Lenin - On Parliamentary Struggle
"theoretical victory of Marxism compelled its enemies to disguise
themselves as Marxists. Liberalism, rotten within, tried to revive itself in
the form of socialist opportunism." (1)
Fundamental Marxist Leninist Approach on the choice of forms of struggle
Contrary to the arguments of Left deviations, Marxist Leninists never
refuse a form of struggle, including and especially Parliamentary form of
struggle. Argument as such is against the dialectics of Marxism. Lenin
asks, " What are the fundamental demands which every
Marxist should make of an examination of the question of forms of
struggle?" and gives his answer;
"Marxism differs from all primitive forms of socialism
by not binding the movement to any one particular form of struggle.
It recognizes the most varied forms of struggle; and it does not “concoct”
them, but only generalizes, organizes, gives conscious expression to
those forms of struggle of the revolutionary classes which arise of themselves
in the course of the movement. Absolutely hostile to all abstract
formulas and to all doctrinaire recipes, Marxism
demands an attentive attitude to the mass struggle in progress, which, as the
movement develops, as the class-consciousness of the masses grows, as economic
and political crises become acute, continually gives rise to new and
more varied methods of defense and attack.. Marxism, therefore,
positively does not reject any form of struggle. Under no
circumstances does Marxism confine itself to the forms of struggle possible and
in existence at the given moment only, recognizing as it does that new forms of
struggle, unknown to the participants of the given period, inevitably arise as
the given social situation, changes."
Marxism demands an absolutely historical examination of
the question of the forms of struggle. To treat this question apart from
the concrete historical situation betrays a failure to
understand the rudiments of dialectical materialism. At
different stages of economic evolution, depending on differences in political,
national-cultural, living and other conditions, different forms of
struggle come to the fore and become the principal forms of
struggle; and in connection with this, the secondary, auxiliary forms
of struggle undergo change in their turn. To attempt to answer yes or
no to the question whether any particular means of struggle should be
used, without making a detailed examination of the concrete situation of
the given movement at the given stage of its development, means
completely to abandon the Marxist position.... These are the
two principal theoretical propositions by which we must be guided. "
(2)
Based on Lenin's assessment of the subject and Marxist -Leninist basic
approach, far-left sloganized phrases such as " Marxist Leninists do not
use parliament because it is pigsty of bourgeoise" , "no to
parliament and election" - isolated from the concrete situation have
nothing to do with Marxism- Leninism, but anti-Marxist-Leninist
indeed. Both, theoretically and practically, it is unavoidable and expected for
so many variations of Trotskyists to make such arguments for every
condition.
During the years of Imperialist war, end of 1916, Lenin in his letter to
Inessa Armand was saying;
"How stupid that Levi is attacking parliamentarism!! Stupid!!
And a “Left”, too!! God, how much muddle there is in people’s heads."
"(3)
Undoubtedly these words of Lenin were not for "every
condition" but he was emphasizing the stupidity of attacking to
parliamentarism on the basis of concrete assessment of that given concrete
conditions.
Marxist Leninists do not reject the use of parliament, but they proceed
from the historically proven fact that the usage of parliament is entirely
contingent on the conditions of any given period and the balance of powers
-between revolution and counter revolution. We should not confuse the times
when the revolutionary struggle of the masses rising or has already risen,
where the large masses do not have parliamentary illusions, where
non-parliamentary struggle is widespread and strong, with the times when the
revolutionary struggle weak, and where the parliamentary illusions and hopes of
the masses are high. The approach and attitude at each given condition will be
different. Meaning that the Marxist-Leninists do not approach to question as a
" systematized-sloganized" recipe that is appropriate to every
condition.
When Lenin was comparing the Soviet Union and the Democratic Republic in
his speech, he was explaining the importance of Parliament in the context of
the development and struggle of working -class in general;
" The democratic republic and universal suffrage were an
immense progressive advance as compared with feudalism; they have
enabled the proletariat to achieve its present unity and solidarity, to form
those firm and disciplined ranks which are waging a systematic struggle against
capital.
The bourgeois republic, parliament, universal suffrage—all
represent great progress from the standpoint of the world development
of society. Mankind moved towards capitalism, and it was capitalism alone
which, thanks to urban culture, enabled the oppressed proletarian class
to become conscious of itself and to create the world working-class
movement, the millions of workers organised all over the world in parties—the
socialist parties which are consciously leading the struggle of the
masses. Without parliamentarism, without an electoral system, this
development of the working class would have been impossible. That
is why all these things have acquired such great importance in the eyes of the
broad masses of people. That is why a radical change seems to be so difficult.
" (4)
Above, Lenin is making his assessment on the basis
of comparing feudalism, autocracy, etc. with bourgeois Democratic
Republic. Widely extracted quote from the same speech below is the
comparison of the Soviet system with the bourgeois parliamentary
system.
"Whatever guise a republic may assume, however democratic it may
be, if it is a bourgeois republic, if it retains private
ownership of the land and factories, and if private capital keeps the whole of
society in wage-slavery, that is, if the republic does not carry out what is
proclaimed in the Programme of our Party and in the Soviet Constitution, then
this state is a machine for the suppression of some people by others. And
we shall place this machine in the hands of the class that is to overthrow the
power of capital. . "(4)
The dialectical connection between the two is that the necessity of
the destruction of parliament -which is one of the paths of the real
revolution- without rejecting it, benefiting from its contribution.
