ON THE STRUGGLE AGAINST REVISIONISM.

Finally, another fundamental question in Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is the struggle against revisionism. This is a necessary, constant and implacable struggle in defense of the ideology of the proletariat, and it is indispensable for the development of the revolution, the conquest of power and to persist in the emancipation of humanity by way of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the leadership of Communist Parties. In the time of Marx and Engels, in September 1879, they unmasked the bourgeois and reformist essence of the program upheld in the so-called "Retrospective look at the socialist movement," an article written by E. Bernstein, among others, the latest pontificator of the old revisionism:

I shall not inquire whether and to what extent this is historically true. The specific charge against Schweitzer is that Schweitzer trivialized Lassalleanism, here regarded as a bourgeois democratic-philanthropic movement, into a one-sided struggle of the industrial workers to promote their own interests trivialized it by emphasizing its character as a class struggle of industrial workers against the bourgeoisie. He is further charged with having 'repudiated bourgeois democracy'. But has bourgeois democracy any business to be in the Social-Democratic Party at all? If it consists of 'honest men', it surely cannot wish to join, and if it nevertheless wishes to join, this can only be for the purpose of stirring up trouble.

Thus, in the view of these gentlemen the Social-Democratic Party ought not to be a one-sided workers' party but a many-sided party of 'all men imbued with a true love of mankind'. This it is to prove, above all, by divesting itself of crude proletarian passions and applying itself, under the direction of educated philanthropic bourgeois, 'to the formation of good taste' and 'the acquisition of good manners' (p. 85). After which the 'seedy appearance' of some of the leaders would give way to a respectable 'bourgeois appearance'. (As though the outwardly seedy appearance of those referred to here were not the least that could be held against them!) After which, too, there will be an influx of supporters from the ranks of the educated and propertied classes. These, however, must first be won over if the ... agitation engaged in is to have perceptible results . . . '. German socialism has laid 'too much stress on winning over the masses, thus omitting to prosecute vigorous' (!) 'propaganda amongst the so-called upper strata of society'. For 'the party still lacks men who are fit to represent it in the Reichstag'. It is, however, 'desirable and necessary to entrust the mandates to men who have had the time and the opportunity to become thoroughly conversant with the relevant material. Only rarely and in exceptional cases do . . . the simple working man and small master craftsman have sufficient leisure for the purpose'.

Therefore, elect bourgeois! In short, the working class is incapable of emancipating itself by its own efforts. In order to do so it must place itself under the direction of 'educated and propertied' bourgeois who alone have 'the time and the opportunity' to become conversant with what is good for the workers. And, secondly, the bourgeois are not to be combated not on your life but won over by vigorous propaganda.

If, however, you wish to win over the upper strata of society, or at least their well-intentioned elements, you mustn't frighten them not on your life. And here the Zurich trio believe they have made a reassuring discovery:

'Now, at the very time it is oppressed by the Anti-Socialist Law, the party is showing that it does not wish to pursue the path of forcible, bloody revolution, but rather is determined . . . to tread the path of legality, i.e., of reform.'

If, therefore, the 5-600,000 Social-Democratic voters, 1/10 to 1/8 of the total electorate and dispersed, what is more, over the length and breadth of the country have sense enough not to beat their heads against a wall and attempt a 'bloody revolution' with the odds at one to ten, this is supposed to prove that they will, for all time, continue to deny themselves all chance of exploiting some violent upheaval abroad, a sudden wave of revolutionary fervor engendered thereby, or even a people's victory won in a clash arising therefrom! Should Berlin ever be so uneducated as to stage another 18 March*, it would behoove the Social-Democrats not to take part in the fighting as 'louts besotted with barricades' (p. 88) but rather to 'tread the path of legality', to placate, to clear away the barricades and, if necessary, march with the glorious army against the one-sided, crude, uneducated masses. Or if the gentlemen insist that's not what they meant, then what did they mean?

But there's better in store. 'Hence, the more calm, sober and considered it' (the Party) 'shows itself to be in its criticism of existing circumstances and its proposals to change the same, the less likelihood is there of a repetition of the present successful move' (introduction of the Anti-Socialist Law) 'by means of which conscious reaction has scared the bourgeoisie out of their wits by holding up the red specter' (p. 88).

In order to relieve the bourgeoisie of the last trace of anxiety, it is to be shown clearly and convincingly that the red specter really is just a specter and doesn't exist. But what is the secret of the red specter, if not the bourgeoisie's fear of the inevitable life-and-death struggle between itself and the proletariat, fear of the unavoidable outcome of the modern class struggle? Just abolish the class struggle, and the bourgeoisie and 'all independent persons' will 'not hesitate to go hand in hand with the proletarians'! In which case the ones to be hoodwinked would be those selfsame proletarians.

Let the party, therefore, prove, by its humble and subdued demeanor, that it has renounced once and for all the 'improprieties and excesses' which gave rise to the Anti-Socialist Law. If it voluntarily undertakes to remain wholly within the bounds of the Anti-Socialist Law, Bismarck and the bourgeoisie will, no doubt, oblige by rescinding what would then be a redundant law!

'Let no one misunderstand us'; we don't want 'to relinquish our party and our programmed but in our opinion we shall have enough to do for years to come is we concentrate our whole strength, our entire energies, on the attainment of certain immediate objectives which must in any case be won before there can be any thought of realizing more ambitious aspirations.'

