Lenin on Dictator and Dictatorship; Bourgeois vs ML sense of concepts
"The
will of tens and hundreds of thousands can be expressed in one person.
We need more
discipline, more unity, and more dictatorship. Without
this, one cannot even dream of a great victory...” (Lenin, vol. 30,
pp. 472, 480).
We live in a world where the average people get their world view from the bourgeois media; press, TV, Hollywood movies, soap operas and from the bourgeois academicians and intellectuals some may even claim to be "objective" and" realist”. As Marx and Engels stated; those who own the means of production at the same time own the means of mental production” as a consequence of which people are turned in to paraquets who repeat the narratives of the bourgeois in any given subject or event, and who forms a point of view either aligned with or heavily influenced by the bourgeois point of view. This is not a coincidence but an expected result under the current conditions for the general population. However, for those who claim to be Marxist, or Marxist-Leninist, this is not a coincidence but an indication of a revisionist, reformist tendency or lack of theoretical knowledge and/or the lack of the knowledge and ability to apply the dialectics of Marxism to the theories and given conditions. It is for this reason that these people are against any wars, against any dictatorships, against any “dictators”, against any anti-imperialist struggles, etc., etc.. Not forgetting the fact that every dictator has a class force behind him/her, our subject here is related to the “dictator” in a class “dictatorship”, specifically in a “proletarian dictatorship.”
How Lenin approached the question
of dictator and dictatorship in general and in a socialist state? This article
is based on Lenin’s own statements and definitions largely relied on Molotov’s
citations of Lenin’s collected works and his correspondence . As Molotov
states;
“statement of
Lenin, this or that thought of his on this or that issue – was not accidental,
was not subsequently forgotten or discarded by him.”
Meaning that these statements of
Lenin is not out of context and never
changed in its core.
The long and extensive letter of Molotov
to CC of CPSU which we have translated to English and published, focuses on the
so-called” Stalin's personality cult” in which he states ; I
cannot but say that the very fact of writing this letter - from my point of
view - is one of the concrete manifestations of the negative consequences
in a most destructive way of the
so-called struggle of the party with the so-called Stalin's personality cult.
He defines the Leninist
perspective of “dictator” and the “dictatorship” and how the use of reformist,
bourgeois sense of these concepts “discredits the very idea of the
proletarian dictatorship, the very idea of the socialist revolution.”
With the new approach to the
concepts, and the revisionist, reformist perspective “under the guise of
defending Marxism-Leninism from dogmatism and sectarianism, under the guise of
Marxist dialectics, all the basic philosophical and strategic foundations of
Marxism-Leninism are being revised and adapted to a legal, social
democratic existence.”
In Lenin’s words;
“only by
overcoming the greatest crisis with revolutionary enthusiasm, with
revolutionary energy, with revolutionary readiness for the heaviest sacrifices,
can the proletariat defeat the exploiters and finally rid humanity of
wars ... There is no other way out, because the reformist attitude towards
capitalism gave rise yesterday (and will inevitably give rise tomorrow
) imperialist slaughter of people and all sorts of crises without end"
(Lenin, vol. 30, p. 317).
The character of proletarian
state is forced and dictatorial.
Contrary to the repeated and
categorical instructions of Lenin, revisionists and reformists persistently
try "to reconcile two hostile classes and two hostile
politicians by means of such a word (the world "in general") which
"unites" the most diverse things" (Lenin, vol. 21, p. 263).
In regard to the “dogmatism”
accusation of revisionists and reformists Lenin once stated that;
"precisely
because Marxism is not a dead dogma ... it cannot but reflect upon itself ...
changes in social life. The reflection of the change was a deep
disintegration, confusion, all kinds of vacillations, in a word - a most
serious internal crisis of Marxism. A decisive rebuff to this disintegration ,
a resolute and stubborn struggle for the foundations of Marxism is again on
the order of the day ... "Reassessment of all values" in
various areas of social life has led to a revision of the most abstract and
general philosophical foundations of Marxism" (vol. 17, pp. 23 - 24).
