolution, strategy of, of under imperialism, 32; Lenin-
87-88. ist policy toward, 2::1.
Strategic leadership, !l0-95. What Is To Be Done? 17, 27, 29,
Strategy of Leninism, 85-103. 86.
State, role of, 49-50; withering World Economy, 31, 32, 80.
away of, 56. World front, of proletarian revolu-
State and Revolution, 50, 52, 86. tion, 32-33.
rUE LITTLE LENII LIBRAR Y T
Lenin's shorter writings end selections dealing with special topics.

I. The Teachings of Karl M.rL $ .15 II . The Threatening Catastrophe . . $ .20
2. The War and The Second 12. Will The Bolsheviks Retain State
~~[¥~~~~~~~=:= =: ~l:~ (1 ~ ~}i~t~ l:~\~ ·,' ~· ! :- ! !

9. The Tasks of The Prol.tarlat In
10. ~: :;;i~I~~on~e~~-~~;··====::::::::::::::: :~~
19. Problems of Leninism,
20. ~lett~w:~g~tag~~~~~i;;······ :::::.::J :~~
LeninislD. hy Joseph Stalin

A systemetic presentation of the. fundamental principles and ta ctics of
Communism. In 2 vols. Each, $2.50
T h e Life and Tea~hings of V. I. Lenin.

h y R. PallDe Butt
A popular outline of Leninism egainst the background of world events.
$.50
Biale~ti~al :llaterialisln, hy V. Adorats k y
A dear end concise exposition of the, theoreticel foundation of
Marxism-Leninism. $.50
MARXIST STUDY COURSES

ensVl~s,s~~ii~: bl: f:;~~di~fd~:isst~Ody:~r~i~:sc::;r.letTh:il~ssdn~e~~~n ~ss~:~
in parts at regular intervals. Each lesson, $.15
I. Political Economy, 13 lessons.
2. History of the Working Class, 4 lessons.
INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHERS
361 Fourth Avenue ' New York
The drawing on the front cover is by Oehni, in the Moscow Pravda.

FoundationsOfLeninism PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

FoundationsOfLeninism PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Joseph

TIDS BOOK IS COMPOSED AND PRINTED BY UNION LABOR

I. THE HISTORICAL ROOTS OF LENINISM 11

II. THE METHOD. • • • • • • 18

IN the Foundations of Leninism we are confronted with a

lution, in order to defend and maintain tsarism? Obviously

I SAID above that between Marx and Engels on the one

appearances, they always, of course, .refer~ed to the ~heory

Lenin replies to those gentlemen of the Second International.

and organising the proletarian masses on the eve of an ~~t~ck

Int~rnational Conference of Socialist Parties held at Basle, Switzer-

openly, to lay bare its causes, to analyse the situation wh!ch

(1) THE IMPORTANCE OF THEORY

Some are of the opinion that Leninism signifies the prece-

(2) CRITICISM: OF THE "THEORY" OF SPONTANEITY, OR T Il:

The "theory" of spontaneity is the theory of opportunism

working class for t~e ~ve~throw of tsarism, to. preach pure

a factor as the "level of the forces of production"?

(3) THE THEORY OF THE PROLETARIAN REVOLUTIO N

The Leninist theory of the proletarian revolution is basec :

in individual countries ~r, to. be mor~ ex~ct, in t?is or that

to overcome the vacillations of ~he. bourgeoi~ie. The p:o-

movement of a few mon~hs but of m~ny years, so that it rnay

"Everything came to pass just as we had said it would.

of the world will be sufficiently advanced to put an. end to

. al crisis affecting both the exploited and the etoploiter,

I ~L discuss th.ree fund~mental points bearing on

,(1 ) THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLET ARIAT AS TilE

The question of the proletarian dictatorship is abo'"e

course of a long and difficult mass struggle aga inst t he In

(2) THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIA T AS THE

From the foregoing it is quite obvious that the dictat

(3.) THE SOVIET POWER AS THE STATE FORM: OF THE

The victory of the dictatorship of the proletariat signifies

I WILL deal with four phases of this subject: (1) t he pres

(1) PRESENTATION OF THE P R OB L E M

Some think the fundamental thing in Leninism is th

'(2) THE PEASANTRY DURING THE BOURGEOIS-DEMOCRATI C

This period extends from the first Russian revolution

(3) THE PEASANTRY DURING THE PROLETARIAN

This period extends from the February Revolution of 19t

hort period, lasting a~t?gethe~ eight months; but fr~m the

fraining which the masses received, th:se .eIght months can

(4) THE PEASANTRY AFTER THE SOVIET POWER

During the first period of the revolution, everything

be ?f ~se in orga~ising the work of laying the foundation of

I WILL deal with the two principal phases of this question:

In the course of the last twenty years the national ques-

'(2) THE LIllERATlON MOVEMENT OF THE OPPRESSED

In solving the national question Leninism proceeds from

I WILL take up six questions pertaining to this subject r

(I) STRATEGY AND TACTICS AS THE SCIENCE OF

The period of the domination of the Second International

(2) STRATEGY AND THE STAGES OF REVOLUTION

Strategy is the determination of the direction of the

(3) TACTICS AND THE EBB AND FLOW OF THE

Tactics is the determination of the line of conduct of the

(4) STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP

The reserves of the revolution are:

(5) TACTICAL LEADERSHIP

Tactical leadership is a part of strategic leadership, sub-

(6) REFORMIST TACTICS AND REVOLUTIONARY TACTICS

What is the difference between revolutionary tactics and

[¥~~~~~=:= =: ~l:~ (1 ~ ~}i~t~ l:~\~ ·,' ~· ! :- ! !