Then, too, the bourgeois, petty-bourgeois and workers, who 'are now scared off . . . by ambitious demands', will join us en masse. The program is not to be relinquished, but merely postponed for some unspecified period. They accept it not for themselves in their own lifetime but posthumously, as an heirloom for their children and their children's children. Meanwhile they devote their 'whole strength and energies' to all sorts of trifles, tinkering away at the capitalist social order so that at least something should appear to be done without at the same time alarming the bourgeoisie.

There you have the program of the three censors of Zurich. As regards clarity, it leaves nothing to be desired. Least of all so far as we're concerned, since we are still only too familiar with all these catchphrases of 1848. There are the voices of the representatives of the petty bourgeoisie, terrified lest the proletariat, impelled by its revolutionary situation, should 'go too far'. Instead of resolute political opposition general conciliation; instead of a struggle against government and bourgeoisie an attempt to win them over and talk them round; instead of defiant resistance to maltreatment from above humble subjection and the admission that the punishment was deserved. Every historically necessary conflict is reinterpreted as a misunderstanding and every discussion wound up with the assurance: we are, of course, all agreed on the main issue. The men who in 1848 entered the arena as bourgeois democrats might now just as well call themselves Social-Democrats. To the former, the democratic republic was as unattainably remote as the overthrow of the capitalist order is to the latter, and therefore utterly irrelevant to present political practice; one can conciliate, compromise, philanthropies to one's heart's content. The same thing applies to the class struggle between proletariat and bourgeoisie. On paper it is recognized because there is no denying it any longer, but in practice it is glossed over, suppressed, emasculated. The Social Democratic Party should not be a workers' party, it should not bring upon itself the hatred of the bourgeoisie or, for that matter, of anyone else; above all, it should prosecute vigorous propaganda amongst the bourgeoisie; instead of laying stress on ambitious goals which are calculated to frighten off the bourgeoisie, and unattainable anyway in our own generation, it should rather devote all its strength and energies to those petty-bourgeois stopgap reforms which provide new props for the old social order and which might, perhaps, transform the ultimate catastrophe into a gradual, piecemeal and, as far as possible, peaceable process of dissolution. These are the same people who keep up an appearance of ceaseless activity, yet not only do nothing themselves but also try to ensure that nothing at all is done save chin-wagging; the same people whose fear of any kind of action in 1848 and '49 held back the movement at every step and finally brought about its downfall; the same people who never see reaction and then are utterly dumbfounded to find themselves at last in a blind alley in which neither resistance nor flight is possible; the same people who want to confine history within their narrow philistine horizons, and over whose heads history invariably proceeds to the order of the day.

As for their socialist import, this has already been adequately criticized in the Manifesto, Chapter: 'German, or "True" Socialism**'. Wherever the class struggle is thrust aside as a distasteful, 'crude' manifestation, the only basis still left to socialism will be a 'true love of mankind' and empty phrases about 'justice'. ... As for ourselves, there is, considering all our antecedents, only one course open to us. For almost 40 years we have emphasized that the class struggle is the immediate motive force of history and, in particular, that the class struggle between bourgeoisie and proletariat is the great lever of modern social revolution; hence we cannot possibly cooperage with men who seek to eliminate that class struggle from the movement. At the founding of the International we expressly formulated the battle cry: The emancipation of the working class must be achieved by the working class itself. Hence we cannot cooperate with men who say openly that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves, and must first be emancipated from above by philanthropic members of the upper and lower middle classes.

* This refers to the revolutionary struggle on the barricades that took place in Berlin on the 18th and 19th of March 1848 ** See The Communist Manifesto, Chapter III, point C.

Lenin developed an extraordinary struggle against the old revisionism whose bankruptcy produced the First World War. He said: "Revisionism, or the 'revising' of Marxism, is today one of the principal manifestations, if the principal one, of the influence of the bourgeoisie on the proletariat and of bourgeois corruption of the proletarians." Indicating this in 1899 and 1902, respectively:

International Social-Democracy is at present in a state of ideological wavering. Hitherto the doctrines of Marx and Engels were considered to be the firm foundation of revolutionary theory, but voices are now being raised everywhere to proclaim these doctrines inadequate and obsolete. Whoever declares himself to be a Social-Democrat and intends to publish a Social-Democratic organ must define precisely his attitude to a question that is preoccupying the attention of the German Social-Democrats and not of them alone.

We take our stand entirely on the Marxist theoretical position: Marxism was the first to transform socialism from a utopia into a science, to lay a firm foundation for this science, and to indicate the path that must be followed in further developing and elaborating it in all its parts. It disclosed the nature of modern capitalist economy by explaining how the hire of the laborer, the purchase of labor-power, conceals the enslavement of millions of propertyless people by a handful of capitalists, the owners of the land, factories, mines, and so forth. It showed that all modern capitalist development displays the tendency of large-scale production to eliminate petty production and creates conditions that make a socialist system of society possible and necessary. It taught us how to discern, beneath the pall of rooted customs, political intrigues, abstruse laws, and intricate doctrines the class struggle, the struggle between the propertied classes in all their variety and the propertyless mass, the proletariat, which is at the head of all the propertyless. It made clear the real task of a revolutionary socialist party: not to draw up plans for refashioning society, not to preach to the capitalists and their hangers-on about improving the lot of the workers, not to hatch conspiracies, but lo organize the class struggle of the proletariat and to lead this struggle, the ultimate aim of which is the conquest of political power by Me proletariat and the organization of a socialist society. [ Our Program, LCW. , V. 4, pp. 210-211]