With their bourgeois outlook
and looking at the world through the glasses of bourgeoisie, they criticize
a socialist country and a communist party mixing and confusing the systems
and conditions. They cry for the
unity of all "left" forces within a country where the capitalists
have been smashed and in where the proletarian dictatorship reigns. They claim
they are Leninist but they ignore the
words of Lenin;
“The clever
opportunists are most concerned with preserving the former “unity” of
the old parties... " (Lenin,vol. 22, p. 102)
Molotov points to the fact that
during the period of 1934-1938 the party
knew, understood, and justified the necessity of strengthening the rigidity
and firmness of the dictatorship of the proletariat in this period. It was
in this period especially that the anti-Soviet, treacherous spy underground was
revealed. And he asks the question; “how
in such a concrete historical situation it was possible to forget the
instructions of Lenin that
" what our
job is to put the question straight. Which is better? To catch or
imprison, sometimes even shoot hundreds of traitors ... who spoke (some
with weapons, some with a conspiracy, some with agitation, etc.) against Soviet
power ..? Or take matters to the point of allowing ... to kill, shoot, flog to
death tens of thousands of workers and peasants? The choice is not
difficult."
"Whoever
has not yet understood this, who is capable of whimpering about the
"injustice" of such a decision, should give up on him, he should be
betrayed to public disgrace and ridicule ... "(Lenin, Volume 29, p. 417).
Lenin said:
"I argue
soberly and categorically: what is better - to imprison a few dozen or
hundreds of instigators, guilty or innocent, conscious or unconscious, or
to lose thousands of Red Army soldiers and workers? - The first is better.
And let me be accused of any mortal sins and violations of freedom “I
plead guilty, and the interests of the workers will win” (Lenin, vol. 29, p.
274).
Again Lenin said;
"Comrade
Hungarian workers! Be firm. If there are vacillations among the socialists who
joined you yesterday, the dictatorship of the proletariat, or among the petty
bourgeoisie, suppress the vacillations mercilessly. Execution is the
legitimate fate of a coward in war" (Lenin,vol. 29, p. 360 - 361).
“We must say that
either those who wanted to destroy us and about whom we believe that he must
die must perish - and then our Soviet Republic will remain alive - or, on
the contrary, the capitalists will remain alive and the republic will perish
... (Lenin, vol. 33, pp. 48-50).
In reference to purging of party
Lenin said;
... There is
hope that we will remove one hundred thousand from our party. Some say that
there are 200 thousand - and I like these last ones more" (Lenin, vol. 33,
pp. 50 - 52).
In 1921, Lenin pointed out about the Mensheviks -
“In my opinion,
of the Mensheviks who joined the Party after 1918, approximately one out
of hundred should be left in the Party,
and even then after checking each one three or four times. Why? Because
the Mensheviks, as a trend, proved during the period of 1918 - 1921 had two of
its properties: to skillfully adapt, to cling to the current prevailing
among the workers; the second is to serve the White Guards faithfully and
truthfully, to serve it in deed, renouncing it in words ... The
Mensheviks, like opportunists, adapt, so to speak, "out of principle"
... they are repainted in a protective color ... This feature of the
Mensheviks must be known and must be taken into account. And to take it into
account means to purge the party of ninety-nine hundredths of the total
number of Mensheviks who joined the RCP after 1918, i.e.,
then, when the victory of the Bolsheviks began to become at first probable,
then indubitable" (Lenin, vol. 83, pp. 19-20).
In reference to applying terror
Lenin said;
“Until we
apply terror - execution on the spot - to speculators, nothing will come of
it. In addition, we must also act decisively with robbers - shoot on the
spot.
The prosperous
part of the population is to be imprisoned for three days without
bread..." (vol. 26, p. 457).
"To all
reproaches and accusations of terror, dictatorship... although we are still
far from real terror... - to all accusations we say: yes, we openly
proclaimed what no government could proclaim" (Lenin, Vol 26, p. 419).
"... I
received your telegram... It is necessary to carry out mass merciless
terror against the kulaks, priests, and White Guards. Doubtful lock up
in a concentration camp outside the city"
"... I
advise you temporarily to appoint your superiors and shoot conspirators and
waverers, without asking anyone and without allowing idiotic red tape
...
