On the Theoretical · Foundations of Marxism-Leninism -2

By V. ADORATSKY

( Translation from the Russian by L. KATZ)

Previous page

III. MATERIAUSTIC DIALECTICS AS THE THEORETICAL FOUNDA­TION OF MARXISM-LENINISM 

MATERIALISTIC dialectics is the decisive thing in Marxism
.

Lenin characterized materialistic dialectics as the "living soul of Marxism," its "fundamental theoretical basis." This shows, therefore, how important is the study of this most significant theoretical principle, the mastery of the dialectic for the purpose. of utilizing it in the study of nature and society, as well as in the theoretical struggle and also in the sphere of practical leadership of the entire struggle of the proletariat and of its creative activities. The understanding of dialectic materialism is necessary for every communist because it supplies him with the indispensable theoretical weapon of revolutionary method. And this is equally important both for practical and for theoretical work. 

The articles collected in the edition, Selected Works, Vol. VI, Part I, give, as already stated, a general characterization of materialistic dialectics and their application to the study of nature, of the history of human society, and of human thought. From the works of Marx and Engels, from the masterful application of materialistic dialectics by Lenin, we should learn how to use this method. Lenin himself gave us .an example of how to study the works of the founders of scientific Communism. He himself was engaged in a lifelong most profound, deep study of the works of Marx and Engels, constantly reading them over and over again, repeatedly taking up that study, especially at each new historic turn of events, at each new stage of the revolution, when it became necessary to solve new problems in a new manner. Lenin learned revolutionary materialistic dialectics from Marx and Engels and he repeatedly emphasized how necessary it is to study their works, in such a way f or · the purpose. of drawing their lessons. But it is not enough to say that Lenin assimilated the method of Marx. He t enough to say that Lenin assimilated the method of Marx. He developed it further, he lifted up to a new higher level.

But what is dialectics? Hegel understood by dialectics the motion of the idea ( thought) through contradictions, the course of it!, development toward the highest, the absolute spirit, and here Hegd emphasized, that such motion, development is a spontaneous movement, that every phenomena has its own motion, its own line of development-and that this spontaneous motion is the result of inner impulses driving forward such development. In ancient Greece dialectics was the name given to the art of arguing. During a chat, fruitful and rich in new thoughts, the opinions of those engaged in the argument undergo modifications; a new, a higher thought is being developed. By analogy, ali motion through contradictions was generally called dialectic motion. In just that sense Hegel used the word "dialectic." He considered that throughout the universe motion of any kind takes place in exactly that manner through a struggle of opposites, a negation of the old and a creation of the new. This is precisely how development takes place. 

But Hegelian dialectics is idealistic dialectics. Its basis is the motion of thought. In contrast to Hegel, Marx applied dialectics in a materialistic way, he created dialectic materialism. Materialistic dialectics is that universal motion, that development through a struggle of opposites, that is taking place everywhere, throughout the universe, in nature, in society, and is reflected in human thought. Dialectic materialism is the world outlook and method of revolutionary Marxism-Leninism, a weapon for the study and transformation of everything that exists. Dialectic materialism does not confine itself merely to theoretical studies, it embraces also revolutionary practice. 

Dialectic thought strives to embrace all phenomena completely and from all sides. An opinion expressed about any particular single thing must of necessity be somewhat one-sided. 

In a letter to Gorky dated November 29, 1909, written after a chat with one of the students of the school of the Forward fraction in Capri ( A. Bogdanov was its head, politically a follower of the otzovists), Lenin said that his previous ideas of the Capri School proved to be one-sided. 

"Philosopher Hegel was correct, by god ! "-wrote Lenin-"life moves on through a series of contradictions, and living contradictions are many times richer, more many-sided, more meaningful than is at first realized by the human mind. I used to see in that school merely a center of a new fraction. It turned out, however, that it is· not true--not in the sense that it was not a center of a new fraction ( the school was and still is such a center) but in the sense that this is not all, not the full truth. Subjectively certain people made of the school such a center, objectively the school really was that, but, aside from this, the school also acted as . center of attraction for real advance-guard type of workingmen from the very depth of real life. And so it happened that aside from the contradictions between the old and new fractions, there has developed in Capri also the contradiction between a part of the social-democratic intelligentsia ( elements with more or less educational training and the Russian workers, who are sure to bring the social democracy out on the right road under aıı · circumstances and, no matter what happens, will bring it out, despite all the foreign gossiping and quarreling, stories, etc., etc." (Leninski Sbor­nik, No. II, page 416.)

