Ideological Warfare - one page

HTML- by Sections and parts         PDF Yandex   Academia Edu    Archive org  MarxistLeninists.org
Exposing the Ideological Warfare tactics of capitalists against socialism through concepts and theories

This book contains many quotations: over 150 works by Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Hoxha, and others, with more than 650 quoted passages. They are here to serve the argument, not to replace it. The reader who memorizes the quotes without following the method will have learned nothing — and will have repeated the very error this book was written to expose.

Marx wrote that 'the weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself.' The same is true of the quotes in this book. They are not there for decoration. They are there to be used — against those who have used them to distort, to confuse, and to divide."

This book is a compilation of various articles, some going back a decade, updated to the present. It will not be commercially published for two reasons. First, due to its page count, the cost of printing would be prohibitive. Second, and more importantly, the price would place it beyond the reach of the average reader.

A book about ideological warfare that is accessible only to those who can afford it would have already lost the battle it describes. Our task, as Marxist-Leninist writers, is to make our writings available and accessible to the largest number of the masses — either affordably or, best of all, free of charge. This book is therefore distributed as a free PDF. It is given, not sold.

 

Erdogan A

Table of Contents

Preface ............................................................................................ 4

Introduction: Transformation to Ideological Warfare ....................... 5

 

Chapter I: Ideological Warfare Through Conflation of Theories

  Part 1: Socialism vs. Communism — The Foundational Distinction … 32

  Part 2: Socialism in One Country — The Strategic Thesis ...................61

  Part 3: Standing Army — The Military Corollary ................................. 68

  Part 4: Which Slogan Is Current and Correct?  The Political Subject ...76

  Part 5: Anti-Imperialist Wars — The Military Application ................... 80

  Part 6: Right to Self-Determination — The Theoretical Key ................ 93

  Part 7: Ukraine — Case Study .........................................................107

  Part 8: What Is Annexation? Referendum in Donbas,  The Concrete Application .. 113

 

Chapter II: Confusion About Concepts

  Part 9: Bureaucracy — Institutional Attacks .................................... 125

  Part 10: Cult of Personality — Personal Attacks on Leaders ............. 136

  Part 11: Restoration of Capitalism — "Failure" vs. "Defeat" ............. .152

 

Chapter III: The Weapon From Within

  Part 12: Sectarianism — The Case of Rosa Luxemburg ................... 168

  Part 13: Boycott .......................................................................... ..182

  Part 14: Compromise .................................................................. ..190

  Part 15: Democratic Struggle ..........................................................195

  Part 16: Parliamentarism and Parliamentary Struggle ......................209

  Part 17: Reform vs. Reformism ............................................  ..........229

 

Chapter IV: General Subjects

  Part 18: AI and Socialism — Technological Weaponization .....  ....234

  Part 19: The "Generation-Z" Trap — Identity Politics ..............  ..... 249

 

Chapter V: How to Avoid — Marxist Norms and Criticism

  Part 20: The Problem — Public Criticism of Foreign Parties ..... ....267

  Part 21: The Correct Method- Marxist-Leninist Norms of Criticism .268

  Part 22: The Application — Internationalism vs. Pontification …. .. 268

 

Chapter VI: The Task — Revolutionary Democracy

  Part 23: The Concept — Form vs. Essence ...................................274

  Part 24: The Historical Experience — People's Democracy in Practice .276

  Part 25: The Path — Insurrection, Revolution, and Parliament ....... 279

  Part 26: The Conditions and Alliances — Varying by Phase ............ 287

  Part 27: Concrete Conditions and Possible Alliances ................... 289

  Part 28: Conclusion — The Road to People's Power ..................... 292

Overall Conclusion ................................................................ 293

Preface

Preface

The struggle for socialism comprises three fundamental arenas: ideological, political, and economic. All three are integrated — each as important as the others, with variations based on the current conditions and situation.

Political struggle is tied to economic struggle before acquiring political power. After power is won, economic struggle takes precedence — for the construction of socialist society. Yet both remain tied to ideological struggle internally and to ideological warfare externally. In our technological era, external ideological warfare heavily influences the internal ideological struggle.

In this book, I will try to expose the weapons of the capitalists in the "ideological warfare" against socialism and socialist struggle — weapons designed to create confusion and mistrust among socialist-oriented masses, fracture movements and parties, and prevent the formation of ideologically unified movements against them. In this sense, ideology places itself at the core of the overall struggle within and without.

It is correct that practice is the mirror of theory and its validation. The fact is that capitalists are well aware of the importance of ideology. I can even argue that capitalist academicians and theoreticians read Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, and others more attentively than many Marxist-Leninists do — not to understand, but to find ways of creating confusion, splits, and antagonistic approaches. This is an inevitable outcome of ideological warfare.

Because they own and control the dominant means of mental production, they have been successful in penetrating their disguised perspectives into the large masses of the Marxist-Leninist left — especially with the immense support of their fake leftist institutions, parties, and "internationals."

I will be discussing the confusion created on fundamental subjects: their influence on ultra-left perspectives (in some cases as a reaction), on reformist perspectives, and their reflection on stances toward important questions. Although both ultra-left and reformists are two sides of the same coin, the conflicting narratives in appearance bring about "sectarianism" on one side and "liberalism" on the other — both of which are the worst enemies of socialist ideology. This, in turn, creates the conditions for opportunism, sophistry, and the petty-bourgeois competitive know-it-all character that ends up in identity politics rather than class politics — practices of acting as a "Comintern," criticizing communist parties of other countries, and labeling socialist leaders of the past and present as "revisionist," "opportunist," and even "counter-revolutionary."

My purpose is to expose the most important weapons the bourgeoisie uses — directly or indirectly — and to arm ourselves with counter-weapons through understanding the nuances of the questions at hand.

Introduction- Transformation to ideological warfare

From Ideological struggle to ideological warfare: historical evolution

Understanding the dialectical relationship between internal ideological struggle and external ideological warfare is essential for analyzing this phenomenon historically. The two are not identical but interconnected, and their interplay shapes the fate of socialist movements. This dialectical interplay is not confined to a single period of history; it continues today and will continue until one defeats and eliminates the other. Marxist-Leninist theory acknowledges that such ideological, cognitive, and political struggles against established systems persist.

The ideological conflict between socialism and capitalism has profoundly transformed since Marx and Engels first articulated their critique of political economy. What began as theoretical debate among intellectuals—a struggle to clarify working-class consciousness—has evolved into a global information war waged by state institutions with vast resources and sophisticated methods.

The stakes could not be higher. As capitalist states intensify ideological warfare through control of media, education, and culture—often through seemingly "progressive" fronts—Marxist-Leninists must develop a clear understanding of the battlefield to wage effective resistance.

Socialist theory must be applied to concrete national conditions and to the global situation—never as abstract formulas, but always through dialectical analysis. Marxist dialectics demands that we study any phenomenon in its particularity and its connection to the whole—neither exists in isolation. In this context, I will try to give my opinion on the historical evolution of the “ideological” struggle between capitalist and socialist ideology in order to shed light on the current “ideological warfare” in which so many communists, communist parties, and communist organizations are unintentionally (most intentionally) acting on the side of capitalists in this warfare. The practice is no different from the era of Stalin’s Soviets and the Cold War, but it is carried out in a skillfully concealed manner, with years of experience and through the available means of mental production controlled by capitalists. By studying and comparing the narratives used during the Stalin era and the current era, we can see that the same tactics are being used against socialist countries, countries with socialist tendencies, and anti-imperialist and anti-fascist struggles within countries. As M.J. Olgin once presented, the narratives of the “ultra-left” are not so much different in context from those of capitalists, fascists, and anticommunists other than the “terms” used to conceal their true nature.

Let's try to unpack the reasons “why the Marxist-Leninist left fails in ideological warfare, alienates and forces  the laboring masses to the ranks of social-democrats.” And if it is an unavoidable consequence due to the unequal balance of power as far as the means are concerned, what precautions should Marxist-Leninists take in order to counter-balance?

The answer lies in the historical development of ideological struggle between socialist and capitalist thought, shaped by the balance of power at any stage of history.  Differing from Marx, Engels, and Lenin’s time, where the “ideological struggle” was heavily “internal”, Stalin’s time coined the period of “ideological warfare”, an external ideological struggle with the direct involvement of capitalist states and state institutions. The capitalists who own the means of production also own the means of mental production, which have been used extensively for this purpose. So the “balance of power” in ideological warfare tilted in their favor, giving them the upper hand in defeating their enemies.  However, the subject here is not purely the “ideological warfare itself,” but one of its means and methods that brings about the “failure” of the Marxist-Leninist left in this warfare. Specifically, the confusion among the ranks of the left between the internal “ideological struggle”  and external “ideological warfare” is skillfully used by the capitalists in their ideological warfare against socialism. Some voluntarily, due to their reformist tendencies; others unconsciously, due to their petty-bourgeois, condescending ultra-left character, become a tool of the capitalists in their ideological warfare.  This, of course, is in addition to (co-opted, formed, funded, recruited; whatever the case may be)  fake communist internationals, fake communist parties and organizations, and fake Marxist academicians who have already taken part in the “ideological warfare” on the side of capitalists, influencing and poisoning the sincere young socialists and immature communist organizations.

Knowing something for sure and explaining it in a comprehensible way, first of all,  requires a well-structured article. I will try my best to explain, starting with what an ideology is, the core purpose, character, and meaning of “ideological struggles” in different periods. To understand the differences between these periods is crucial to grasp the tactics of capitalists and their lackeys under leftist masks in their “ideological warfare” against socialism, socialist thought, and socialist struggles. Bear in mind that I purposely use two different terms (struggle-warfare) that are often treated as the same, but in Marxism-Leninism, neither is the same historically or in context, despite their dialectical connection.

Throughout this work, I use two distinct terms deliberately:

Ideological struggle refers to the internal process within working-class movements—debates over theory, strategy, and tactics conducted among comrades seeking revolutionary clarity. This is the necessary, ongoing work of political education.

Ideological warfare describes the external, organized conflict between capitalist and socialist systems—a battle waged by states and their institutions using propaganda, media manipulation, and cultural influence to destroy socialist alternatives.

The critical error facing the contemporary Left is treating these as identical. When communist parties engage in "ideological warfare" against fellow socialists of other countries—publicly criticizing their internal affairs, imposing foreign perspectives, and amplifying narratives that serve capitalist propaganda—they abandon the terrain of legitimate struggle and become unwitting participants in the enemy's campaign.

Theoretical Foundations  -  Ideology and its class character

Stalin, in his synopsis, “ancient, feudal, bourgeois and proletarian — such are the forms of ideology” (1), was stating that ideologies exist in various historical forms, each tied to a specific stage or mode of social production. Stalin was pointing out that each form is fundamentally determined by its corresponding economic base (mode of production) and class relations. Thus, ideologies reflect the material conditions of their time, specifically the social classes that control and are shaped by production. Ideologies serve a specific purpose, namely, to justify the rule of one class over another. Proletarian ideology justifies workers' control; bourgeois ideology justifies capitalist ownership. This process of “justification” brought about the ideological struggle between them.  (1)   Stalin, Anarchism Or Socialism

Ideological Struggle	Ideological Warfare
Internal to working-class movements	External, between core Ideologies
Comradely, constructive debate	Hostile, destructive attack
Aim: theoretical clarity & unity	Aim: defeat & discredit the opponent
Conducted by parties & intellectuals	Conducted by states & state institutions
Primary method: persuasion & education	Primary method: propaganda & manipulation

These are dialectically connected—external warfare influences internal struggles—but they are not the same. Confusing them is the root of the left’s contemporary weakness

The Dialectics of Ideological Struggle

In Marxist theory, ideological struggle within the working class is absolutely fundamental.

Stalin stated that “the hub of modern social life is the class struggle. In the course of this struggle, each class is guided by its own ideology. The bourgeoisie has its own ideology — so-called liberalism. The proletariat also has its own ideology —this is, as well known, socialism.” Marx was asserting that even within modern capitalist societies, the underlying driver is still class struggle. The driving, central force of life in advanced industrial nations is not individual freedom, culture, or religion per se but rather the conflict between different social classes. Within this struggle, each major class (bourgeoisie and proletariat) develops and promotes its own ideology to understand its interests, justify its actions, mobilize support, and criticize opponents. (1)   Stalin, Anarchism Or Socialism

For Marxist Leninists, ideological struggle refers to the fight against "false consciousness" and bourgeois ideology within the working class itself. It's the process of educating and persuading workers to move from trade-union consciousness to revolutionary class consciousness, aimed at overthrowing the capitalist system itself. In its early historical stages, it largely encompassed debates between different socialist or communist tendencies—struggles between anarchists, Marxists, reformist social democrats, and Leninists over the correct strategy and tactics for revolution and building socialism. These demarcation lines were drawn during Lenin’s and Stalin’s eras and continue to be drawn in our era.  The intra-class ideological struggle has become an inter-class ideological struggle, meaning an ideological warfare, a general and ongoing conflict of ideas between any opposing classes or systems. While the key battlefield remains within the working class, the struggle has become one between the ideology of the proletariat and the ideology of the bourgeoisie internationally: ideological warfare.

In our modern era, dominated by capitalism, ideology is crucially tied to which side of the class conflict people are on. The bourgeoisie uses bourgeois ideology; the proletariat uses socialist ideology. These ideologies don't exist separately; they are weapons in the ongoing class struggle.

Thus ideology is never neutral but always a product and tool of specific social classes locked in material conflict. The conflict continues internally as “ideological struggle” (as we will see below) and externally as “ideological warfare”.  At a certain stage, like the one we are in now, depending on the countries, “ideological struggles” remain to be within the working-class movement (in some cases, the Party)  itself, but not isolated and not totally independent from the “ideological warfare “ in general- especially in an era where technological development makes the information flow (and thus propaganda) faster,  widely spread, and easily accessible worldwide.

Ideological struggle, in its general and historical context, is indeed broader and occurs both within classes and between classes.  Through the historical evolution, let’s say starting in the late 1920s, in contemporary usage, intra-class ideological struggle, with the direct involvement of capitalist states and their institutions, has turned into ideological warfare, specifically an inter-systemic one, heavily influencing the inter-class ideological struggles. This does not negate the fact that both concepts are part of a unified ideological confrontation, but it considers the historical evolution in which the inter-class struggle becomes dominant and, to some degree, decisive.

Thus, Ideological struggle and ideological warfare should be distinguished by their scope (internal vs external) as a precise and useful distinction that gets to the heart of a key concept in Marxist theory and political analysis. Without that distinction, sectarianism will dominate within a given country, and the concept of internationalism will be turned into an unending polemic among the petty bourgeois “know-it-all” individuals and by the parties who act like a “self-acclaimed Comintern,” interfering in the internal affairs of every country and pontificating, dictating their own point of view to the Communist parties of other countries.

Ideological struggle is waged within the communist parties of each and every country as an internal affair; ideological warfare is waged internationally between the communists and capitalists, between capitalist and socialist ideology.  

The confusion of the difference between ideological struggle and ideological warfare among the communists manifests itself sharply in the practice of the petty bourgeois pontificators and in the parties who practice as the “self-acclaimed Comintern” of the entire communist parties of the world by not hesitating, rather pontificating, even dictating to the communist parties of Socialist Countries who have waged brutal anti-imperialist and civil wars and acquired the political power in their countries. In the name of “internationalism,”  these condescending petty bourgeois parties practically serve the interests of capitalists in their warfare against socialism.  Because, as Lenin stated in a way that leaves no room for misunderstanding;  “there is one, and only one, kind of real internationalism, and that is—working whole-heartedly for the development of the revolutionary movement and the revolutionary struggle in one’s own country, and supporting (by propaganda, sympathy, and material aid) this struggle, this, and only this, line, in every country without exception.” (2) This actually means that rather than pontification, criticizing and dictating the communists of other countries, "socialists in every country must expose their own government and their own bourgeoisie...Lacking that, all talk of socialism, syndicalism, internationalism is a sheer deception of the people...  He is an internationalist who in a really internationalist way combats his own bourgeoisie, his own social-chauvinists, his own Kautskyites". (3)

(2) Lenin, The Tasks of the Proletariat in Our Revolution

(3) Lenin, Theses for an Appeal to the International Socialist Committee and All Socialist Parties

As a means and method of ideological struggle, the application of "Marxist criticism is a science because it opposes subjectivism… Criticism, by its nature, cannot be only negative, aimed at exposing some vicious concept. Even in denial, the Marxist critic pursues positive goals, offers constructive solutions. The Marxist critic "removes" the wrong conception in order to form one that meets the interests of the proletariat.” Lunacharsky, the formation of Marxist criticism

Marxist-Leninist parties proceed from the principle that differences and misunderstandings may arise among various parties and states, even when they have relations of close friendship. In case of differences, problems and conflicting situations, Communist Parties of countries settle their differences on a Marxist-Leninist road, through mutual consultations and comradely explanations, and never making them public. This principle should be applied between socialist countries and between communist parties of different countries.

Marxist-Leninist norms regulate relations among communist parties, especially those of different countries. Based on Marxist-Leninist norms, as a main part of ideological struggle, criticism of mistakes in the line and the activity of this or that party should be objective, reciprocal, principled, constructive, and comradely. Criticism is not to dictate and impose one’s views on others, especially on the smaller parties of other countries. Criticism should be constructive and defend the struggles of Communists, anti-imperialists, and anti-fascists, and the fate of the revolution if they were successful in their struggles. Any practice contrary to this norm would only serve the interests of capitalists and bourgeois ideology.

Historical Evolution

Ideological struggle during Marx and Engels' time

In the earlier stage of Marxism, ideological struggle was focused on the clarification of Marxist ideology; that’s why it was a struggle between different schools of thought with no direct or, in most cases, even indirect involvement of “states”  and their institutions.  The primary concern was the understanding of capitalism and identifying socialism. It was a struggle for socialist ideas among thinkers through debates within working-class thought, which manifested itself as the utopian socialists versus scientific socialists, meaning  Marxists versus other "isms".  Engels had explained this as “ solidifying the theory and strategy” in his various writings on  Historical Materialism,  Class Struggle, Revolutionary Strategy,   Scientific Socialism vs. Utopian Socialism, and by editing and disseminating the  Theory after Marx's death. The "ideological struggle" was internal to the nascent working-class consciousness.

Primarily focused on theoretical analysis, writing polemics against existing ideologies, organizing revolutionary circles, engaging in political action, and publishing scientific critiques. Engels famously described Marx as "the author of *Capital*," highlighting his role in developing economic theory, but both were deeply involved in applying it politically.

This phase was largely theoretical. The next phase—Lenin’s—would test those theories in the crucible of revolution, requiring a new level of organizational unity and exposing ideology as a weapon of state power.

Ideological struggle during Lenin’s time

This period required mobilizing a unified party structure against Tsarist autocracy and international opposition. The struggle intensified and required strong, unified leadership. Lenin’s period was also largely internal (at least until the revolution), within the working-class movement. His period saw the ideological struggle for unity and the solidification of theory into practice for revolution and its defense.

He synthesized theoretical insights with practical strategy. His work on imperialism was an implementation – analyzing global finance capital to prove that socialists needed a mass revolutionary organization ("imperialism is socialism's best friend," as he sarcastically put it) and that seizing control of the state machinery (waged war, etc.) would be necessary in imperialist conditions. He addressed how democratic rights could exist “within” bourgeois democracy – an implementation. Socialists needed to fight for these forms while simultaneously recognizing they were fundamentally flawed and ultimately aimed at suppressing socialist revolution itself -"no genuine rights without revolutionary struggle".

Comintern (1919) was a direct political tool implementing the strategy of international organization, and its success required theoretical justification about the new era of global capitalism.

With the establishment of the Soviet Union, the internal struggle became international. Capitalism could no longer ignore socialism; it had to attack it directly. Stalin’s era thus marks the transition from struggle to warfare—a shift that defines our own time.

Ideological struggle during  Stalin’s time

Before Stalin’s time, ideological struggle was primarily local, national, and theoretical, with a constant process of education and debate. During Stalin’s period, internal “ideological struggle” was inevitably transformed into a worldwide “ideological warfare” by the external capitalist states. The presence of socialism made "ideological warfare" campaigns more relevant for capitalist states.

“Naturally, ” said Stalin, “  with every turn in the development of the class struggle, with every sharpening of the struggle and intensification of difficulties, the differences in the views, customs and sentiments of the various strata of the proletariat must inevitably make themselves felt in the shape of definite disagreements within the party, and the pressure of the bourgeoisie and its ideology must inevitably accentuate these disagreements by providing them with an outlet in the form of a struggle within the proletarian party.” Stalin, The Seventh Enlarged Plenum of the E.C.C.I

 “Our social life is impregnated with bourgeois ideas and, consequently, it is much easier to spread bourgeois ideology than socialist ideology. It must not be forgotten that meanwhile the bourgeois ideologues are not asleep; they, in their own way, disguise themselves as Socialists and are tireless in their efforts to subordinate the working class to bourgeois ideology.” Stalin, Briefly About Disagreements in the Party

Stalin's period marked the significant escalation in "ideological struggle." It wasn't just internal party debates; it also became an explicit military struggle that carried into the Cold War era. Capitalists shifted their ideological warfare from simple opposition to organized propaganda campaigns aimed at discrediting socialism, fostering dissent within socialist ranks, and skillfully attempting to revise Marxism-Leninism in ways acceptable to capitalists, or at least serving their interests in practice. Liberalism (not criticizing-criticizing with bourgeois tendency) within, and sectarianism (destructive critique) not only within but largely in the international arena, especially after the removal and exile of Trotsky, who supplied the capitalists with immense ammunition against the Soviets,  have become the trend as a consequence of this powerful  “ideological warfare” waged by the capitalists.

The Ideological Struggle of  the Working-Class Movement

Marx explained that "In the social production of life, men enter into definite relations of production that are indispensable and independent of their will, relations of production which correspond to a definite stage of development of their productive forces. The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the structure of society, the real foundation on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond the definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the social, political, and intellectual process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces of society come in conflict with the existing relations of production, or --what is but a legal expression of the same thing -- with the property relations within which they have been at work hitherto. As the productive forces develop, these relations become their fetters. There begins an epoch of social revolution. With the change of the economic foundation the entire immense superstructure is more or less rapidly transformed. In considering such transformations, a distinction should always be made between the material transformation of the economic conditions of production, which can be determined with the precision of natural science, and the legal, political, religious, esthetic, ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out." Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy

Ideological struggle refers to the tendencies and ideology of the antagonistic classes within a given society. “The dialectics of history were such that the theoretical victory of Marxism “ said Lenin, “compelled its enemies to disguise themselves as Marxists. Liberalism, rotten within, tried to revive itself in the form of socialist opportunism. They interpreted the period of preparing the forces for great battles as renunciation of these battles. Improvement of the conditions of the slaves to fight against wage slavery they took to mean the sale by the slaves of their right to liberty for a few pence. They cravenly preached “social peace” (i.e., peace with the slave-owners), renunciation of the class struggle, etc.” Lenin, The Historical Destiny of the Doctrine of Karl Marx

Right and left deviations in practice end up as an ideological support of capitalism due to their theoretical arrival at the "primacy" of bourgeois ideology over Marxist ideology.

“The theory of spontaneity is the ideology of trade unionism,” said Stalin, “The theory of spontaneity is the theory of belittling the role of the conscious element in the movement, the ideology of 'khvostism,' the logical basis of all opportunism.” Stalin, The Foundations of Leninism

As Lenin had pointed out earlier;

 “Clearly, whoever extols the spontaneous movement and worships it, whether he wishes to or not, digs a chasm between socialism and the working-class movement, belittles the importance of socialist ideology, and expels it from life, and, whether he wishes to or not, subordinates the workers to bourgeois ideology… means, quite irrespective of whether the belittler wants to or not, strengthening the influence of bourgeois ideology over the workers." Lenin, What Is To Be Done?

Stalin explained the dialectical connection between the inter- and intra struggle for the fact that neither the proletariat nor the country is isolated from the external influences.