"Catch
the bastards named here by all means ... This bastard must be dealt with
so that everyone will remember for years." ("Leninsky collection", vol. 18, p.
202).
“A White Guard
uprising is clearly being prepared in Nizhny Novgorod. It is necessary
... to form a trio of dictators ... to immediately impose
mass terror, shoot and take out hundreds of prostitutes, drunken soldiers,
former officers, etc. Not a minute of delay ... We must act with all our
might: mass searches... Mass expulsion of Mensheviks and unreliable..."
("Bolshevik", No. 2, 1938, p. 69 - 70).
It was no other than Lenin, in
1922, in a letter to the People's Commissar of Justice D. I. Kursky, wrote
about the notorious article 58 - 10 of the Criminal Code:
"... The court
should not eliminate terror; to promise this would be self-deception or
deceit, but to substantiate and legitimize it in principle, clearly,
without falsehood and embellishment. It is necessary to formulate as broadly as
possible, because only revolutionary legal consciousness and revolutionary
conscience will lay down the conditions for practical application
" (vol. 32, p. 76).
Gorky states;
“I often had to
talk with Lenin about the cruelty of revolutionary tactics and way of life.
What do you
want? he asked in surprise and anger. - Is humanity possible in such an
unprecedentedly ferocious fight? Where is the place for kindness and
generosity? We are blocked by Europe, we are deprived of the expected help of
the European proletariat, the counter-revolution is attacking us from all sides
like a bear, and what about us? Shouldn't we fight, resist? Well, sorry,
we're not stupid. We know that what we want, no one can do, but us.
Do you suppose that if I were convinced otherwise, I would be sitting
here? (A. M. Gorky about Lenin. Soch., vol. 17, pp. 5 - 17).
Lenin recommended "ruthlessly
suppressing hesitation", "taking them to concentration
camps" and even shooting them, "without asking anyone and avoiding
idiotic red tape." These words of Lenin is echoed in different
forms by Stalin “the dictator”. No one dared to call Lenin a “dictator “
-other than bourgeoisie and fifth column of course.
As Molotov points out; “ you
often hear that, this is true, but
only for the period of civil war, for the period of war communism, etc.
etc. They refer to dialectics, concrete historical conditions, and so on. But
for some reason they forget that for Lenin the dialectician, for Lenin the
Marxist, the socialist revolution did not end with the overthrow of the power
of the bourgeoisie in one country, did not end with the destruction of the
exploiting classes in this country, did not cease to be "a
life-and-death war between two classes, two worlds" with the victory
of socialism in one country.”
Lenin did not get tired of emphasizing that
"We
continue to be a besieged fortress... and in this besieged fortress we
must act with military ruthlessness, with military determination, with
military discipline and self-sacrifice..." (vol. 80, p. 466).
None other than Lenin taught that
“A bad
revolutionary is one who stops short of the necessity of the law at a
moment of acute struggle. Laws in transitional times have a temporary
significance. And if the law hinders the development of the
revolution, it is canceled or corrected” (Lenin, vol. 27, p. 478).
The “dictator” and the
Marxist-Leninist doctrine of the proletarian party as the “dictatorship”
"Marxism does not deny the
role of outstanding people in history, the role of the leaders of the
working people in leading the revolutionary liberation movement, in building a
new society. Lenin emphasized with all his might the role of revolutionary
leaders as organizers of the masses. The materialist understanding of
history developed by the classics of Marxism-Leninism recognizes that the
working masses, the people are the creators of a new society, makes it possible
to correctly understand and evaluate the role of leaders, organizers,
initiators, heroes who are created and put forward by the people themselves. Outstanding
personalities, thanks to their characteristics, which make them most
capable of serving the public interests, can play a serious role in society as
organizers, leaders of the masses, who understand events deeper and see
further than others.
Exposing the petty-bourgeois,
anarchistic radical intellectuals who opposed the organizing role and
authority of the party, Lenin said:
We need the
authority of the theoreticians of world social democracy in order to clarify
the program and tactics. But this authority, of course, has nothing in
common with the official authority of bourgeois science and police policy.