W e see from this example that there are always many sides in every phenomenon and in every thing. Turning our attention to some particular side we must not forget about the others, those temporarily out of sight or relegated to a secondary position, but which are quite capable of assuming very great significance in the contradictory course of further development. W e must be able, taking into consideration the entire perspective, the relationship of all sides of the phenomenon in the course of its development, to grasp that most important, "basic link" for each given concrete situation, for each historic moment. The complexity of the phenomena of real life, their contradictory nature, their constant change!r-all of this results in the fact that conclusions about them ( which correspond with reality) cannot help but also contain contradictions and do not themselves forever remain unchanged. This, however, does not exclude, but on the contrary, presupposes clear and definite answers to questions pressing for solution at each given moment. Dialectic materialism teaches to take note of the contradictions of real life, to understand their significance, to study their development ( objec­tive dialectics). In accordance with this, the movement of concepts--subjective dialectics, when correctly reflecting reality, must correspond to what is actually taking place in the outside ( objective) world, must not tear itself away from its basis. Consciousness should strive to ·adjust itself to the movement ( dialectical) of the reflected object. 

The importance of the works of Hegel lie precisely in the fact that he for the first time in new philosophy brought forward ( and partly solved) the task of studying the general laws of dialectics. The great service of Hegel lies in the fact that he bases his philosophy on the dialectic. Hegel (in the words of Marx) "was the first to give an exhaustive and conscious picture of its ( the dialectic-V. A.) general forms of motion." However, it would be very incorrect to conclude from the above, that it would be possible to simply take the Hegelian dialectic and utilize it without any preliminary and quite fundamental modifications.

Marx him&elf said about his own method that it not only differs fundamentally from the Hegelian but "it actually is the very opposite  of it." For Hegel, says Marx

"The thought process, which under the name of idea he even transforms into an independently existing subject is· the creator of reality which represents only the outward expression of the idea. For me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else but the material transplanted into the human head and there duly transformed.,,

A very fundamental modification of the Hegelian dialectic, therefore, is obviously required. It is necessary first of all to "put it on its feet" in order to reveal the "rational kernel inside the mystical wrappings." 

Engels also dwells on this question and elucidates it in the same spirit. In answer to the question-wherein lies the error of Hegel, Engels answers: in the fact that the laws of dialectics are not deduced by him from nature and history, but are bound to them as laws of thought." An·extremely absurd notion is thus arrived at:

"The world has to adjust itself in accordance with a logical system, which itself is merely the result of definite stages in the development of human thought."

And Engels points out that "this relationship must be turned upside down" and then will everything become simple.

The dialectic lawı, which appear so mysterious in the idealistic philosophy, will then immediately become simple and clear."

And in another place Engels points out that the mysticisrn of He gel consists in the following:

"The category { conception, idea-V. A.) appears in his works as something having a prior existence, the dialectics of the actual world being a mere reflection of it. Actually, however, it is just the opposite; the dialectics of thought are a mere reflection of the forms of motion of the actual world, whether of nature or of history ."-F. Engels: The Dialectics of Nature. 

Studying Hegel, Lenin. as well as Marx modified Hegel in a fundamental manner, turned the Hegelian maxims inside out, placed them on the fr feet, gave them materialistic expression.

"We cannot apply," wrote Lenin, "the Hegelian logic, in its given form; we cannot take it as such. We must extract from it the. logical shadings, clearing them first from the mysticism of ideas; that still remains a big work." (Leniniski Sbrornik, · No. 12, page 205). 

Particularly important as text books for the study of Hegel are the outline of The Science of Logic, by Hegel (published in the Leninski Sbormk, No. 9, and the History of Philosophy by Hegel (Leninski Sbornik, No. 12).

Development within the universe is taking place not because of some outside force ( god) and neither by virtue of the inner "rationality" of everything that is happening, but by virtue of inner contradictions, which are natural to all things and phenomena .. "Contradiction lies at the basis of all motion of all manifestations of life. Only to the extent a thing contains within itself a contradiction, does it move, does it possess impulse, does it show activity," --says Hegel. "That is exactly the way all motion, all development take place."* 

In his note About the Question of Dialectics Lenin points out the presence of contradictions everywhere: repulsion and attraction, positive and negative electricity, subdivision into parts and combination of parts into one whole, etc. Contradictory, opposite, mutually exclusive, and simultaneously mutually attracting tendencies are to be found in all phenomena and processes of nature and of society. Dialectics, that is contradiction, unity and struggle of opposites take place in the material world itself and are reflected in consciousness. 

The universal laws of dialectics are equally applicable everywhere-in the movement and development of the immeasurably tremendous volumes of light-emitting nebulae, which form the entire system of heavenly bodies in the vast spaces of the universe ( the distances within these spaces are measured in light-years, that is hy the distance a ray of light, traveling at a rate of a speed of about 300,000 kilometers per second, traverses in the course of one year), in the realm of the internal structure of molecules and atoms, in the movements of protons and electrons, which are also simultaneously both opposite and mutually bound together, passing through transformations, changes, development, thus revealing in their existence and movement the operation of the same laws of dialectics. 