Failing in the grasp of Marxist dialectics will result in seeing these two
aforementioned assessments as " contradiction " . The reformist
embraces the first, rejects the second, " far-left"
embraces the second, rejects the first. However, for this general
rejection they bring out neither theoretical nor concrete historical practical
illustration.
In regard to those reformists' perspective who
memorized the first quote above and fitted themselves to it as Lenin
says;
" The opportunists of contemporary Social-Democracy, who have
substituted Scheidemann for Marx, have memorized the rule that
parliamentarism “should be utilized” (which is absolutely correct), but
have forgotten what Marx taught concerning proletarian democracy as
distinguished from bourgeois parliamentarism. " . (5)
In regard to far-left perspective, criticizing Bordiga at the
International's second congress, Lenin says;
" Comrade Bordiga seems to have wanted to defend the Italian
Marxists’ point of view here, yet he has failed to reply to any of the
arguments advanced by other Marxists in favour of parliamentary
action.
Comrade Bordiga has admitted that historical experience is not
created artificially. He has just told us that the struggle must be carried
into another sphere. Is he not aware that every revolutionary crisis
has been attended by a parliamentary crisis? True, he has said that
the struggle must be carried into another sphere, into the Soviets. Bordiga,
however, has himself admitted that Soviets cannot be created
artificially. The example of Russia shows that Soviets can be organised
either during a revolution or on the eve of a revolution. Even in the Kerensky
period, the Soviets (which were Menshevik Soviets) were organised in such a way
that they could not possibly constitute a proletarian government. Parliament
is a product of historical development, and we cannot eliminate it until we are
strong enough to disperse the bourgeois parliament. It is only as a
member of the bourgeois parliament that one can, in the given historical
conditions, wage a struggle against bourgeois society and parliamentarianism.
The same weapon as the bourgeoisie employs in the struggle must also be
used by the proletariat, of course, with entirely different
aims. You cannot assert that that is not the case, and if you want to
challenge it, you will have thereby to erase the experience of all
revolutionary developments in the world. "
This was to be seen in the case of Russia too. We were obliged
to convene the Constituent Assembly even after the victory of the proletariat, so
as to prove to the backward proletarians that they had nothing to gain from
that Assembly. To bring home the difference between the two, we had to
concretely contrapose the Soviets and the Constituent Assembly and to show the
Soviets as the only solution. " ( 6)
If we take what Lenin has emphasized in his critic into
account , it wouldn’t be wrong to assume that there are two basic
reasons why Marxist Leninists use parliament as a means; first, to
educate the masses through parliament by exposing the practices of all
bourgeoisie parties, to show the working masses that the parliament
cannot solve the problems, that in terms of solutions the parliament of
the bourgeoisie is a lie and deception , second and most
importantly, as Lenin stressed above, that
parliamentary crisis is one of the most important element of the
objective and subjective conditions of the revolution and that's why
interrelated, directly dialectically connected with the revolution .
"Social-Democrats (Bolsheviks) regard
parliamentarism (participation in representative assemblies) as
one of the means of enlightening and educating the proletariat and organising
it in an independent class party; as one of the methods of the political
struggle for the emancipation of the workers. This Marxist standpoint radically
distinguishes Social-Democracy from bourgeois democracy, on the one hand, and
from anarchism on the other...the participation of the Social-Democrats in the
Duma campaign is of a quite different nature from that of other parties. Unlike
them, we do not regard this campaign as an end in itself or even as being of
cardinal importance. Unlike them, we subordinate this campaign to the interests
of the class struggle."( 7)
Marxist Leninists combine both extra-parliamentary (illegal) and
parliamentary (legal) struggle depending on the conditions and balance of
power.
" Tactics " says Lenin, “cannot be based on the bare
fact that the oppressors deceive the people; tactics must be shaped
after analyzing class relations in their entirety and the
development of both extra-parliamentary and parliamentary struggle.."
"(8)
Another Lenin 's widely clipped quote is; "Bourgeois
parliament is pigsty; revolutionaries don't work in pigsty”. In relation to
this, the same writing of Lenin above states;
" they were based only on the "catchyness" of the boycott
slogan and on the revulsion felt towards the brutal reaction of the June
Third "pigsty". The objective situation, however,
was such that on the one hand the revolution was in a state of collapse
and declining fast. For the upsurge of the revolution a parliamentary
base (even inside a "pigsty") was of tremendous political
importance, since extra-parliamentary means of propaganda, agitation and
organisation were almost nonexistent or extremely weak. On the other hand, the
most openly reactionary nature of the Third Duma did not prevent it from being
an organ reflecting real class relations, namely, the Stolypin combination of
the monarchy and the bourgeoisie. This new relation of classes was
something the country had to get rid of. (8)
As we can deduce from the quotes above, undoubtedly there is no
connection with Marxism Leninism in denying Parliamentary struggle as a
general rule. In regard to the trial of Group of Social Democrats in Duma
Lenin was saying;
"the trial has revealed a picture without precedent in
world socialism—that of revolutionary Social-Democracy making use
of parliamentarianism. More than any speeches, this example will
appeal to the minds and hearts of the proletarian masses; more
convincingly than any arguments, it will refute the legalist
opportunists and anarchist phrase-mongers. " (9)
Lenin was stressing;
" obligatory appointment of definitely
revolutionary workers who are entirely free from traditions, habits
and prejudices of peaceful work, parliamentarism and legalism, and who, even if
extremely inexperienced, are (1) capable of fighting reformism and opportunism
(2) and are in close touch with the rank and file of the proletariat and with
its most revolutionary section. (10)
Contrary to the far-left discourse Marxism-Leninism as a principle
defending the use of Parliament proceeds from the principle that the use
is totally contingent on the specific conditions of a given situation, and the
concrete assessment of it.