 “The pressure exerted by the bourgeoisie and bourgeois ideology on the proletariat and its party in the conditions of the class struggle—a pressure to which the least stable strata of the proletariat, and, hence, the least stable strata of the proletarian party, not infrequently succumb. It must not be thought that the proletariat is completely isolated from society, that it stands outside society. The proletariat is a part of society, connected with its diverse strata by numerous threads. But the party is a part of the proletariat. Hence the Party cannot be exempt from connections with, and from the influence of, the diverse sections of bourgeois society. The pressure of the bourgeoisie and its ideology on the proletariat and its party finds expression in the fact that bourgeois ideas, manners, customs, and sentiments not infrequently penetrate the proletariat and its party through definite strata of the proletariat that are in one way or another connected with bourgeois society.” Stalin, The Seventh Enlarged Plenum of the E.C.C.I

In ideological struggle, depending on the objective conditions, some deviations within a party, as Stalin points out, ‘could be regarded as tolerable, and that we could confine ourselves to criticizing it within the ranks of our Party.” Stalin, "The Sultan-Galiyev Case"

Within a given country, between the revolutionary forces,  this could be done publicly but within the norms of Marxist-Leninist critiques, as Hoxha stressed, “for socialism”, meaning constructive, not destructive, pushing them forward, not dragging them down.  As Lenin pointed out,

“We must chastise the Rights in order to make them fight nationalism, to teach them to do so in order to forge real communist cadres from among local people. But we must also chastise the "Lefts" in order to teach them to be flexible and to maneuver skillfully, so as to win over the broad masses of the population. All this must be done because... the truth lies "in between" the Rights and the "Lefts". Stalin, "The Sultan-Galiyev Case"

Under the conditions of the Soviet Union, where capitalism had already been overthrown, but its roots had not yet been torn out, Right and Left deviations were a tendency; they had not yet taken a clear shape but were departing from the general line of Leninism in the direction of bourgeois ideology.

Combining & refinement via cognition and refined implementation involved absorbing lessons from practical implementation and historical events to refine theoretical understanding. Thus, internal debates (Marxism-Leninism)  engaged in debates with both external opponents ("bourgeois ideology") and internal dissenters or revisionists. For example, Kautsky's initial criticism of Luxemburg about the Bolsheviks highlighted a contradiction between revolutionary theory and other Marxists' practical implementation. Lenin addressed the gap created by World War I and developed his concept of "socialism in one country," arguing for concrete adaptation to specific conditions. Stalin refined strategy (alliance with Western powers during WWII) while upholding core principles.

Cognition through events had reflected itself with the failure of the Paris Commune,  which forced Marx to refine political tactics and organizational structure. Marx became more focused on building mass parties outside parliamentary structures that could use their influence strategically, as in his later involvement with the General Association. Lenin's analysis during WWI showed existing Marxist institutions needed radical reformation.

Combining theory and practice has become  a continuous feedback loop:

 1 . Formalizing the ideas based on material conditions and historical science.

 2. Implementation of these ideas by the activists and organizers (e.g., building parties, uprisings).

  3. Debates and observations of both success and failure provided new data for cognitive refinement.

  4.  Refined understanding was then re-formalized into updated theory or practical strategy adjustments.

History has shown that ideological struggle must not interfere with positive work, which is an impermissible form of struggle. Differences and divergences should not be exaggerated, but they should not be overlooked or ignored.

Through the “feedback” loop, Bolsheviks drew a clear line between the necessary and inevitable ideological struggle, on the one hand, and the “mean brawling”, disorganization, petty rivalry, etc., on the other. They stressed that the Party Council should call on all Party members to “sink their petty differences as quickly as possible and keep the ideological struggle once and for all within such limits. Because the ideological struggle is not a private affair, but the affair of the whole Party, of the whole proletariat. From this affair, the party of the proletariat is expected to derive ideological guidance!

However, such petty bourgeois ideological considerations have nevertheless always played a secondary role initially,  turning into unending polemics between the communist factions. Polemics have been nothing but torrents of abuse, often exposing the cadres of rival sects to the state. Petty bickering, heated but empty polemics, intrigue, and hegemonism split group after group, routing every drive to unite Marxist-Leninists.

Throughout its history, the “ultra-left” answered the most burning international and domestic questions based on practicality, with learned-by-rote and sloganized general theories not based on analysis of existing conditions. That is why the empty boasts of the petty-bourgeois ultra-left and its Anti-Leninist tendency in practice have been far from consolidating themselves into a trend with the support of the laboring masses. They have, however, attracted a wide range of followers, some of whom attack dogmatism to cover their own intellectual laziness, using pacifism behind ultra-left slogans to hinder active struggle, while others make honest, invaluable efforts to move the struggle forward.

There are conscious (bourgeois agents) and unintended followers of ultra-leftists, most of whom fundamentally lack an understanding of dialectical materialism and therefore do not consistently apply its laws and principles to concrete conditions and situations.  This was the case during the “ideological struggle” period, and it is the case during the “ideological warfare” period.  The difference is that in the former it was an ideological trend between bourgeois and socialist trends within; in the latter, it is ideological warfare between capitalist states and socialist, socialist-oriented, anti-fascist, anti-imperialist states.

The ideological warfare of the working-class movement

Anti-communist “ideological warfare” activities, largely driven by organized Western capitalist state institutions, began in 1947 (though their roots go back to the 1930s) and intensified significantly throughout the early 1950s, systematically influencing cultural, media, and academic circles, anti-Soviet party organizations, and individuals across the globe.

During this period, funding like that of the CIA was dedicated to groups actively opposing communism. Propaganda campaigns to demonize communist ideologies and leaders (including targeting anti-communist forces within Western societies) were initiated and coordinated. Anti-communist movements in various countries were often linked closely with intelligence agencies that financed, militarized, and supported them.

Trotsky's association with Marxism provided a convenient target. After he, especially after 1928, became more explicitly critical of Stalinism, groups like the CIA actively cultivated and funded individuals, organizations, and movements that already held anti-communist views but needed direction, funding, and credibility to operate effectively in this new context.

Thus, the ideological struggle of the working class has become the overarching process of contesting and overcoming the ruling class's dominant ideology, both within one's own ranks and in society at large. The ideological struggle and “ideological warfare,” as commonly used today, mutually reinforce each other through control of information flows.  In this sense, the contemporary ideological warfare is “information warfare,”  which is systemic and implies a macro-level, organized, and often state-sponsored conflict between two complete and opposing systems: socialism and capitalism. When states and state institutions are involved, its intensity heightens, becoming more acute, active, and a total conflict than a "struggle." As seen during the Cold War, ideological warfare gained international dimensions, using propaganda, media, education, culture, and diplomacy to attack the opposing ideology while defending and promoting one's own. In other words, ideological warfare is the active, hostile, and state-level waging of the ideological struggle on a global scale between competing socio-economic systems. While the ideological struggle is a long-term debate or a campaign of political education, ideological warfare is a war fought with ideas and information on an international scale. While Ideological struggle is the broader, encompassing concept that happens in every country where there is class conflict, including within the working class to achieve ideological clarity, ideological warfare is a specific, intense form of the same struggle, representing the open and total clash between the consolidated ideologies of socialism and capitalism on the world stage.

The practical aim and effect of ideological warfare conducted through information warfare is to disarm and discredit the primary contemporary alternative to Western capitalist hegemony. Control over information flow, media narratives, education, and academic discourse has become a decisive factor in ideological warfare between socialism and capitalism.

Means and methods - Contemporary Analysis

The preceding chapters traced how ideological conflict evolved from theoretical debates among Marx's contemporaries to state-sponsored warfare in Stalin's era. This transformation was not merely quantitative—more participants, larger scale—but qualitative. The involvement of capitalist states changed the nature of the conflict itself.

Understanding this historical trajectory is essential because the methods developed during the Cold War have not been abandoned. They have been refined. In the chapters that follow, I examine how contemporary capitalist states wield control over mental production—media, education, culture—to wage ideological warfare, and how the Left's confusion between struggle and warfare plays directly into their hands.

Demonization

External demonization, propaganda, false narratives, and blatant “big lies” affect and fuel internal conflicts. Capitalist states create narratives like "personality cult," "bureaucracy," etc., which internal opponents use to discredit leadership and sow division, framing these critiques as proof that socialism was failing because of its leaders. This external narrative provides material for internal criticism.

Influencing the internal ideological struggles

Internal conflicts provide specific aims for the external Warfare. Capitalist states need clear, specific targets to attack. Socialism itself offers a different social system model, and attacking socialist parties provides an easy way to demonize the perceived threat, namely communism. Ideological struggle within the working class was transformed through the use of cognitive warfare and manipulation, first benefiting from the narratives of  Trotskyist parties since 1929 and later making them totally serve their interests in their “ideological warfare”. This manifested in infiltration, subversion, and the division of socialist parties and movements globally and domestically.   The struggle against socialism and socialist ideology gradually became an organized project by external capitalist forces, with internal agents aiming to destroy and/or revise it in ways acceptable to capitalists. Ideological struggle within the working-class movements domestically transformed into an ideological warfare against capitalist ideology internationally, a warfare between the progressive and reactionary world. The core idea in this warfare is controlling information as a weapon to defeat the enemy.

Control of Mental Production; Media & Education

Controlling and influencing the “means of mental production”, as Marx put it, encompassing media, education, culture, etc., is a key strategy for any dominant ideology seeking to propagate itself and suppress alternatives. Capitalists have long understood that controlling the information flow is crucial for controlling how people receive information, through which they form and shape narratives, define acceptable discourse, and promote certain values like free markets and liberal democracy as opposed to socialism. For this purpose, they use official state media & news agencies; global networks like AP, Reuters, and Agence France-Presse originate from and are heavily influenced by Western perspectives. While efforts exist to counter this bias, the sheer power of these outlets shapes global discourse significantly.

Control of the means of mental production worldwide by the capitalists – encompassing information flow via media outlets, curriculum development and research in education systems, influence within academic establishments, and leveraging international organizations and cultural channels plays a decisive role in ideological warfare between socialism and global capitalism. This is achieved through:

1.  Direct funding (USAID/NED).

2.  Indirect funding under neutral or "progressive" banners ("NGOs," think tanks, university departments).

3.  Shaping narratives within official state media.

4.  Subverting open discourse via influential private Western-funded entities and platforms like social media.

 So-called “Free Press" Outlets like Voice of America, Radio Free Asia, and BBC World Service have historically been used for propaganda purposes in this ideological warfare. However, beyond these overt state channels, this influence extends massively to privately owned media with significant capitalist backing (like major newspapers or broadcasters whose parent companies receive substantial indirect support).

Think Tanks are often considered "front" groups operating under the guise of pure research and objectivity but funded by and disseminating views favorable to Western capitalist interests. Examples include the Heritage Foundation and Cato Institute in the US (disguised as libertarianism), Chatham House in the UK (historically influential in foreign policy debates), or academic centers more often funded with strings attached.

Media guilds and journalism associations often receive funding and guidance from Western sources to uphold certain standards that favor liberal democracy (e.g., the Council of Europe's partial funding for media freedom projects).

Academic institutions and research are dominant and powerful tools for shaping intellectual thought.  US government agencies like USAID and NED, but also foundations such as the John D. Rockefeller Foundation (historically active), Ford Foundation (still influential), and others have long funded academic conferences, chairs, departments, think tanks, and publications in countries across the Global South where socialist or nationalist regimes once held sway.

Influencing university curricula can subtly shift perspectives over generations. This isn't always direct control; it often involves partnerships, funding specific programs (e.g., economics focused on free markets), guest lectureships, and publishing biases that favor certain theories or authors. Marxist theory itself is taught in many universities worldwide, due to pressure from Western scholarship trying to understand it and revise it in ways acceptable to capitalists.

In addition, academic centers and Institutes like Liberal Arts Departments/Faculties, especially in elite universities globally, act as hubs for disseminating capitalist values through education like “liberal humanism”.

Specific Research Centers within Universities funded and directed to focus on particular issues often framed negatively against "socialist" or national development models.

Academic journals – particularly those in social sciences and humanities funded by university presses or private foundations.

International Conferences & Seminars used not just by "free press radio," but broadly to shape academic discussion, bring together like-minded scholars and activists from different countries, and disseminate specific ideological frameworks – often funded by entities with known political interests (including USAID-NED).

Ideological warfare  via Tech Companies

Social Media Platforms like Facebook and Twitter/X are dominated by US-based companies that control algorithms and shape information consumption patterns globally. The design often favors engagement loops that align with liberal-capitalist norms or entertainment.

Non-Governmental Organizations

 While NGOs are diverse, many Western-funded ones have specific political mandates related to human rights -often defined narrowly- democracy promotion, anti-corruption campaigns-often applied selectively- and the empowerment of civil society, often with a capitalist-globalization framework, all of which operate under plausible deniability for any involvement in ideological warfare.

Most International Organizations, beyond explicit intelligence agency fronts, are manipulated, forced, and subjugated for ideological purposes. United Nations & subsidiaries, while ostensibly neutral or pro-development, are heavily influenced by funding streams, reporting requirements, and agenda-setting by powerful member states (especially the US), which heavily influence outcomes. The World Bank's structural adjustment programs have ideological implications that favor free-market capitalism. International Monetary Fund’s economic prescriptions often benefit dominant capitalist nations' interests.

Anti-Left capitalist parties and organizations - Concealed as leftist

Lenin had pointed out that the enemies disguise themselves as Marxists; within his historical context highlighted that open confrontation might be difficult for powerful capitalist interests; thus, while they carry out direct infiltration by overt intelligence agencies (CIA, MI6, USAID-NED programs explicitly targeting "anti-left" positions), the more subtle and pervasive control they use is indirect methods like funding and infiltrating existing leftist groups or mimicking socialist ideas, a strategy which remains valid today. Marxist intellectuals recruited by CIA-MI6 and other local “intelligence agencies” have played an important role in the “ideological warfare” from its inception. 

Gabriel Rockhill, Ph.D., in his research article stated, “ It is often presumed that intellectuals have little or no political power. Perched in a privileged ivory tower, disconnected from the real world, embroiled in meaningless academic debates over specialized minutiae, or floating in the abstruse clouds of high-minded theory, intellectuals are frequently portrayed as not only cut off from political reality but as incapable of having any meaningful impact on it. The Central Intelligence Agency thinks otherwise. .. For in an intriguing research paper written in 1985, and recently released with minor redactions through the Freedom of Information Act, the CIA reveals that its operatives have been studying the complex, international, trend-setting French theory associated with the names Michel Foucault, Jacques Lacan, and Roland Barthes.

The image of American spies gathering in Parisian cafés to assiduously study and compare notes on the high priests of the French intelligentsia might shock those who presume this group of intellectuals to be luminaries whose otherworldly sophistication could never be caught in such a vulgar dragnet, or who assume them to be, on the contrary, charlatan peddlers of incomprehensible rhetoric with little or no impact on the real world. However, it should come as no surprise to those familiar with the CIA’s longstanding and ongoing investment in a global cultural war, including support for its most avant-garde forms, which has been well documented by researchers like Frances Stonor Saunders, Giles Scott-Smith, Hugh Wilford (and I have made my own contribution in Radical History & the Politics of Art).

The intelligence agency understands culture and theory as crucial weapons in the arsenal it deploys to perpetuate US interests around the world. The recently released 1985 research paper, entitled “France: Defection of the Leftist Intellectuals,” examines—undoubtedly to manipulate—the French intelligentsia and its fundamental role in shaping the trends that generate political policy. Suggesting that there has been a relative ideological balance between the left and the right in the history of the French intellectual world, the report highlights the monopoly of the left in the immediate postwar era—to which, we know, the Agency was rabidly opposed—due to the Communists’ key role in resisting fascism and ultimately winning the war against it.

… a new generation of anti-Marxist thinkers like Bernard-Henri Lévy, André Glucksmann and Jean-François Revel unleashed on “the last clique of Communist savants” (composed, according to the anonymous agents, of Sartre, Barthes, Lacan, and Louis Althusser). Given the left-wing leanings of these anti-Marxists in their youth, they provide the perfect model for constructing deceptive narratives that amalgamate purported personal political growth with the progressive march of time, as if both individual life and history were simply a matter of “growing up” and recognizing that profound egalitarian social transformation is a thing of the—personal and historical—past… “Even more effective in undermining Marxism,” the moles write, “were those intellectuals who set out as true believers to apply Marxist theory in the social sciences but ended by rethinking and rejecting the entire tradition.”

The Central Intelligence Agency, as its name ironically suggests, believes in the power of intelligence and theory, and we should take this very seriously. In falsely presuming that intellectual work has little or no traction in the “real world,” we not only misrepresent the practical implications of theoretical labor, but we also run the risk of dangerously turning a blind eye to the political projects for which we can easily become the unwitting cultural ambassadors.

The Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF), headquartered in Paris and later revealed as a CIA front organization during the cultural Cold War, was among the most important patrons in world history, supporting an incredible range of artistic and intellectual activities. It had offices in 35 countries, published dozens of prestige magazines, was involved in the book industry, organized high-profile international conferences and art exhibits, coordinated performances and concerts, and contributed ample funding to various cultural awards and fellowships, as well as to front organizations like the Farfield Foundation.”  Gabriel Rockhill, The CIA Reads French Theory: On the Intellectual Labor of Dismantling the Cultural Left

The spy agency’s cultural strategy of fragmenting, polarizing, and pacifying the Marxist-Leninist left has become widespread and powerful with fake “communist” parties, organizations, and “internationals” they formed and/or financed. They are very effective in their strategies by which they actually seek to sever and isolate the communist, anti-imperialist, and anti-capitalist left from the “left”, more like, with left names and narratives.

Another research article by Ryan Perkins states: “ In 1950, the CIA formally launched the Congress for Cultural Freedom, a sprawling initiative designed to cultivate a liberal, democratic, anti-Communist cultural elite across the West.

Spearheaded by agents such as Michael Josselson and, later, CIA counter-intelligence head and modernist-verse lover James Jesus Angleton, the CCF became a cultural superpower.

It organized conferences, funded writers and artists, and subsidized over 20 prestigious journals including Encounter (UK), Der Monat (Germany), and Preuves (France). It financed book translations, art exhibitions, and academic events. By the late 1950s, it had become what Frances Stonor Saunders, in her seminal 1999 book Who Paid the Piper?, called “the most significant patron of intellectual life in Western Europe.”

The mission was straightforward: winning hearts and minds by backing a left that rejected communism, class consciousness, and class conflict; a left which did not question the material structure of capitalism but retained the aura of intellectual radicalism. Unlike the American right, which saw socialism as a monolith, the CIA distinguished between different shades of red. Disillusioned communists, Trotskyists, social democrats, and ex-Marxists were seen as useful counterweights to Marxist class analysis.

A bourgeois, respectable left that drank espresso in Paris cafés, not vodka in Kremlin halls.

Many of the thinkers the CIA supported through intermediaries were formerly aligned with Marxism or Trotskyism. Irving Kristol, co-editor of Encounter and later a founding figure of neoconservatism, was once a youthful Trotskyist. Arthur Koestler, author of Darkness at Noon, was a former Comintern member turned anti-Soviet polemicist. They, and many like them, became ideological mercenaries in the Cold War battlefield of ideas—compensated not just with salaries but with prestige and platforms.

But it wasn't just ideas that were funded—aesthetics were, too. In one of the most surreal chapters of the Cold War, the CIA covertly championed Abstract Expressionism, an art movement then seen as radical, nonconformist, and defiantly individualistic. Jackson Pollock, Mark Rothko, and Willem de Kooning—now seen as quintessentially American artists—were promoted internationally as proof that liberal societies could produce avant-garde creativity, unshackled by censorship or socialist realism.

Music, too, was weaponized. Atonal and twelve-tone compositions by Arnold Schoenberg and Pierre Boulez were promoted across Europe as a discordant metaphor for freedom and complexity. The Soviets preferred Tchaikovsky and symphonic socialist anthems; the CIA offered dissonance and spontaneity.

Though the artists and composers often had no idea their careers were being advanced by Langley, the institutional support shaped cultural prestige—and the intellectual terrain that followed.” Ryan Perkins, How the CIA created the modern Left and why the Right still think it's a Marxist plot

In his review of the book “Who Paid the Piper: The CIA and the Cultural Cold War” By Saunders, James Petras states: “The CIA, under the prodding of Sidney Hook and Melvin Lasky, was instrumental in funding the Congress for Cultural Freedom, a kind of cultural NATO that grouped together all sorts of "anti-Stalinist" leftists and rightists. They were completely free to defend Western cultural and political values, attack "Stalinist totalitarianism," and to tiptoe gently around U.S. racism and imperialism. Occasionally, a piece marginally critical of U.S. mass society appeared in CIA-subsidized journals.

What was particularly bizarre about this collection of CIA-funded intellectuals was not only their political partisanship, but their pretense that they were disinterested seekers of truth, iconoclastic humanists, free-spirited intellectuals, or artists for art’s sake, who counterposed themselves to the corrupted "committed" house "hacks" of the Stalinist apparatus.

It is impossible to believe their claims of ignorance of CIA ties. How could they ignore the absence in the journals of any basic criticism of the numerous lynchings throughout the southern United States during the whole period? How could they ignore the absence, during their cultural congresses, of criticism of U.S. imperialist intervention in Guatemala, Iran, Greece, and Korea that led to millions of deaths? How could they ignore the gross apologies of every imperialist crime of their day in the journals in which they wrote? They were all soldiers: some glib, vitriolic, crude, and polemical, like Hook and Lasky; others elegant essayists like Stephen Spender or self-righteous informers like George Orwell. Saunders portrays the WASP Ivy League elite at the CIA holding the strings, and the vitriolic Jewish ex-leftists snarling at leftist dissidents. When the truth came out in the late 1960s and New York, Paris, and London "intellectuals" feigned indignation at having been used, the CIA retaliated. Tom Braden, who directed the CIA's International Organizations Branch, blew their cover by detailing how they all had to have known who paid their salaries and stipends.

According to Braden, the CIA financed their "literary froth," as CIA hardliner Cord Meyer called the anti-Stalinist intellectual exercises of Hook, Kristol, and Lasky. Regarding the most prestigious and best-known publications of the self-styled "Democratic Left", Braden wrote that the money for them came from the CIA and that "an agent became the editor of Encounter". By 1953, Braden wrote, "we were operating or influencing international organizations in every field." The CIA and the Cultural Cold War Revisited

The capitalist states and institutions penetrated every decisive field in the “ideological warfare,” from arts to culture, from intellectuals to the fake communist parties. I can’t help but note the fact that even some of the leading “theoreticians” I know are into “bourgeois art”, especially the “abstract” ones,  without even considering the fact that every form of culture has its ideological background and represents an ideological framework.

Now, those outlined above are the capitalist state and state institutions’ practices carried out in the ideological warfare waged between socialism and capitalism.  It is an unavoidable and undeniable fact that those practices will be reflected in the approach and practices of “sincere” left individuals, parties, and organizations. We can clearly see their position on the wrong side in their assessments and stances on any given issue, which puts them in the enemy camp. 

Supremacist, know-it-all ultra-left  sectarian tendency

The sin of the "ultra-left" is that they are infected with sectarianism and fail to understand the paramount importance of dialectical balancing between opportunism-liberalism and sectarianism. The ultra-left, while revolutionary in words and slogans, falls behind the reformists in practice in most cases. They like to criticize every action of every other party and organization worldwide, yet they literally do not show any action within their own countries. They hide behind the slogan of “uncompromising attitude,”  yet they compromise the democratic struggles and leave the leadership of every mass movement to the bourgeois liberals. They are “compromisers” hiding behind the slogans of “un-compromisers.” They have become the “useful tool” for the capitalists in their ideological warfare against socialism in almost every aspect.    

They hide behind the slogan of “internationalism,” yet they ignore and are even insolent to the struggle within their own countries. Their approach and practice are fundamentally against Lenin’s definition and warnings on the subject.