Similarly through contradictions, through struggle of opposites the development in the animal world proceeds ( struggle f or existence, multiplication by sex, etc.).

In human society the moving force of development is the class struggle. Through the struggle of the revolutionary class, the proletariat un der present-day conditions, the transition from one social order into another is taking place; one social form is changed for another, the transition from capitalism to Communism proceeds .

* in essence, such a conception was incompatible with the idea of the existence of god. The very alert priests that were in charge of spiritual education in Russia, very soon (in the SO's) realized therefore, that in the study of Hegel there are very dangerous elements, and a stop was put to the study of . Hegel in the religious seminaries and academies despite the fact that the Hegelian philosophy is an idealistic one, that the concept of god is still there, though disguised under the name of absolute idea.

(We will dwell on this in somewhat greater detail a little later.) 

Such dialectic motion within the material world constitutes the object of study of materialistic dialectics. 

According to Lenin, "contradiction" is the salt of dialectics," (Leninski Sbornik, No. 9, page 289) "unity and struggle of_ the opposites-its kernel." (ibib., page 277.) 

Alongside with contradiction, with opposites, dialectics emphasize also unity. This formula, "unity of opposites," is explained by Lenin as follows: 

"We cannot imagine, express, measure, or picture motion without putting a stop to the incessant, without simplifying, hardening, dividing up, deadening the living. The picture of motion in thought is always hardening, deadening and that is true not only of the thought but also of feeling and not only of motion but of all conceptions. And therein lies the essence of dialectics. And it is exactly this essence that is expressed in the formula unity, identity of the opposites." (Leninski Sbornik, No. 12, page 192).

The Greek philosopher, Zenon from Ella, who lived in the 5th century B. c.,), known as the father of dialectics, was the first to formulate clearly and precisely the idea of contradictions in motion. A few of his discoveries have reached us and there he elaborates on the idea that thought will inevitably get . into a blind alley if one is not guided by dialectic methods and does not understand the principle of the unity of opposites. Here for instance is one such argument; an arrow in flight must occupy a certain point on its route, it takes up a certain definite place. But that implies that at each given moment it is in a state of rest, i.-e., does not move; and this is tantamount to a statement that in general it does not move. Thus we see: we cannot give expression to motion without resorting to expressing opposite conceptions. The arrow occupies a certain point and simultaneously does not occupy it. And motion can be expressed only by simultaneously giving expression to both of those opposite conceptions. Should we, however, stop at the middle, thus giving expression to only one half of the phase, there is sure to be missing either the motion or the object İtself. The same is true with regard every conception, because conceptions express only ·one or several sides of the object, whereas İn reality each object has an infinite number of sides, an infinite number of connections with the surrounding world. Therefore it is possible to give expression to opposite  conceptions about every thing or phenomena and they will within certain limits be correct. Explosives used in war result in terrible ruination and desolation,  but when applied in peaceful production they serve the objects of culture. By virtue of class contradictions all things and phenomena are acquiring an opposite meaning to the embattled adversaries: to the proletariat the Soviet power signifies its victory, its development; to the capitalists--defeat, the end of their domination, etc. 

The formula "unity of opposites" is of particular importance because it expresses the basic, distinctive feature of dialectic motion, the most fundamental feature of all phenomena. 

Here, however, in order to avoid all possibility of misunderstanding, it is necessary to make the following reservation; the above should. not be understood in a sense that we will be practicing dialectics once we try to arbitrarily combine any kind of opposite ideas. Unity of opposites should be understood not as a simple repetition of any kind of idea and counter idea arbitrarily brought together, but as such a particular dovetailing of opposites, and of their struggle, as is to be found in real life, as revealing of contradictions that act in real life as the moving forces, as the basis of motion.

In order to make clear the peculiarities of the dialectic method of thinking it will be useful to compare and counter pose the dialectic with other non-dialectical forms and methods of thought. This will enable us to explain ·the fundamental peculiarities of materialist" dialectics in a more precise manner, to better round out the exposition of its laws and particularly its basic law: motion through contradictions, unity and struggle of opposites. 

Dialectics are the opposite of metaphysics, eclecticism, the vulgar "evolutionary" understanding of development, and sophism. Materialistic dialectics are opposed to transplanting of ready made pat­terns and schemes. They require a deep study of the concrete, exact formulation of the actual course of development, and also of the revolutionary activity. 

Dialectic thought is the exact opposite of the metaphysical, which views things and phenomena, not in their unity and connection, but as isolated from one another, outside the great universal connection of things and therefore not in motion but rather in a fixed state, frozen, unchanging, not living, but dead. Such ( metaphysical) thought is incapable of reflecting the real connection and development of phenomena. 