In a different situation, for example, Lenin was saying;
" As Social-Democrats we, of course, have recognised
the obligation in principle of using parliamentarism as a weapon of
the proletarian struggle. But the point is whether it is
admissible for Social-Democrats to take part, in present conditions, in
a “parliament” like our Duma. Is it admissible to form a parliamentary group
without Social-Democratic members of parliament elected by workers’
organisations? Our opinion is that it is not." (11)
It is clear that Lenin was not against parliamentarianism in
principle. Contrary he was for the use of parliament in principle, but
contingent on the concrete assessment of existing specific
conditions. Every decision for a ML derives from and has in mind the
interests of working class and of its struggle.
The same way that Lenin calls anti-parliamentarianism as
"stupidity" in where the revolutionary situation does not
exist, he calls parliamentarianism as "stupidity" in
where the revolutionary situation is ripe, and riots have begun.
“It has become a commonplace for all opponents of revisionism or
opportunism in parliamentary countries. It has become generally accepted as the
legitimate and necessary rebuff to “parliamentary cretinism,” Millerandism,
Bernsteinism, and the Italian reformism of the Turati brand. ....
The concept “opposition,” which has become the
reflection and the expression of a political situation in which no one
seriously speaks of an insurrection, is senselessly applied to a
situation in which insurrection has begun and in which all the supporters of
the revolution are thinking and talking about leadership in it. The desire
to “stick to” old methods, i.e., action only “from below,” is expressed
with pomp and clamour precisely at a time when the revolution has
confronted us with the necessity, in the event of the insurrection
being victorious, of acting from above. " (12)
We can find the different approach at different times, and the reason,
as I have stressed earlier for the use of Parliament, in Lenin's
following statement;
"Prior to the capture of political power by the proletariat it
was (obligatory) necessary to make use of bourgeois democracy, parliamentarism
in particular, for the political education and organisation of the
working masses; now that the proletariat has won political power and a higher
type of democracy is being put into effect in the Soviet
Republic, any step backward to bourgeois parliamentarism and
bourgeois democracy would undoubtedly be reactionary service to the interests
of the exploiters, the landowners and capitalists." (13)
Lenin, with self-criticism states the different approach at different
times:
" The Bolsheviks, it turned out, had a wrong attitude to
parliamentarism in moments of revolutionary (and not constitutional)
crises...
The Bolshevik participation in this hideous fraud, in this farce, had
the same justification as their participation in the Third Duma ; even
in a "pigsty" we must uphold our line, even from a "pigsty"
we must send out material exposing the enemy for the instruction of the
people.
The difference,
however, is this, that the Third Duma was convened when the revolution
was obviously ebbing, while at present there is an obvious upsurge of
a new revolution; of the scope and the pace of this upsurge, however, we
unfortunately know very little.” (14)
Vulgar Anarchists, phrase-mongering opposition
to parliamentarianism, especially in autocratic, fascist countries like
Turkey ", neither conforms with the dialectic of Marxism nor with
Leninism in its nature.
"For Marx", Lenin says "however, revolutionary
dialectics was never the empty fashionable phrase, the toy rattle,
which Plekhanov, Kautsky and others have made of it. Marx knew how to
break with anarchism ruthlessly for its inability to make use
even of the “pigsty” of bourgeois parliamentarism, especially when
the situation was obviously not revolutionary; but at the same time, he
knew how to subject parliamentarism to genuinely revolutionary proletarian
criticism. "" (15)
What always interesting is that in countries like Turkey, the
efforts and approaches of left- deviation (Trotskyite
variations) to dish out anarchism as Leninism is not any
different from the history of "left- deviation " approach and the
attitude in Russia. When Lenin criticized the Otzovists, he was exposing this
clearly:
"You have memorised fragments of Bolshevik phrases and slogans but
your understanding of them is precisely nil...
The anarchists have absolutely never been able to understand this
simple thing. Now our otzovists and their removed echoers are trying to
introduce anarchist modes of thought among Russian Social-Democrats,
crying out (like Maximov and Co.) that Proletary is dominated by the
theory of “parliamentarism at any price”.