Social-Democracy must change from a party of social revolution into a democratic party of social reforms. Bernstein has surrounded this political demand with a whole battery of well-attuned "new" arguments and reasoning. Denied was the possibility of putting socialism on a scientific basis and of demonstrating its necessity and inevitability from the point of view of the materialist conception of history. Denied was the fact of growing impoverishment, the process of proletarization, and the intensification of capitalist contradictions; the very concept, "ultimate aim," was declared to be unsound, and the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat was completely rejected. Denied was the antithesis in principle between liberalism and socialism. Denied was the theory of the class struggle, on the alleged grounds that it could not be applied to a strictly democratic society governed according to the will of the majority, etc. [From "What is to be Done?", Lenin. TNF]

Emphasizing its crawling characteristics: "When we speak of fighting opportunism, we must never forget a characteristic feature of present-day opportunism in very sphere, namely, its vagueness, amorphousness, elusiveness. An opportunist, by his very nature, will always evade taking a clear and decisive stand, he will always seek a middle course, he will always wriggle like a snake between two mutually exclusive points of view and try to "agree" with both and reduce is differences of opinion to petty amendments, doubts, innocent and pious suggestions, and so on and so forth." [ One Step Forward, Two Steps Back, LCW, Vol. 7, p. 402]

Similarly, in combating the negation of the class struggle and unmasking the class collaboration of revisionism:

In the sphere of politics, revisionism did really try to revise the foundation of Marxism, namely, the doctrine of the class struggle. Political freedom, democracy and universal suffrage remove the ground for the class struggle we were told and render untrue the old proposition of the Communist Manifesto that the working men have no country. For, they said, since the "will of the majority" prevails in a democracy, one must neither regard the state as an organ of class rule, nor reject alliances with the progressive, social-reform bourgeoisie against the reactionaries.

It cannot be disputed that these arguments of the revisionists amounted to a fairly well-balanced system of views, namely, the old and well-known liberal-bourgeois views. The liberals have always said that bourgeois parliamentarism destroys classes and class divisions, since the right to vote and the right to participate in the government of the country are shared by all citizens without distinction. The whole history of Europe in the second half of the nineteenth century, and the whole history of the Russian revolution in the early twentieth, clearly show how absurd such views are. Economic distinctions are not mitigated but aggravated and intensified under the freedom of "democratic" capitalism. Parliamentarism does not eliminate, but lays bare the innate character even of the most democratic bourgeois republics as organs of class oppression. By helping to enlighten and to organize immeasurably wider masses of the population than those which previously took an active part in political events, parliamentarism does not make for the elimination of crises and political revolutions, but for the maximum intensification of civil war during such revolutions. The events in Paris in the spring or 1871 and the events in Russia in the winter of 1905 showed as clearly as could be how inevitably this intensification comes about. The French bourgeoisie without a moment's hesitation made a deal with the enemy of the whole nation, with the foreign army which had ruined its country, in order to crush the proletarian movement. Whoever does not understand the inevitable inner dialectics of parliamentarism and bourgeois democracy which leads to an even sharper decision of the argument by mass violence than formerly will never be able on the basis of this parliamentarism to conduct propaganda and agitation consistent in principle, really preparing the working-class masses for victorious participation in such "arguments." The experience of alliances, agreements and blocs with the social-reform liberals in the West and with the liberal reformists (Cadets) in the Russian revolution, has convincingly shown that these agreements only blunt the consciousness of the masses, that they do not enhance but weaken the actual significance of their struggle, by linking fighters with elements who are least capable of fighting and most vacillating and treacherous. [Marxism and Revisionism]

And unmasking their treason to socialism and their defense of bourgeois democracy:

History teaches us that no oppressed class ever did, or could, achieve power without going through a period of dictatorship, i.e., the conquest of political power and forcible suppression of the resistance always offered by the exploiters a resistance that is most desperate, most furious, and that stops at nothing. The bourgeoisie, whose domination is now defended by the socialists who denounce "dictatorship in general" and extol "democracy in general," won power in the advanced countries through a series of insurrections, civil wars, and the forcible suppression of kings, feudal lords, slave owners and their attempts at restoration. In books, pamphlets, congress resolutions and propaganda speeches socialists everywhere have thousands and millions of times explained to the people the class nature of these bourgeois revolutions and this bourgeois dictatorship. That is why the present defense of bourgeois democracy under cover of talk about "democracy in general" and the present howls and shouts against proletarian dictatorship under cover of shouts about "dictatorship in general" are an outright betrayal of socialism. They are, in fact, desertion to the bourgeoisie, denial of the proletariat's right to its own, proletarian, revolution, and defense of bourgeois reformism at the very historical juncture when bourgeois reformism throughout the world has collapsed and the war has created a revolutionary situation.