What attitude are we to assume, for instance, towards capitalism, or bourgeois democracy? If we approach those phenomena. with one previously prepared answer, that will be a metaphysical approach. If we should say that capitalism is an evil under all circumstances that would be untrue. Compared with serfdom, capitalism was a blessing; up to a certain point it gave freedom to the toilers, placed them in better conditions for their development, for struggle towards final emancipation. Serfdom was a blessing as compared with slavery. So long as serfdom exists, so long as it is the dominant form, any movement towards capitalism is a movement toward progress. But when the feudal owners are thrown o:ff, then the workers have only one main enemy left and that is capital. Capitalism is a blessing in relation to the past, but in relation to the future, more perfect system--Socialism-it is an evil which must be destroyed.

For the proletariat  the bourgeois democracy is, of course, better in comparison with the absolutism of the Tzar. The proletariat, therefore, cannot help but try by all means to overthrow absolutism. But the democratic republic-it, too, is one of the forms of class domination of the exploiters, of -the bourgeois dictatorship; it must be supplanted by the Soviet state-proletarian democracy. 

Slavery is an abomination. But slavery was necessary in the course of the historic development of humanity, long ago, at a definite stage of the development of production; in its time it signified a necessary stage of development, ag. advance. Instead of destroying the enemy, they were utilized, at a certain stage of development of production, as slaves, their labor power was saved and utilized.

If we are asked: why should we bother considering the f acts of long gone-by days, then the answer is that development throughout the world proceeds unevenly. At one place ( in the U .S.S.R.) the bourgeois democracy is a thing of the past, at another (outside the U.S.S.R.)-a thing of the present. And feudal relations, and even slave-holding relations ( if- not full-fledged, then remnants) still exist in Asia, in Africa and even in Europe and America. The basic contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, between the slavery of wage labor and the struggle against it, between the system of capitalist states and the U .S.S.R., is indeed supreme above all else and all-pervading for the present, but alongside with it there still remain the old forms of oppression. Humanity was compelled in the past and is still compelled to lift_ itself out of the primitive beastly state of semi-barbarian conditions, of the pinch of want, of oppression, darkness ,and ignorance by its own means without any kind of help from an almighty (who, we well know, does not exist). In this struggle for emancipation the proletariat play.; the leading role. It conducts the struggle against the main dominating relationship of wage slavery, but alongside with that form of exploitation, - the remnants of all previous forms of oppression are  stili intact and against these the proletariat cannot help but conduct a very determined struggle. 

,

Dialectic materialism is the guiding theory in this proletarian struggle. The proletariat fights against the bourgeoisie, eliminates it, overthrows its supremacy, destroys relationships of exploitation and at the same time assimilates and develops further all the conquests of culture · that have been made during the reign of the bourgeoisie. 

The bourgeois, the capitalist is our enemy. But, having done away with the domination of that enemy, and having crushed his resistance, we must utilize his knowledge, his experience, the culture and technique already achieved under the bourgeois regime; we must compel the bourgeois specialists to work under well defined, concrete conditions for the good of Communism. 

In the course of development one condition is supplanted by another, everything is negated, ·but the distinguishing feature of dialectic negation consists in this, that it does not merely brush aside, but it eliminates, overcomes. Socialism cannot be built without working over and assimilating everything which was given up by previous historic development, everything that the bourgeoisie itself inherited f rom the past and developed. Such a dialectic negation of the bourgeoisie can be carried out only by the contemporary proletariat-the class that is intimately connected with contemporary large scale industry, the most valuable fruit of the bourgeois development. 

We thus see, in every step, in every phenomena, that there is no such a thing as frozen state-everything changes, everything passes from one condition into another. And that is why metaphysical thought, that views things in their state of isolation as something not subject to change, does not reflect truthfully this never-ending process of motion and of mutual connection of all phenomena. 

Development, as already stated above, proceeds through inner contradictions. F or instance, the capitalist regime represents a unity of contradictions-the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The dialectics of this contradiction is brilliantly illuminated by Marx in the Communist Manifesto and in Capital. The bourgeoisie and the proletariat are opposites but at the same time they form a certain unity; they are classes of the same social-economic formation capitalism; they find themselves in a position of an irreconcilable contradiction to each other. This contradiction must be solved according to the law of dialectics through an internal struggle, through . the proletarian revolution. These laws are being created by the mass struggle. In the course of the revolution the proletariat transforms itself, and becomes educated to its historic mission. 

"A revolution is needed" wrote Marx in 1846, "not only became there is no other way to overthrow a ruling class, but also because the class that does the overthrowing is able only through revolutions of cleansing itself of all the filth of the old regime and thus become capable of building a society."