... To show how stupid and un-Social-Democratic these out cries of
Maximov and Co. are, we shall once more have to begin with the ABC. Just
reflect, unjustly removed ones, what is the specific difference between
the policy and tactics of the German Social-Democrats and those of the
socialist workers’ parties in other countries? The utilisation of
parliamentarism; the conversion of bourgeois Junker (approximate
Russian equivalent: Octobrist-Black-Hundred) parliamentarism into an
instrument for the socialist education and organisation of the mass of the
workers. Does this mean that parliamentarism is the highest form of
struggle of the socialist proletariat? Anarchists the world over think
it does mean that. " (16)
For the participation in
parliament, in a different country and for a different situation, comparing,
Lenin said;
"the question of parliamentarism is now a partial, secondary
question. Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht were, in my opinion,
correct when they defended participation in the elections to the German
bourgeois parliament, to the constituent National Assembly, at the January
1919 Conference of the Spartacists in Berlin, against the majority at the
Conference.... I am personally convinced that to renounce participation
in the parliamentary elections is a mistake on the part of the revolutionary
workers of Britain, but better to make that mistake than to delay the
formation of a big workers’ Communist Party in Britain out of all the trends
and elements. " .. (17)
Against the participation,
Lenin for a different situation says;
" The specific feature of the present state of the Russian
revolution is that objective conditions are pushing into the
forefront a resolute, extra-parliamentary struggle for
parliamentarism; and for that reason, there can be nothing more
harmful and dangerous at such a time than constitutional illusions and
playing at parliamentarism. At such a time the parties of
“parliamentary” opposition may be more dangerous and harmful than completely
and avowedly reactionary parties: this proposition may sound paradoxical only
to those who are totally incapable of thinking dialectically. " (18)
Contrary to the Trotskyists and their tailgaters direct or indirect
arguments or implications, it is very clear that Lenin did not have
categorical rejecting attitude to parliamentarism. The same way, it is very
clear that Lenin's attitude to the use of parliamentarism is not beyond its use
as a means, it is not an end by itself. Lenin 's attitude to parliament
has always been for the use of it as a means, and always stressed the
necessity of preventing the spread of the parliamentary illusion. Lenin who
reads the article Lunacharsky wrote before its published notes;
" I believe the article should be revised along one of two lines:
either the weight of emphasis should be shifted to our new-Iskrists, who
are “playing at parliamentarism”, and you should demonstrate in detail
the relative, temporary importance of parliamentarism, the
futility of “parliamentary illusions” in an era of revolutionary struggle,
etc., by explaining the whole thing from the beginning ... We must fight in
a revolutionary way for a parliament, but not in a parliamentary way for a
revolution; we must fight in a revolutionary way for a strong
parliament, and not in an impotent “parliament” for a
revolution"" (19)
These contradictory Parliamentarianism attitude in appearance is not
comprehended in its dialectical connection, and insidiously used
especially by the revisionists in order to confuse. As Lenin noted for Russian
case, the attitude should be clarified for the masses to understand it
correctly;
" People in Russia are now badly in need of having the relation
between parliamentarism and revolution explained to them from the very
beginning." (19)
One of the reason for the revolutionary masses fall into disappointment
in countries like Turkey is that, even if few, some of the so called leftists
enter in the pigsty in compliance with the pigsty owners and becomes a
promoter of pigsty even up to the degree of throwing dirt to Stalin in the
pigsty and becoming a spokesman for the pigsty. For this reason, Lenin said;
" The party should demand of its parliamentary representatives, ....that
they utilize their particularly advantageous political position, not
for idle reformist parliamentary talk, which naturally only bores the
workers and rouses their suspicion, but for propaganda
for the socialist revolution ." (20)
As we can easily see from the above citations, to oppose parliament and
parliamentarism in principle is not Leninist but Trotskyite and
anarchist approach. Marxist Leninists view the use of parliament as a necessary
means to educate the masses, and both, for the parliamentary crisis being
an important part of the objective of conditions of revolution, and its direct
connection with the revolution, they would not reject the use of parliament.
Contrary, Marxist Leninists, as long as the conditions permit they are for the
use of Parliament. “how is one to see what is what in the fight between
the various parties? Does not this fight, with its fraud and advertising,
indicate that representative institutions, parliaments, assemblies of people’s
representatives, are in general useless and even harmful, as
rabid reactionaries, the enemies of parliamentarism make out? “
asks Lenin, “No.” he responds, “ In the absence of
representative institutions there is much more deception, political
lying and fraudulent trickery of all kinds, and the people have much fewer
means of exposing the deception and finding out the truth.” (Political Parties
in Russia, CW V18, P 44)
These words of Lenin below for the required specific "condition
" assessment in order to determine the " use or reject of
parliament should give a clear idea;
""How can one say that “parliamentarianism is politically
obsolete”, when “millions” and “legions” of proletarians are not
only still in favour of parliamentarianism in general, but are downright
“counter-revolutionary”!? ..