On the other hand, analyzing the labor aristocracy as the social basis of revisionism in the Second Congress of the Communist International: One of the chief causes hampering the revolutionary working-class movement in the developed capitalist countries is the fact that because of their colonial possessions and the super-profits gained by finance capital, etc., the capitalists of these countries have been able to create a relatively larger and more stable labor aristocracy, a section which comprises a small minority of the working class. This minority enjoys better terms of employment and is most imbued with a narrow-minded craft spirit and with petty-bourgeois and imperialist prejudices. It forms the real social pillar of the Second International, of the reformists and the "Centrists"; at present it might even be called the social mainstay of the bourgeoisie. [Theses on Comintern Fundamental Tasks, LWC, Vol. 31, p. 193]

Here we must ask: how is the persistence of such trends in Europe to be explained? Why is this opportunism stronger in Western Europe than in our country? It is because the culture of the advanced countries has been, and still is, the result of their being able to live at the expense of a thousand million oppressed people. It is because the capitalists of these countries obtain a great deal more in this way than they could obtain as profits by plundering the workers in their own countries.

Before the war, it was calculated that the three richest countries Britain, France and Germany got between eight and ten thousand million francs a year from the export of capital alone, apart from other sources.

It goes without saying that, out of this tidy sum, at least five hundred millions can be spent as a sop to the labor leaders and the labor aristocracy, i.e., on all sorts of bribes. The whole thing boils down to nothing but bribery. It is done in a thousand different ways: by increasing cultural facilities in the largest centers, by creating educational institutions, and by providing cooperative, trade union and parliamentary leaders with thousands of cushy jobs. This is done wherever present-day civilized capitalist relations exist. It is these thousands of millions in super profits that form the economic basis of opportunism in the working-class movement.

And regarding revisionism as a product of the bourgeois world view and their influence over the proletariat:

Wherein lies its (revisionism's) inevitability in capitalist society? Why is it more profound than the differences of national peculiarities and of degrees of capitalist development? Because in every capitalist country, side by side with tile proletariat, there are always broad strata of the petty bourgeoisie, small proprietors. Capitalism arose and is constantly arising out of small production. A number of new "middle strata" are inevitably brought into existence again and again by capitalism (appendages to the factory, work at home, small workshops scattered all over the country to meet the requirements of big industries, such as the bicycle and automobile industries, etc.). These new small producers are just as inevitably being cast again into the ranks of the proletariat. It is quite natural that the petty-bourgeois world-outlook should again and again crop up in the ranks of the broad workers' parties.

And:

Thus, the demand for a decisive turn from revolutionary Social-Democracy to bourgeois social-reformism was accompanied by a no less decisive turn towards bourgeois criticism of all the fundamental ideas of Marxism. In view of the fact that this criticism of Marxism has long been directed from the political platform, from university chairs, in numerous pamphlets and in a series of learned treatises, in view of the fact that the entire younger generation of the educated classes has been systematically reared for decades on this criticism, it is not surprising that the "new critical" trend in Social-Democracy should spring up, all complete, like Minerva from the head of Jove. The content of this new trend did not have to grow and take shape, it was transferred bodily from bourgeois to socialist literature.

Lenin qualified the revisionists as "better defenders of the bourgeoisie than the bourgeoisie themselves." In the aforementioned Second Congress he said: "I am not going to expound on the concrete manner in which we should do this; I cover this in my theses, which have already been published. My task consists of indicating the profound economic roots of this phenomenon. It is a protracted disease, and the cure is even more prolonged than the optimists hoped it would be. Opportunism is our main enemy. The opportunism in the highest ranks of the workers' movement is not proletarian socialism, but bourgeois socialism. Practice has shown that the people active in the workers' movement who cling to the opportunist tendency are better defenders of the bourgeoisie than the bourgeoisie themselves. Without their leadership of the workers the bourgeoisie could not remain in power. This is not only proven by the Kerensky regime in Russia, it is also well proven by the democratic republic in Germany, headed by the social-democratic government, it is proven by the attitude of Albert Thomas towards his bourgeois government. It is proven by the analogous experience in England and the United States. That is where our principal enemy is, and we must defeat this enemy. We must abandon this congress with the firm determination to carry this struggle in all our parties through to the end. That is our principal task." And on "The Only Marxist Line":

(Engels draws a distinction between the "bourgeois labor party" of the old trade unions the privileged minority and the "lowest mass," the real majority, and appeals to the latter, who are not infected by "bourgeois respectability." This is the essence of Marxist tactics) Neither we nor anyone else can calculate precisely what portion of the proletariat is following and will follow the social-chauvinists and opportunists. This will be revealed only by the struggle, it will be definitely decided only by the socialist revolution. But we know for certain that the "defenders of the fatherland" in the imperialist war represent only a minority. And it is therefore our duty, if we wish to remain socialists, to go down lower and deeper, to the real masses; this is the whole meaning and the whole purport of the struggle against opportunism. By exposing the fact that the opportunists and social-chauvinists are in reality betraying and selling the interests of the masses, that they are defending the temporary privileges of a minority of the workers, that they are the vehicles of bourgeois ideas and influences, that they are really allies and agents of the bourgeoisie, we teach the masses to appreciate their true political interests, to fight for socialism and for the revolution through all the long and painful vicissitudes of imperialist wars and imperialist armistices.