Different objective perspectives in each different country vs subjective perspective of self-acclaimed “Comintern” parties

It is an indisputable fact that each nation will have different cultural, social, political backgrounds and ideological outlooks. Attitudes towards the questions they face, whether it be anti-feudal,  national liberation, anti-imperialist, or socialist.  Learned-by-rote theories and ready-made schemes do not determine conditions and situations; conditions and situations determine how theories are applied. Because

“Marxist dialectical method forbids the employment of “ready-made schemes” and abstract formulas, but demands the thorough, detailed analysis of a process in all its concreteness, basing its conclusions only on such an analysis. “ Lenin, Guerrilla Warfare

Marxists do not proceed from the generalized theories to assessment of a given situation, which renders subjectivity and arbitrariness, but proceed from the assessment of concrete situation to the application of theories. Distinguishing the Bolsheviks from the rest,

Marx, says Lenin, "... speaks only of the concrete situation; Plekhanov draws a general conclusion without at all considering the question in its concreteness.” Lenin, Plekhanov's Reference to History

This concreteness, rather than applying schemes based on learned-by-rote and memorized theories without any analysis, distinguishes the Bolsheviks from the rest. Lenin said that

 "If a Communist took it into his head to boast about his communism because of the ready-made conclusions he had acquired, without putting in a great deal of serious and hard work, without understanding the facts which he must examine critically, he would be a very deplorable Communist." Lenin, The Tasks of the Youth Leagues

Unfortunately, what we witness in our days is that a few so-called “communist”  Parties have taken upon themselves the role of “Comintern” and are criticizing the communist parties, anti-fascist, anti- imperialist struggles of every other country, arrogantly and in a condescending way pontificating them and trying to dictate their own perspectives onto “others”. Is this coincidence? No, it is not. Petty bourgeois competitiveness drives them into a competition with the capitalist-formed and shaped fake “communist party”  and organizations and thus lands them in the same ranks with them in the “ideological warfare” serving the capitalist interests.

Compared to Lenin’s time, the movements in the world are relatively more united in thinking and action and stronger ideologically, politically, and organizationally- which was an underlying reason for the dissolution of Comintern. Playing the “Comintern” role and pontificating and dictating to the communist parties, criticizing, and belittling the anti-imperialists of other countries can only be in the service of capitalists in the ideological warfare. Lenin had rightly said that

 ‘the revolutionary movement in the advanced countries would actually be a sheer fraud if, in their struggle against capital, the workers of Europe and America were not closely and completely united with the hundreds upon hundreds of millions of "colonial'' slaves who are oppressed by capital.' Lenin, ‘Speech at the Second Congress of the Communist International

These so-called “international”  communist parties, by taking a passive or scornful or negative attitude towards the struggles of the oppressed nations for liberation, are in fact protecting the interests of monopoly capital, betraying those of the proletariat, and degenerating into social democrats.

This criticism takes a stand on the side of the capitalist camp, regardless of the subjective intentions of the individuals making the claim. In practice, their argument disarms and discredits the primary contemporary alternative to Western capitalist hegemony. We are not living in Lenin’s time, and the “ideological struggle” has long shifted into “ideological warfare,” where capitalists have the upper hand because they control the means and methods of mental production.

Conclusion

This work has argued that the contemporary Left's failure in ideological warfare stems from a preventable error: confusing internal ideological struggle with external ideological warfare. The consequence is that sincere communists—particularly those influenced by petty-bourgeois ultra-left tendencies—become unwitting tools of capitalist propaganda.

Marxist-Leninists must recognize that ideological criticism of fellow socialist parties is only legitimate when it is constructive, comradely, and conducted through appropriate channels. Public denunciation, particularly from abroad, violates Marxist norms and serves capitalist interests.

Genuine internationalism requires focusing on one's own national struggle while supporting others materially and through solidarity—not through pontification. Lenin's injunction remains definitive: 'He is an internationalist who combats his own bourgeoisie.'

The dialectical method demands concrete analysis of concrete conditions. The application of theory is not the mechanical imposition of formulas but the organic development of strategy from material reality.

We must vigilantly distinguish between legitimate revolutionary criticism and the narratives of capitalist ideological warfare—narratives that often disguise themselves as progressive, anti-authoritarian, or even Marxist.

The ideological warfare waged by capitalism is unprecedented in its sophistication, resources, and global reach. But it is not invincible. Clear understanding of the battlefield—of the distinction between legitimate struggle and enemy warfare—is the first condition for victory. The proletariat has defeated capitalism before, and it will do so again—but only if its vanguard does not mistake the enemy for the comrade."

Marxist theory is a method for understanding objective reality at a given time based on material conditions and historical development. Meaning that it is not dogma but must be continuously tested against new experience. Marxism-Leninism, the evolution of Marxism, is the doctrine of political, economic, juridical, social, and cultural theories and practices in applying Marxist theory to concrete conditions. Leninism is an application of Marxism designed to address modern phenomena like colonialism and finance capital, providing tools for revolution in conditions Marx and Engels did not anticipate. It remains a living method but not rigid dogma. Stalinism refers to the concrete implementation of Marxism-Leninism's strategy to industrialize and collectivize under specific historical conditions.

As the conditions and objective realities change, the application of theories changes in any given situation or era. Marxism wasn't developed in a vacuum; it required constant interaction with the real world and went through formalization, experimentation, implementation, and combining-refinement to become a solidified theory. Fundamentally, Marxist principles operate objectively and concretely. This process distinguishes "true" Marxism from dogma, making it a dynamic method for understanding reality and guiding revolutionary action rather than an inflexible set of prescriptions. The key is grounding theory in materialist analysis of class struggle at any given time and place, and solidifying Marxist theory through cognition of objective reality.

Our current objective reality is that we are in the era of “ideological warfare,” which we should consider in all our “ideological struggle” so we do not fall on the wrong side in our critiques of fellow socialists in other countries.

One must distinguish struggle from warfare. Internal debate is legitimate; external denunciation of fellow socialists serves the enemy.

Internal critique involves identifying weaknesses and deviations from the perceived "true" socialist path within a given country, with its own specific conditions and objective realities. These critiques may be credible because they target specific aspects of a functioning system within a country, making them seem reasonable to some segments of society who feel alienated or confused by rapid changes.

External critique, in the age of “ideological warfare,” most often becomes discreditation by the capitalist. It is used as a propaganda campaign painting socialism as inherently flawed, aiming not just at internal dissent but ultimately at global acceptance of these flaws and turning workers against their own interests and their own movements.

Stalin's emphasis on applying dialectics is particularly relevant here. This refers to the need to continuously analyze the enemy's methods, recognizing that “internal” ideological conflict is often a consequence or extension of external attempts to undermine socialism. The "brainwashing" concept from Marxist-Leninist theory must be understood not just as internal manipulation but as part of a broader ideological war waged by capitalism.  An ideological war whose goal is cognitive infiltration and political division.

Therefore, it's crucial to recognize that internal ideological struggles are often not purely spontaneous phenomena among workers or intellectuals, but frequently influenced or directed by external manipulations. Capitalists, with their immense power and control over the means of mental production, use sophisticated tools for misinformation like "fake news", psychological operations, framing tactics, and exploit perceived weaknesses within any system against its interests.

The dialectical method helps identify these foreign roots while also critically examining whether certain internal features are temporary transitional phenomena or have become ossified structures hindering socialist development and thus fulfilling their own historical-materialist criteria for decay. However, this is related to an internal affair of a given country.

As I have noted in “The Marxist norms and Marxist criticism among the communists and parties on international relations,”; although there may be exceptional situations, it is not common to see serious and genuine communist parties criticizing the communist parties in their theory and practices related to their internal affairs. Every communist, communist organization, and party knows the conditions and situation of their own country better than outsiders who have no serious knowledge of that country's culture, traditions, history, and existing conditions, other than what they acquired from bourgeois sources. Either as a Petty bourgeois habit or as a “CIA-NED” formed communist party or “international”,  “criticizing” communists of other countries in the name of “internationalism” has nothing to do with Marxism-Leninism.  Repeating Lenin’s words a thousand times: “Socialists in every country must expose their own government and their own bourgeoisie...Lacking that, all talk of socialism, syndicalism, internationalism is a sheer deception of the people...  He is an internationalist who in a really internationalist way combats his own bourgeoisie, his own social-chauvinists, his own Kautskyites". (1) Because “there is one, and only one, kind of real internationalism, and that is—working whole-heartedly for the development of the revolutionary movement and the revolutionary struggle in one’s own country, and supporting (by propaganda, sympathy, and material aid) this struggle, this, and only this, line, in every country without exception.” (2)

(1) Lenin, Theses for an Appeal to the International Socialist Committee and All Socialist Parties

(2) Lenin, The Tasks of the Proletariat in Our Revolution

Marxist-Leninist norms regulate relations among communist parties. Based on Marxist-Leninist norms, criticism of mistakes observed in the line and the activity of this or that party should be objective, reciprocal, principled,  constructive, and in a comradely manner. Criticism is not to dictate and impose one’s views on others, especially on the smaller parties of other countries. Criticism should be constructive and defend the struggles of the Communists, anti-imperialists, and anti-fascists and the fate of the revolution if they were successful in their struggles.

In the era of “ideological warfare,” we should seriously and vigilantly keep those words in mind in order not to land ourselves in the ranks of capitalists. For Marxist Leninists, the concept of the "chief enemy," and its determination under any given conditions, is a fundamental requirement to follow. Marxist Leninists must answer the questions of where the interest of the laboring people lies in specific cases, and in the world in general.

“Marxist dialectical method forbids the employment of “ready-made schemes” and abstract formulas. The dialectical method demands, first, that we should consider things, not each by itself, but always in their interconnection with other things.”  Maurice Cornforth, Materialism, and the Dialectical Method

 In general, when Marxist Leninists supports capitalism against feudalism, that does not make them pro-capitalist, or when they support monopoly capitalists against the capitalists, that does not make them pro-imperialist (in its scientific meaning), or when they declare that they prefer a populist bourgeois democracy against an autocratic fascist government form, that does not make them pro-bourgeois democracy, or when they support regimes like that of Iran in their resistance against the aggression of US-NATO imperialism, that does not make them pro-reactionary regimes, or when they welcome the defeat of US-NATO imperialists in Afghanistan, that does not make them pro-Taliban. These are mechanical equations made by liberals or by those who memorize the theories that fit their own subjective stand, sloganize them, and use them as a “formula” on each and every situation. This has nothing to do with applying the dialectics of Marxism; thus, it does not serve the interests of the working class in ideological warfare."

No account of capitalist ideological warfare is complete without recognizing the role Leon Trotsky and his followers played. While Trotsky's theoretical contributions to the revision of Marxism are undeniable, his post-exile writings—particularly after 1928—provided capitalists with an arsenal of narratives that have been weaponized against socialism for nearly a century.

The CIA's cultivation of anti-Stalinist leftists, Trotskyists, and disillusioned Marxists was not random. These figures possessed the credibility of having 'once been Marxist,' making their critiques more persuasive to workers than overtly capitalist propaganda. Trotsky's accusations of 'bureaucratic deformation' and 'betrayal of the revolution' were repurposed by intelligence agencies, given institutional support, and transformed into the foundation of a 'left' anti-communism that persists to this day.

This is not to deny the legitimacy of all internal critique—Stalin himself acknowledged the necessity of "criticizing it within the ranks of our Party." But the public, external, and destructive character of the critiques emanating from Trotskyist and post-Trotskyist circles has consistently served imperialist objectives, regardless of the subjective intentions of those making them."

Trotsky has supplied immense ammunition to the capitalists in their ideological warfare against socialism and has facilitated the laying of the foundation for fake socialist intellectuals, writers, organizations, and parties. "Socialist" rhetoric, lies, and slander against socialist, anti-fascist, anti-imperialist countries and parties coming from these fakes make the arguments more "credible" in the service of capitalists. In addition to the "critiques" of socialists by these fakes, petty bourgeois "ultra-left" intellectuals, organizations, and parties serve the interests of the capitalists through their critiques, which are in concert with these fakes in "context". So, they become "volunteer" servants of capitalists in the "ideological warfare". Through their arrogant and condescending critiques, they supply enough information to be focused on and abused by the capitalists in their propaganda and actions against the socialists, anti-fascists, and anti-imperialists. In this sense, their function historically resembles that of the Fifth-Column "socialists" in the service of imperialists and fascists.  

CHAPTER I- Ideological warfare Through conflation of theories:

General — Yet Fundamental

Part 1- Socialism vs Communism-The foundational distinction

Confusion About the Difference Between Socialism and Communism in the Service of "Ideological Warfare" of Capitalism

"If a Communist took it into his head to boast about his communism because of the cut-and-dried conclusions he had acquired, without putting in a great deal of serious and hard work and without understanding facts he should examine critically, he would be a deplorable Communist indeed. Such superficiality would be decidedly fatal. If I know that I know little, I shall strive to learn more; but if a man says that he is a Communist and that he need not know anything thoroughly, he will never become anything like a Communist."  Lenin, The Tasks of the Youth Leagues

First Phase- Socialism	Transformation Phase	Higher phase-Communism
Proletarian Dictatorship		Self-administration
Introduction is necessary		Cannot be introduced
Defeat of capitalists in any country	defeat in world scale	No capitalist countries exists
Building of Socialism	Elements of Socialism wither away	Elements of Communist Society
Incentive Labor	Labor Transformation	Voluntary Labor
According to Ability	Cultural Transformation	According to Need
Restoration of Capitalism is possible	Restoration unlikely
State is a necessity	Withering away of the State	No State Apparatus
State Administration	Participation of Public in Administration	Public Self-Administration
There is no Genuine Freedom		Genuine Freedom
Antagonistic Contradictions resolved	Secondary Contradictions resolved	No Contradictions
Creation of Economic Pre-requisitions	Prerequisites completed

 

Confusion as a Byproduct of Ideological Warfare

The Problem

In our era—beginning with the transition from ideological struggle to ideological warfare during the Stalin era of the Soviet Union—the confusion between socialism and communism is not coincidental but a fundamental byproduct of this warfare. It makes up the core of the bourgeoisie's and the revisionists' efforts to alienate the masses from socialism, a necessary tool for them to attack socialist countries, socialist struggles, and socialist ideology.

Initially, the subject was never a part of ideological struggle but a discussion to understand the subject with its nuances and determine the actions and path to the revolution and to the construction of socialism. It became an ideological struggle mainly between the Lenin-Bolsheviks and Kautsky and his student Trotsky, who claimed that "it is impossible to build socialism in one country."

Lenin, on the subject in his article "A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism," stated:

"...to dream of the 'united action of the proletarians of all countries' means postponing socialism to the Greek calends, i.e., forever. Socialism will be achieved by the united action of the proletarians, not of all, but of a minority of countries, those that have reached the advanced capitalist stage of development."

The broader context of this passage is Lenin's polemic against P. Kievsky, where he argues that waiting for a perfectly synchronized, global revolution is a fantasy that effectively postpones socialism indefinitely.

Again, Lenin's "Report on Foreign Policy," delivered at a joint meeting of the All-Russia Central Executive Committee and the Moscow Soviet, stated:

"I know that there are, of course, sages who think they are very clever and even call themselves Socialists, who assert that power should not have been seized until the revolution had broken out in all countries. They do not suspect that by speaking in this way they are deserting the revolution and going over to the side of the bourgeoisie. To wait until the toiling classes bring about a revolution on an international scale means that everybody should stand stock-still in expectation. That is nonsense."

The confusion is not confined to the past. Contemporary ideological apparatuses—including the academic institutions, mainstream media, and even the artificial intelligence systems trained on their outputs—consistently reproduce the Trotskyite narrative. This is not an accident of programming but a reflection of the ideological hegemony that serves the bourgeoisie. When one asks a Western AI about "socialism in one country," the response invariably attributes it to Stalin, omitting Lenin's own formulations. This is the erasure of Leninism through the Trojan horse of "neutral" information.

Aside from all, Trotsky himself has confessed in his book, On Lenin:

"I remember very well how during the first period, in the Smolny, Lenin repeated time and time again in the Council of People's Commissars: half a year from now we'll have socialism, and we'll be the most powerful state on earth... He believed what he said."

How Confusion Functions as a Weapon

This confusion, more like conflating socialism and communism, inevitably alienates the masses from socialism because a communist society is a futuristic society that cannot be realized under current conditions. For ordinary people, rightfully so, it sounds like an illusion. Marx and Engels refused to draw detailed blueprints of communist society—not because they were agnostic, but because such blueprints would be unscientific. The future depends on concrete historical conditions that cannot be predicted. This scientific modesty, however, has been exploited by those who conflate the unknown future of communism with the knowable present of socialism. Marx stated:

"What should be done at a particular moment in the future, what should be done immediately, certainly depends entirely on the given historical circumstances in which people will have to act."  Marx, Letter to Ferdinand Nieuwenhuis

And Engels stated in his Interview with a French Figaro Reporter:

"We have no final goal. We are evolutionists; we do not intend to impose any final laws on humanity. Preconceived opinions regarding the detailed arrangements of future society? You will not find even a shadow of them with us."

In these quotes, Engels explicitly states that they refuse to provide any "preconceived opinions on the detailed arrangements" of future society, while Marx considered the question of what specific measures to take after the revolution to be "unrealistic" at that point, and stated that imagining concrete measures in advance was a "fantasy" question. This is precisely an exact expression of the idea that one cannot make specific predictions because they depend on the concrete conditions of the future.

Engels, in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, stated:

"The Utopians attempted to emancipate the proletariat, but without understanding its historical role. They sought to invent a new society and to impose it on the world. The scientific socialists, by contrast, seek to discover the laws of motion of existing society, and to find the means of its transformation within that society itself."

To know that a society will be stateless is to know its form. To know how production, distribution, and daily life will be organized is to know its content—and that content depends on historical conditions we cannot predict. Marx and Engels refused to blueprint the future. This scientific modesty, however, has been weaponized by those who conflate the unknown future of communism with the knowable present of socialism. Let us be clear about what this means.

In simple terms, communist society—the higher phase—is not and cannot be a subject of detailed discussion. With the exception of its fundamental structures (stateless, classless, "to each according to need"), its concrete arrangements are unknown. They cannot be predicted because they depend on conditions that do not yet exist. To attempt to draw blueprints for communism would be unscientific and utopian—a flight from the concrete struggles of the present into the abstraction of the future. Even the question of what measures to take immediately after the revolution, Marx considered "unrealistic" to imagine in advance. How much more so for a society that will emerge only after socialism has been built worldwide?

This is why the confusion between socialism and communism is so damaging. By judging socialist states by the standards of an unknown future—a future whose contours cannot even be drawn—the bourgeoisie and revisionists create a standard that can never be met. They critique socialism for not being what it is not yet and may never be in the form they imagine.

That is how the subject is diluted and conflated to confuse the minds not only of average masses, but of sincere socialists. By using the fundamental characteristics of a future society—communism—and comparing them, they criticize and discredit existing socialist states.

This confusion, aimed at the argument that "socialism cannot be built in one country", creates pacifism, reformism, and worse, defeatism among revolutionary movements and people with socialist inspirations. If socialism cannot be built in one country, why fight?

Criticizing socialism under the guise of "socialist" has been exactly what the Fifth Column's tactics were. The argument serves them as an intellectual cover for counter-revolution. M.J. Olgin, who wrote the preface for Leon Trotsky's book Our Revolution, summarized the essence of Trotskyism in the "The Danger of Trotskyism" section of his book:

"Trotskyism does not sink roots into the masses of the proletariat, but its danger for the Communist Party, and particularly for those petty-bourgeois intellectuals who are moving towards the Communist Party in the capitalist countries, must not be underestimated. It is the petty bourgeoisie that is, through Trotskyism, trying to disorganize and demoralize the revolutionary forces that are mobilizing against capitalism. The petty-bourgeois elements, says Lenin, 'surround the proletariat on all sides... they saturate it... they demoralize it, they continually make it relapse into petty-bourgeois spinelessness, disruption, individualism, transition from enthusiasm to dismay'… Intellectuals are becoming radicalized. But, being petty-bourgeois, many of them have an aversion to the Communist Party, to its theory and practice. Here Trotskyism comes in handy. It gives the intellectuals of this kind a 'way out'. It makes it possible for them to pose as Communists without participating in the class struggle. It gives them the opportunity to pose as 'critics' of the Communist Party 'from the Left' and thus satisfy their desire to appear 'radical'. It gives them a platform from which to fight the Communist Party and thus satisfy their petty-bourgeois inclinations—without at the same time appearing reactionary."

No account of capitalist ideological warfare is complete without recognizing the role Leon Trotsky and his followers played. The weaponization of Trotsky's theoretical errors did not stop with his death. The CIA's cultivation of anti-Stalinist leftists was not random—it was a deliberate strategy to use the confusion between socialism and communism to divide, demoralize, and ultimately defeat the socialist movement. By presenting Trotsky's critiques as "left-wing" corrections, they provided cover for what was actually a right-wing assault. It was part of the ideological warfare against socialism and socialist countries.

As I have noted, confusion serves the interests of the bourgeoisie and revisionists to apply communist criteria to socialist reality, with which they can continue their ideological warfare against socialism, against socialist countries.

Historical Context — From Science to Weapon

Socialism and communism are often used interchangeably in some settings by Lenin and the Bolsheviks, and thus are oftentimes confused.

Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin used the terms "socialism" and "communism" with scientific precision when discussing the two phases of the new society. However, they also used "communism" more broadly to refer to the entire movement, the party, and the first phase itself—especially when contrasting it with capitalism and the old socialist reformism. This dual usage has created confusion, but the context always makes clear which meaning is intended. When Marx speaks of the "first phase of communist society" (which he calls socialism), he is being precise. When he speaks of "the communist party" or "communist revolution," he is referring to the struggle for socialism itself. They use the terms "socialism" and "communism" interchangeably not because they are the same type of society, but because, unlike other type of societies which require the use of force to transform from one to other, transition from socialist society to communist society is voluntary and spontaneous, meaning that communism is born out of socialist society, not from top bottom but from bottom up. Thus, one can call socialism communism, but they are in no way the same type of society. This dual usage—"communism" as both the movement and the higher phase—was manageable so long as the socialist movement remained united. But the betrayal of Second International changed everything. Lenin recognized that the name "Social-Democracy" had become corrupted.

Why the name "Communist Party" was adopted (distinction from reformists)

In the April Theses, Lenin wrote:

"Instead of 'Social-Democracy', whose official leaders throughout the world have betrayed socialism and deserted to the bourgeoisie (the 'defencists' and the vacillating 'Kautskyites'), we must call ourselves the Communist Party."

This question was not considered at the April Conference of the R.S.D.L.P.(B.) of 1917 or at the Sixth Party Congress. The decision to change the name of the Party was taken only at the Seventh Party Congress, at which Lenin made a report on the subject. It has already been explained in our press that the name "Social-Democratic Party" is scientifically incorrect.  Lenin, Extraordinary Seventh Congress of the R.C.P.(B.)

Although Lenin's debate with Kautsky and Trotsky on the question of the "impossibility of building socialism in one country" leaves no room for any doubt, due to, and banking on the laziness of people in reading and comprehending Lenin (and Stalin, who clarified the nuances), the Bourgeoisie and the Trotskyites, through falsifying, blatantly lying, spinning the question, and demagoguery, weaponized the confusion over the distinction.

Lenin had foreseen the danger of this confusion and pointed out in his speech:

"We have actually been using the adjective 'communist' very frequently, so frequently that we have even included it in the name of our Party. But when you give this matter some thought, you arrive at the idea that together with the good that has followed from this, a certain danger for us may have been created."

"If the name 'Communist Party' were interpreted to mean that the communist system is being introduced immediately, that would be a great distortion and would do practical harm since it would be nothing more than empty boasting. That is why the word 'communist' must be treated with great caution…"  Lenin, Report On Subbotniks

Confirming Lenin's warning, the confusion on the subject has become the most important weapon in the hands of revisionists to slander any socialist and socialist country with the application of the characteristics of a communist society to a socialist society. The implications of this theory and the application of the fundamental subjects are insidiously yet skillfully reversed; their arguments do not start from the theory of the impossibility of socialism, but from arguments against the anti-imperialist, anticolonial, revolutionary-democracy struggles. When we dialectically analyse all their arguments and assessments, they all end up with their core argument.