This
authority is the authority of a more versatile struggle within the same ranks
of the world socialist army. " (Lenin,, vol. 29, p. 75).
Lenin said that "the
revolution will put forward a collective organizational talent, without
which millions of proletarian armies cannot achieve their victory."
And Lenin further said
this:
"But
the proletarian revolution is strong precisely because of the depth of its sources.
We know that in the place of people who selflessly gave their lives ... it will
put forward the ranks of other people ... And in this sense, we are
deeply sure that the proletarian revolution will put forward groups, and groups
of people around the world, put forward numerous layers of proletarians, from
the working peasants who will give that practical knowledge, the one, if not
sole, then collective organizational talent,, without which the
million army of proletarians cannot come to their victory ”(Lenin, vol. 22,
p. 73 - 75.).
Dictatorial nature of the
behavior of the Central Committee
Is it by chance that Lenin,
speaking of the general secretary of our party, pointed to him as a person
who "concentrated immense power in his hands"?
No, not by chance. This statement
by Lenin, only once again confirms his idea, based on real life, that “we
need autocracy and a “firm hand”, that “the will of a class must
sometimes be carried out by a dictator who will do more and is more
needed."
Lenin repeatedly pointed out that
"the will of a class is sometimes carried
out by a dictator who alone sometimes does more and is often more
necessary" (Lenin, vol. 30, p. 444).
"The will of tens and hundreds
of thousands can be expressed in one person. This complex will be worked
out in the Soviet way.
We need more discipline, more unity,
and more dictatorship. Without this, one cannot even dream
of a great victory...” (Lenin, vol. 30, pp. 472, 480).
"... I
leave aside the question whether the Prosecutor General enjoys sole power or
shares this power with the Supreme Tribunal and the Collegium of the People's
Commissariat for Justice, because this question is completely secondary
and can be decided one way or another depending on whether the party
trusts one person with a huge power or distributes this power between
the indicated three instances " (Lenin, vol. 33, pp. 328 -329).
Lenin wrote:
“Recently ...
The question arose of how the sole administrative power (power that
could be called dictatorial power) is compatible with democratic
organizations in general, with a collegial principle in management - in
particular, and - with the Soviet socialist principle of organization -
in particular. "Undoubtedly, the opinion is very widespread that
the sole dictatorial power is incompatible neither with democracy, nor
with the Soviet type of state, nor with collegial management. There is
nothing more erroneous than this opinion.
... The question
arose of really enormous importance: firstly, the fundamental question is
whether the appointment of individuals, vested with unlimited powers of
dictators, is compatible with the fundamental principles of Soviet power;
secondly, what is the relation of this case - this precedent, if you like - to
the main tasks of power at this particular moment.
That the
dictatorship of individuals in the history of revolutionary movements has
very often been the spokesman, bearer, and conductor of the
dictatorship of the revolutionary classes is evidenced by the
indisputable experience of history. With bourgeois democracy is undoubtedly
combined the dictatorship of individuals. But on this point the bourgeois
detractors of Soviet power and their echoes always show sleight of hand... and
say: personal dictatorship is absolutely incompatible with
your Bolshevik (that is, not bourgeois, but socialist) Soviet democracy.
The reasoning
is bad. If we are not anarchists, we must recognize the necessity
of the state, that is, coercion for the transition from capitalism
to socialism, the form of coercion is determined by the degree
of development of a given revolutionary class, then by such special
circumstances as, for example, the legacy of a long and reactionary war, then
by the forms of resistance of the bourgeoisie.. Therefore, there is
absolutely no fundamental contradiction between Soviet (that is, socialist)
democracy and the exercise of dictatorial power by individuals. The
difference between the proletarian dictatorship and the bourgeois dictatorship
is that the former directs its blows ... in the interests of ... the
majority, and then that the latter is carried out - and through
individuals - not only by the masses of the working and
exploited, but also by organizations built so that it is precisely such
masses to wake up.