....Parliamentarianism is of course “politically obsolete” to
the Communists in Germany; but—and that is the whole point—we must
not regard what is obsolete to us as something obsolete to a
class, to the masses. Here again we find that the “Lefts” do not know
how to reason, do not know how to act as the party of a class, as the party of
the masses. You must not sink to the level of the masses, to the
level of the backward strata of the class. That is incontestable. You
must tell them the bitter truth. You are in duty bound to call their
bourgeois-democratic and parliamentary prejudices what they are—prejudices. But
at the same time, you must soberly follow the actual state of the
class-consciousness and preparedness of the entire class (not
only of its communist vanguard), and of all the working people (not
only of their advanced elements)." (21)
Taking Advantage of Legal Opportunities During Reaction Period
The petty-bourgeois far-left (always understand this as left
opportunists and Trotskyites) approach to the topics, most
typically has been in the form of "memorized
phrase-mongering" and sloganization of theories
regardless of the existing conditions. Generally, their heads
buried in the sand defending "illegal struggle " only, they
reject all kinds of legal democratic and socialist struggle, and label these
struggles as” reformism " in order to prepare the justification and ratification
of their escape form the daily struggle.
Lenin characterized the " Otzovists " (those who
qualify every legitimate struggle as reformism) for defending the tactics
of Bolsheviks in where the revolutionary struggle was higher, rejecting the
benefit of legal opportunities in the period of reaction, as the "
Caricatures of Bolshevism”.
" To make the task of “strenuously opposing all
deals” the pivot of our agitation today means making oneself a
caricature of Bolshevism. " . (22)
For the so called far-left”, current conditions and
situation," " balance of powers”, “interests of working class and her
struggle ", etc. are concepts that has no meaning or
importance. For they have become the experts of applying phrase making slogans
as templates fitting their far-left subjectivity and drawing the worst
cartoons of Bolshevism drawn.
In a similar situation of Turkey, where the far-left was against the
Parliamentary struggle with the argument that” All reversion to
parliamentary forms of struggle, which have become historically and politically
obsolete, must be emphatically rejected..." Lenin responded to the
German Communists;
" All reversion to parliamentary forms of struggle, which have
become historically and politically obsolete, must be emphatically rejected. .
. .”
This is said with ridiculous pretentiousness and is patently
wrong. “Reversion” to parliamentarianism, forsooth! Perhaps there is
already a Soviet republic in Germany? It does not look like it! How,
then, can one speak of “reversion”? Is this not an empty phrase?" (21)
Lenin brings the following example and explanation of the importance of
the use of Parliament, especially in reactionary Periods;
" it has been proved that, far from causing harm to the
revolutionary proletariat, participation in a bourgeois-democratic parliament, even
a few weeks before the victory of a Soviet republic and even after such a
victory, actually helps that proletariat to prove to the backward
masses why such parliaments deserve to be done away with; it
facilitates their successful dissolution, and helps to make bourgeois
parliamentarianism “politically obsolete” .
We Bolsheviks participated in the most counterrevolutionary
parliaments, and experience has shown that this participation
was not only useful but indispensable to the party of the
revolutionary proletariat, after the first bourgeois revolution in Russia
(1905), so as to pave the way for the second bourgeois revolution (February
1917), and then for the socialist revolution (October 1917). . "
(21)
For those who hide behind a far-left mask as an easy way to escape
from struggle without being seen as reactionary, Lenin says;
" it is very easy to show one’s “revolutionary” temper merely
by hurling abuse at parliamentary opportunism, or merely by
repudiating participation in parliaments; it’s very ease, however, cannot
turn this into a solution of a difficult, a very difficult, problem."
Criticism—the most
keen, ruthless and uncompromising criticism—should be directed, not against
parliamentarianism or parliamentary activities, but against those
leaders who are unable—and still more against those who are unwilling—to
utilise parliamentary elections and the parliamentary rostrum in a
revolutionary and communist manner." (21)
Lenin while specifying the difference between those with " either -
or " approach who draw a bad caricature of
Bolshevism states the following;
" Our tactics are different. We make use
of every reform (insurance, for example) and of every legal
society. But we use them to develop the revolutionary consciousness and
the revolutionary struggle of the masses. ." (23)
The problem is not only to take advantage of legal opportunities for the
interests of the revolutionary struggle, it is the assessment of how to
take advantage of the opportunities and to what degree. In this regard Lenin says;
"It amuses us to hear the liquidators say, for example, that we are
opposed to “freedom of association”, for we not only emphasised the
importance of this point of our programme in a special resolution
adopted by the January Conference of 1912, but we made ten times more
effective use of the curtailed right of association than the liquidators did. .
" (23)
What decisive is, taking advantage of legal opportunities within a
reformists outlook, or revolutionary outlook. Lenin, in reference to make use
of it how the Bolsheviks should use the legal of possibilities gives the
example of 1903 1905, 1905-1907 and 1917- 1920 periods:
"1905-07 revolution years. The alternation of
parliamentary and non-parliamentary forms of struggle, of the tactics of
boycotting parliament and that of participating in parliament, of legal and
illegal forms of struggle, and likewise their interrelations and
connections—all this was marked by an extraordinary wealth of content.
.."
Conference of our Party began to state officially in the name of the
Party—that a bourgeois republic with a Constituent Assembly would be
better than a bourgeois republic without a Constituent Assembly, but
that a “workers’ and peasants’ ” republic, a Soviet republic, would be
better than any bourgeois-democratic, parliamentary republic. Without
such thorough, circumspect, and long preparations, we could not have
achieved victory in October 1917, or have consolidated that victory.