That idea is one of the basic ideas of Marxism. Marx repeated it many times. Thus, in 18 5 O Marx said in his speech at a session of the Union of Communists, addressing himself to workers:

"You will be compelled to go through the sufferings of 15, 20, 50 years of civil wars and battles of people not only in order to change the regime but also to change yourself and thus qualify yourself for political supremacy." 

And in 1871, in pamphlet Civil War in France, Marx again repeats the same idea saying that the working class knows: 

" ... that in order to achieve its final emancipation, and to attain that highest form of life, towards which modem society is aiming irresistibly by virtue of its own economic development, it will have to endure stubborn battles, live through an entire series of historic processes, that will completely change both men and conditions." (K. Marx, Civil War in France. 1871.) 

We see here the same unity of opposites, a struggle of these opposites and the natural solution of this struggle through a transition to a new type of society. Without passing through a long and severe school of struggle the proletariat is not qualified to successfully carry out its historic mission. 

The task of the materialist-dialectician consists in the thorough study of this struggle of opposites that is taking place in the world all around us, reveal it in the manner it actually takes place, find the dialectically correct basic contradictions, and not me.rely accidental eclectically ( arbitrarily, outside of their natural mutual connection) snatched-out features and side-issues of a phenomenon, reveal the moving forces of development and take an active part İn this struggle on the side of the revolutionary class, lead the mass struggles oi the proletariat.

"My ideaIs of building a new Russia," said Lenin, "will not turn out to be chimerical, only provided İt expresses the interest of an actually existing class that is compelled by its very conditions of life to act in a definite direction. Expressing this point of view of objectivity of the class struggle, I do not at all justify reality; on the contrary, I am pointing out in tkis same reality the deepest ( though unseen at first sight) sources and forces for its transformation." (Lenin, Works, Vol. XVI, About the Political Line/' p.p. 143-144).

In eclecticism we meet with methods incompatible with dialectic materialism. Dialectics carry on war against the habit of eclectics to arbitrarily snatch out isolated features, against their inability to see a thing or phenomenon in its completeness, as a whole, in its full complexity and at the same time in its unity, in its natural and necessary connection and development just as it takes place in real life. To take in the entire phenomenon in its completeness, as a whole, in its full complexity, and and the same time in its unity, and its entirety, is contrasted with the one-sided exaggeration of isolated features, integral parts, and separate sides of the object. Materialistic dialectics require the isolation of that which is the most important at the same time paying attention precisely to those sides, which due to circumstances are brought forward to a place of importance, but at the same time it demands of us not to leave out of sight the entire phenomenon as a whole. Our conceptions should display a correct understanding of the relationship of the different sides of the phenomenon just as they appear in reality, emphasizing those contradictions that are basic ( isolating "the basic link," as Lenin used to express it, which is so important for the practical leadership of the class struggle of the proletariat). One of the great many examples of how Lenin criticized eclecticism is to be seen in what he had to say about the arguments of comrade Bukharin in the discussion about the trade unions. On this subject Lenin gave very · exhaustive explanations in his article Once More About the Trade Unions. (Lenin Works, Vol. XXVI, pp. 109-145.) And as an example of skill in isolating the "basic link" and as very clear proof of the great importance of that skill for the success of the proletarian revolution the launching by our Party under Lenin's leadership of the New Economic Policy and the clarification by Lenin of the issues involved in all the measures promulgated in that connection, his analysis of all the phenomena accompanying this particular situation, all of it is very illuminating. (See Lenin, About the Significance of Gold Now and After the Full Victory of Socialism, Works, Vol. XXVII, pp. 79-85, and other articles in Vol. XXVII.) 

In contrast to the eclectic way of understanding things, dialectics proclaims the teaching of the concreteness of truth. In his introduction to the Critique of Political Economy, Marx explains that the concrete is concrete by virtue of the fact that it ·combines within itself a multiplicity of factors, constitutes "unity in many sided­ness.'' All nature, all reality. that surrounds us is concrete, it combines within itself, contains, fuses together, all contradictions. Our knowledge. advances in the direction of ever greater capacity to more completely and more deeply reflect this complex ( concrete) reality.

Making due allowance for the limitations and conditional character of all abstractions, dialectic thinking, nevertheless, utilizes abstractions within proper limits. Abstraction isolates any one particular feature, concentrates all attention on it, studies it. In his preface to - Vol. I of Capital Marx: notes that we can utilize neither the microscope nor chemical reagents in the study of social (in particular, economic) phenomena. "Both must be replaced by the power of abstraction." Marx, in Volume I, Chapter I of Capital, where he analyzes the basic phenomena of a bourgeois society based on the exchange of commodities, gives an example of how abstraction is to be utilized and what are the limits within which it plays an indispensable role in scientific investigations. 