... Any
large-scale machine industry - that is, precisely ... the source and
foundation of socialism - requires an unconditional and strict
unity of will that directs the joint work of hundreds, thousands, and
tens of thousands of people. Technically, economically, and historically,
this necessity is obvious; everyone who thought about socialism has always
recognized it as its condition. But how can the strictest unity of will
be ensured? - Submission of the will of thousands to the will of
one.
This submission
can, with the ideal consciousness and discipline of the participants in the
common work, resemble more the soft leadership of the conductor. It can
take sharp forms of dictatorship if there is no ideal discipline and
consciousness ... This transition from one political task to another, which in
appearance is completely different from it, is the whole originality of the
moment experienced. The revolution has just shattered the oldest,
strongest, heaviest fetters to which the masses obeyed under duress. It was
yesterday. And today the same revolution, and precisely in the interests of
its development and strengthening, precisely in the interests of socialism,
demands the unquestioning obedience of the masses to the unified will of the
leaders... It is clear that such a transition is unthinkable
all at once. It is clear that it is feasible only at the cost of the
greatest shocks, upheavals, and returns to the old.
Lenin himself taught:
"Collegiality is the school of government. You can't sit in the preparatory class of the school all the time" there is absolutely no fundamental contradiction between Soviet (that is, socialist) democracy and the exercise of dictatorial power by individuals.
“Collegiality
at best results in an enormous waste of energy and does not satisfy the speed
and clarity of work...” (Lenin, vol. 30, pp. 285-286).
“At the moment
we are living through, when Soviet power and dictatorship have sufficiently
strengthened, when the preparation of the masses by the functioning of Soviet
institutions for independent participation in all public life has been
sufficiently carried out, the task of strictest separation of discussions and
meetings from the unquestioning fulfillment of all the instructions of the
leader is put forward. This means separating the necessary, useful
preparation of the masses for the implementation of a certain measure and for
monitoring its implementation - to separate it from this implementation
itself" (Lenin, vol. 27, p. 430).
There are people who object and
say that Lenin, advocating unity of command, for "dictatorship", for
the unquestioning subordination of the will of tens of thousands to the will
of one person, meant only production relations, only relations between
leaders and subordinates in the labor process at manufacturing enterprises,
only in economic matters.
Is it so? Did the leader
of our party really have in mind only relations of production, or did he also
have in mind the party as "the direct ruling vanguard of the
proletariat," as the leader of all, including the economic
activities of the proletarian state?
Let's try to find the answer to
this very important and interesting question from Vladimir Ilyich himself, -
“In the theses
of comrades Osinsky, Maksimovsky and Sapronov ... everything is a complete
theoretical distortion. They write that collegiality in one form or another
constitutes the necessary basis of democracy. I affirm that in the 15 years of
pre-revolutionary social democracy you will not find anything similar. Democratic
centralism only means that representatives from the localities gather and
choose a responsible body that should govern. But how?
It depends on
how many good people there are, on how many good
"administrators" there are. Democratic centralism lies in the
fact that the congress checks the Central Committee, dismisses it,
and elects a new one" (Lenin,vol. 30, p. 430).
According to the
direct meaning of Lenin's words, to link the issue of collegiality,
collectivity with the principle of democratic centralism - the basic
principle of the organizational structure of the proletarian party - is "a
complete theoretical distortion", "a monstrous fundamental
absurdity."
In a letter to E. M. Alexandrova,
Lenin said:
"You are
striving, if I am not mistaken, for autocracy (single center of
power) and a 'firm hand'. It is a good thing, and you are
a thousand times right, right that this is exactly what we need" (Lenin, vol.
34, p. 131).
Lenin repeatedly pointed out that
"the
will of a class is sometimes carried out by a dictator who alone
sometimes does more and is often more necessary" (Lenin, vol. 30, p. 444).
It turns out that Lenin also
extended the individual personality to party work
The party elects a congress -
a meeting of delegates from the field. The congress, guided by
considerations of a political and business nature, elects a Central
Committee consisting of several dozen of the most authoritative and
respected members of the party - the highest executive and administrative
body of the party in the inter-congress period. The Central Committee,
according to the Rules, meets at least once every six months for its plenary
sessions - plenums of the Central Committee.