The only Marxist line in the world labor movement is to explain to the masses the inevitability and necessity of breaking with opportunism, to educate them for revolution by waging a relentless struggle against opportunism, to utilize the experiences of the war to expose, not conceal, the utter vileness of national-liberal labor politics. [Imperialism and the Split in Socialism]

In the same way, he called for the defense of Marxism and its development despite the screams of the revisionists: And we now ask: Has anything new been introduced into this theory by its loud-voiced "renovators" who are raising so much noise in our day and have grouped themselves around the German socialist Bernstein? Absolutely nothing. Not by a single step have they advanced the science which Marx and Engels enjoined us to develop; they have not taught the proletariat any new methods of struggle; they have only retreated, borrowing fragments of backward theories and preaching to the proletariat, not tho theory of struggle, but the theory of concession concession to the most vicious enemies of the proletariat, the governments and bourgeois parties who never tire of seeking new means of baiting the socialists. Plekhanov, one of the founders and leaders of Russian Social-Democracy, was entirely right in ruthlessly criticizing Bernstein's latest "critiqued'; the views of Bernstein have now been rejected by the representatives of the German workers as well (at the Hannover Congress).

We anticipate a flood of accusations for these words; the shouts will rise that we want to convert the socialist party into an order of "true believers" that persecutes"heretics" for deviations from "dogma," for every independent opinion, and so forth. We know about all these fashionable and trenchant phrases. Only there is not a grain of truth or sense in them. There can be no strong socialist party without a revolutionary theory which unites all socialists, from which they draw all their convictions, and which they apply in their methods of struggle and means of action. To defend such a theory, which to the best of your knowledge you consider to be true, against unfounded attacks and attempts to corrupt it is not to imply that you are an enemy of all criticism. We do not regard Marx's theory as something completed and inviolable; on the contrary, we are convinced that it has only laid the foundation stone of the science which socialists must develop in all directions if they wish to keep pace with life. We think that an independent elaboration of Marx's theory is especially essential for socialists; for this theory provides only general guiding principles, which, in particular, are applied in England differently than in France, in France differently than in Germany, and in Germany differently than in Russia. [LCW., Our Program, V. 4, pp. 211-212]

And analyzing the sinking of the old revisionism, in his very important work The Collapse of the Second International of 1915, Lenin taught us:

To the class-conscious workers, socialism is a serious conviction, not a convenient screen to conceal petty-bourgeois conciliatory and nationalist-appositional striving. By the collapse of the International they understand the disgraceful treachery to their convictions which was displayed by most of the official Social-Democratic parties, treachery to the most solemn declarations in their speeches at the Stuttgart and Basle international congresses, and in the resolutions of these congresses, etc. Only those can fail to see this treachery who do not wish to do so or do not find it to their advantage to see it. If we would formulate the question in a scientific fashion, i.e., from the standpoint of class relations in modern society, we will have to state that most of the Social-Democratic parties, and at their head the German Party first and foremost the biggest and most influential party in the Second International have taken sides with their General Staffs, their governments, and their bourgeoisie, against the proletariat. This is an event of historic importance, one that calls for a most comprehensive analysis. It has long been conceded that, for all the horror and misery they entail, wars bring at least the following more or less important benefit they ruthlessly reveal, unmask and destroy much that is corrupt, outworn and dead in human institutions. [The Collapse of the Second International, LCW, V. 21, pp.207-8]

Opportunism means sacrificing the fundamental interests of the masses to the temporary interests of an insignificant minority of the workers or, in other words, an alliance between a section of the workers and the bourgeoisie. directed against the mass of the proletariat. The war has made such an alliance particularly conspicuous and inescapable. Opportunism was engendered in the course of decades by the special features in the period of the development of capitalism when the comparatively peaceful and cultured life of a stratum of privileged workingmen "bourgeoisified" them, eve them crumbs from the table of their national capitalists, and isolated them from the suffering, misery and revolutionary temper of the impoverished and ruined masses. [Ibid., pp. 242-243]

Social-chauvinism is an opportunism which has matured to such a degree, grown so strong and brazen during the long period of comparatively "peaceful" capitalism, so definite in its political ideology, and so closely associated with the bourgeoisie and the governments, that the existence of such a trend within the Social-Democratic workers' parties cannot be tolerated. [Ibid., p 249]

Opportunism to speak on a European scale was in its adolescent stage, as it were, before the war. With the outbreak of the war it grew to manhood and its "innocence'' end youth cannot be restored. An entire social stratum, consisting of parliamentarians, journalists, labor officials, privileged office personnel, and certain strata of the proletariat has sprung up and has become amalgamated with its own national bourgeoisie, which has proved fully capable of appreciating and "adapting" it. The course of history cannot be turned back or checked we can and must go fearlessly onward, from the preparatory legal working-class organizations, which are in the grip of opportunism, to revolutionary organizations that know how not to confine themselves to legality and are capable of safeguarding themselves against opportunist treachery, organizations of a proletariat that is beginning a "struggle for power," a struggle for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie. [ibid., p. 250]

And in Opportunism and the Collapse of the Second International of 1916:

The relatively "peaceful" character of the period between 1871 and 1914 served to foster opportunism first as a mood, then as a trend, until finally it formed a group or stratum among the labor bureaucracy and petty-bourgeois fellow-travelers. These elements were able to gain control of the labor movement only by paying lip-service to revolutionary aims and revolutionary tactics. They were able to win the confidence of the masses only by their protestations that all this "peaceful" work served to prepare the proletarian revolution. This contradiction was a boil which just had to burst, and burst it has. Here is the question: is it worth trying, as Kautsky and Co. are doing, to force the pus back into the body for the sake of "unity" (with the pus), or should the pus be removed as quickly and as thoroughly as possible, regardless of the pang of pain caused by the process, to help bring about the complete recovery of the body of the labor movement.