Scientific Clarification

The Scientific Framework

"The working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes." Marx, The Class Struggles in France

Marx established the framework in his Critique of the Gotha Program, distinguishing between the "first phase" (socialism) and the "higher phase" (communism). Lenin reaffirmed this, emphasizing that the transition between capitalism and communism requires a "political transition period" during which the state exists as the dictatorship of the proletariat. Stalin, building on this, explained the dialectical contradiction: the state must be strengthened precisely in order to prepare its own withering away.

For Marxist Leninists, the terms socialism and communism have very definite, scientific meanings. Socialism is the prerequisite for communist society; it represents the entire period of transformation from Capitalism to Communism. Marx, in Critique of the Gotha Program says:

"Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."

Lenin stated:

"...the transition from capitalist society—which is developing towards communism—to communist society is impossible without a 'political transition period', and the state in this period can only be the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."  Lenin, The Transition from Capitalism to Communism

People tend to confuse (and abuse) the term "construction of Communism" with the "communist society" to which the transition must be completed. "Construction" takes place within socialist society—at the first phase of communism. Regardless of the degree of success in "construction of communism", the system will still remain as a "socialist society" in a transformation stage—as long as the "state" in any form exists, one cannot speak of a "communist society" in its Marxist-Leninist meaning.

Stalin in his speech at the 16th Congress states:

"We are for the withering away of the State (transition to communism). And yet we also believe in the proletarian dictatorship, which represents the strongest and mightiest form of State power that has existed up to now. To keep on developing State power in order to prepare the conditions for the withering away of State power—that is the Marxist formula. It is 'contradictory'? Yes, 'contradictory.' But the contradiction is vital, and wholly reflects Marxian dialectic...

"Whoever has not understood this feature of the contradictions belonging to our transitional time, whoever has not understood this dialectic of historical processes, that person is DEAD to Marxism."

Engels, in  Anti-Dühring stated:

"The state is not 'abolished '; it withers away. This is the position of the proletariat, and this alone is true Marxism."

Engels, The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State:

"The state is a product of society at a certain stage of development; it is the admission that this society has become entangled in an insoluble contradiction with itself, that it is cleft into irreconcilable antagonisms which it is powerless to dispel."

Lenin, in State and Revolution, stated:

 "The dictatorship of the proletariat—i.e., the organization of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of crushing the oppressors—cannot result merely in an expansion of democracy."

A society under the dictatorship of the proletariat before the "withering away of the state" is a socialist society, where all the production and relations of production are regulated by the "state"—regardless of how much it is developed and how much it is ready for "communist society". As long as capitalism exists, the state will have to exist. Where there is "state", we cannot speak of "communist society" but only of the degrees of socialist development in relation to that society. And as long as the socialist countries are surrounded by capitalist states, the socialist state has to continue to exist.

Debunking all the demagogies and falsifications of the subject, Lenin, during the Eighth Congress of the R.C.P.(B.) Report On Work In The Countryside said:

"...peasant would say, 'I am for the communia' (i.e., for communism). But in order to do that, we must first defeat the international bourgeoisie."

Lenin clearly pointed out the fact that, for the transformation to communist society, entire capitalist society has to cease to exist.

For socialism to succeed in one country, the subject is dialectically connected, but its success in one or more countries does not depend on the defeat of entire capitalists but the internal ones.

"The proletariat's struggle against the bourgeoisie," said Lenin, "finds expression in a variety of forms ever richer in content, inevitably becomes a political struggle directed towards the conquest of political power by the proletariat. The socialization of production cannot but lead to the means of production becoming the property of society, to the 'expropriation of the expropriators.'" Lenin, Karl Marx: A Brief Biographical Sketch With an Exposition of Marxism

Regarding the variety of forms, Lenin in one of his critiques stated that:

"An organ of popular revolutionary struggle, that 'wrests political power' from the hands of the old government is nothing more or less than a provisional revolutionary government." Lenin, The Aim of the Proletarian Struggle in Our Revolution

Unlike the "purists", the utopians and those who have an abstract, illusory picture of socialism in their mind even which they cannot dare to draw (they probably have communism in their mind), Lenin clarifies:

"If political power in the state is in the hands of a class whose interests coincide with those of the majority, that state can be governed truly in line with the will of the majority. But if political power is in the hands of a class whose interests diverge from those of the majority, any form of majority rule is bound to become deception or suppression of the majority."  Lenin, Constitutional Illusions

For socialists to ensure the triumph of the social revolution, the winning of political power is the primary task. "To achieve its emancipation," Lenin says:

"the proletariat must overthrow the bourgeoisie, win political power, and establish its revolutionary dictatorship. …the transition from capitalist society—which is developing towards communism—to communist society is impossible without a 'political transition period'." Lenin, State and Revolution

In this context, acquiring state power, the first condition in one country in any form by itself is sufficient enough to call that country "socialist". "Success of socialism" and "socialism" are not the same, but contingent on capturing political power. Socialism is the struggle that starts with the capture of political power, continues and extends till the transition to stateless, publicly administered society—that is communism.

"Socialism," said Lenin, "is inconceivable without large-scale capitalist engineering based on the latest discoveries of modern science. It is inconceivable without planned state organisation, which keeps tens of millions of people to the strictest observance of a unified standard in production and distribution. We Marxists have always spoken of this, and it is not worthwhile wasting two seconds talking to people who do not understand even this (anarchists and a good half of the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries). At the same time, socialism is inconceivable unless the proletariat is the ruler of the state." Lenin, "Left-Wing" Childishness

As Stalin clearly pointed out in  Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR:

"The question is not whether there is commodity production or exchange under socialism. The question is whether the state power is in the hands of the working class, whether the state power is used for the socialist construction of the economy."

Socialism defined (first/lower phase)

Most "Leninists" disregard Lenin's explanation. He said:

"...given a really revolutionary-democratic state, state-monopoly capitalism inevitably and unavoidably implies a step, and more than one step, towards socialism! ... For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. ... State-monopoly capitalism is a complete material preparation for socialism, the threshold of socialism, a rung on the ladder of history between which and the rung called socialism there are no intermediate rungs."

Lenin's point about state-monopoly capitalism is crucial because it demolishes the idea that capitalism and socialism are separated by an unbridgeable gulf. State-monopoly capitalism contains the material preconditions for socialism—what matters is not the economic structure alone but who controls the state. This is why the capture of political power is the decisive criterion.

Through the use of force, Proletarian dictatorship is the precondition for building socialism in any given country—meaning the defeat of capitalists in particular, in any given country or countries.

That precondition, however, has its own precondition—communists and the Communist Party:

"The Communists are on the one hand practically the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement. The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat."

"The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer. They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes. The abolition of existing property relations is not at all a distinctive feature of communism."  Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party: Chapter 2

If we summarize: Socialism is the cause of the working class; Communism is the cause of the liberation of humanity for which the success of Socialism is a prerequisite. Communists are devoted to the cause of communism.

Lenin proposed that the Party of the Bolsheviks should be called the Communist Party, which was the name given by Marx and Engels to their party. This name was scientifically correct, for it was the ultimate aim of the Bolshevik Party to achieve Communism. Mankind can pass directly from capitalism only to Socialism, that is, to the common ownership of the means of production and the distribution of products according to the work performed by each. Lenin said that our Party looks further ahead. Socialism is inevitably bound to pass gradually into Communism, on the banner of which is inscribed the maxim: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

Lenin explains the process and the task of the proletarian dictatorship-socialist state:

"For it is clear that the generation of working people brought up in capitalist society can, at best, accomplish the task of destroying the foundations of the old, the capitalist way of life, which was built on exploitation. At best it will be able to accomplish the tasks of creating a social system that will help the proletariat and the working classes retain power and lay a firm foundation, which can be built on only by a generation that is starting to work under the new conditions, in a situation in which relations based on the exploitation of man by man no longer exist."  Lenin, The Tasks of the Youth Leagues

The first and fundamental question is the confusion between a "proletarian state—socialist state" and "building socialism". The application of the definition of Capitalism to name a country as "capitalist" starts with the transformation of society from Feudalism to Capitalism after the bourgeoisie captures the political power from the feudalists through bourgeois revolution. Regardless of the extent of the elimination of feudalism in that country, regardless of the economic development of that given country- underdeveloped or less developed or highly developed etc.- we all call that given country "capitalist". To understand the reasons for this naming, we should go back to Marxism and try to grasp the fundamentals behind it.

Just as we call an underdeveloped country "capitalist" when the bourgeoisie holds political power, we must call a developing country "socialist" when the proletariat holds political power. The degree of economic development is secondary to the class character of the state.

Humans cannot produce outside of social relations. The mode of production—the unity of productive forces and relations of production—is defined by ownership of the means of production.

 Marx explains that "Social relations are closely bound up with productive forces.  When the bourgeoisie captures political power, it changes ownership from feudal to capitalist, and we call the resulting society capitalist. When the proletariat captures political power, it changes ownership from capitalist to socialist, and we call the resulting society socialist—regardless of the degree of development. Marx follows by saying,

"In acquiring new productive forces men change their mode of production; and in changing their mode of production, in changing the way of earning their living, they change all their social relations." Marx, The Poverty of Philosophy

The change in the relations of production means the substitution of a new economic basis for the old one, a change in the entire society. Since its base is the ownership of the means of production, this change in society is in essence means a change in the ownership of the means of production. Change from feudalism to capitalism is a result of change in the ownership of the means of production through the capturing of political power by the bourgeoisie. A system is defined by the ownership of the means of production and production relations, which in return defines the mode of production with new productive forces.

The bourgeoisie capturing political power establishes its new society—capitalistic society in which the means of production can only function when they have undergone a preliminary transformation into capital, into the means of exploiting human labor. In Engels' words,

 "The bourgeoisie broke up the feudal system and built upon its ruins the capitalist order of society." Socialism: Utopian and Scientific

So, regardless of the degree of economic and social improvements, we call it a country where the bourgeoisie captures the political power, owns the means of production, and regulates the production relations as "capitalist". In a semi-feudal, capitalist country where political power is captured by the bourgeoisie, all the means of production are expropriated, and production relations are regulated by and for the majority of the people, regardless of the degree of development of the "socialist economy," we call it "socialist".

As the qualitative criteria for socialism, Marxism-Leninism defines it not by the "presence or absence" of market or private property, or by the degree of socialist economic development, but by the "class character of the state".

The ironic fact is that people have an abstract, utopian understanding of "socialism" for which they themselves have no idea of the finished picture. For one, unlike capitalism, "Socialism" is NOT an end by and for itself. It is an unending struggle for the better, covering an entire period of transformation from capturing political power, constructing the socialist economy, creating the economic, social, and cultural foundations for the communist society. That is why there is no way to draw a concrete, absolute, template picture of Socialism, as well as templates of ways and means of capturing political power.

"We do not claim that Marx knew or Marxists know the road to socialism down to the last detail. It would be nonsense to claim anything of the kind. What we know is the direction of this road, and the class forces that follow it; the specific, practical details will come to light only through the experience of the millions when they take things into their own hands.” Lenin, From a Publicist’s Diary (Peasants and Workers)

The crux of the matter lies in political power passing into the hands of the proletariat… We are not doctrinaires. Our theory is a guide to action, not a dogma."

Socialism starts with the capturing of political power from the bourgeoisie and ends with the withering away of the "political power"—that is, the state.

The utopians may think that socialist economy, socialist culture, socialist relations will be realized by the morning of, or soon after seizing the political power. Lenin puts it bluntly:

"Socialism is not a ready-made system that will be mankind's benefactor. Socialism is the class struggle of the present-day proletariat as it advances from one objective today to another objective tomorrow for the sake of its basic objective…"  Lenin, Conversation

Socialism is made up of two fundamental transition periods: Political Transformation—from capitalism to socialism through capturing political power, and Economic Transformation—from capitalist production relations to socialist production relations. The former—the capture of political power for the purpose of organising socialist society—is a precondition for the latter, yet after capturing political power, both complement and strengthen (or weaken) each other.

Unlike previous transitions (feudalism → capitalism, capitalism → socialism), the transition from socialism to communism is not achieved through force but through voluntary, spontaneous development. This is why the two phases are so often conflated; they are not separated by a revolution but by a gradual evolution.

Communism defined (second/higher phase)

What separates them qualitatively is the withering away of the state to self-administration, transformation from "to each according to his ability" to "to each according to need". It is the disappearance of the secondary antagonistic contradictions: while internal-primary antagonistic contradictions were mainly resolved by the socialist revolutions, the class contradictions between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie continue mainly in the form of the antagonistic relationship between socialism and imperialism. Marxist-Leninists consider the objective contradictions as the source and motive force of the development of the world in general, and of social life in particular. Antagonistic contradictions are contradictions between social class forces with diametrically opposite fundamental political and economic interests. In the transitional period, antagonistic contradictions of this type exist not only as external contradictions but also as internal contradictions. That's why, alongside non-antagonistic contradictions, the antagonistic contradictions present themselves as fundamental, primary contradictions in the transitional period, and not as temporary and sporadic contradictions. In socialist society, the internal antagonistic contradictions are resolved; during the transition to Communist society, non-antagonistic contradictions are resolved. For the reason that the transition to communism is not carried out by revolution but by evolution. Because the classes that would need to be overthrown—the exploiters—have already been overthrown. There is no hostile class to defeat. There is only the gradual transformation of society itself—its productive forces, its culture, its consciousness, its habits, its morals.

This is why the bourgeoisie and revisionists cannot understand socialism. They project their own logic—the logic of class struggle, of revolution, of overthrowing—onto a society where the logic has shifted to construction, development, and transformation. They look for a new revolution to "overthrow" socialism and bring in communism—not understanding that communism is not something imposed from above but something that grows from below.

Marx, in  Critique of the Gotha Program, stated:

"In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!'"

The resolution of contradictions in socialist society is a dialectical process. Marxist-Leninists consider objective contradictions as the source and motive force of development in general, and of social life in particular. But not all contradictions are of the same character.

Antagonistic contradictions are contradictions between class forces with diametrically opposite fundamental political and economic interests. These contradictions can only be resolved through struggle—in the case of the proletariat vs. the bourgeoisie, through revolution.

Non-antagonistic contradictions are contradictions within the working people themselves—between the interests of different sections of the people. These contradictions exist in socialist society because the "birthmarks" of the old society remain. The working class, the peasantry, the intelligentsia—these are not hostile classes but different sections of the people with different immediate interests.

In the transitional period, antagonistic contradictions present themselves in two forms:

1. External antagonistic contradictions: Between socialism and capitalism, between socialist states and imperialist states. These are the contradictions of class struggle on a world scale.
2. Internal antagonistic contradictions: Between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie within a socialist society—as long as the bourgeoisie exists as a class, even if defeated. However, under the dictatorship of the proletariat, these internal antagonistic contradictions are being resolved through the suppression of the bourgeoisie and the construction of socialism.

Alongside these, non-antagonistic contradictions exist internally:

• Between urban and rural areas
• Between industrial and agricultural labor
• Between manual and intellectual labor
• Between different regions and nationalities
• Between the advanced and the backward

These contradictions are not hostile. They are contradictions among the people. They can be resolved through development, education, planning, and the gradual transformation of consciousness—not through class struggle.

The transition from socialism to communism is the process of resolving these non-antagonistic contradictions—not through revolution (which would imply conflict between hostile classes) but through evolution (the gradual development of productive forces, culture, and consciousness).

However, antagonistic contradictions persist as long as capitalism exists. This is why the state must continue to exist in socialism: to defend against external capitalist attack and to suppress internal counter-revolution. The socialist state is not a sign of failure. It is a sign of vigilance.

The interrelation between communism and socialism lies in the fact that communism is born from socialism. It is not an imposed society but a transformed society.

The Critical Criterion — The State

The fundamental distinction is that in socialist society the state exists as explained in the reasons above; in communist society the state withers away: there is no state apparatus. Thus, the "state and communist society are contradictory terms". Reiterating Stalin:

"We are for the withering away of the State. And yet we also believe in the proletarian dictatorship, which represents the strongest and mightiest form of State power that has existed up to now. To keep on developing State power in order to prepare the conditions for the withering away of State power – that is the Marxist formula. Is it 'contradictory'? Yes, 'contradictory.' But the contradiction is vital, and wholly reflects Marxian dialectic... Whoever has not understood this feature of the contradictions belonging to our transitional time, whoever has not understood this dialectic of historical processes, that person is DEAD to Marxism."  Stalin, Speech at the 16th Congress

Here is the core dialectical relationship: The state must exist in socialism, and it must be strong enough to defeat capitalist counter-revolution. But its purpose is to create the conditions for its own disappearance. Those who see the state's existence as "proof" that socialism isn't real have failed to understand this dialectic.

We call underdeveloped countries "capitalist" when the bourgeoisie holds power; therefore, we must call developing countries "socialist" when the proletariat holds power. We call the United States "capitalist" despite the existence of welfare programs, labor laws, and state intervention. We call Brazil "capitalist" despite its underdevelopment and feudal remnants. We call India "capitalist" despite its mixed economy. Why? Because the bourgeoisie holds political power. By the same logic, we call North Korea, China, Cuba, and other socialist states "socialist"—because the proletariat holds political power, regardless of development level, market mechanisms, or state strength.

The socialist state exists to defend the revolution against counter-revolution. As long as capitalism exists, counter-revolution will exist. The state is therefore a shield, not a sword against the people.

The Danger of the Term "Construction of Communism"

Construction of socialism carries within it the construction of communism—the communist society. All the qualification necessary for the transformation takes place within socialist society. That is why building Socialist Society is the phase of transformation to communist society. That is the core of the subject and most likely the source of confusion because it is integrated but not the same. Learning Marxism-Leninism by rote rather than comprehending the terms and theories in context makes people vulnerable to the Bourgeois and Trotskyite propaganda and falsifications.

People tend to confuse (and abuse) the term "construction of Communism" with "communist society" itself. "Construction" takes place within socialist society—at the first phase of communism. Regardless of the degree of success in "construction of communism," the system remains a "socialist society" in the transformation stage. As long as the "state" in any form exists, one cannot speak of a "communist society" in its Marxist-Leninist meaning.

Stalin himself used the term "construction of communism" in his interview with H.G. Wells in 1934. But he did so with a clear understanding of the distinction. When Wells asked about the pace of building the new society, Stalin responded:

"We are not yet building communism. We are building socialism. The construction of communism will come later when we have created the material preconditions for it. We are constructing the foundations of socialism. I think you understand the difference between socialism and communism, Mr. Wells?"

This question of Stalin to Wells is devastating for those who cite Stalin's use of the phrase "construction of communism" to claim that he conflated socialism and communism. In the very same exchange, Stalin explicitly distinguishes between the two. He states that communism will come later when the material preconditions have been created. He assumes that Wells understands the distinction—and, by extension, that all serious Marxists should understand it.

Stalin in his speech at the 18th Congress of the CPSU in 1939, states:

"We have already achieved socialism. We are now in the period of the gradual transition to communism. But this transition requires the development of the productive forces to a much higher level. The question is not one of declaring communism, but of building it."

Stalin in both and numerous articles, directly clarifies the distinction.

The abuse of the term "construction of communism" is therefore not a misreading of Stalin. It is a deliberate distortion. It takes Stalin's own words, strips them of their immediate context, and uses them to accuse him of precisely the conflation he clarified in the next sentence. This is ideological warfare—not an academic error.

This is precisely Lenin's warning about the danger of the name "Communist Party." If the name is interpreted to mean that communism is being introduced immediately, it does "practical harm" and becomes "empty boasting." The same applies to the phrase "construction of communism." When used correctly, it refers to the long, patient, unglamorous work of building the foundations for a future that cannot yet be fully imagined. When abused, it becomes a weapon against the very society it describes.

"If the study of communism consisted solely in assimilating what is contained in communist books and pamphlets, we might all too easily obtain communist text-jugglers or braggarts, and this would very often do us harm, because such people, after learning by rote what is set forth in communist books and pamphlets, would prove incapable of combining the various branches of knowledge, and would be unable to act in the way communism really demands."  Lenin, The Tasks of the Youth Leagues

Socialism sets the foundation for communism, prepares not only the economy but also the "minds", "habits," "morals", "ethics", "perspectives" of people for the transformation to the second phase—for the communist society. For this reason, to deny the possibility of socialism in one country, and not to wage struggle for it, is tantamount to denying communist society—thus, it is an anti-communist argument in disguise.

What defines a communist society, first, is the absence of the state, withering away of state during the transition period from socialist society to communist society.

The second and most important distinction between communist elements (even if there is sporadic subbotniks, voluntary labor in a socialist state) and communist society is the overall existence of "incentive" based labor in socialism and only "voluntary" based labor in Communism. The existence of communist elements within socialist society does not make it a communist society—just as the existence of socialist elements within capitalist society (state welfare, labor protections) does not make it socialist. The qualitative criterion remains the class character of the state. As Lenin put it:

"If we were to ask ourselves in what way communism differs from socialism, we should have to say that socialism is the society that grows directly out of capitalism; it is the first form of the new society. Communism is a higher form of society, and can only develop when socialism has become firmly established." Lenin, Report On Subbotniks

Lenin specifically warned on the subject of the use of the term "communist", "communism" and said:

"...the scientific distinction between socialism and communism is clear… 'communism' is applicable and acceptable providing we do not forget that this is not complete communism, '—communist society'… 'in the first phase of communist society (usually called socialism)'." Lenin, The State and Revolution

The direction of the road that is taken, and the class forces following that direction, have a decisive role in defining a country's political system—that may change in the process. That's why it is not a coincidence or slip of the tongue when Enver Hoxha called Cuba and China "socialist".

"The Ninth National Congress of the Communist Party of China, a congress of proletarian victory over the traitorous, revisionist and counter-revolutionary line of the renegades, traitor, and scab Liu Shao-Chi, marks a new stage not only in the carrying out of socialist revolution and socialist construction in China, but also in the fight for the triumph of Marxism-Leninism over revisionism, of socialism over capitalism and of revolution over counter-revolution in the world. This is why the hearts and minds of the Marxist-Leninists and revolutionaries of the whole world were directed in these days towards your great congress; this is why their hearts are filled with joy at this great historic event… The imperialist-revisionist aggressive plans against great socialist China and the freedom-loving peoples of the world will fail ignominiously, and the US imperialists and the Soviet revisionists will be completely and definitely smashed."  Enver Hoxha, Letter to the Ninth Conference of the Communist Party of China, April 29, 1969

Similarly, for the same reasons, Enver Hoxha was calling Cuba as Socialists:

"...such activities of the revisionists headed by Khrushchev's group as their adventuresome and capitulating attitude in the Caribbean crisis, in their pressure exerted on socialist Cuba to capitulate to the American imperialists, sacrificing its dignity and its sovereignty, in their union with the Indian reactionaries against the People's Republic of China, with the Titoite clique and with Venizelos against the People's Republic of Albania, in the infamous Moscow Treaty for a partial ban on nuclear tests, which is high treason to the interests of the Soviet Union, to the other socialist countries and to peace in favor of the American imperialists, as well as in a number of other facts."  Enver Hoxha, The Modern Revisionists on the Way to Degenerating Into Social-Democrats and to Fusing with Social-Democracy, April 7, 1964

Even when he was criticizing China harshly, but not in the same line with the imperialists, Hoxha was still calling China socialist:

"We must all fight in favour of socialist China, but this we must do only for a socialist China and in the Marxist-Leninist way.

Socialist China, too, has begun to practice secret diplomacy deliberately, especially with the Americans, and this is where the danger lies. This practice is not correct and must be condemned.

Socialist China can play a truly decisive role in the world, if its foreign policy is a Marxist-Leninist class policy which is based on the strength, desires, and aspirations of the peoples."

We have already established the fundamental criterion: the existence of the state marks socialist society; its withering marks communist society. What we must now clarify is the relationship between the construction of communism (which happens within socialism) and communist society (the higher phase).

The scientific distinction is clear: socialism is the first phase, communism the higher phase; the state exists in socialism and withers in communism. But this distinction is not merely academic. It has profound implications for how we understand and defend socialist states, how we evaluate revolutionary strategy, and how we expose the ideological warfare of capitalism. We turn now to these implications.