Of course, Marx does not limit himself to this alone, when he undertakes the task of giving a general picture of the-laws of capitalistic society. When it comes to an analysis of the entire complex reality as it is, it is necessary to try and elaborate a picture so as to reflect this reality in the most  exact manner L to work out the concrete truths that would reflect the real situation in all its completeness, in the unity of its contradictions and opposites. 

In his notes, made while reading Hegel, Lenin said that "in con­creteness lies the spirit and very essence of dialectics." In his popular explanation of the essence of dialectics ( see the above mentioned pamphlet of Lenin, Once More About the Trade Unions, in Vol.. XVI, pp. 109-145), Lenin pointed to the following as one of the most important demands of dialectic logic: "There is no abstract truth, truth is concrete." That means, that we must not limit ourselves to general conceptions, that life demands clear and exact answers to concrete questions which are brought forward by the historical development, by the struggle of the working class, that if we are to pronounce judgment about things as experts, we must be capable of reflecting, within our consciousness, all the relationships, all the complexity of the concrete surroundings of the given phenomenon, and reflect the general laws of its development. 

The dialectic understanding of development, which reveals all the complexity of this process, is diametrically opposed to the vulgar, shallow understanding of "peaceful" development-"evolution"-­without. contradictions; jumps, shocks, revolutions. This last conception is altogether helpless when confronted with actual development. As a matter of fact, however, the true idea of evolution, which is in full agreement with reality, includes within its own limits not merely slow, gradual changes but also rapid ones, "jumps," interruptions in the gradualness. No phenomenon can be explained without the idea of "jump." Otherwise we would have to assume ' that there is no beginning to anything, that everything already exists in an infinitely small way and then grows very slowly. As a matter of fact, however, in reality we meet at every step with the phenomenon of the interruption of gradualness, of the appearance of a new quality which previously did not exist, of jumps. Supplanting

of forms always takes place in actual life by way of revolutions, .of jumps. In the course of development there takes place the negation of old forms, the act of supplanting them with new ones and then the new negation. 

Such a commonplace, every-day phenomenon, which repeats itself constantly, millions and billions of times, the phenomena of birth takes place precisely in that revolutionary way. And the bearing of the child within the womb of -the mother is a process of slow, gradual change. Social developments takes place by way of class struggle and of revolutions. Dialectics give us a correct and deep well rounded out theory of development, assuming a complex, not straight road, including in it not only a growth of slow and gradual changes, but also periods of catastrophies, rapid breaking up, jumps, .revolutions, movements in the opposite direction as if ·preparing for the next sprint forward, ebb and flow, etc. "Evolution" is pictured by the imagination of the bourgeois ideologists, is a simple, quiet, smooth process. Dialectics are difficult, complex, "tricky," (as Hegel expresses it) ; it is very difficult to understand and master such. a motion, but how can we help it, when the structure of the real world and its development are complex and not as simple as some well meaning citizen might like to have it. 

The dying off of the old and the birth of the new is always a complicated and difficult process. The course of development is al ways such that importance lies in the movement as a whole and not merely its result. 

The idea that it is possible to obtain the fruit without first having labored long and hard to produce it is a self-deception. The fear of revolution, of its actual development when people get frightened and tremble in terror at those forms of struggle that life brings forth-all of this amounts in effect to a defense of exploitation, to a betrayal of the cause of emancipation· of the working class from wage slavery, to a renouncing of Communism.

In a certain note dated in the beginning of 1918 Lenin explained the sense and significance of the class struggle of that period in the following manner:

"Every time the bourgeoisie and its officials: employees, doctors, engineers, ete., who are accustomed to serve them, make use of extreme measures of resistance, our delicate intellectuals become terrified. They tremble from fear and shout still more shrilly about the necessity of a return to 'conciliation.' We, however, the same as all sincere friends of the exploited class, can only be satisfied with this extreme resistance of the exploiters because we expect a maturing and ripening of the proletariat for power neither through pleading and persuasion, nor through the school of sweet sermons and instructive declamations, but through the school of life, the school- of struggle. The proletariat has to actually learn how to become a ruling class and to completely vanquish the bourgeoisie, because there is no way for him to gain this ability all at once. And such training can be gotten only in struggle. Only a serious, a stubborn, a desperate struggle will give the needed training.

"The more extreme the resistance of the exploiters, the more energetic, rigid, unmerciful and successful will be their suppression by the exploited. The more diverse the attempts and efforts of the exploiters to maintain the old regime, the sooner will the proletariat learn to drive their class enemies out of their last hiding places, to destroy the roots of their domination, to remove the very soil which made possible the growth of wage slavery, mass poverty, profiteering and insolence of the money bag. 