Chairman Mao Tsetung developed a great struggle against the modern revisionism of Khrushchev and his henchmen on a world level, aiming against the sinister restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union, unmasking it totally and completely as he did in the "Polemic concerning the general line of the International Communist Movement," a document written under his personal leadership. Nevertheless, his most transcendental struggle against revisionism was unleashed in China itself by way of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. In his "Speech at the Second Plenary Session of the VIII Central Committee," in 1956, he said:

I would like to say a few words about the Twentieth Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. I think there are two "swords": one is Lenin and the other Stalin. The sword of Stalin has now been discarded by the Russians. Gomulka and some people in Hungary have picked it up to stab at the Soviet Union and oppose so-called Stalinism. The Communist Parties of many European countries are also criticizing the Soviet Union, and their leader is Togliatti. The imperialists also use this sword to slay people with. Dulles, for instance, has brandished it for some time. This sword has not been lent out, it has been thrown out. We Chinese have not thrown it away. First, we protect Stalin, and, second, we at the same time criticize his mistakes, and we have written the article "On the Historical Experience of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat." Unlike some people who have tried to defame and destroy Stalin, we are acting in accordance with objective reality.

As for the sword of Lenin, hasn't it too been discarded to a certain extent by some Soviet leaders? In my view, it has been discarded to a considerable extent. Is the October Revolution still I valid? Can it still serve as the example for all countries? Khrushchev's report at the Twentieth Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union says it is possible to seize state power by the parliamentary road, that is to say, it is no longer necessary for all countries to learn from the October Revolution. Once this gate is opened, by and large Leninism is thrown away.

The doctrine of Leninism has developed Marxism. In what respects has it done so? First, in world outlook, that is, in materialism and dialectics; and second, in revolutionary theory and tactics, particularly on the questions of class struggle, the dictatorship of the proletariat and the political party of the proletariat. And then there are Lenin's teachings on socialist construction. Beginning from the October Revolution of 1917, construction went on in the midst of revolution, and thus Lenin had seven years of practical experience in construction, something denied to Marx. It is precisely these fundamental principles of Marxism Leninism that we have been learning. [Speech at the Second Plenary Session of the Eight Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, SW V. V, pp. 341-2]

And insisting on the same and on those who vacillate in the face of storms, the abandonment of Marxism and the attack against advanced things, in his "Speech to a Conference of Secretaries" in 1957:

During the past year, several storms raged on the world scene. At the Twentieth Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union they went for Stalin in a big way. Subsequently the imperialists stirred up two storms against communism, and there were two stormy debates in the international communist movement. Amidst these storms, the impact and losses were quite big in the case of some Communist Parties in Europe and the Americas but smaller for the Communist Parties in the Orient. With the convocation of the Twentieth Congress of the CPSU, some people who had been most enthusiastic for Stalin became most vehement against him. In my view, these people do not adhere to Marxism-Leninism, they do not take an analytical approach to things and they lack revolutionary morality. Marxism-Leninism embraces the revolutionary morality of the proletariat. Since formerly you were all for Stalin, you should at least give some reason for making such a sharp turn. But you offer no reason at all for this sudden about-face, as if you had never in your life supported Stalin, though in fact you had fully supported him before. The question of Stalin concerns the entire international communist movement and involves the Communist Parties of all countries.

Most cadres in our Party are dissatisfied with the Twentieth Congress of the CPSU and think it went too far in attacking Stalin. That is a normal feeling and a normal reaction. But a few cadres started to vacillate. Before it rains in a typhoon, ants come out of their holes, they have very sensitive "noses" and they know their meteorology. No sooner had the typhoon of the Twentieth Congress of the CPSU struck than a few such ants in China came out of their holes. They are wavering elements in the Party who vacillate whenever something is astir. When they heard of the sweeping denunciation of Stalin, they felt good and swung to the other side, cheering and saying that Khrushchev was right in everything and that they themselves had been of the same opinion all along. Later when the imperialists struck a few blows and a few more came from inside the international communist movement, even Khrushchev had to change his tune somewhat, and so they swung back to this side again. In the face of an irresistible trend, they had no choice but to swing back. A tuft of grass atop the wall sways right and left in the wind. The waverers' real intention wets not to swing to our side, but to the other. It's a good thing that some people inside and outside the Party sang the praises of the Polish and Hungarian incidents. They could not open their mouths without talking about Poznan and Hungary. In so doing they gave themselves away. Ants came out of their holes and turtles, tortoises and all the scum of the earth left their hiding places. They danced to Gomulka's baton. When Gomulka talked about great democracy, they echoed him. Now the situation has changed and they are keeping their mouths shut. But that's not what they really want to do. Their real desire is to speak out. [Talks at a Conference of Secretaries of Provincial, Municipal and Autonomous Region Party Committees, SW V. V, pp. 354-5]

This time when our delegation went to the Soviet Union, we came straight to the point on a number of questions. I told Comrade Chou En-lai over the phone that these people are blinded by their material gains and the best way to deal with them is to give them a good dressing down. What are their material gains? Nothing but 50 million tons of steel, 400 million tons of coal, and 80 million tons of petroleum. Does this amount to much? Not at all. Now at the sight of this much their heads are swelled. What Communists! What Marxists! I say multiply all that tenfold, or even a hundredfold, it still doesn't amount to much. All you have done is to extract something from the earth, turn it into steel and make some cars, planes, and what not. What is so remarkable about that? And yet you make all this such a heavy burden on your backs that you even cast away revolutionary principles. Isn't this being blinded by material gains? [Ibid., p. 365]