"The Central Committee
elects: to manage the work of the Central Committee between its Plenums -
the Presidium (Politburo); to manage the current work, mainly in the
selection of personnel and organization of verification of performance - the
Secretariat" (Charter of the CPSU).
Is it by chance that V.I. Lenin,
speaking of the general secretary of our party, pointed to him as a
person who "concentrated immense power in his hands"?
No, not by chance. This statement
by Lenin, only once again confirms his idea, based on real life, that “we
need autocracy and a “firm hand”, that “the will of a class must sometimes
be carried out by a dictator who will do more and is more needed."
Lenin did not have any
illusions about the fact that the General Secretary of our Party
must necessarily be and will be an ideal communist and an ideal person, that
he will be completely insured against certain mistakes and mistakes in his
work, that he will be absolutely free from feelings of personal hostility,
distrust of one or another workmate, etc. etc.
Lenin, the leader, and founder of
party unshakably believed in the strength and revolutionary spirit of the
working people, the proletariat, in the mind, honor and conscience of our era -
in the proletarian communist party.
The great Marxist, even for a
moment, could not imagine such a situation in the proletarian party, when one
or several tens, or even thousands of people, could turn the party around like
a toy for their own personal and selfish purposes, could carry out
a policy in their leading and administrative work, going against the
aspirations of a million-strong party.
It is hard to believe, and,
from the point of view of the truth of life, it is impossible to believe that
for two decades a million-strong revolutionary party was led and ruled
by tyrants and despots who, by some miracle, managed to fool
the party around their finger like a blind kitten. It is difficult,
impossible to believe that in the million-strong Party of Communists there was
not a single honest Communist-Leninist (if one does not include members of the
Trotskyist-Zinoviev-Bukharin terrorist groups) who did not find the
courage to remove such a person from our path.
Lenin taught:
"... The
masses decide, who, if a small number of people do not approach them, ...
do not treat this small number too politely" (Lenin, vol. 31, p. 257).
Party led by its leader Lenin
understood this very well and, precisely proceeding from the principles
of democratic centralism, from the Marxist doctrine of the party and
its leaders, party was not afraid of one-man and
"dictatorship", knowing that it could always, at the
next party congress or the Plenum of the Central Committee, give a proper
assessment actions of this or that person, draw appropriate conclusions
from this assessment and approve or stop the activity of this person if he
makes major mistakes or embarks on the path of abuse of his power.
Lenin taught that
"without
a dozen talented (and talents are not born in hundreds), tested, professionally
trained and long-term school trained leaders, who perfectly mellowed with each
other, a steadfast struggle of not a single class is possible in modern
society" (Lenin, vol. 5 , p. 430).
It goes without saying that leaders
are not born, that the authority and influence of leaders on the
masses are not acquired and manifested immediately - they are developed
over a long period of time, developed as a result of people's
gradual inner conviction that this particular person "understands
events deeper and sees them further than others" that it is pursuing a
policy that is in their common interest.
The faith of the masses in the
leader acquired over the years, their trust in the leader, is an
important and a necessary element in the historical development of society.
Without the trust of the masses in their leaders - and this trust is not
a constant value acquired once and for all - there can be neither the
"leader" as such, nor the firm policy of the party as a mass
public organization, in the Marxist-Leninist sense of these concepts.
Until the end of his days, Stalin
enjoyed great authority and trust of the people only because this authority and
this trust were based on the only possible, from the point of view of
Marxism-Leninism, solid foundation - on the basis of real, tangible
successes of the party policy by every Soviet person in raising the living
and cultural level of our socialist society.
But, nevertheless, it could not
be otherwise, our people never opposed Stalin to the Politburo, the
Politburo to the Central Committee, and so on. etc. Paying tribute to Stalin,
stormily welcoming him, we met with the same sincere feeling all other
prominent figures of the party and state - Molotov, Voroshilov, Kirov,
Ordzhonikidze, Kaganovich, Mikoyan, Khrushchev, Kalinin, and others. .
The Party has always well
understood that the education of the leaders of the revolution, the leaders of
the working class, is a matter of many years and hard work.