"in the same measure as the resistance of the bourgeoisie and its hangers on grows, the strength of the proletariat and of the peasantry that is allied with it also grows. The exploited gather strength, mature, grow, learn, throw off the 'ancient Adam' of wage slavery in proportion as the resistance of their enemies-the exploiters--grows. Victory will be on the side of the exploited, because they have in their favor life, strength of numbers, power of masses and the inexhaustible sources of all that is self-sacrificing, ideal, honest, all that is pushing ahead, awakening to the task of building the new, all the gigantic supply of energy and talent of the so-called 'common people,' workers and peasants. The victory is theirs." (Lenin, Works, Vol. XXII, p. 157, Those Frigktened by the Crash of the Old and Those Struggling for the New.)

These lines giving an evaluation of the dialectics of the class struggle and written more than 10 years ago, still retain their significance. So long as the classes ace not finally liquidated, until such time as class society is not destroyed, until that time the class struggle of the proletariat serves as the basic prerequisite for social development, the condition for the advance of society to a higher form of organization-to Communism. And those who do not understand this, who do not want to understand the necessity of this difficult road towards building up of Communism, and of a struggle for it, those that are frightened by these difficulties, and dream of avoiding them, trying to conciliate the exploited with the exploiters-all such are in fact enemies of Communism, because they hinder the masses of the exploited class from fulfilling their task, lead them away f rom that road that is the only way out of the clutches of slavery and society based on exploitation. 

The unwillingness to take into account the actual and unavoidable course of things, mentally jumping over several stages which in reality have to be passed through-that also is a great sin against dialectics. · Such jumping over and running ahead leads to isolation from the masses, and in practical politics, to the fact that the real leadership of the revolutionary mass struggle is given up ( and pre­cisely into the hands of the bourgeoisie). 

Dialectics demand a clear definition of from what and toward what transition is taking place and clear distinction of the consecutive stages.

There are innumerable examples of how Lenin could masterly discern transitions. Let us point here to the world historical significance of the transition ( transformation)  of the imperialist war into a civil war - a transition that was not only studied and understood by Lenin İn its full significance, but actually took place with the closest participation of Lenin. At the basis of this transition is the development of the proletarian revolution which is achieving the transition from capitalism to Communism through the dictatorship of the proletariat. Lenin studied the course of this development in all its complexity. In 1916 he wrote about the imminent socialist revolution, that it will be-

" ... an explosion of mass struggle of all and sundry oppressed and dissatisfied. A part of the petty bourgeoisie and of the backward workers will unavoidably take part in it-without such participation no mass struggle, no revolution is possible and, of course, just as unavoidably they will bring into the movement their prejudices, their reactionary fantasies, their weaknesses and errors. But objectively they will be attacking capital and the conscious vanguard of the revolution, the advanced proletariat, expressing this objective truth of a multicolored, disharmonious, motley and superficially disunited mass struggle, will find a way how to unify and direct it, conquer power, take over the banks, expropriate the trusts, so hateful to all ( though for different reasons), and carry out other dictatorial measures that, in their sum total, will result in the overthrow of the bourgeoisie and in the victory of socialism which, however, will not succeed in immediately cleansing itself of its petty bourgeois dross." (Lenin, Works, Vol. XIX, Results of the Discussion on Self Determination, p: 269.)

This scientific prophecy of Lenin has come true in its entirety.In all the works of Lenin of the period 191 7-1923 we find light thrown on the whole series of questions connected with the task of leadership of the class struggle of the proletariat which is engaged in transforming of a capitalist system of exploitation into a class-less communist society. In the course of a series _of articles Lenin analyses the stages of the revolution, studies the transitions during the very period of transition, grasps the very essence of the phenomena  which are transpiring, points precisely from what and to-ward what transition is proceeding, isolates the basic and essential points, takes note of the objective conditions in order to direct the mass struggle, to utilize all available forces for the development and deepening of the proletarian revolution, for the victory of the cause of the proletariat ( see such articles as New Times; Old Errors in N Forms; On the Significance of Gold at Present and After the Final Victory of Socialism )-and we should be absolutely clear on this point, that only on the basis of the theoretical understanding of the revolutionary struggle that was taking place at the time did the leadership of the Party of Lenin assure the victory of the proletariat, the consolidation of its dictatorship and the further develop-ment of socialist construction.

To be  able to correctly point out the consecutive stages of transitional periods is not merely of theoretical but, as we have already pointed out above, of immense practical value and significance in the work of directing the struggle of the proletariat of determining the strategy and tactics ( see, for instance, in Vol. XX, Letters on Tactics, pp. 99-108). 

Lenin knew how to actually follow up the struggle of contradictions, of opposites. And that is the main thing. We have already pointed out, that dialectic materialism demands a formulation of the actual process of development. Here we ·approach still another counter-view. 

True (objective) dialectics are contrasted with sophistry, which means not a study of the real process of development in its entirety, but an arbitrary playing with conceptions ( subjective dialectics, arbitrarily applied, torn from all connection with its base-the dialectic movement of the external material world). 