"" (24)
Lenin's statement for the years of reaction 1907-1910 is quite
valid for the phrase-mongerers who refuses the use of legal
opportunities:
"1907-10 reactionary years, Tsarism was victorious. All the
revolutionary and opposition parties were smashed.
Of all the defeated opposition and revolutionary parties, the Bolsheviks
effected the most orderly retreat, with the least loss to their “army”, with
its core best preserved, with the least significant splits (in point of depth
and incurability), with the least demoralisation, and in the best condition to
resume work on the broadest scale and in the most correct and energetic manner.
The Bolsheviks achieved this only because they ruthlessly exposed and expelled
the revolutionary phrase-mongers, those who did not wish to understand that one
had to retreat, that one had to know how to retreat, and that one had
absolutely to learn how to work legally in the most reactionary of parliaments,
in the most reactionary of trade unions, co-operative and insurance societies
and similar organisations." (24)
While explaining the later years, " revival " period of 1910-1914, Lenin
explains the importance of the use of legal opportunities during the years
of reaction:
"At first progress was incredibly slow, then, following the Lena
events of 1912, it became somewhat more rapid. Overcoming unprecedented
difficulties, the Bolsheviks thrust back the Mensheviks, whose role as
bourgeois agents in the working-class movement was clearly realized by the
entire bourgeoisie after 1905, and whom the bourgeoisie therefore supported in
a thousand ways against the Bolsheviks. But the Bolsheviks would never
have succeeded in doing this had they not followed the correct tactics of
combining illegal work with the utilization of “legal opportunities”, which
they made a point of doing. In the elections to the arch-reactionary Duma, the
Bolsheviks won the full support of the worker curia. . " (24)
Again, Lenin summarizes the importance of this use during the years of
imperialist World War, 1914-1917:
"Legal parliamentarianism, with an extremely reactionary
“parliament”, rendered most useful service to the Bolsheviks, the
party of the revolutionary proletariat. ." (24)
Whether to use the legal possibilities or not depends on the balance of
powers of that particular stage. Where the Leadership, organization's and the
struggles of the mass of people at its peak, the use of legal opportunities
may (most likely) not be needed. However, when the specific
situation, balance of power is against our favor, as the examples given by the
Bolsheviks and particularly during the reactionary period, the use of
legal opportunities for the interests of socialist revolution is a
necessity. Because at times of reaction where the offensive of capital
to the working class and to all strata of people, the purposes of revolutionary
organization, the cohesion with the masses, gaining their leadership through
practical struggle for empowerment, strength and changing the balance of
power are dialectically connected.
During the periods of reaction rejection of the use of legal
opportunities, (in most cases) does not strengthen the struggle but serves the
interests of reaction through the practice of far-left in words,
pacifism indeed. Because strengthening of the struggle
strictly depends on the movement’s establishment of bonds with the
masses whom facing the attacks of reaction and suffering from it.
Struggle cannot develop and cannot be strengthened by abandoning the masses.
Especially during the years of reaction in order to bond with the masses to
take advantage of all legal opportunities for the interests of
the struggle is a must. During the years of reaction, Lenin points out;
"The present new conditions require new forms of struggle.
The use of the Duma tribune is an absolute necessity. A
prolonged effort to educate and organise the masses of the
proletariat becomes particularly important. The combination of illegal
and legal organisation raises special problems before the Party.
"(25)
Lenin summarizes the responsibility of the socialists to the masses and
struggle;
"Needless to say, the task of these cells and
committees must be to utilize all the semi-legal and as far as
possible, legal organisations, to maintain “close
contact with the masses”, and to direct the work in such a way that Social-Democracy
responds to all the needs of the masses.. (25)
Is there any way to deduce anything else form Lenin's assessments other
than that, especially during the years of reaction, it is the task
of revolutionaries to utilize every legal possibility for
the benefit of revolutionary struggle?
In reference to parliamentarianism as one of the forms of struggle Lenin
states;
" Parliamentarism is one form of activity, journalism is another.
The content of both can be communist, and it should be communist if
those engaged in both spheres are real Communists, are real members of a
proletarian mass party. Yet, in neither sphere -- nor in any other sphere of
activity under capitalism and during the period of transition from capitalism
to Socialism -- is it possible to avoid those difficulties which the
proletariat must overcome, those special problems which the proletariat
must solve in order to utilize for its own purposes the services of
those who have come from the ranks of the bourgeoisie, in order to gain the
victory over bourgeois intellectual prejudices and influences, in order
to weaken the resistance of (and, ultimately, completely to transform)
the petty-bourgeois environment. "
The childishness of those who "repudiate" participation in
parliament consists precisely in the fact that they think it
possible to "solve " the difficult problem of combating
bourgeois-democratic influences within the working-class movement by
such a "simple," "easy," supposedly revolutionary
method, when in reality they are only running away from their own
shadow, only closing their eyes to difficulties and only trying to brush
them aside with mere words. . "
.... the attempt to brush aside, to fence oneself off from
one of the "unpleasant" problems or difficulties in one
sphere of activity is a profound mistake, which will later most certainly have
to be paid for. We must study and learn how to master every sphere of work
and activity without exception, to overcome all difficulties and all
bourgeois habits, customs, and traditions everywhere. Any other way of
presenting the question is just trifling, just
childishness. "" (26)
Revolutionaries are " hopeful " and in this sense, in this
subject, what they want to realize , and the society they believe in, in
that sense is a " dream", but they are not "dreamers" when
it comes to the concrete conditions and situations", they are realists who
rely on the assessment of the concrete situation. Exampling Turkey, in such a
reactionary period, where the revolutionary forces are the weakest in
their entire history of struggle to reject the utilization of parliament,
is similar to a patient who has the possibility of recovery preferring to
remain in vegetative state rather than struggling for
recovery.