The Party has always understood
that the authority of our leaders among the people acquired over the
years is the same authority of the Party among the people.
The respect acquired over the
years for the deeds and names of the leaders, their influence on the masses,
is at the same time the influence of the party on the masses. One from
the other - the party and its leaders - are inseparable. According to
Mayakovsky, -
"The
Party and Lenin are twin brothers, - // who is more valuable than
mother history? // We say - Lenin, we mean - the party, // we say - the
party, we mean - Lenin."
What is the meaning of these
lines? It is unlikely that anyone would argue that they are propaganda of the
cult of personality.
The Party has always perfectly
understood that an attack on the leaders invested with its confidence is
an attack on the Party itself.
The Party has always understood
that attacks by opposition elements on the leaders of the majority are
attacks on the majority as a whole, that these attacks are directed not
personally at this or that politician, but are directed at the policy
pursued by this figure in the interests and with the consent of the
majority.
Conclusion
Ideological struggle makes up the
core of the struggle for socialism; integrated democratic and socialist struggle
on the way to socialism. Under the conditions of bourgeois dominance, the
approach to the “concepts” with the bourgeois or bourgeois influenced perspective
is an inevitable outcome for most. For a
bourgeois perspective every man is greedy and out for himself and for bettering
himself, because it is “human nature”. Every man wants to be rich and powerful,
has a tendency to “own” more and more, an instinct to abuse his position for his own personal gains.
With that perspective, they deny the
possibility of the existence of “professional revolutionaries”, the ever
possibility of individuals who are idealist and have the interests of people in
mind without having any personal
interests isolated from the interests of the people. With this bourgeois outlook, concealed
anti-Leninists deny the concept of professional revolutionaries and the communist
Party organized by them. Philistines and sophists of such, base their arguments
to Marx’s comment that "The emancipation of the working class must be the
work of the working class itself..." "The movement of the working
class is conscious, independent of the broadest masses but for the benefit of
the broadest masses" etc. lies at its core. According to these philistines,
Marx and Engels said that the political consciousness of the working class will
develop spontaneously and will carry out the revolution without the need for
parties and professionals.
One of those famous NED fed
professor from Turkiye states; "Didn't Marx say that 'the emancipation
[liberation] of the working class will be its own work'? Could the
emancipation of a class be the work of others? Isn't entrusting the
work of revolution to the vanguard party, entrusting the fate of the
oppressed and exploited classes to other hands, entrusting them to others?"
According to this sophist hiding behind “Marxist” mask, a party of communists is the party of
“others”. What did Marx and Engels say
in the manifesto;
“Communists
fight for the immediate goals of the working class and for the realization of
their interests at that moment; but within the current movement, they also
represent and secure the future of this movement.”
They deny the role of
professional revolutionaries and of the communist party. Unlike Lenin’s explanation
in “What is to be done” which states that the “Political class consciousness
can be given to the workers only from outside”, they deny this crucial task through which they
leave the process of gaining “conscious”
to the dominant bourgeois ideological means of mental production. Typically, as the same Professor claims, “”Based on this observation, it was
concluded that the revolution could only be made by a revolutionary party
consisting of revolutionary intellectuals and revolutionized workers, who would
lead the struggles. This observation also constituted the justification for
professional revolutionism.” “”However,
the juxtaposition of the words revolution and professional is a complete oxymoron. Therefore, it is absurd to put them
side by side. Isn’t it absurd to think that someone whose profession is to
make revolution could exist? “
Lenin continues in his same
article;
"We said
that there could be no social-democratic consciousness among the workers. This
consciousness had to be brought to them from outside. The history of all
countries shows that the working class can develop only trade union
consciousness, that is, the belief that it is necessary to unite in trade
unions, to struggle against the employers and to force the government to enact
the necessary labour laws, etc., by its own efforts.”