Many examples of sophistry can be found in . the struggle of opportunists against revolutionary Marxism, in the arguments of Kautsky and Plechanov in the period in which they betrayed revolutionary Marxism. An analysis of the sophism of the opportunists· is given, for instance, in the article The Collapse of the Second International, Lenin says there:

"The dialectic method demands a many-sided investigation of a given social phenomenon in its development; it demands that we proceed from the exterior, from the apparent, to the fundamental moving forces, to the development of the productive forces and to the class struggle." {Lenin, Works, Vol. XVIII, pp. 247-:248.)

The sophist, however, takes up a certain thesis which, under certain conditions appears to be entirely correct, and substitutes it .for a real comprehensive study, passing over in silence the most important thing, namely the fact that the very conditions that justified the given thesis are absent today, that the entire ·surroundings have changed, and precisely this changes the basis of the whole thing. Marx and Engels, for instance, spoke about the validity of the national-liberation wars in Europe during the first half of the 19th century (for instance, in Prussia, 1813) ; Kautsky carried over those words of Marx and Engels into another epoch, applying them to the outright imperialistic and robber wars of the 20th century.

"The method of the sophist throughout all times, said Lenin, is to make use of examples which obviously relate to cases which are different in principle." (Ibid., p. 128.) 

The entire article The Collapse of the Second International is a splendid example of materialist dialectics. The article contains detailed and definite statements and explanations as to precisely what the sophism of the opportunists consist of. In all the polemical works of Lenin there is no end to such examples of how to make use of materialist dialectics and how to struggle against incorrect views of the opportunists which pervert the truth. Criticizing the errors of his adversaries Lenin exposed the roots of these errors, pointed out exactly in what the errors consist and how to correct them. Lenin did this in the polemics with the Populists: Who are the "Friends of the People" and How Do They Fight. Agmnst the Social Democrats?; with Struve: The Economic Contents of Populism and Its Criticism in the Book of Mr. Struve; with the Economists: What Is To Be Done?; and in the polemics with the Mensheviks, · the liquidators, the "recallists" and with Trotsky: Two ' Tactics; N ous hy a Journalist; Debatable Questions; On the Violation of Unity Covered up with Cnes of Unity, etc. ; · and in the philosophical polemics with the Machians: Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, etc. This is the only correct method, a really dialectic method of· conquest not a simple shoving aside ( which is easily done) but a detailed analysis, a conscientious effort to illumine the question in all its details based on a deep study and understanding of the entire subject, discussion as a whole, ( while not losing a general grasp of the whole because of attention to details). In the final results we get a deep all-sided understanding, all things are shown in their true interrelationship as we find them in actual life, we arrive at the concrete truth to a full, all-sided, exhaustive illumination of the subject, to an understanding of it as a unity of opposites. 

You cannot understand capitalism without understanding the unity of opposites of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat and of the inevitable transition of capitalism into Communism through the class struggle of the proletariat. You cannot understand the law of motion and of the development of the universe without studying and trying to understand the unity of the opposites of ether and matter, positive and negative electricity, repulsion and attraction ( see Lenin; Works, On the Quest.ion of Dialectics, Vol. XIII, p. 301). The struggle of opposites, eternal change of forms, transition from one condition into another, from one form to another--such are the dialectics of the whole world surrounding us.

In characterizing dialectics we have dwelt all the time on the basic law: the law of the unity of opposites. We have done this because precisely this particular law is the most important, and, yet, it has been explained and discussed least of all in the popular literature. This law, the same as the other law the law of "transition of quality into quantity," and the law of the "negation or negation," were splendidly explained by Engels in his Anti-Duehring. *

* See Anti.-Duehring, part I, chapter 12, "Dialectics. Quantity and Quality."; Chapter 13: Dialectics. Negation of the Negation." A splendid explanation of the dialectic method was given by Engels in his pamphlet, Developmpnt of Socudism from Utopia to Science," made up of three chapters taken from the same Anti-Duehring. The Chapter 2 of the pamphlet is devoted to a discussion about the essentials of the dialectic method.

OPPORTUNISM-SOCIAL DEMAGOGY ARE THE GREATEST ENEMIES OF THE REVOLUTION

1. In a period of the approaching of decisive revolutionary situ-ations, the compromise parties are the most dangerous enemies of the working class and the strongest supporters of the enemies of revolution. 

2. Without the isolation of such parties, it is impossible to over throw the enemy ( Czarism and the bourgeoisie.) 

3. It therefore follows that in the period of preparation of revolution the greatest fire must be directed against the compromise parties, for their isolation, in order to detach the toiling masses from their influence.-(STALIN: On the Road to October.) 

By V. ADORATSKY

( Translation from the Russian by L. KATZ)