What is most interesting as well is that "head in the sand
body outside" Ostriche like some "illegal,"
left-wing parties such as in Turkey , "the illegal communist party "
far-left the phrase-mongering is "left in words" and "pacifist
indeed" to a degree that falls to the right of reformists.
In the specific tactical practice for the subject of boycotting
or participating in the parliamentary elections, the clear outlining finds
itself in the words of Stalin;
"" To accelerate or retard the movement,
facilitate or hinder it—such is the field and the limits within which political
strategy and tactics can be applied. ""
"" Tactics are a part of strategy, subordinated
to and serving it. ..Strategy strives to win the war, or to carry through the
struggle, against tsarism let us say, to the end; tactics, on the
contrary, strive to win particular engagements and battles, to conduct
particular campaigns successfully, or particular operations, that are more or
less appropriate to the concrete situation of the struggle at each
given moment.
A most important function of tactics is to determine the ways
and means, the forms and methods of fighting that are most
appropriate to the concrete situation at the given moment and are most
certain to prepare the way for strategic success. Consequently, the operation
and results of tactics must be regarded not in isolation, not from the point of
view of their immediate effect, but from the point of view of the aims and
possibilities of strategy..
tactics must not be subordinated to the transient interests of the
moment, they must not be guided by considerations of immediate political
effect, still less must they desert firm ground and build castles in the
air. Tactics must be devised in accordance with the aims and
possibilities of strategy.
The function of tactics is primarily to determine— in
accordance with the requirements of strategy, and taking into account the
experience of the workers' revolutionary struggle in all countries—the
forms and methods of fighting most appropriate to the concrete
situation of the struggle at each given moment. . ""
(27)
Especially during the period of reaction where the revolutionary
leadership and organization is weak to utilize the legal opportunities in the
interests of working people and their struggle is the integral and
inevitable part of revolutionary struggle. At the time of
the reactionary period and the unfavorable conditions and balance of power ,to
reject every legal form of struggle and to utilize them for the interests of
working class and its struggle can only be the work of the left-wing
phrase mongerers who draw the worst caricature of Marxism,
Leninism.
In the case of Turkey for example, what is proposed behind far-left
phrase mongering? Is the current question to replace one ruling party with
another, or democracy (even in its bourgeois meaning) against Autocracy? The
utopic baseless approach of” either all or nothing" cannot
see the difference. In this subject Lenin states;
" In politics utopia is a wish that can never come true—neither
now nor afterwards, a wish that is not based on social forces and is not
supported by the growth and development of political, class
forces.
The less freedom there is in a country, the scantier
the manifestations of open class struggle and the lower the educational level
of the masses, the more easily political utopias usually arise and the
longer they persist. "(28)
Thus, far-left phrase mongers not only pacify the masses but at the same
time serve the interests of reaction. Lenin in his speech at the Extra Ordinary
7th Congress of the RCPB says; “we must now write a new
Programme of Soviet power and not in any way reject the use of
bourgeois parliamentarism. It is a utopia to think that we shall not be
thrown back.” At the same congress in another speech he says; “We ought not in
any way to give the impression that we attach absolutely no value to
bourgeois parliamentary institutions…. we cannot leave the way open
for a purely anarchist denial of bourgeois parliamentarism.”
Yes, Parliament is a " pigsty " of the bourgeoisie -
especially under autocracy, it has no function at all. But
“. the objective situation, however, was such
that on the one hand the revolution was in a state of collapse and
declining fast. For the upsurge of the revolution a
parliamentary base (even inside a "pigsty") was of tremendous
political importance, since extra-parliamentary means of propaganda,
agitation and organisation were almost nonexistent or extremely weak."
(8)
Lenin's forgotten or overlooked following statement is important to
comprehend and take note of;
"Experience has proved that, on certain very important
questions of the proletarian revolution, all countries will inevitably
have to do what Russia has done. "(24)
There cannot be any revolutionary struggle with catchy phrases, slogans
that appeal to petty bourgeois subjectivity. This approach harms the
revolutionary struggle because it serves the reaction due to the promotion of
passivity. This is precisely the task of Trotskyists stemming from their
ideology and their historical servile practice to serve the interests of
bourgeoisie.
The argument that there is no difference between an Autocracy and
Parliamentary Republic has nothing to do with Marxism-Leninism and its
dialectics.