Confirmation Through Implications

How the Confusion Operates (Application of Communist Criteria to Socialist Reality)

With the immense assistance of Trotsky, the existing confusion has been transformed into a weapon in the hands of the bourgeoisie attacking socialism and socialist countries. Having control of the means of communication and academia in general, the bourgeoisie ensured that this confusion reigns—and that their fallacies and demagogy become accepted as fact.

The equation of socialist society and communist society in their scientific meaning has been polluted. The bourgeoisie criticizes a socialist country based on the concept of communist society. They name their own system—the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie—as "democracy." They label socialist states as "autocracy," since there can be no state in "communist" society. In a dialectical reversal, since there cannot be a communist state, all socialist states are declared to be "failed states."

1. The Logical Fallacy Exposed

The bourgeois logical fallacy dismisses scientific Marxist dialectics. It proceeds from the premise that communist society has no state—and therefore, if a "communist" country has a state, that can only be an "autocracy" under the disguise of communism.

As we have shown in the interrelation between socialism and communism, socialist countries have a "workers' and peasants' state"—as opposed to the "bourgeois" state. The state in socialism is a necessity. It protects the revolution. It builds socialism—the prerequisite for communist society. This means that every socialist society has a state.

Therefore, the false conclusion they arrive at—and present as fact—is that if a socialist country has a state, it has failed, or it isn't "really" socialist.

The flaw in this logic is simple: it compares the lower phase (socialism) to the higher phase (communism) as if they should be identical. This is a fallacy visible to anyone with a grasp of Marxism-Leninism.

2. The Revisionist Application

The same bourgeois, Trotskyite, and revisionist logic is used in their claim that socialist states are "not socialist" because inequality exists and incentives remain.

This argument blatantly ignores that these are characteristics of the socialist phase on the path to communist society. Such arguments serve to justify abandoning socialist construction within socialist states. They also open the door for slandering socialist states from the left—consciously by some, unconsciously by others, always in the service of the capitalists.

3. The Imperialist Application

"Socialism has failed" narratives based on communist criteria are also used to discredit anti-imperialist struggles. They create psychological defeatism: "Why fight if it can't succeed?"

At its core, this confusion—consciously created by bourgeois revisionists and counter-revolutionary Trotskyites—stems from their "conclusion" that "in the epoch of imperialism, there can be no more national wars," and therefore "anti-imperialist wars are a thing of the past."

In reality, for Marxist-Leninists, anti-imperialist wars are not only inevitable in our epoch, but vitally important. They are a significant part of the socialist revolution in particular—and, in general, for the defeat of capitalism in a given country and on a world scale.

Enver Hoxha understood this clearly:

"The struggle against imperialism in general, and its tools in every country, is one of the fundamental questions of the strategy of every communist party, and one of the decisive conditions for the triumph of any revolution, whether people's democratic, anti-imperialist, or socialist."

Lenin, even before the full development of imperialism, warned against this defeatism:

"Marx and Engels did not live to see the period of imperialism. The system now is a handful of imperialist 'Great' Powers, each oppressing other nations..."

For Lenin, the task was clear: to stand against the united front of imperialist powers, the imperialist bourgeoisie, and the social-imperialists—and to utilize all national movements against imperialism for the purposes of the socialist revolution.

With the same skillful distortion, Trotskyites take Lenin's analysis of capitalist-developed countries and apply it to underdeveloped or small countries. On this basis, they argue that these countries are not "socialist" or "progressive."

Stalin, however—building on Lenin's theories—argued differently:

"The revolutionary character of a national movement under the conditions of imperialist oppression does not necessarily presuppose the existence of proletarian elements in the movement, the existence of a revolutionary or a republican programme of the movement, the existence of a democratic basis of the movement. The struggle that the Emir of Afghanistan is waging for the independence of Afghanistan is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the monarchist views of the Emir and his associates, for it weakens, disintegrates and undermines imperialism." Stalin,  The Foundations of Leninism

This is the correct Leninist position: national liberation movements, regardless of their internal character, serve the anti-imperialist struggle. To deny this—as the Trotskyites do—is to deny the revolutionary potential of the oppressed peoples. It is, in effect, to serve imperialism.  Lenin, in The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination, stated :

"The proletariat must support every national movement against imperialism, even if that movement is led by the bourgeoisie, because it weakens imperialism."

And again, Lenin, in the same article:

"The proletariat cannot be indifferent to the national question. It must support every national movement against imperialism, but it must also fight against bourgeois nationalism."

This is how the weapon operates: the bourgeoisie and revisionists grab every confusion on the subject and turn it into ideological warfare against socialism. They apply communist criteria to socialist reality. They declare socialist states "failures." They deny the revolutionary character of anti-imperialist struggles. They create defeatism. All of this serves imperialism.

We turn now to the implications and ratification of this analysis.

4- The Dialectical Ratification — The Confusion Proves Its Function

We have seen how the confusion operates. The bourgeoisie applies communist criteria to socialist reality. They declare socialist states "failures." They use this declaration to attack socialism and create defeatism.

But this raises a question: if the distinction is scientifically clear, why does the confusion persist?

The answer is dialectical: the confusion persists because it serves an interest. It is not accidental. It is functional. It benefits the bourgeoisie, the revisionists, and the imperialists. It harms the proletariat and the socialist movement.

The very persistence of the confusion—despite the clear writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin—is proof of our thesis. The confusion does not exist because people are ignorant. It exists because people are served by ignorance. The bourgeoisie does not want clarity. Clarity is dangerous. Confusion is useful.

If the distinction between socialism and communism were merely an academic matter, it would have been resolved long ago. The scientific writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin are clear. The confusion persists not because the writings are unclear, but because the confusion serves an interest.

The bourgeoisie, revisionists, and Trotskyites have spent nearly a century weaponizing this confusion. They have not done so because they are confused. They have done so because confusion is useful.

This is the dialectical ratification of our thesis: confusion is not a mistake. It is a function. It serves the bourgeoisie. It harms the proletariat. The proof of its function is its persistence—and its use.

5. Confusion Proves the Thesis

The very fact that confusion exists and is exploited confirms that it serves ideological warfare. If the distinction were merely academic, it wouldn't be so aggressively weaponized.

The persistence of confusion despite clear scientific writings shows its function. If the distinction were naturally understood, it wouldn't need constant reinforcement. The fact that confusion persists despite clear scientific writings shows it serves an interest. That interest is the maintenance of capitalist ideological hegemony.

If the confusion were merely a misunderstanding, it would have been corrected by the clear writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin. It has not been corrected. Instead, it has been amplified, weaponized, and institutionalized. Because confusion is useful to the bourgeoisie. It allows them to:

• Attack socialist states without appearing reactionary
• Discredit anti-imperialist struggles without engaging their arguments
• Create defeatism among revolutionaries without acknowledging the success of socialism

The confusion persists because it is maintained. It is maintained because it serves an interest. That interest is the preservation of capitalist hegemony.

6. The Mechanism of Ratification

The confusion proves its function in three ways:

1. It is consistently weaponized. The bourgeoisie does not use the confusion accidentally. They use it deliberately—to attack socialist states, to discredit anti-imperialist struggles, to create defeatism. The accusation that socialist states are "not really socialist" is not a critique. It is a weapon.
2. It is consistently maintained. Despite clear refutations, the confusion persists in academic institutions, mainstream media, and popular discourse. This maintenance requires effort. It is not passive. It is active. It is funded. It is taught. It is repeated.
3. It is consistently effective. The confusion alienates the masses from socialism. It creates doubt among revolutionaries. It provides intellectual cover for counter-revolution. It works. That is why it continues.

Therefore, the confusion is not a problem of education. It is a problem of class interest. The bourgeoisie does not want clarity. Clarity is dangerous. Confusion is useful.

7. The China Connection — The Conclusive Proof

The accusation that China is imperialist is the ultimate proof of our thesis. Because the accusation cannot stand without confusion.

If socialism and communism are correctly distinguished, China is clearly in the socialist phase. The state exists because it is necessary to defend against capitalist counter-revolution and imperialist aggression. The persistence of internal contradictions is not a sign of "failure" but of the birthmarks of the old society.

But the accusers do not make this distinction. They conflate socialism and communism. They apply communist criteria—statelessness, classlessness, distribution according to need—to socialist reality. They declare socialism a failure. Only then can they call it "imperialist."

This is the mechanism. This is the weapon. This is the proof.

The accusation that China is imperialist is not an academic error. It is ideological warfare in action. It relies entirely on the confusion this article has dissected. It cannot stand without it. Therefore, the existence of the accusation proves the function of the confusion.

8. What Clarity Demands

Clarity is not an academic luxury. It is a revolutionary necessity.

Clarity demands that we:

• Defend socialist states as socialist—not because they are perfect, but because the proletariat holds political power.
• Understand the long-term nature of the transformation—not as an excuse for complacency, but as a realistic assessment of the task.
• Recognize that the contradictions in socialist society are being resolved—not as a sign of failure, but as the process of development.
• Expose the confusion for what it is—a weapon of ideological warfare.

The bourgeoisie has made confusion a weapon. We must make clarity a weapon.

9: Conclusion

We began with Lenin's warning:

"If a Communist took it into his head to boast about his communism because of the cut-and-dried conclusions he had acquired, without putting in a great deal of serious and hard work and without understanding facts he should examine critically, he would be a deplorable Communist indeed. Such superficiality would be decidedly fatal." Lenin, The Tasks of the Youth Leagues

This warning has proven prophetic.

The confusion between socialism and communism has become the most important weapon in the hands of the bourgeoisie, revisionists, and Trotskyites. They apply communist criteria to socialist reality. They declare socialist states "failures." They use these declarations to attack socialism, discredit anti-imperialist struggles, and create defeatism.

The scientific distinction is clear:

Socialism (First Phase)	Communism (Higher Phase)
State exists	State withers away
"To each according to work"	"To each according to need"
Incentive labor remains	Voluntary labor becomes habit
Defeat of capitalists in particular	Defeat of capitalists in general
Construction of foundations	The completed society

This is the scientific framework. It is not a matter of interpretation but of class analysis. The state is the critical criterion. Where the state exists, we are in socialism. Where the state withers, we are in communism.

10- A Concluding Application: The Ideological Warfare Against Socialist China

This clarification is not an academic exercise. It is the necessary theoretical weapon to defeat the contemporary slander that socialist China is "imperialist"—a claim that has gained dangerous traction precisely because of the confusion this article has dissected.

In our previous examination, "Is China Imperialist?—Based on Lenin's Scientific Definition of Imperialism," we proved, using Lenin's five criteria (monopolies, finance capital, export of capital, division of the world, and territorial annexation), that China's socialist state-led economy, its foreign policy of mutual non-interference, and its international relations do not constitute imperialism. China does not export capital to extract super-profits through financial oligarchy, nor does it divide the world into colonial spheres.

However, the ideological enemy does not attack on economic grounds alone. They attack politically. Having lost the economic argument, they resort to the confusion corrected here. They argue: "If China were truly socialist, why does it have a powerful state? Why does it engage in global trade? Why are there still inequalities?"

By surreptitiously applying the characteristics of the higher phase—communism (statelessness, distribution according to need, the absence of all bourgeois remnants) to the lower phase—socialism (state dictatorship of the proletariat, distribution according to work, the persistent struggle against capitalist remnants), they claim that China is "not really socialist." From that false premise, they leap to the conclusion that it must therefore be "capitalist-imperialist."

This is the mechanism of ideological warfare in action. It is not a mistake; it is a calculated inversion.

Just as we do not call a newly independent, underdeveloped capitalist country "feudal" simply because it retains feudal remnants, we cannot call a socialist country "imperialist" simply because it retains the state and engages in global markets. The state in China, as Lenin argued, is not the instrument of a financial oligarchy but the instrument of the proletariat and the people to defend the socialist foundation against the still-existing international bourgeoisie. The existence of this state is the very proof that China is in the socialist phase of the transformation, fighting to build the foundations from which communism may one day emerge—not proof of its opposite.

11- The Ratification of Our Thesis

Thus, the persistent accusation that China is imperialist serves as the ultimate ratification of our original thesis. The confusion between socialism and communism is not harmless—it is the central pillar of bourgeois and revisionist propaganda used to alienate the masses from the only social system capable of liberating humanity.

If the enemies of socialism can convince the world that a socialist state, simply by existing and engaging in the global economy, is "imperialist," they achieve two objectives: they discredit the actual socialist alternative, and they whitewash the crimes of real imperialism (US/NATO hegemony, finance capital extraction, and wars of plunder).

Lenin warned that superficiality would be fatal. He warned that treating the word "communist" carelessly would do practical harm. We see this harm realized today. The slander against China is not a critique of its policies; it is a cover for the restoration of global capitalist domination.

12- The Revolutionary Conclusion

We conclude with a reaffirmation: Socialism is the unending struggle for the liberation of the proletariat, fought under the conditions of the existing state, against the remnants of the old world, and for the future stateless society.

To call China imperialist is to abandon Marxism-Leninism for the language of the bourgeoisie.

To defend China as socialist is to uphold the science of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin.

The clarity provided in this article, combined with the economic analysis of our previous work, arms the revolutionary with the full dialectical picture. The victory of socialism globally requires not only the defeat of capitalist economics but the defeat of capitalist ideology. That defeat begins here—by ruthlessly exposing the confusion for what it is: a weapon.

"We are not doctrinaire. Our theory is a guide to action, not a dogma."

The action demanded now is to take this scientific clarity and wield it directly against the ideological warfare of imperialism.

Only clarity can defeat confusion.
Only science can defeat ideology.
Only socialism can liberate humanity.

We have established the foundational distinction: socialism is the first phase of communist society; communism is the higher phase. The confusion between them is not accidental — it serves to declare socialism a 'failure' and to discredit anti-imperialist struggles. But this confusion is only the first weapon in the bourgeois arsenal. The second follows directly from it: the claim that 'socialism in one country' was Stalin's betrayal of Leninism. If the bourgeoisie can convince the world that socialism cannot be built in one country, then every socialist state is condemned in advance. We turn now to this strategic thesis — and to the Leninist theory that the bourgeoisie and their Trotskyite allies have so fiercely distorted.

Part  2 - Socialism in One Country-The strategic thesis

Internet is full of - actually over 8 million - writings about "Socialism in one country " being a theory put forth by Joseph Stalin, " being a betrayal of Leninist theory," etc. This is not a coincidence but an inevitable result of ideological struggle between the bourgeoisie, their servile petty bourgeois and Marxism Leninism as the ideology of laboring masses. It is one of the cheap falsifications of history, distortion of facts, simply: cheap propaganda directed at ordinary people and petty bourgeois intellectuals in return which makes it possible for the petty bourgeois and the reaction to hide behind "leftist" mask and gives them the opportunity to attack Socialist theories as "critics from the left" without appearing as reactionary.

Their master Trotsky, who supplied a vast material to imperialists and anti-communists to fight against communism, also supplied the tactics for it. According to Trotsky, the pioneer of  this lie:

"Lenin was only referring to the establishment of a ‘proletarian dictatorship’ in a single country". Trotsky, The Third International

And the same Trotsky  said :

""I remember very well how during the first period, in the Smolny, Lenin repeated time and time again in the Council of People’s Commissars: half a year from now we’ll have socialism and we’ll be the most powerful state on earth… He believed what he said. " Trotsky, On Lenin

According to Trotsky, Lenin believed in "Socialism in One Country"; then it was not a "betrayal to Leninism" on Stalin's part, but it was the continuation of Lenin's belief, and Stalin interpreted Lenin’s views correctly.

Lets go back to history of the theory where "Socialism in one country" has become the theory and practical solution for an isolated revolutionary state. 

Lenin’s theory of "socialism in one country" goes back to 1915 where even contrary to the distorted view, Lenin was not "merely referring to socialist revolution in one country," * but also contrary to views of scholars such as Carr, Lenin was referring to the possibility of constructing a socialist economy in a single country. *Carr, A History, and some others,

Lenin, in his article `on the slogan for a US of Europe, clearly states his view, which is ignored stubbornly in all discussions. Lenin says:

"After expropriating the capitalists and organizing their own socialist production, the victorious proletariat of that country will arise against the rest of the world—the capitalist world—attracting to its cause the oppressed classes of other countries, stirring uprisings in those countries against the capitalists, and in case of need using even armed force against the exploiting classes and their states." Lenin, On the Slogan for a US of Europe,

Lenin clearly stating that for an isolated revolutionary state, it would be feasible to build a socialist economy.

Lenin’s referenced article debating the slogan, published in Sotsial-Demokrat No. 44, August 23, 1915. Lenin was stating that:

"It might lead to an incorrect interpretation concerning the impossibility of the victory of socialism in one country and concerning the relationship of such a country with the others. The unevenness of economic and political development is an unconditional law of capitalism. It follows from this that the victory of socialism initially in several or even in one, separately taken capitalist country is possible. Having expropriated the capitalists and having organised socialist production at home, the victorious proletariat of this country would rise against the remaining capitalist world… in case of need even coming out with military force against the exploiting classes and their states… The free unification of nations in socialism is impossible without a more or less prolonged, stubborn struggle of socialist republics against the backward states. " Lenin, "‘On the slogan of the United States of Europe

Through this article, Lenin was suggesting that before engaging in a revolutionary world war, the victorious proletariat, the proletarian dictatorship, would have to build a socialist economy at home. This suggestion of  Lenin clearly derives from the belief that the victory of socialism in one country is possible.

Regarding the same issue, Engels was telling Kautsky in his 12 September 1882 dated letter:

"One thing alone is certain: the victorious proletariat can force no blessings of any kind upon any foreign nation without undermining its own victory by so doing. Which of course by no means excludes defensive wars of various kinds. "

Lenin, in his article dated September 1916, ' The Military Programme of the Proletarian Revolution ', referring  to Engels, was stating :

""the victory of socialism in one country does not at one stroke eliminate all wars in general. On the contrary, it presupposes wars. The development of capitalism proceeds extremely unevenly in different countries. It cannot be otherwise under commodity production. From this it follows irrefutably that socialism cannot achieve victory simultaneously in all countries. It will achieve victory first in one or several countries, while the others will for some time remain bourgeois or pre-bourgeois. This is bound to create not only friction, but a direct attempt on the part of the bourgeoisie of other countries to crush the socialist state’s victorious proletariat. In such cases, a war on our part would be a legitimate and just war. It would be a war for socialism, for the liberation of other nations from the bourgeoisie. Engels was perfectly right when, in his letter to Kautsky of September 12, 1882, he clearly stated that it was possible for already victorious socialism to wage “defensive wars”. What he had in mind was defense of the victorious proletariat against the bourgeoisie of other countries. " ‘The Military Programme of the Proletarian Revolution 

He continued saying :

‘Only after we will have overthrown, finally vanquished and expropriated the bourgeoisie in the whole world, and not only in one country, wars will become impossible. ‘The Military Programme of the Proletarian Revolution 

In another article dated November 1916, Lenin says :

"Wars are possible between one country in which socialism has been victorious and other, bourgeois or reactionary, countries.’” The “Disarmament” Slogan

In July 1916, Lenin said:

"An economic revolution will be a stimulus to all peoples to strive for socialism; but at the same time (counter) revolutions—against the socialist state—and wars are possible." Lenin, The Discussion On Self-Determination Summed Up

As it is indisputably  shown from the above quotations, the concept of "socialism in one country" is not a theory put forward by Stalin, but it is a Leninist theory.

It is the falsification and cheap propaganda of permanent-counter revolutionaries who choose to wait indefinitely for an "international revolution" to come, yet at the same time attack those who fight for revolution.

In 1918, Lenin was mentioning this type of bourgeois servility:

“…when we are told that the victory of socialism is possible only on a world scale, we regard this merely as an attempt, a particularly hopeless attempt, on the part of the bourgeoisie and its voluntary and involuntary supporters to distort the irrefutable truth.” Lenin, “Speech to the Third All-Russia Congress of Soviets” 

And same year He  mentions the permanent- revolution-wait-ers:

“I know that there are, of course, sages who think they are very clever and even call themselves Socialists, who assert that power should not have been seized until the revolution had broken out in all countries. They do not suspect that by speaking in this way they are deserting the revolution and going over to the side of the bourgeoisie. To wait until the toiling classes bring about a revolution on an international scale means that everybody should stand stock-still in expectation. That is nonsense.” Lenin, “Speech delivered at a joint meeting of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Moscow Soviet

As the facts come out and their lies are confronted, they choose new tactics, new lies and they create new confusions. They extract quotes for the "impossibility of socialism in one country by confusing socialism- first phase, and communism - second phase, to one of which Lenin responds: 

""when a learned professor, followed by the philistine..., talks of wild utopias, of the demagogic promises of the Bolsheviks, of the impossibility of “introducing” socialism, it is the higher stage, or phase, of communism he has in mind, which no one has ever promised or even thought to “introduce”, because, generally speaking, it cannot be “introduced”. 

What is usually called socialism was termed by Marx the “first”, or lower, phase of communist society. Insofar as the means of production becomes common property, the word “communism” is also applicable here, providing we do not forget that this is not complete communism." -higher stage. Lenin State and revolution

Lenin in his speech was confirming both what socialism is and the existence of socialism in Russia, in one country.

"Socialism is the first stage of communism: but it is not worth while arguing about words.....We must save the workers even if they are unable to work. If we keep them alive for the next few years we shall save the country, save society and socialism."  Lenin, First All-Russia Congress on Adult Education 

January 1918, at the Third All-Union Congress of Soviets, Lenin said that the Soviet republic is a socialist republic:

“We never had any illusions on that score, and we know how difficult is the road that leads from capitalism to socialism. But it is our duty to say that our Soviet Republic is a socialist republic because we have taken this road, and our words will not be empty words..” Lenin, Third All-Russia Congress Of Soviets Of Workers’, Soldiers’ And Peasants’ Deputies

 And a year later in 1919 repeats that :

“We have achieved this objective in one country, and this confronts us with a second task. Since Soviet power has been established, since the bourgeoisie has been overthrown in one country, the second task is to wage the struggle on a world scale, on a different plane, the struggle of the proletarian state surrounded by capitalist states." Lenin, “The Achievements and Difficulties of the Soviet Government”

In 1922 Lenin says: 

“Socialism is no longer a matter of the distant future, or an abstract picture, or an icon. We still retain our old bad opinion of icons. We have dragged socialism into everyday life, and here we must find our way. ” Lenin, Speech At A Plenary Session Of The Moscow Soviet 

In 1923, Lenin responds to the critiques:

You say that civilization is necessary for the building of socialism. Very good. But why could we not first create such prerequisites of civilization in our country by the expulsion of the landowners and the Russian capitalists, and then start moving toward socialism? Where, in what books, have you read that such variations of the customary historical sequence of events are impermissible or impossible?” Lenin, “Our Revolution”

" Socialism in one country " has been  Lenin’s thinking since 1915.

As the truth comes out, some bourgeois revisionists accept the fact that it was Lenin's theory and adapt themselves to it, and come up with new claims, one of which is that Lenin’s views lack the coherence, that he contradicts himself by rejecting in one writing and then accepting in another. Aside from being a blatant ignorance of Marxist Dialectics on their part, the claim is related to their tactics in confusing the scientific meaning of socialism and communism where they take the "terms" used by Lenin or Stalin out of context and without any regard to the "two phase of transition" - Lower and higher phase.

Lenin clearly explains the reason for the use of the term " Communism": “Insofar as the means of production become common property,” Lenin says, “the word ‘communism’ is also applicable here," but Lenin warns: " provided we do not forget that this is not complete communism.” Lenin, State and Revolution, Presentation of the Question by Marx

Another related lie is presented in various forms - of Lenin's belief that there is no  possibility of long-term peaceful coexistence between the single socialist state and the capitalist world, but "Stalin  believed that the isolated socialist state could in principle coexist indefinitely with the capitalist states."