It is the same bourgeois idea
that there cannot be “professional revolutionaries” , it is against the human
nature not to be selfish. Lenin, however,
states;
””The
worker-revolutionary, in order to be fully prepared for his task, must likewise
be a professional revolutionary. “””” Lenin (From the Scope of Organizational
Work)
And Lenin continues;
" Others,
far removed from any theory of “gradualness”, said that it is possible and
necessary to “bring about a political revolution”, but that this does
not require building a strong organisation of revolutionaries to train the
proletariat in steadfast and stubborn struggle. All we need do is to snatch up
our old friend, the “accessible” cudgel. "
Lenin states in his article the
Scope of Organizational Work;
” we are
not doing what is necessary to "direct" the workers to the path of
professional revolutionary education, which is the common path of both
workers and "intellectuals"..."”””..
As we clearly see the approach to the concept of ” professional
revolutionaries” is denied with the
bourgeois outlook that it is against the “human nature”. For bourgeoisie and
from the perspective of bourgeois there cannot be any human being without any greed and desire for personal
gains . They cannot imagine that there will be idealist people who have the interests of
general people in their mind. For them, despite the historically proven facts, there cannot be professional revolutionaries
who live and die for a cause in the interests of laboring masses, for the cause
of socialism. This deeply rooted bourgeois perspective, unfortunately, has influenced
and penetrated the subconscious minds of large population of the masses who claim to be
socialist. They are for socialism but a socialism of their own imagination, a
socialism mixed with bourgeois perspectives denying any “dictatorship” . A socialism without the dictatorship of working class. A socialism
without the full, dictatorial control of the Party. A Party without the
control of congress, without an authoritative direction of central committee,
a central committee without the authoritative role of its general secretary “who
concentrates immense powers in his hands”..
As I have noted we live in a
world where the people get their world view from the bourgeois media and from
the bourgeois academicians and intellectuals some of whom may even claim to be "objective"
and" realist”. As Marx and Engels stated; “those who own the
means of production at the same time own the means of mental production”
as a consequence of which people are turned in to paraquets who repeat the
narratives of the bourgeois in any given subject or event, and who forms a
point of view either aligned with or heavily influenced by the bourgeois
point of view. This is not a coincidence but an expected result under the
current conditions for the general population. However, for those who claim to
be Marxist, or Marxist-Leninist, this is not a coincidence but an indication of a revisionist, reformist
tendency or lack of theoretical
knowledge and/or the lack of the
knowledge of and ability to apply the dialectics
of Marxism to the theories and given conditions. It is for this reason that
these people are against any wars,
against any dictatorships, against any “dictators”, against any
anti-imperialist struggles regardless of the interests of the working class and
oppressed, subjugated nations and nation-states. They all forget that the “bourgeois
democracy” put on the stage is, in its practical reality, a skillfully concealed dictatorship of bourgeoisie over the
laboring people. The so called “cradle of democracy” , the US is a great
example of it as compared to the other countries in where there are more
parties , at least on surface or as intention representing different sections
of people. In two party system US, regardless
of which party is “elected” to the administration , the real decisional power is always at the behest of the
“unelected” officials of the state apparatus in the service of the bourgeoisie;
in the hands of finance capital , military industrial complex.
It is ridiculous to be against
the “dictator” representing a class yet to be for a disguised “dictatorship” of
the same class. In the final analysis, it is which class the dictator and/or
dictatorship is serving the interests of. Paraphrasing Lenin, it is with whose interests of the governing
class (or strata of it) coincides with;
with the interests of the large masses or with the interests of the capitalist minority
class?
“If the
political power in the state is in the hands of a class whose interests
coincide with those of the majority, that state can really be governed
according to the will of the majority.
But if the political power is in the hands of
a class whose interests differ from those of the majority, any form of minority
rule is bound to deceive or oppress the majority.” Lenin, Constitutional
Illusions
Lets clear it; Lenin is not
talking about “working class” but the “majority” here. Whether it is a “dictator
“ or a “dictatorship” what matter for the Marxist Leninists lies in the
response to the question of “whose interests of the power coincide with”.
"the will
of a class is sometimes carried out by a dictator who alone sometimes does more
and is often more necessary".
We should stop looking at the concepts
through the glasses of bourgeois definitions
and bourgeois narratives to determine and to take a stand on a given phenomenon.
January 10, 2025
Thailand
.jpg)
No comments