Yes, as Engels points out, " as in a democratic
republic, "no less" than in a monarchy, the state remains a
"machine for the oppression of one class by another" however "
by no means (it) signifies that the form of oppression
makes no difference to the proletariat, as some anarchists “teach”.
"A wider, freer and more open form of the class struggle and
of class oppression vastly assists the proletariat in its struggle for
the abolition of classes in general....For such a republic, without in the
least abolishing the rule of capital, and, therefore, the oppression of the
masses and the class struggle, inevitably leads to such an extension, development,
unfolding, and intensification of this struggle that, as soon as it becomes
possible to meet the fundamental interests of the oppressed masses, this possibility
is realized inevitably and solely through the dictatorship of the proletariat,
through the leadership of those masses by the proletariat. These, too,
are "forgotten words" of Marxism for the whole of the Second
International, and the fact that they have been forgotten was demonstrated with
particular vividness by the history of the Menshevik Party during the first six
months of the Russian revolution of 1917. "" (29)
Especially if we talk about the countries where the democratic
revolution has not been carried out and completed;
"" To the proletarian the struggle for political
liberty and a democratic republic in a bourgeois society is only one
of the necessary stages in the struggle for the social revolution which
will overthrow the bourgeois system. Strictly differentiating between stages
that are essentially different, soberly examining the conditions under which
they manifest themselves, does not at all mean indefinitely postponing one’s
ultimate aim, or slowing down one’s progress in advance. On the contrary, it
is for the purpose of accelerating the advance and of achieving the ultimate
aim as quickly and securely as possible that it is necessary to
understand the relation of classes in modern society. " (30)
Lenin was emphasizing and summarizing the essence of question in his
critique of Bordiga's anti- parliamentarianism;
" Parliament is a product of historical development,
and we cannot eliminate it until we are strong enough to
disperse the bourgeois parliament. It is only as a member of the
bourgeois parliament that one can, in the given historical conditions,
wage a struggle against bourgeois society and parliamentarianism. The
same weapon as the bourgeoisie employs in the struggle must
also be used by the proletariat, of course, with entirely different
aims." (6)
CONCLUSION
The hostility of Trotskyists since 1903 and especially after the
revolution against the Bolsheviks and against the revolution
-either voluntary or salaried - services to counter revolution is not
secret to people who are capable of critical and objective thinking. When
Lenin said that whatever Mensheviks of today are, will be
of tomorrow, he was not making a statement of prophecy. He was emphasizing
the inevitable practical consequence of Trotskyite ideology. With
all the variations shaping themselves and fitting the conditions of
countries they are in, with their far-left phrase mongering in some, reformist
phrasings in others, they keep on serving the counter revolution.
In a country where a functioning parliament does not exist but an
autocratic regime reigns, in where almost 100% of population have
parliamentary hopes and revolutionary struggle is weak to
a degree that almost non-exist , to reject the " parliamentary form
of struggle " can only be a Trotskyists counter revolutionary
approach in the service of autocracy.
For those who can comprehend, let's leave the words to
Lenin;
"There is capitalism and capitalism. There is
Black-Hundred-Octobrist (autocratic, reactionary) capitalism
and Narodnik (“realistic, democratic”, full of “activity”) capitalism.
The more we expose capitalism before the workers for its “greed and
cruelty”, the more difficult is it for capitalism of the first order to
persist, the more surely is it bound to pass into capitalism of the
second order. And this just suits us, this just suits the
proletariat.
You think I have fallen into a contradiction? In the beginning of the letter
I considered the words “realism, democracy, activity” bad words, and now I find
them good? There is no contradiction here; what is bad for the
proletariat is good for the bourgeois... " (31)
The critique of parliamentarianism approach is not and should not be a
critique just directed against the reformists. The reformist
approach is easily visible to everyone who has the basic
knowledge of Marxism -Leninism. But the most important and most
dangerous ones are those cannot be easily seen due to the
"Leninist disguise" directed to the petty bourgeois
subjectivity and " a way out of struggle" with
" far-left ", "catchy " slogans, and phrase making by those
Trotskyites and anarchists. Although they never had and do not have any roots
in working masses, historical proven fact that they are very effective
in creating confusion among the masses.
The question of parliamentarism, parliamentary struggle should always be
taken in direct connection with the existing condition and situation of
that given period , based on the strength or weakness of revolutionary
struggle - the degree of the parliamentary illusion of the masses- at
that moment and always the interests of the working class
and their struggle in mind. As Lenin puts it; “ It
is naive to take parliamentarism “in its pure form”, as an “idea”,
isolated from the real situation” (32). The approach -
without denying some possible exceptions- will be contradictory in
periods where the revolutionary situation exists and where it does not.
Based on the experience of Russian revolution, it is safe to say that the
Marxist-Leninist approach follows the logic of” parliamentary struggle
- uprising - gaining the majority in parliament - uprising - proletarian
dictatorship (or worker-peasant dictatorship in some
cases).
A summary of various articles on the subject during the last ten years.
July 2020 , E.A
Index of PDF files and notes;
Attached articles have been organized based on the years – index based
on the introduction.
The Vulgar Bourgeois Representation of Dictatorship and Marx’s View of
It P493
.jpg)