Since they never read Stalin, they discourage people from reading Stalin and encourage them to believe in their lies; we should note what Stalin said on the subject with the quote from Lenin:

This is what Lenin says on this score : 

"We are living not merely in a State but in a system of States, and it is inconceivable that the Soviet Republic should continue to coexist for a long period side by side with imperialist States. Ultimately one or other must conquer. Meanwhile, a number of terrible clashes between the Soviet Republic and the bourgeois States is inevitable. This means that if the proletariat, as the ruling class, wants to and will rule, it must prove this also by military organization."  Lenin, speech to the Eighth All-Russian Conference of the Russian Communist Party

And further :

"We are surrounded by people, classes and governments which openly express their hatred for us. We must remember that we are at all times but a hair's breadth from invasion."  Lenin, Report on the Internal and External Policy of the Republic

Indeed, it would be ridiculous and stupid to close our eyes to the capitalist encirclement and to think that our external enemies, the fascists, for example, will not, if the opportunity arises, make an attempt at a military attack upon the U.S.S.R. Only blind braggarts or masked enemies who desire to lull the vigilance of our people can think like that. 

No less ridiculous would it be to deny that in the event of the slightest success of military intervention, the interventionists would try to destroy the Soviet system in the districts they occupied and restore the bourgeois system.` Stalin, On the Final Victory of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.

Struggle against capitalism at the same time is an ideological struggle. That is why it is expected that those who own the means of production, owning at the same time the means of mental production will do anything in their power, use every means and  methods in this ideological war. They will bury the facts under millions of garbage in internet, on the shelves of libraries, they will prepare a list of `reactionary` data disguised in left phrases for the university students for their thesis in related subject, they will pay and award those academicians who can "rewrite the history" and "falsify, revise " the theories serving best to their interests. The truth is stubborn.. Stalin had said:

"I know that after my death a pile of rubbish will be heaped on my grave, but the wind of History will sooner or later sweep it away without mercy." Quoted in Felix Chuev, Molotov Remembers

Part  3 - Standing Army-The military corollary

Lenin vs Trotsky , on Standing Army

In politics, nothing is coincidental but a reflection of an ideology in one way or another. No matter how much the core ideology is masked, the actions will inevitably show the indications and bring the mask down and expose the real ideology behind it. From the time of split as Bolsheviks and Mensheviks in 1903, the opposition to the insurrection, opposition to the party, treatment of Military Commissars and favoring Tsarists officers, the "August Bloc", "Trotsky-Zinoviev Bloc", collaborating with the fascists and imperialists in different capacities in China, Vietnam, Spain, and other places was never a coincidence but an inevitable path of Trotsky's 'ideology. 

As Stalin asks; 

"Is it an accident that Trotsky, who, after the Revolution made his way into the ranks of our Party, slipped up and adopted a counter-revolutionary Menshevik position and was thrown out beyond the borders of our state, beyond the borders of the Soviet Union?"  The Right Deviation in the C.P.S.U.(B.)

Vyshinsky actually responded to this question at the court;

"It is not an accident because prior to the October Revolution as well, Trotsky and his friends fought against Lenin and Lenin's Party as they fight now against Stalin and the Party of Lenin and Stalin.”

The fact is that Trotsky never believed in the possibility of Socialism, not only in one country, but socialism in general since there is no possibility of a world revolution at one leap, at one strike. Trotsky believed in Military dictatorship of an elite group, not as much different than that of Mussolini's or Hitler's with exporting “revolutions” in mind.  For Trotsky working class is a means to the military dictatorship of elite not the dictatorship of working class.  

Although years later he revised it in words only, but not indeed, here what he says:

“In its real significance, a revolution is a fight for control of the State. That rests directly on the Army. This is why all revolutions in history sharply raised the question: on whose side is the army? And one way or another, in every case, this question had to be answered.”  Leon Trotsky, The Young Turks,

Without twisting his words, two of these remarks are crucial as far as Marxist Leninists are concerned; 1) revolution” rests directly on the Army" and 2) “whose side is the army". 

If we talk about an army, and mentioning the "side" it will take, we are, without any doubt, talking about an existing standing army and literally saying that the success of a revolution "rests directly on this Army".

Let’s start with what an army is in view of Marxism Leninism

As far back as 1899, Rosa Luxemburg was saying;

“The most general standpoint upon which Schippel bases his defense of militarism is his belief in the necessity of this military system. Using all possible arguments of a technical, social, and economic nature, he demonstrates the absolute necessity of a standing army. And from a certain point of view he is quite correct. A standing army and militarism are indeed indispensable – but for whom? For the present-day ruling classes and the contemporary governments. Now what can one conclude from this other than that, from the class standpoint of the present government and ruling classes, doing away with the standing army, and introducing the militia, i.e., arming the people, must appear to be an impossibility, an absurdity?” Rosa Luxemburg, The Militia and Militarism

And same year James Connolly was saying;

“A standing army anywhere, in any country, is first of all unnecessary; secondly, a tool in the hands of oppressors of the people” James Connolly, ‘Soldiers of the Queen’,

To the question of What is an army? Lenin responds;

" A standing army and police are the chief instruments of state power..... The centralized state power that is peculiar to bourgeois society came into being in the period of the fall of absolutism. Two institutions are most characteristic of this state machine: bureaucracy and the standing army. In their works, Marx and Engels repeatedly show that it is the bourgeoisie with whom these institutions are connected by thousands of threads." Lenin, The state, and revolution

“We cannot, unless we have become bourgeois pacifists or opportunists, forget that we are living in a class society from which there is no way out, nor can there be, save through the class struggle. In every class society, whether based on slavery, serfdom, or, as at present, wage-labor, the oppressor class is always armed. Not only the modern standing army, but even the modern militia—and even in the most democratic bourgeois republics, Switzerland, for instance—represent the bourgeoisie armed against the proletariat. That is such an elementary truth that it is hardly necessary to dwell upon it.” Lenin, The Military Programme of the Proletarian Revolution

Reading Trotsky's remarks, he is resting the success of a revolution on the "question of "whose side the army" will be, an army which Lenin describes as a "parasite" on the body of bourgeois society. "

What do Marxist Leninists do with Army?

“The capitalists now have directed all their efforts at making the Russian republic as much like a monarchy as possible so that it might be changed back into a monarchy with the least difficulty (this has happened time and again in many countries). For this purpose, “says Lenin, “the capitalists want to preserve the bureaucracy, which stands above the people, to preserve the police and the standing army, which is separated from the people and commanded by non-elective generals and other officers. And the generals and other officers, unless they are elected, will almost invariably be landowners and capitalists. That much we know from the experience of all the republics in the world.

Our Party, the party of class-conscious workers and poor peasants, is therefore working for a democratic republic of another kind. We want a republic where there is no police that browbeats the people; where all officials, from the bottom up, are elective and displaceable whenever the people demand it, and are paid salaries not higher than the wages of a competent worker; where all army officers are similarly elective and where the standing army separated from the people and subordinated to classes alien to the people is replaced by the universally armed people, by a people’s militia.” Lenin, An Open Letter to the Delegates to the All-Russia Congress of Peasants’ Deputies

Trotsky not only suggests cooperation with the army but reconstructing and "partly" dismissing the army. Here what he says;

“To establish revolutionary cooperation with the army, the peasantry, and the plebeian lower strata of the urban bourgeoisie. To abolish absolutism. To destroy the material organization of absolutism by reconstructing and partly dismissing the army. Leon Trotsky, Our Revolution, The Soviet and the Revolution

Lenin, however, speaks of the "abolition" of the standing army and "arming the people." Here what Lenin says; 

". . . The first decree of the Commune . . . was the suppression of the standing army, and the substitution for it of the armed people." This demand now figures in the program of every party claiming the name of Socialist.

"The Commune," Marx wrote, "made that catchword of bourgeois revolutions, cheap government, a reality, by destroying the two greatest sources of expenditure -- the standing army and State functionaries."  Lenin, “The State and Revolution”, With what is the smashed state machine to be replaced?

The question of army is not separated from the question of state. State apparatus needs to be smashed, all other institutions need to be wrested from the capitalist control, for the use and benefit of the new. Trotsky looks at the question differently. His admiration for army goes so far that the insurrection was against the commanding army staff not to Monarchy, and if the "bad apples" in the army are cleaned, the army, serving the society, could be revived.

“In the minds of the soldiers the insurrection against the monarchy was primarily an insurrection against the commanding staff. 

An army is always a copy of the society it serves – with this difference, that it gives social relations a concentrated character, carrying both their positive and negative features to an extreme. 

The ill-will and friction between the democratic and aristocratic officers, incapable of reviving the army, only introduced a further element of decomposition. Even many fighting officers, those who seriously cared about the fate of the army, insisted upon the necessity of a general clean-up of the commanding staff.” Leon Trotsky, The History of the Russian Revolution, Volume One: The Overthrow of Tzarism

Lenin however finds this approach of not replacing but a “general clean-up” as a deception and trick in the service of bourgeoisie.

“The minimum programme of the Social-Democrats calls for the replacement of the standing army by a universal arming of the people… it is most urgent and essential that there be a universal arming of the people. To assert that, while we have a revolutionary army, there is no need to arm the proletariat, or that there would “not be enough” arms to go around, is mere deception and trickery. The thing is to begin organising a universal militia straight away, so that everyone should learn the use of arms even if there is “not enough” to go around, for it is not at all necessary that the people have enough weapons to arm everybody. The people must learn, one and all, how to use arms, they must belong, one and all, to the militia which is to replace the police and the standing army…..

The workers do not want an army standing apart from the people; what they want is that the workers and soldiers should merge into a single militia consisting of all the people. Failing this, the apparatus of oppression will remain in force…, Replacement of the old organs of oppression, the police, the bureaucracy, the standing army, by a universal arming of the people, by a really universal militia, is the only way to guarantee the country a maximum of security against the restoration.

Public service through a police force standing above the people, through bureaucrats, who are the most faithful servants of the bourgeoisie, and through a standing army under the command of landowners and capitalists—that is the ideal of the bourgeois parliamentary republic, which is out to perpetuate the rule of Capital.

Public service through a really universal people’s militia, composed of men and women, a militia capable partly of replacing the bureaucrats—this, combined with the principle of elective office and displaceability of all public officers, with payment for their work according to proletarian, not “master-class”, bourgeois standards, is the ideal of the working class.” Lenin, A Proletarian Militia

Countering the bourgeois demand of keeping or “cleaning-up of the standing army under the command of landowners and capitalists, Lenin explaining the soldiers demands and intentions states;

“The soldiers do not want to keep out of politics. The soldiers do not agree with the Cadets. The soldiers are advancing a demand that obviously amounts to the abolition of the caste army, of the army that is isolated from the people, and its replacement by an army of free and equal citizens. Now   this is exactly the same thing as the abolition of the standing army and the arming of the people.

They are demanding freedom of assembly and of association for soldiers “without the consent or presence of officers”. Lenin, The Army & the People

In connection with that, defends arming of people;

“the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party advances as its immediate political task the over throw of the tsarist autocracy and its replacement by a   republic based on a democratic constitution that would ensure: general arming of the people instead of maintaining a standing army;” Lenin, Material for the Preparation of the Programme of the R.S.D.L.P. January-April 1902, Collected Works,  Volume 6, pages 17-78."The Soviets are a new state apparatus which, in the first place, provides an armed force of workers and peasants; and this force is not divorced from the people.. From the military point of view this force is incomparably more powerful than previous forces; from the revolutionary point of view, it cannot be replaced by anything else." Lenin Can the Bolsheviks retain the Power?

Trotsky says;

“Territorial-economic districts must form the basis both of the Soviet territorial-administrative system (region, province, uyezd, volost) and of the local military organs (commissariats), in the course of the gradual transition from the standing army to the militia.”  Trotsky, The Transition to Universal Labour Service

Lenin says;

“Everywhere, in all countries, the standing army is used not so much against the external enemy as against the internal enemy. Everywhere the standing army has become the weapon of reaction, the servant of capital in its struggle against labour, the executioner of the people’s liberty. Let us not, therefore, stop short at mere partial demands in our great liberating revolution. Let us tear the evil up by the roots. Let us do away with the standing army altogether…. The experience of Western Europe has shown how utterly reactionary the standing army is.” Lenin, The Armed Forces, and the Revolution

“We are in favour of a people's republic, without a standing army, bureaucracy, or police force. In place of a standing army we demand a national guard with elected commanders.”  Stalin, The Constituent Assembly elections, July 27, 1917

Another staunch Trotskyite, General Tukhachevsky spells out the Trotskyite, anti-Marxist view of “exporting of revolution by force, by means of war”.  During the heated discussions between the supporters of the militia system and the advocates of a standing army, the chief spokesman for the standing army was Tukhachevsky. He published a polemic entitled “The Red Army and the Militia” in January 1921, in which he states;

“The adherents of the militia system take absolutely no account of Soviet Russia’s present military mission of disseminating socialist revolution throughout the world. The rich varieties of socialist life and the socialist revolution cannot be forced into any particular framework. They will spread irresistibly over the whole world, and their expanding force will endure so long as there is a bourgeoisie left anywhere.

“What is the way in which they will best achieve their aims? It is the way of armed insurrection within every state, or the way of armed socialist attacks on bourgeois states, or a combination of both ways. No one can make definite prophecies, for the course of the Revolution will show us the right way. One thing, however, is certain: if a socialist revolution succeeds in gaining power in any country, it will have a self-evident right to expand, and will strive to cover the whole world by making its immediate influence felt in all neighboring countries. Its most powerful instrument will naturally be its military forces.

“The structure of an army is determined on the one hand by the political aims it pursues and on the other by the recruiting system it employs.” Tukhachevsky, The Red Army and the Militia

For Marxist Leninists, the question of exporting revolution by force or otherwise is fundamentally anti-Marxist not even worth to debate.

Going back to March 1848, at a meeting of German Workers’ Club in Paris, Marx opposes the adventurist “export of revolution” planned by the petty-bourgeois leaders of the German migrants in Paris. These quotes below should suffice to comprehend the Marxist Leninist attitude.

Engels;

“One thing alone is certain: the victorious proletariat can force no blessings of any kind upon any foreign nation without undermining its own victory by so doing. Which of course by no means excludes defensive wars of various kinds.” Engels to Karl Kautsky In Vienna, 12 September 1882

Lenin;

“There is one, and only one, kind of real internationalism, and that is—working whole-heartedly for the development of the revolutionary movement and the revolutionary struggle in one’s own country, and supporting (by propaganda, sympathy, and material aid) this struggle, this, and only this, line, in every country without exception. Everything else is deception and Manilovism.” Lenin, The Tasks of the Proletariat in Our Revolution

Stalin;

“The export of revolution is nonsense. Every country will make its own revolution if it wants to, and if it does not want to, there will be no revolution.” Interview Between J. Stalin and Roy Howard

Marxist Leninists do not expect and rely on the Army switching sides for the revolution. The success of the revolution depends largely on the revolutionary activity and the ability of the vanguard Party and the proletariat to organize and ally themselves with great masses of the other exploited and oppressed groups and classes of the population. Revolutionary activity does not exclude working among the soldiers, since most of them belong either to the poor peasants or the middle strata. As Stalin puts it;

” The question of the middle strata is undoubtedly one of the basic questions of the workers' revolution… these are the strata whose economic status puts them midway between the proletariat and the capitalist class… they constitute the important reserves from which the capitalist class recruits its army against the proletariat. The proletariat cannot retain power unless it enjoys the sympathy and support of the middle strata, primarily of the peasantry.. The proletariat cannot even seriously contemplate seizing power if these strata have not been at least neutralized, if they have not yet managed to break away from the capitalist class, and if the bulk of them still serve as the army of capital.” Stalin, The October Revolution, and the Question of the Middle Strata

Marxists, in addition to Party’s military cadres, arm the people and do not call on Army but soldiers, troopers. December 1905 Bolshevik Leaflet states;

 “Strictly differentiate between your conscious enemies and your unconscious and accidental enemies. Destroy the former and have mercy on the latter. If possible do not bother the infantry. Soldiers are the children of the people and do not go against the people by their own will. The officers and the higher leadership set them on the people. Direct your energies against these officers and authorities. Every officer leading soldiers to beat workers proclaims himself an enemy of the people and puts himself outside the law. Kill him unconditionally.”  Combat Organization of the Moscow Committee of the RSDLP

As does Trotsky not in so many words but indeed, the bourgeoisie likes to describe any revolutionary uprising as something artificial, a military “putsch”, and try to minimize the power of working masses. In reference to 1905 uprising, countering such arguments, Lenin says;

 “In reality, the inexorable trend of the Russian revolution was towards an armed, decisive battle between the tsarist government and the vanguard of the class-conscious proletariat.” Lenin, Lecture on the 1905 revolution, January 9,1917

Neither Trotsky’s relying on the switching of standing army for the success of revolution, nor Tukhachevsky’s statement of “exporting of revolution” is accidental. As history has proven that it was an inevitable path derives from ideology. It is not an accident but the reflection of ideology in practice, regardless of how skillfully disguised with Marxist-Leninist phrases.

Army’s switching side as the determining factor where the success of “revolution” rests directly on it, in fact corresponds to the concept of military “putsch”. “The term “putsch”, in its scientific sense, “says Lenin, “may be employed only when the attempt at insurrection has revealed nothing but a circle of conspirators or stupid maniacs and has aroused no sympathy among the masses.”  Giving example of Irish rebellion Lenin notes;

“So, one army lines up in one place and says, “We are   for socialism”, and another, somewhere else and says, “We are for imperialism”, and that will be a social revolution! Only those who hold such a ridiculously pedantic view could vilify the Irish rebellion by calling it a “putsch”. Lenin: The Discussion on Self-Determination Summed Up

An army in any given country is the chief instruments of state power. From top down all the officers controlling the army either a part of the ruling class or well-paid and receiving their lion share from the exploitation of natural resources and of laboring masses. To rest the success of revolution on the “switching side “of army, and to speak about cooperation with army, and after the revolution “cleaning up “the bad apples and keeping the army cannot be proposed by a Marxist Leninist, but by a bourgeois. Marxist Leninists abolish the standing army and arm the people, setting up revolutionary army in the process.

Part 4- Which Slogan Is Current and Correct?-The political subject

 “When did the Executive Committee give orders for slogans to be modified?” ... Of course, the modification is wrong from the standpoint of the Communist Manifesto, but then the Communist Manifesto was written under entirely different conditions. From the point of view of present-day politics, however, the change is correct.” Lenin  

The use of each slogan may be seen as an innocent difference by almost everyone. I agree on that count if, and when it is used by individuals, but when it is used by a party or organizations that call themselves communist, it is far from being innocent. The difference stems from the difference between the Second Internationalists (Mensheviks) and Third Internationalists (Bolsheviks). It is the difference between Leninism and all other revisionist factions, even those under the mask of Leninists. 

It is the manifestation of the Trotskyite perspective against the Leninist perspective on various fundamental questions, from socialist revolution to the stance on anti-imperialist wars. 

Trotskyists believe in world socialist revolution in one leap; Leninists believe in socialist revolutions in each individual country through a long struggle.  Trotskyites do not believe in anti-imperialist wars; they see it as a “question of the past”. Leninists believe that anti-imperialist struggles and wars are a part of socialist struggle which give momentum to socialist struggles worldwide through striking blows to imperialist countries.  Lenin is very clear on the subject, which does not leave any room for misunderstanding for an honest reader.

The difference between Leninists and Trotskyite perspective crystallized during the 2nd International. That’s why it is not a coincidence that the chauvinists of imperialist, colonialist countries cling to the old pre-imperialist era slogan. Is this choice of using an old slogan a new development? Not at all. It goes back to the time when the official proceedings of the Second Congress were published under the title Workers of the World and Oppressed Peoples, Unite!,  and to the issuance of the Communist International slogan of “‘Proletarians of all countries and oppressed peoples, unite!’” for the peoples of the East. 

The slogan was reflecting Comintern’s formal commitment to anti‑colonial and anti‑imperialist struggles, explicitly linking the working class of the industrialised West with the liberation movements of the colonial, semi-colonial countries. 

Trotskyites of all shades called the slogan as an “invention” by Lenin. The amendment, however, was not a product of a chance thought. Beginning with the split with the Mensheviks in 1903, and during all the years of organization at home and exile abroad, Lenin had fought against all sorts of deviations from support for national self-determination, both for oppressed “nations” and “nation-states”. 

Lenin argued that a united front was essential to combat imperialism, linking socialist revolution directly with the national liberation of subjugated nations. Unlinking the socialist revolutions from the anti-imperialist struggles, calling every war an “inter-imperialist war” in order not to support the anti-imperialist wars, has been the intention and tactics of chauvinists and revisionists to conceal the subjugating and plundering motive of the imperialists and hide the class struggle of the workers and oppressed peoples. 

Historically, the original slogan of the communist movement, ‘Workers of the world unite’, the rallying cry and final phrase from the Communist Manifesto, written by Marx and Engels in 1848 put forward at a time when the nascent communist movement was geographically limited to Europe and North America, and focused almost exclusively on the industrial working class. 

Lenin’s study of global political economy, and particularly of the dynamics of monopoly capitalism and the emergence of modern imperialism, led him to an acute understanding of the global applicability of Marxist thought. Lenin stated in his work “Imperialism” that capitalism having “grown into a world system of colonial oppression and of the financial strangulation of the overwhelming majority of the people of the world by a handful of ‘advanced’ countries”; the capitalist class of the metropolis had become an enemy not just to the working class in the advanced capitalist countries but to the broad masses of the oppressed in all countries. “Imperialism is leading to annexation, to increased national oppression, and, consequently, also to increasing resistance.” Hence, at the second congress of the Communist International (Comintern) in 1920, ‘Workers of the world unite’ was updated to ‘Workers and oppressed peoples of all countries, unite’ to reflect the imperialist era. 

Lenin, in his speech delivered at a meeting of the activists of the Moscow organization of the RCP (B), stated: “We now stand, not only as representatives of the proletarians of all countries but as representatives of the oppressed peoples as well. A journal of the Communist International recently appeared under the title of Narody Vostoka. It carries the following slogan issued by the Communist International for the peoples of the East: “Workers of all countries and all oppressed peoples, unite !” “When did the Executive Committee give orders for slogans to be modified?” one of the comrades asked. Indeed, I do not remember that it ever did. Of course, the modification is wrong from the standpoint of the Communist Manifesto, but then the Communist Manifesto was written under entirely different conditions. From the point of view of present-day politics, however, the change is correct.” 

Lenin’s modification of the original "Workers of the world, unite!" slogan to encompass the colonial and oppressed populations, recognizing them as key allies in the fight against global capital.

His adaptation of the Marxist slogan, "Workers and the oppressed people of the world, unite!", served as a rallying cry against imperialism and capitalism. It expanded the focus from just industrial workers to include colonized and oppressed peoples globally, emphasizing shared struggle and international solidarity for victory. He aimed to unite the global industrial proletariat with national liberation movements in colonized countries, arguing that this broader alliance was essential to defeating imperialism and achieving a socialist victory. Lenin realized that in the age of monopoly capitalism, workers' freedom from oppression was linked directly to the liberation of colonies and subjugated nations. The slogan was a deliberate expansion of the 2nd Comintern Congress to include fighting against racism and all forms of class/national exploitation. He believed this unity would prevent workers in "oppressor nations" from becoming blinded by national chauvinism, forcing them to support the right of self-determination for oppressed nations. 

Lenin recognized that hundreds of millions of oppressed people in the East (e.g., China, India) were rapidly being drawn into the revolutionary struggle against imperialism. He underlined the need of workers in the imperialist countries to see their own self-interest in allying with the peoples of oppressed nations. He noted that the exploiters of those countries were the same exploiters of workers in oppressor nations. Seeing the need to end that shared exploitation, he called for changing the slogan “Workers of the world unite” to “Workers and oppressed peoples of the world unite.”

The call was designed to unite the international proletariat with anti-colonial movements. It is utilized by socialist movements to call for unity against capitalist inequality. 

Stalin summed this up by noting that Lenin's change solidified the unity of the proletarian and national liberation movements into a single anti-imperialist front. 