After World War II, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and certain East European Parties no longer concerned themselves with the basic principles of Marxism. They no longer concerned themselves with class struggle, the dictatorship of the proletariat, Party leadership, democratic centralism and the ties between the Party and the masses, and there wasn't much of a political atmosphere. The Hungarian incident was the consequence. We must adhere to the basic theory of Marxism. [Ibid., pp. 377-8]

No one knows how much abuse has been hurled at the Communist Party. The Kuomintang vilified us as "Communist bandits," and if people had the slightest contact with us, they were accused of "having contact with bandits." In the end it is the "bandits" who have proved to be better than the "non-bandits." From time immemorial, nothing progressive has ever been favorably received at first and everything progressive has invariably been the object of abuse. Marxism and the Communist Party have been abused from the very beginning. Even ten thousand years hence, things progressive will still be abused at the outset. [Ibid., p. 380]

In his great work "On the Correct Handling of Contradictions among the People" of February 1957, Chairman Mao told us:

Marxism can develop only through struggle, and this is not only true of the past and the present, it is necessarily true of the future as well. What is correct invariably develops in the course of struggle with what is wrong. The true, the good and the beautiful always exist by contrast with the false, the evil and the ugly, and grow in struggle with them. As soon as something erroneous is rejected and a particular truth accepted by mankind, new truths begin to struggle with new errors. Such struggles will never end. This is the law of development of truth and, naturally, of Marxism. [On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People, SW V. V, p. 409]

On not fearing criticism, rather developing within it: People may ask, since Marxism is accepted as the guiding ideology by the majority of the people in our country, can it be criticized? Certainly it can. Marxism is scientific truth and fears no criticism. If it did, and if it could be overthrown by criticism, it would be worthless In fact, aren't the idealists criticizing Marxism every day and in every way? And those who harbor bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideas and do not wish to change aren't they also criticizing Marxism in every way? Marxists should not be afraid of criticism from any quarter. Quite the contrary, they need to temper and develop themselves and win new positions in the teeth of criticism and in the storm and stress of struggle. Fighting against wrong ideas is like being vaccinated a man develops greater immunity from disease as a result of vaccination. Plants raised in hothouses are unlikely to be hardy. [Ibid., p. 410]

Similarly regarding dogmatism and revisionism: At the same time as we criticize dogmatism, we must direct our attention to criticizing revisionism. Revisionism, or Right opportunism, is a bourgeois trend of thought that is even more dangerous than dogmatism. The revisionists, the Right opportunists, pay lip-service to Marxism; they too attack "dogmatism." But what they are really attacking is the quintessence of Marxism. They oppose or distort materialism and dialectics, oppose or try to weaken the people's democratic dictatorship and the leading role of the Communist Party, and oppose or try to weaken socialist transformation and socialist construction. Even after the basic victory of our socialist revolution, there will still be a number of people in our society who vainly hope to restore the capitalist system and are sure to fight the working class on every front, including the ideological one. And their right-hand men in this struggle are the revisionists. [Ibid., pp.411-2]

And emphasizing the most pernicious character of revisionism: For a long time now people have been leveling a lot of criticism at dogmatism. That is as it should be. But they often neglect to criticize revisionism. Both dogmatism and revisionism run counter to Marxism. Marxism must necessarily advance; it must develop along with practice and cannot stand still. It would become lifeless if it were stagnant and stereotyped. However, the basic principles of Marxism must never be violated, otherwise mistakes will be made. It is dogmatism to approach Marxism from a metaphysical point of view and to regard it as something rigid. It is revisionism to negate the basic principles of Marxism and to negate its universal truth. Revisionism is one form of bourgeois ideology. The revisionists deny the differences between socialism and capitalism, between the dictatorship of the proletariat and the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. What they advocate is in fact not the socialist line but the capitalist line. In present circumstances, revisionism is more pernicious than dogmatism. It is an important task for us to unfold criticism of revisionism on the ideological front now. [Speech at the Chinese Communist Party's National Conference on Propaganda Work, SW V., pp. 434-5]

In the aforementioned "Lecture notes on 'Textbook of Political Economy' of the Soviet Union," he makes an important clarification between the development of the socialist relations of production and the necessity of combating revisionism:

The proletariat will "organize all working people around itself for the purpose of eliminating capitalism." (P.327) Correct. But at this point one should go on to raise the question of the seizure of power. "The proletarian revolution can't hope to come upon ready-made socialist economic forms." "Components of a socialist economy cannot mature inside of a capitalist economy based on private ownership." (P. 328) Indeed, not only can they not "mature"; they cannot be born. In capitalist societies a cooperative or state-run economy cannot even be brought into being, to say nothing of maturing. This is our main difference with the revisionists, who claim that in capitalist societies such things as municipal public enterprises are actually socialist elements, and argue that capitalism may peacefully grow over to socialism. This is a serious distortion of Marxism. [A Critique of Soviet Economics, pp. 33-4]