Ho Chi Minh, in his  essay “The Path Which Led Me To Leninism,” described his years in Paris in the early 1920s, participating in the debates between the Leninists and the social chauvinists, stating:

“If you do not condemn colonialism, if you do not side with the colonial people, what kind of revolution are you waging?” … At first, patriotism, not yet communism, led me to have confidence in Lenin, in the Third International. Step by step, along the struggle, by studying Marxism-Leninism parallel with participation in practical activities, I gradually came upon the fact that only socialism and communism can liberate the oppressed nations and the working people throughout the world from slavery.” 

The Chinese communists have played a crucial role in developing Lenin’s ideas of anti-imperialism and applying them in practice. The overthrow of imperialist domination and the construction of socialism in China, Korea and Vietnam represented a profound shift of the revolutionary centre of gravity in the world. The radical governments emerging in the Sahel today, in the era of a multipolar world order, represent continuation and deepening of this process. 

It is not a coincidence that most - if not all-  of the use of the old slogan is seen in imperialist and ex-colonial capitalist countries by the chauvinists of those countries with pseudo “revolutionary communist” parties.  This catchy name “Revolutionary Communist”  used by the chauvinists (mostly of the US and West)  is mushrooming in so many countries. It is like the NED (National Endowment for Democracy), a civilian branch of the CIA, working in a “communist”  mask.  That is why it is not a coincidence that they are against a multipolar world order and are proponents of a unipolar world order. 

Let's summarize: it is no coincidence that all the criticism of socialist, socialist oriented countries, countries waging anti-imperialist struggles, is propagated by these chauvinists and Trotskyites of various shades. Deep down, the underlying message is: “there cannot be a socialism within one country”; anti-imperialist wars are a thing of the past; if a “socialist country” is poor (they always disregard the imperialist blockades and sanctions ), that “proves” socialism cannot be succeeded in one country; if the “socialist country” is developed and rich, it is because that country is “capitalist,” not "socialist"- the message is clear: no socialist country can be successful, no anti-imperialist struggle can be victorious. 

As a conclusion, the preference of the slogan by the parties and organizations to be used is not coincidental but ideologically driven. Leninists use the modified, "present-day slogan"  “Workers of the World and Oppressed Peoples, Unite!”, while Trotskyites, all other revisionists, and chauvinists would prefer to use the old slogan “Workers of the World, Unite!”. Like in most questions, they either live in the era of Marx and Engels (era of bourgeois democratic revolution)  for their theoretical assessments, or they consciously ignore the imperialist era and Lenin’s assessments for the new era. 

We have established the revolutionary subject: the workers and oppressed peoples, united against imperialism. The slogan 'Workers of the World and Oppressed Peoples, Unite!' reflects this unity. But the ultra-left and Trotskyites do not stop at rejecting the slogan. They also deny the revolutionary character of the wars waged by these oppressed peoples. They claim that 'anti-imperialist wars are a thing of the past' — that in the epoch of imperialism, there can be no more national wars. This is the second weapon: the denial of national liberation. We turn now to the Marxist-Leninist position on anti-imperialist wars.

Part  5 - Anti-Imperialist Wars-The military application

To a degree, the lack of sufficient theoretical knowledge, yet largely consciously created confusion in the question of anti-imperialist wars, prevents some ML Revolutionaries from taking the correct stand against imperialist aggression. Lack of sufficient knowledge commonly results in generalizing the assessments made for a specific case or condition to every case, to every condition as a slogan. Labeling ISIS and other proxies in Syria as "progressive", "freedom fighters against the "regime"!", "defining the war as an 'Imperialist war' so the 'defense of fatherland' does not apply," etc., are some of the current examples of this confusion - either consciously or not. All these bourgeois revisionist assessments and confusion derive from the laziness towards reading classics, the preference for learning by rote and phrase-making rather than studying the subject and applying the dialectic of Marxism.

In reference to this type of laziness and phrase-making practice, Lenin said,

"The itch is a painful disease. And when people are seized by the itch of revolutionary phrase-making, the mere sight of this disease causes intolerable suffering. ... Truths that are simple, clear, comprehensible, obvious, and apparently indisputable to all who belong to the working people are distorted by those suffering from the above-mentioned kind of itch. Often this distortion arises from the best, the noblest and loftiest impulses, “merely” owing to a failure to digest well-known theoretical truths or a childishly crude, school-boyishly slavish repetition of them irrelevantly (people don’t know “what’s what”). But the itch does not cease to be harmful on that account." Lenin, The itch

Taking Lenin's assessment on the stand against "imperialist wars" has been applied to all type of wars without making any assessment of the type of war in question. A stand without making a distinction between just and unjust, progressive and reactionary, imperialist and anti-imperialist wars inevitably lands an honest Marxist-Leninist  on the side of counter-revolution.

The consciously created confusion by the bourgeois revisionists, counter-revolutionary Trotskyites stems from, or is directly related to, their "conclusion!" that “in the epoch of imperialism, there can be no more national wars", so "the anti-imperialist wars are a thing of the past".

In reality, for Marxist-Leninists, anti-imperialist wars are not only inevitable in our epoch and vitally important, but a significant part of the socialist revolution in particular and in general - for the defeat of capitalism in a given country and on a world scale.

"The struggle against imperialism in general," says Enver Hoxha, " and its tools in every country is one of the fundamental questions of the strategy of every communist party, and one of the decisive conditions for the triumph of any revolution, whether people's democratic, anti-imperialist, or socialist. At the same time, its attitude to imperialism serves as a touchstone to evaluate the political and ideological position of every political force which operates either within the national framework of each country, or on an international scale. In other words, the stand towards imperialism has always been a line of demarcation which divides the genuine patriotic and democratic revolutionary forces, on the one hand, from the forces of reaction, counter-revolution and national betrayal, on the other hand." Enver Hoxha, The Euro-communists' "Independence" Is Dependence on Capital and the Bourgeoisie

That is why it is crucial to understand the different types of wars, their assessment, and to take the right stand in order not to fall in the bourgeois revisionist trap, not to side with the imperialists and become a mouthpiece for them. Comprehending the importance of anti- imperialist wars is crucial because the stand to these wars defines the difference between revolution and counter-revolution, Marxism-Leninism and bourgeois revisionism, communism, and anti-communism. And because the success of Anti-imperialist wars could play an important role in shortening the defeat of capitalism not only in any given country, but the defeat of capitalism on a world scale.

We should start the study of the question from the most cited assessment of Lenin by which most of the confusion arises - and is abused: "The Defeat of One’s Own Government", "defense of the fatherland amounting to the defense of the right of one’s own bourgeoisie ".

Defense of Fatherland - What is an imperialist war?

""the imperialist war, which is a predatory war conducted in the interests of the capitalists" Lenin, Draft Resolution on the Present Political Situation

If not all, most who do not make any distinction between wars quote Lenin's following assessment to support their claim;

"From the point of view of the proletariat, recognizing “defense of the fatherland” means justifying the present war, admitting that it is legitimate. And since the war remains an imperialist war, irrespective of the country—mine or some other country—in which the enemy troops are stationed at the given moment, recognizing defense of the fatherland means, in fact, supporting the imperialist, predatory bourgeoisie, and completely betraying socialism. " Lenin, Draft Resolution on the Present Political Situation

And /or;

"A proletarian cannot deal a class blow at his government or hold out (in fact) a hand to his brother, the proletarian of the “foreign” country which is at war with “our side”, without committing “high treason”, without contributing to the defeat, to the disintegration of his “own”, imperialist “Great” Power. " Lenin, The Defeat of One’s Own Government in the Imperialist War

However, none of those who make this "quote" pay any attention to the key words in the paragraph, namely, " the present war, " imperialist war". Lenin, in these quotes, is speaking of the ML stand against imperialist, aggressive wars, not defensive wars.

In his lecture "The present war," Lenin says,

 " is an imperialist one, and that is its basic feature. An imperialist war is quite a different matter. Socialists who fail to realise that the present war is imperialist, who fail to take a historical view of it, will understand nothing about the war."  Lenin, Lecture On “The Proletariat And The War" 

Again, in the Socialist Conference at Kienthal, he says:

" The present war—precisely because it is an imperialist war insofar as both groups of belligerent “great” powers..." Lenin, The 2nd International Socialist Conference at Kienthal

And again at the 2nd Socialist Conference, he says: 

The present war is an imperialist war, i.e., a war born of contradictions on the basis of highly developed monopoly capitalism" Lenin, Initial Variant of R.S.D.L.P. C.C. Proposals To The Second Socialist Conference

It is so obvious and an apparently indisputable fact that he was talking about imperialist wars - wars between imperialists.

He clarifies the question of "defense of fatherland" in his various critiques and writings. “In the era of imperialism”, he says, "defense of the fatherland amounts to defense of the right of one’s own bourgeoisie to oppress foreign peoples. This, however, is true only in respect of all imperialist war, i.e., in respect of a war between imperialist powers or groups of powers". And he continues:

"The authors seem to present the question of “defense of the fatherland” very differently from the way it is presented by our Party. We renounce “defense of the fatherland” in an imperialist war. This is said as clearly as it can be in the Manifesto of our Party’s Central Committee and in the Berne resolutions.........The authors of the.. theses seem to renounce defense of the fatherland in general, i.e., for a national war as well, believing, perhaps, that in the “era of imperialism” national wars are impossible. " Lenin, For or Against Annexations? 

He makes it clearer in his writing on Blancism;

"The proletarian standpoint in this matter consists of a definite class characterization of war, and of an irreconcilable hostility to imperialist war—that is, to a war between groups of capitalist countries (no matter whether monarchies or republics) for a division of capitalist spoils." Lenin, On Blancism

And concludes in his Reply to P. Kievsky 

"Defense of the fatherland is a lie in an imperialist war, but not in a democratic and revolutionary war." Lenin, Reply to P. Kievsky (Y. Pyatakov) 

The Trotskyite Distortion

The slogan 'One cannot be anti-imperialist without being anti-capitalist' is based on an anti-Leninist point of view, rooted in the Trotskyist idea that anti-imperialist struggles are 'a thing of the past.' Based on this view, some oppose the anti-imperialist, political independence struggles in Iran, Venezuela, and other developing countries simply because their governments are not 'socialist.' This is an anti-Marxist-Leninist approach and stance that particularly serves the interests of aggressive imperialism."

"The Leninist slogan is NOT 'One cannot be anti-imperialist without being anti-capitalist.' On the contrary, the Leninist slogan is 'one cannot be anti-capitalist without being anti-imperialist.'

In his letter to Zinoviev, Lenin says,

 " We are not at all against “defense of the fatherland” in general, not against “defensive wars” in general. You will never find that nonsense in a single resolution (or in any of my articles). We are against defense of the fatherland and a defensive position in the imperialist war of 1914–16 and in other imperialist wars, typical of the imperialist epoch. But in the imperialist epoch there may be also “just”, “defensive”, revolutionary wars [namely (1) national, (2) civil, (3) socialist and suchlike. " Lenin, To: G. Y. Zinoviev 

Excluding bourgeois revisionists, for any Marxist-Leninist, these quotes should clarify without any doubt that Lenin was NOT generalizing the “defense of the fatherland” attitude towards wars, but speaking only of the attitude towards "imperialist wars" 

Are Anti-imperialist wars a thing of the past? - Imperialist wars and anti-imperialist wars

For those who claim that “The era of national wars has passed," "it is a question of the past”, Lenin, On Marxism and Proudhonism, states otherwise. " Marx and Engels", he says, "did not live to see the period of imperialism. The system now is a handful of imperialist “Great” Powers, each oppressing other nations"...the main thing today is to stand against the united, aligned front of the imperialist powers, the imperialist bourgeoisie and the social-imperialists, and for the utilization of all national movements against imperialism for the purposes of the socialist revolution." Lenin, Marxism or Proudhonism?

In his work, Imperialism and Revolution, Enver Hoxha takes the subject with its importance in socialist revolution.

"the linking and interlacing of the national-democratic, anti-imperialist, national liberation revolution with the socialist revolution, because, by striking at imperialism and reaction, which are common enemies of the proletariat and the peoples, these revolutions also pave the way for great social transformations, assisting the victory of the socialist revolution. And vice-versa, by striking at the imperialist bourgeoisie, by destroying its economic and political positions, the socialist revolution creates favorable conditions for and facilitates the triumph of liberation movements.

Therefore, when we draw the conclusion that the revolution is a question put forward for solution, that it is on the agenda, we have in mind not only the socialist revolution, but also the democratic anti-imperialist revolution." Enver Hoxha, The Peoples' Liberation Struggle - a Component Part of the World Revolution

Similarly, in his writing “Our Understanding of the New Era,” Lenin says: " We give a correct Marxist definition of the relation between the “era” and the “present war”: Marxism requires a concrete assessment of each separate war," and continues;

At the beginning of the article, the concept “era of imperialism” is distorted to make it appear that the national movement has been consummated in general, and not only in the advanced Western countries." Lenin, A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism, “Our Understanding of the New Era” 

On his critique of Junius’ pamphlet, Lenin takes up the issue extensively. Citing the quotes from the pamphlet, Lenin writes;

"The first of Junius’ erroneous postulates, the first is contained in the International group’s thesis No. 5:
 “In the epoch (era) of this unbridled imperialism, there can be no more national wars. National interests serve only as an instrument of deception, to deliver the masses of the toiling people into the service of their mortal enemy, imperialism....” 

This postulate is the end of thesis No. 5, the first part of which is devoted to the description of the present war as an imperialist war. The repudiation of national wars in general may either be an oversight or a fortuitous over-emphasis of the perfectly correct idea that the present war is an imperialist war and not a national war. But as the opposite may be true, as various Social-Democrats mistakenly repudiate all national wars because the present war is falsely represented to be a national war, we are obliged to deal with this mistake.

“there can be no more national wars” is that the world has been divided up among a handful of “Great” imperialist powers, and, therefore, every war, even if it starts as a national war, is transformed into an imperialist war and affects the interests of one of the imperialist Powers or coalitions (p. 81 of Junius’ pamphlet)

The fallacy of this argument is obvious. Of course, the fundamental proposition of Marxian dialectics is that all boundaries in nature and society are conventional and mobile, that there is not a single phenomenon which cannot under certain conditions be transformed into its opposite. A national war can be transformed into an imperialist war, and vice versa. 

Only a sophist would deny that there is a difference between imperialist war and national war on the grounds that one can be transformed into the other. 

National wars waged by colonial and semi-colonial countries are not only possible but inevitable in the epoch of imperialism. .......... Every war is a continuation of politics by other means. The national liberation politics of the colonies will inevitably be continued by national wars of the colonies against imperialism.

National wars must not be regarded as impossible in the epoch of imperialism, even in Europe. The “epoch of imperialism” made the present war an imperialist war; it inevitably engenders (until the advent of socialism) new imperialist war; it transformed the policies of the present Great Powers into thoroughly imperialist policies. But this “epoch” by no means precludes the possibility of national wars, waged, for example, by small (let us assume, annexed or nationally oppressed) states against the imperialist Powers, any more than it precludes the possibility of big national movements in Eastern Europe." Lenin, The Junius Pamphlet

In "Military programme of the Proletarian Revolution," Lenin takes up the question again to clarify:

"In Section 5 of the Internationale group these we read: “National wars are no longer possible in the era of this unbridled imperialism.” That is obviously wrong.

Junius, who defends the above-quoted “theses” in her pamphlet, says that in the imperialist era every national war against an imperialist Great Power leads to intervention of a rival imperialist Great Power. Every national war is thus turned into an imperialist war. But that argument is wrong, too.  

To deny all possibility of national wars under imperialism is wrong in theory, obviously mistaken historically, and tantamount to European chauvinism in practice: we who belong to nations that oppress hundreds of millions in Europe, Africa, Asia, etc., are invited to tell the oppressed peoples that it is “impossible” for them to wage war against “our” nations! 

Thirdly, the victory of socialism in one country does not at one stroke eliminate all wars in general. On the contrary, it presupposes wars.

We must not allow ourselves to be led astray by words. The term “defense of the fatherland”, for instance, is hateful to many because both avowed opportunists and Kautskyites use it to cover up and gloss over the bourgeois lie about the present predatory war. This is a fact. But it does not follow that we must no longer see through to the meaning of political slogans. To accept “defense of the fatherland” in the present war is no more nor less than to accept it as a “just” war, a war in the interests of the proletariat—no more nor less, we repeat, because invasions may occur in any war. It would be sheer folly to repudiate “defense of the fatherland” on the part of oppressed nations in their wars against the imperialist Great Powers... Theoretically, it would be absolutely wrong to forget that every war is but the continuation of policy by other means. The present imperialist war is the continuation of the imperialist policies of two groups of Great Powers, and these policies were engendered and fostered by the sum total of the relationships of the imperialist era. But this very era must also necessarily engender and foster policies of struggle against national oppression and of proletarian struggle against bourgeoisie and, consequently, also the possibility and inevitability; first of revolutionary national rebellions and wars; second, of proletarian wars and rebellions against the bourgeoisie; and third, of a combination of both kinds of revolutionary war, etc." Lenin, The Military Programme of the Proletarian Revolution

As we unquestionably understand from Lenin, the claims that " National wars are no longer possible in the era of imperialism," it is a question of the past, etc. are wrong; thus, anti-Marxist-Leninist.

How do we differentiate the wars?

Defining the war types- distinction between Defensive and Aggressive Wars

When "the war becomes truly forced upon us, it becomes truly a “just war” of defense". Lenin, The Tasks of the Revolution 

In his work, Socialism and War, Lenin points out the different approaches and reasons for. He says;

Socialists have always condemned war between nations as barbarous and brutal. But our attitude towards war is fundamentally different from that of the bourgeois pacifists (supporters and advocates of peace) and of the Anarchists. We differ from the former in that we understand the inevitable connection between wars and the class struggle within the country; we understand that war cannot be abolished unless classes are abolished and Socialism is created; and we also differ in that we fully regard civil wars, i.e., wars waged by the oppressed class against the oppressing class, slaves against slave-owners, serfs against land-owners, and wage-workers against the bourgeoisie, as legitimate, progressive and necessary.

We Marxists differ from both the pacifists and the Anarchists in that we deem it necessary historically (from the standpoint of Marx’s dialectical materialism) to study each war separately. In history there have been numerous wars which, in spite of all the horrors, atrocities, distress and suffering that inevitably accompany all wars, were progressive, i.e., benefited the development of mankind by helping to destroy the exceptionally harmful and reactionary institutions (for example, autocracy or serfdom), the most barbarous despotism in Europe (Turkish and Russian). Therefore, it is necessary to examine the historically specific features of precisely the present war. " Lenin, Socialism and War, The Attitude of Socialists Towards the War

Lenin follows by saying that " a proletariat who tolerates the violence by its nation against other nations cannot be a socialist;

Imperialism is the epoch of the constantly increasing oppression of the nations of the world by a handful of “great” powers and, therefore, it is impossible to fight for the socialist international revolution against imperialism unless the right of nations to self-determination is recognized. “No nation can be free if it oppresses other nations” (Marx and Engels). A proletariat that tolerates the slightest violence by “its” nation against other nations cannot be a socialist. ” Lenin, Socialism and War, The Attitude of Socialists Towards the War

In his article "A caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism", Lenin clearly explains the difference between defensive, aggressive, just, unjust, reactionary, and progressive wars. He asks the question: "How, then, can we disclose and define the "substance" of a war? " And responds;

"War is the continuation of policy. Consequently, we must examine the policy pursued prior to the war, the policy that led to and brought about the war. If it was an imperialist policy, i.e., one designed to safeguard the interests of finance capital and rob and oppress colonies and foreign countries, then the war stemming from that policy is imperialist.
If it was a national liberation policy, i.e., one expressive of the mass movement against national oppression, then the war stemming from that policy is a war of national liberation.

The philistine does not realize that war is "the continuation of policy"
In short: a war between imperialist Great Powers, or in alliance with the Great Powers, is an imperialist war.

A war against imperialist nations is a genuine national war. .. "Defense of the fatherland" in a war waged by an oppressed nation against a foreign oppressor is not a deception. Socialists are not opposed to "defense of the fatherland" in such a war. "

To fall into the negation of wars really waged for liberating nations is to present the worst possible caricature of Marxism. .....Rejection of "defense of the fatherland" in a democratic war, i.e., rejecting participation in such a war, is an absurdity that has nothing in common with Marxism." Lenin, A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism

Lenin on Marxist Attitude towards War says: "socialists have regarded wars 'for the defense of the fatherland', or 'defensive' wars, as legitimate, progressive and just" only in the sense of "overthrowing alien oppression". It cites an example: Persia against Russia, "etc.", and says:

"These would be just, and defensive wars, irrespective of who would be the first to attack; any socialist would wish the oppressed, dependent, and unequal states victory over the oppressor, slave-holding and predatory 'Great' Powers. " Lenin, A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism

Stalin, in his work, The Foundation of Leninism, summarizes Lenin's approach;

 " Leninism proceeds from the following theses:"

a) The world is divided into two camps: the camp of a handful of civilized nations, which possess finance capital and exploit the vast majority of the population of the globe; and the camp of the oppressed and exploited peoples in the colonies and dependent countries, which constitute that majority. 

c) The revolutionary struggle of the oppressed peoples in the dependent and colonial countries against imperialism is the only road that leads to their emancipation from oppression and exploitation. " Stalin, The Foundation of Leninism

Defining the wars as imperialist wars - wars between the imperialist great powers- and as anti-imperialist wars - wars against imperialist oppression, exploitation, and aggression - at the same time defines the revolutionary stand and counter-revolutionary stand to any given war.  Revisionists often try to justify the aggressive imperialist war and side with the imperialists, under the pretext that the "character of national movement" waging anti-imperialist war is "reactionary".

Stalin explains ML's attitude and gives a clarifying example with the underlying principled reason:

"The unquestionably revolutionary character of the vast majority of national movements is as relative and peculiar as is the possible reactionary character of certain particular national movements. The revolutionary character of a national movement under the conditions of imperialist oppression does not necessarily presuppose the existence of proletarian elements in the movement, the existence of a revolutionary or a republican programme of the movement, the existence of a democratic basis of the movement. The struggle that the Emir of Afghanistan is waging for the independence of Afghanistan is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the monarchist views of the Emir and his associates, for it weakens, disintegrates and undermines imperialism." Stalin, The Foundation of Leninism

Stalin goes further and says that a bourgeois national movement's bourgeois struggle against imperialism is a progressive, revolutionary struggle, while a struggle for "socialism" which is being waged on the side of imperialism is a reactionary struggle. 

"For the same reasons, the struggle that the Egyptian merchants and bourgeois intellectuals are waging for the independence of Egypt is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the bourgeois origin and bourgeois title of the leaders of the Egyptian national movement, despite the fact that they are opposed to socialism; 

whereas the struggle that the British "Labour" government is waging to preserve Egypt's dependent position is for the same reasons a reactionary struggle, despite the proletarian origin and the proletarian title of the members of that government, despite the fact that they are "for" socialism. 

There is no need to mention the national movement in other, larger, colonial and dependent countries, such as India and China, every step of which along the road to liberation, even if it runs counter to the demands of formal democracy, is a steam-hammer blow at imperialism, i.e., is, undoubtedly are revolutionary step." Stalin, The Foundation of Leninism 

Stalin further clarified the communist stance on anti-imperialist alliances in his assessment of the nine Communist Parties:"

"I understand the declaration of nine Communist Parties the following way: communists want to defend, above all, the independence and sovereignty of individual countries and the durable peace between them. They want to continue fighting for democracy against reaction and the remnants of fascism. Further, they want to seriously improve the situation of the working class, and they will always be against anyone who tries to prevent this. They want to resist imperialism in general and the world supremacy by any single country. I think that if the socialists do not understand the need to tackle these issues, then there is a danger that the communists themselves will aggregate all the democratic forces themselves."  