And: Ideologically, politically, and organizationally the Bolshevik-Menshevik split prepared the way for the victory of the October Revolution. And without the Bolsheviks' struggle against the Mensheviks and the revisionism of the Second International, the October Revolution could never have triumphed. Leninism was born and developed in the struggle against all forms of revisionism and opportunism. And without Leninism there would have been no victory for the Russian Revolution. [Ibid., p. 36]

In the 1970s, Chairman Mao Tsetung came to these substantial and transcendental conclusions: "In the struggle between Marxism-Leninism and revisionism, it has still not been determined who will defeat whom; it is very possible that revisionism will triumph and we will be defeated. We weigh this possibility of being defeated to warn the people, we find that this was very valuable to remain alert against revisionism and to prevent and oppose revisionism." And regarding its sources: "The influence of the bourgeoisie is the internal source of revisionism, and capitulation before the force of imperialism is its external source." Thus, the key is: "the question of whether the leadership of the Party and the State is in the hands of the Marxists or in the hands of the revisionists." The necessity centrally emphasize "the problem of preventing the specter of revisionism," which demands to "be true Marxist-Leninists and not, like Khrushchev, revisionists disguised as Marxist- Leninists." Furthermore, he summons us: "we must remain vigilant against the emergence of revisionism, especially against the emergence of revisionism in the Central Committee of our Party." And aiming at the root of this problem, he gives us the two great strategic orientations of: "we must combat selfishness and criticize revisionism" and "Combat the concept of privacy and repudiate revisionism."

Furthermore, he compares Communists and revisionists: "The revisionist leading clique of the Soviet Union, the Tito clique of Yugoslavia and all the other cliques of renegades and scabs of various shades are mere dust heaps in comparison, while you, a lofty mountain, tower to the skies. They are slaves and accomplices of imperialism, before which they prostrate themselves, while you are dauntless proletarian revolutionaries who dare to fight imperialism and its running dogs, fight the world's tyrannical enemies." [The Soviet Leading Clique is a Mere Dust Heap, SW, Vol. IX, pp 306-307]

Emphasizing that the people want revolution, he upholds Marxism and rejects revisionism: "The people of all countries, the popular masses, which constitute more than 90% of the total population, invariably want revolution and will support Marxism-Leninism. They will not back revisionism. Although some are supporting it for the moment, they will end up rejecting it. They will gradually awake, they will fight against imperialism and the reactionaries of every country, and will fight against revisionism." Chairman Mao established the inexorable perspective: "In general, whether in China or in other nations of the world, more than 90% of the population will finally support Marxism-Leninism. In the world there are still may people who, due to the deception of social-democracy, revisionism, imperialism and all reactionaries, have not yet reached political consciousness. In any event, they will gradually wake up and support Marxism-Leninism. The truth of Marxism-Leninism is irresistible. The popular masses will invariably rise up in revolution. The world revolution will inevitably triumph." That is how it will be! Marxism-Leninism-Maoism will ineluctably triumph!

We have broadly and thoroughly considered four fundamental questions of Marxism- Leninism-Maoism:

These are four fundamental questions to complete our task of conquering power countrywide and, firmly adhering to proletarian internationalism, serve the world revolution. These are fundamental questions that, in the face of the new counterrevolutionary revisionist offensive headed by Gorbachov and Teng, and the charging imperialist convergence, acquire greater importance every day. These are four fundamental questions that aside from being current burning questions are the core of Marxism- Leninism-Maoism. Furthermore, in regard to socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat, they propose not only the transcendentally important question of the construction of the first phase of Communism but also the class character of the State throughout the entire period of socialism and the historical axis which leads to Communism. Thus, to uphold these four fundamental questions today is an unavoidable part of upholding, defending and applying Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, principally Maoism, the invincible and all-powerful ideology of the proletariat. In this way the great call by Chairman Mao Tsetung more and more becomes ours: "Marxist-Leninists of all countries, unite; revolutionary people of the whole world, unite; defeat imperialism and modern revisionism and all the reactionaries of all countries! Without a doubt, a new world will be built, a world free from imperialism, capitalism and any system of exploitation!"

Thus, we reaffirm ourselves once more on the inevitable victory of Marxism-Leninism- Maoism and of Communism across the face of the Earth, carrying out with great firmness and decisiveness the accords of the last recent session of the Central Committee, principally what was sanctioned in the third part of Develop the People's War and Build the Conquest of Power! :

It is within this context and perspective that we consider the second round of general elections, to be completed in June 1990. Keeping in mind the experience of the previous decade and, beyond that, the brilliant results obtained recently by the politics of the boycott, materialized in the forging and growth of the People's War, the political necessity of continuing the boycott more firmly and decisively today is being imposed. The order of the day is clear and resolute: Elections, No! People's War, Yes!

LONG LIVE THE X ANNIVERSARY OF THE PEOPLE'S WAR!
DOWN WITH THE IMPERIALIST INTERVENTION, PRINCIPALLY YANKEE INTERVENTION!
LONG LIVE THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF PERU!
LONG LIVE PRESIDENT GONZALO!
GLORY TO MARXISM-LENINISM-MAOISM!

CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF PERU

Ediciones Bandera Roja, May 1990

Translation and Foreword by The New Flag: 30-08 Broadway, Suite 159, Queens, New York 11106
E-Mail:lquispe@nyxfer.blythe.org

http://www.blythe.org/peru-pcp