Stalin explains the reason by quoting Lenin;

Lenin was right in saying that the national movement of the oppressed countries should be appraised not from the point of view of formal democracy, but from the point of view of the actual results, as shown by the general balance sheet of the struggle against imperialism, that is to say, "not in isolation, but on a world scale." Stalin, The Foundation of Leninism 

"An imperialist war," says Lenin, "does not cease to be imperialist when charlatans or phrase-mongers or petty-bourgeois philistines put forward sentimental “slogans”" ..The proletariat fights for the revolutionary overthrow of the imperialist bourgeoisie; the petty bourgeoisie fights for the reformist “improvement” of imperialism, for adaptation to it, while submitting to it." (P49) As Marxists, "We are not pacifists. We are opposed to imperialist wars over the division of spoils among the capitalists, but we have always considered it absurd for the revolutionary proletariat to disavow revolutionary wars that may prove necessary in the interests of socialism." Lenin, Farewell Letter to the Swiss Workers

Explaining the importance of anti-imperialist struggles, " The dialectics of history " says Lenin, "are such that small nations, powerless as an independent factor in the struggle against imperialism, play a part as one of the ferments, one of the bacilli, which help the real anti-imperialist force, the socialist proletariat, to make its appearance on the scene...We would be very poor revolutionaries if, in the proletariat’s great war of Liberation for socialism, we did not know how to utilize every popular movement against every single disaster imperialism brings in order to intensify and extend the crisis. " Lenin The Irish Rebellion of 1916

As Enver Hoxha puts it bluntly, "the stand towards imperialism has always been a line of demarcation which divides the genuine patriotic and democratic revolutionary forces, on the one hand, from the forces of reaction, counter-revolution and national betrayal, on the other hand." Enver Hoxha, The Euro-communists' "Independence" Is Dependence on Capital and the Bourgeoisie

The claims to justify and ratify the imperialist aggression -  “in the epoch of imperialism, there can be no more national wars", so "the anti-imperialist wars are a thing of the past" and so the "defense of the fatherland' is a bourgeois slogan, etc.- despite the prettified Marxist phrases used, are in fact bourgeois, counter-revolutionary and anticommunist claims.

As we have seen from the quotes of Lenin's writings, anti-imperialist wars are not only vitally important, but a significant part of the socialist revolution in particular and in general - for the defeat of capitalism in a given country, and for the defeat of capitalism in world scale.

Current Applications: Iran and the Sahel

“The concept of imperialism has been reduced, in a scientific sense, to a kind of insulting term directed at the direct rivals, enemies, and opponents of the imperialists.”  Lenin, Preface to N. Bukharin’s Pamphlet, Imperialism, and the World Economy

The imperialist attack against Iran is an anti-imperialist war for Iran, but an imperialist war for the US and Israel. To claim otherwise with fallacies and to take a stance based on that is tantamount to siding with aggressive, genocidal imperialism.

While we already have numerous anarcho-Trotskyists who hide behind far-left slogans and advocate pacifism, now Kautskyist-Trotskyism has emerged that defends a unipolar world order, rejects all forms of anti-imperialist struggle, advocates for a so-called world "socialist revolution," but promotes pacifism in action. These are two sides of the same coin, complementing each other.

If we recall the teachings of Lenin and Stalin, every blow struck against imperialists and colonialists, regardless of its class nature or the form it takes, is a victory on the path to socialist struggle. This is especially important for colonial, semi-colonial, and feudal countries where the working class is virtually nonexistent, and there is no genuine communist party capable of leading the masses.

As we have noted, Stalin clearly specifies that under conditions of imperialist aggression the class character of the defender is irrelevant.

Lenin's approach to military coups in oppressed nations follows the same dialectical logic. In numerous correspondences, Lenin pointed out that it was foolish to call an army revolt — an attempt by a group of officers to overthrow the government — a 'coup' without assessing its progressive or reactionary character."

"The term 'coup' in a scientific sense can only be used when the attempted uprising reveals only a circle of conspirators or idiotic maniacs and does not arouse any sympathy among the masses."

"A person who expects a 'pure' social revolution will never see it. Such a person supports the revolution for the sake of it without understanding what the revolution is."

"If, on the one hand, we repeat thousands of times that we are 'against' all national oppression, and, on the other hand, we characterize the heroic revolt of the most active and enlightened section of certain classes in an oppressed nation against their oppressors as a 'coup,' we descend to the same level of stupidity as the Kautskyists." Lenin, Lessons of the 1916 Easter Rebellion in Ireland, The Discussion On Self-Determination Summed Up, To A.G. Shlyapnikov

The principles outlined above are not abstract — they have concrete applications in the current conjuncture.

The imperialist attack against Iran is an anti-imperialist war for Iran, but an imperialist war for the US and Israel. To claim otherwise with fallacies and to take a stance based on that is tantamount to siding with aggressive, genocidal imperialism.

Lenin's words guide us:

'The evaluation of an anti-imperialist, anti-colonial struggle must be made in terms of the current results of the general balance sheet of the struggle against imperialism; that is, not individually, but on a global scale.'

Therefore, the independence struggle waged by the Iranian people against America and Israel is objectively a progressive struggle. Those who oppose this independence struggle by distorting theories, even if they are socialist supporters, are objectively reactionary.

Similarly, we welcome the military coups in the Sahel region, and especially in Burkina Faso, as they represent a blow against imperialism and colonial plunder.

In conclusion, the correct Leninist position is clear: under conditions of imperialist oppression, persecution, and an imminent attack on a country, every blow struck against imperialists and colonialists, regardless of its class nature or the form it takes, is a victory on the path to socialist struggle.

Part  6 - Right to Self-Determination-The theoretical key (Right Vs Demand)

"""Does recognition of the right of nations to self-determination really imply support of any demand of every nation for self-determination? After all, the fact that we recognize the right of all citizens to form free associations does not at all commit us"" Lenin, The National Question in Our Programme

The right and demand to self determination

The largest confusion related to Marxist-Leninist fundamental theories has been about the theory of "State", "Defense of fatherland", and the "Right to Self-determination"; therefore, an eclectic approach has been widely applied by all sides concerned; eclecticism of bourgeois Liberals, chauvinists, nationalists, and opportunistic ML tailgaters inevitably continued to blur the subject and related confusion.

Taking the internationalist unity of the workers and oppressed people as the basic principle, Marxist-Leninist "Right to Self-determination" theory counter-aims at the cynical purpose of the bourgeoisie. Thus, the Importance of this theory should not be underestimated. Because, this theory, to counter the bourgeois approach, has both theoretical and tactical content.

Stalin states;

The merits of this slogan are that it :

1) removes all grounds for suspicion that the toilers of one nation entertain predatory designs against the toilers of another nation, and therefore creates a basis for mutual confidence and voluntary union;

2) tears the mask from the imperialists, who hypocritically prate about self-determination but who are striving to keep the unequal peoples and colonies in subjection, to retain them within the framework of their imperialist state, and thereby intensifies the struggle for liberation that these nations and colonies are waging against imperialism. Stalin,  Concerning the Presentation of the National Question

Due to the tactical nature of the theory, if and when the approach to the theory is partial, not to the entire context, it will inevitably be perceived as contradictory.. Tweezing this "dual - contradictory content" will bring about the practical and  "pseudo-right" results in accord with one's own ideological understanding and purpose.

The Conflicting Appearance

When we carefully read the writings of Lenin on the Right to Self-determination, what strikes the eye first is that Lenin's comments appear to be in conflict.

On the one hand, Lenin and Stalin,  while making an internationalist obligation to defend "The Right to Self-determination"; on the other hand, they indicate that the realization of this right could only be achieved by a socialist revolution.

 These examples of citations are related to the self-determination RIGHTS that we often see and read.

"" Whoever..... does not fight against all national oppression or inequality, is not a Marxist; he is not even a democrat "" Lenin, The nationalist Bogey of "Assimilation"

"A nation has the right freely to determine its own destiny. It has the right to arrange its life as it sees fit, without, of course, trampling on the rights of other nations. That is beyond dispute." Stalin, Marxism, and the National Question - Nation

""...there is one case in which the Marxists are duty bound, if they do not want to betray democracy and the proletariat, to defend one special demand in the national question; that is, the right of nations to self-determination, i.e., the right to political secession.''' Lenin, The National Programme of the R.S.D.L.P.

On the other hand, this excerpt of the Self-Determination of Nations'  transformation  to an active DEMAND appears to be contradictory;

" .... the revolutionary experience of recent years has again confirmed that: the national and colonial questions are inseparable from the question of emancipation from the rule of capital; ........ the unequal nations and colonies cannot be liberated without overthrowing the rule of capital;...." Stalin, Concerning the Presentation of the National Question

"the Communist International’s entire policy on the national and the colonial questions should rest primarily on a closer union of the proletarians and the working masses of all nations and countries for a joint revolutionary struggle to overthrow the landowners and the bourgeoisie. This union alone will guarantee victory over capitalism, without which the abolition of national oppression and inequality is impossible." Lenin, Draft Theses on National and Colonial Questions

So,  there has to be a theoretical and practical difference between defending and promoting the “RIGHT” and its transformation into an agenda as “DEMAND”, since the first is absolute for socialism and the latter, led by other classes,  may contradict the interests of the working class. For Marxists, the interests of the working class and its struggle cannot be subordinated to any other class and its struggle. Here the question arises.
Stalin summarizes this "duality", "contradiction" :

 "while not contradicting the rights of these nations, do contradict "the precise meaning" of the programme""", meaning the demand for secession.

""Obviously, "the rights of nations" and the "precise meaning" of the programme are on two entirely different planes. Whereas the "precise meaning" of the programme expresses the interests of the proletariat, as scientifically formulated in the programme of the latter, the rights of nations may express the interests of any class – bourgeoisie, aristocracy, clergy, etc. – depending on the strength and influence of these classes. On the one hand are the duties of Marxists, on the other the rights of nations, which consist of various classes. " Stalin, The Caucasians, The Conference  Of The Liquidators

Attitude to the "Right and to the actual "Demand"

Marxist Leninists always defend and support the RIGHT. This constitutes the essence of tactical theory, but when the actual DEMAND comes to the agenda, the approach to support the DEMAND at any cost is contradictory to the soul and to the fundamental theories of Marxism-Leninism. It would be a bourgeois approach to support and defend a DEMAND without assessing its impact on the working class. Marxist Leninists have to assess the specific conditions, and their practice should be in the interests of laboring people and of their struggle. This fundamental approach is never rendered secondary to any democratic demands.

As Lenin explains ; 

"".... our unreserved recognition of the struggle for freedom of self-determination does not in any way commit us to supporting every demand for national self-determination. As the party of the proletariat, the Social-Democratic Party considers it to be its positive and principal task to further the self-determination of the proletariat in each nationality rather than that of peoples or nations. We must always and unreservedly work for the very closest unity of the proletariat of all nationalities" Lenin, The National Question in Our Programme

Lenin clarifies the distinction between Marxist and Bourgeois approach to the question; 

""In contrast to the petty-bourgeois democrats, Marx regarded every democratic demand without exception not as an absolute, but as an historical expression of the struggle of the masses of the people, led by the bourgeoisie, against feudalism. There is not one of these demands which could not serve and has not served, under certain circumstances, as an instrument in the hands of the bourgeoisie for deceiving the workers. To single out, in this respect, one of the demands of political democracy, specifically the self-determination of nations, and to oppose it to the rest, is fundamentally wrong in theory. In practice, the proletariat can retain its independence only by subordinating its struggle for all democratic demands, not excluding the demand for a republic, to its revolutionary struggle for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie.. "" Lenin, Socialist Revolution, and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination 

The RIGHT to Self-Determination

İf in a reactionary society where a woman is not entitled to any say at all, where women have no right to divorce, yet men can divorce her with just one word, “divorced", the RIGHT to divorce for women must be defended; in the same way, the RIGHT of a nation to secede should be defended, in all circumstances. The RIGHT that the women would win is for free, voluntary association and distinct from forcible association. The most important difference not being understood is to defend and support the   RIGHT to divorce, and to propose and support the actual DEMAND of divorce.

Lenin, while criticizing Semkovsky, states;

"It would seem that even with Mr. Semkovsky’s mental abilities it is not difficult to deduce that “the right to divorce” does not require that one should vote for divorce! But such is the fate of those who criticize -they forget the ABC of logic. "" Lenin, The National Programme of the R.S.D.L.P.

Theory speaks of the RIGHT and the DEMAND differently; 

""our programme (on the self-determination of nations) cannot be interpreted to mean anything but political self-determination, i.e., the right to secede and form a separate state" Lenin, Theses on the national question

and explains the reasons clearly;

"The championing of this right, far from encouraging the formation of small states, leads on the contrary, to the freer, fearless and therefore wider and more widespread formation of very big states and federations of states, which are more beneficial for the masses and more fully in keeping with economic development."  Lenin, Socialism and War The Attitude of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party Towards the War

So, the championed RIGHT is not one suggesting separation, but one tactical support theory that is aimed at free formation of the association. Because, as noted below, anti-imperialist and socialist struggle is the current agenda. 

Since capitalism is the beginning of the nations, inevitably, there are two historic periods to the right of nations' self-determination. ""The first is the awakening of national life and national movements, the struggle against all national oppression, and the creation of national states, so 'the awakening of national life and national movements and the creation of national states'", bourgeois national movements ."*  Second period, a mature capitalism that is moving towards its transformation into socialist society"*  corresponds to the imperialist era.* Lenin, Nationalist Bogey of assimilation

Lenin explains the dual approach and purpose; 

"" The Marxists’ national programme takes both tendencies into account, and advocates, firstly, the equality of nations and languages and the impermissibility of all privileges in this respect ....; secondly, the principle of internationalism and uncompromising struggle against contamination of the proletariat with bourgeois nationalism, even of the most refined kind.. "" Lenin, Nationalist Bogey of assimilation

"the main thing today is to stand against the united, aligned front of the imperialist powers, the imperialist bourgeoisie, and the social-imperialists, and for the utilization of all national movements against imperialism for the purposes of the socialist revolution. "  Lenin, Marxism or Proudhonism?

If we want to stay true to the tactical nature of the theory, in this period too, the RIGHT must be supported in all circumstances.  Lenin emphasizes that this RIGHT should be recognized even in the most adverse conditions.

"The bourgeoisie of the oppressed nations persistently utilize the slogans of national liberation to deceive the workers....

The fact that the struggle for national liberation against one imperialist power may, under certain conditions, be utilized by another "great" power for its own, equally imperialist, aims, is just as unlikely to make the Social Democrats refuse to recognize the right of nations to self determination as the numerous cases of bourgeois utilization of republican slogans for the purpose of political deception and financial plunder are unlikely to make the Social-Democrats reject their republicanism" Lenin, Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination

(We have seen articles trying to pass theoretical sheath for the cooperation with imperialists, especially in Syria, by the writers' eclecticism where  the words " against an imperialist power " are deleted.)

On the extent and limit of support, or what is to be supported at what degree, and with what precautions, Lenin states ;

"Marxism cannot be reconciled with nationalism, be it even of the “most just”, “purest”, most refined, and civilized brand.............. The principle of nationality is historically inevitable in bourgeois society and, taking this society into due account, the Marxist fully recognizes the historical legitimacy of national movements. But to prevent this recognition from becoming an apologia of nationalism, it must be strictly limited to what is progressive in such movements, in order that this recognition may not lead to bourgeois ideology obscuring proletarian consciousness." Lenin, Cultural National Autonomy - Critical Remarks on the National Question

When the DEMAND to secede is on the agenda

 Confusion and problems arise when the RIGHT comes to the actual agenda as a DEMAND. These words of Lenin below clarify that the decision to make an actual DEMAND should depend on the outcome of the evaluation of concrete conditions. And he emphasizes that it should be based on the interests of the struggle of the laboring people. Marxist Leninists cannot say "yes" or "no" to an actual DEMAND before making an assessment guarding the interests of the working class and her struggle.

"" Does recognition of the right of nations to self-determination really imply support of any demand of every nation for self-determination? After all, the fact that we recognize the right of all citizens to form free associations does not at all commit us, Social-Democrats, to supporting the formation of any new association; nor does it prevent us from opposing and campaigning against the formation of a given association as an inexpedient and unwise step. We even recognize the right of the Jesuits to carry on agitation freely,... "Lenin, The National Question in Our Programme

""In conformity with its fundamental task of combating bourgeois democracy and exposing its falseness and hypocrisy, the Communist Party, as the avowed champion of the proletarian struggle to overthrow the bourgeois yoke, must base its policy, in the national question too, not on abstract and formal principles but, first, on a precise appraisal of the specific historical situation "'

""the need constantly to explain and expose among the broadest working masses of all countries, and particularly of the backward countries, the deception systematically practiced by the imperialist powers, which, under the guise of politically independent states, set up states that are wholly dependent upon them economically, financially and militarily." Lenin, Draft Theses on National and Colonial Questions 

In reference to being "practical" and saying "yes" or "no", Lenin's  criticism of Rosa's approach    touches the core of the subject;

"" "What does the demand for “practicality” in the national question mean?

""It means one of three things: support for all national aspirations; the answer “yes” or “no” to the question of secession by any nation; or that national demands are in general immediately “practicable”.

The bourgeoisie, which naturally assumes the leadership at the start of every national movement, says that support for all national aspirations is practical. However, the proletariat’s policy in the national question (as in all others) supports the bourgeoisie only in a certain direction, but it never coincides with the bourgeoisie’s policy. The working class supports the bourgeoisie only in order to secure national peace (which the bourgeoisie cannot bring about completely and which can be achieved only with complete democracy), in order to secure equal rights and to create the best conditions for the class struggle. Therefore, it is in opposition to the practicality of the bourgeoisie that the proletarians advance their principles in the national question; they always give the bourgeoisie only conditional support. What every bourgeoisie is out for in the national question is either privileges for its own nation, or exceptional advantages for it; this is called being “practical”. The proletariat is opposed to all privileges, to all exclusiveness. To demand that it should be “practical” means following the lead of the bourgeoisie, falling into opportunism. "

The bourgeoisie is most of all interested in the “feasibility” of a given demand—hence the invariable policy of coming to terms with the bourgeoisie of other nations, to the detriment of the proletariat. For the proletariat, however, the important thing is to strengthen its class against the bourgeoisie and to educate the masses in the spirit of consistent democracy and socialism.

This may not be “practical” as far as the opportunists are concerned, but it is the only real guarantee, the guarantee of the greater national equality and peace, despite the feudal landlords and the nationalist bourgeoisie.

The whole task of the proletarians in the national question is “unpractical” from the standpoint of the nationalist bourgeoisie of every nation because the proletarians, opposed as they are to nationalism of every kind, demand “abstract” equality; they demand, as a matter of principle, that there should be no privileges, however slight.

On the plea that its demands are “practical”, the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nations will call upon the proletariat to support its aspirations unconditionally. The most practical procedure is to say a plain “yes” in favour of the secession of a particular nation rather than in favour of all nations having the right to secede!

The proletariat is opposed to such practicality. While recognizing equality and equal rights to a national state, it values above all and places foremost the alliance of the proletarians of all nations, and assesses any national demand, any national separation, from the angle of the workers’ class struggle. This call for practicality is in fact merely a call for uncritical acceptance of bourgeois aspirations. Lenin, Practicality on National Question

Lenin outlines most clearly the difference between the RIGHT and  the DEMAND and the cause for the rejection of demand;

"The several demands of democracy, including self-determination, are not an absolute, but only a small part of the general-democratic (now: general-socialist) world movement. In individual concrete cases, the part may contradict the whole; if so, it must be rejected. It is possible that the republican movement in one country may be merely an instrument of the clerical or financial-monarchist intrigues of other countries; if so, we must not support this particular, concrete movement, but it would be ridiculous to delete the demand for a republic from the programme of international Social-Democracy on these grounds." Lenin, Socialism, and the self-determination of nations -  Marxism or Proudhonism?

In this citation, Lenin talks about DEMAND being not absolute; chauvinists cite this as for the RIGHT being not absolute.

The conditions for the DEMAND to be supported  can be summarized in the following quotes, where he emphasizes quality over quantity;

" it is not so much a question of the size of an organisation, as of the real, objective significance of its policy: does its policy represent the masses, does it serve them, i.e., does it aim at their liberation from capitalism, or does it represent the interests of the minority, the minority’s reconciliation with capitalism? "Lenin, Imperialism and the Split in Socialism

A national(ist) movement could be very strong with thousands of followers, yet for ML what matters is its policy and practice in regard to its relationship with capitalism and imperialism. Lenin states that movements seeking exclusive rights to their own bourgeoisie against the other bourgeoisie would not be supported.

If it is not through the revolution, as an alternative to leaving in a peaceful manner, Lenin indicates that it is reactionary .. In the words of Lenin, "separation through legislation from one minority of the other is a reactionary idea." Lenin, Socialism and War

Tactical content summarized

Tactical content and importance of Lenin's Right to Self-Determination theory can be summarized in two ways.

1 - The right to self-determination theory, based on the principles of Marxism and internationalism, is the theory of the practice of providing voluntary merger rather than by force and repression.

Lenin summarizes this tactical approach as follows;

"" If, in our political agitation, we fail to advance and advocate the slogan of the right to secession, we shall play into the hands, not only of the bourgeoisie, but also of the feudal landlords and the absolutism of the oppressor nation.. "Lenin, Practicality on National Question

He explains the essence of the theory and reasons;

"" If we demand freedom of secession for ... all other oppressed and unequal nations without exception, we do so not because we favor secession, but only because we stand for free, voluntary association and merging as distinct from forcible association. That is the only reason!. ""

"....no self-respecting Social-Democrat will consider anyone opposing the right of divorce a democrat, let alone a socialist. That is the crux of the matter. All “democracy” consists in the proclamation and realization of “rights” which under capitalism are realizable only to a very small degree and only relatively. But without the proclamation of these rights, without a struggle to introduce them now, immediately, without training the masses in the spirit of this struggle, socialism is impossible. Lenin, A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism

2 -National movements  force  the ruling classes to decide on problems

Lenin  explains  this tactical approach as follows;

"" The right to self-determination” implies a democratic system of a type in which there is not only democracy in general, but specifically one in which there could not be an undemocratic solution of the question of secession. ........When a democratic vote gives the reactionaries a majority, one of two things may, and usually does occur: either the decision of the reactionaries is implemented and its harmful consequences send the masses more or less speedily over to the side of democracy and against the reactionaries; or the conflict between democracy and reaction is decided by a civil or other war, which is also quite possible under a democracy..." Lenin, The National Programme of the R.S.D.L.P.

In short, Marxist theory of Right to Self Determination is a theory that weighs tactical content.

On the Attitude of Marxists from each side

Always keep in mind "Bourgeois nationalism and proletarian internationalism—these are the two irreconcilably hostile slogans that correspond to the two great class camps throughout the capitalist world, and express the two policies (nay, the two world outlooks) in the national question..." Lenin, National Culture

In terms of the defense of Right, on Marxists general  attitude;

"Social-Democracy, therefore, must give most emphatic warning to the proletariat and other working people of all nationalities against direct deception by the nationalistic slogans of “their own” bourgeoisie," Lenin, Theses on the national question

"Those who seek to serve the proletariat must unite the workers of all nations, and unswervingly fight bourgeois nationalism, domestic and foreign. " Lenin, National Culture

On the oppressor nations Marxist-Leninist  attitude  ;

"" the Great-Russian Marxist (oppressor nation's Marxist EA) will be bogged down, not only in bourgeois, but also in Black-Hundred nationalism, if he loses sight, even for a moment, of the demand for complete equality for the Ukrainians (oppressed nations'), or of their right to forum an independent state." Lenin, Nationalist Bogey of assimilation

On the oppressed nations' Marxist attitude;

"workers who place political unity with “their own” bourgeoisie above complete unity with the proletariat of all nations, are acting against their own interests, against the interests of socialism and against the interests of democracy." Lenin, Theses on the national question

"If a Ukrainian Marxist (Marxist of oppressed nation) allows himself to be swayed by his quite legitimate and natural hatred of the Great-Russian oppressors to such a degree that he transfers even a particle of this hatred, even if it be only estrangement, to the proletarian culture and proletarian cause of the Great-Russian workers, then such a Marxist will get bogged down in bourgeois nationalism. "Lenin, Nationalist Bogey of assimilation 

Risk of wrong approach

Wrong approach to the theory, as the condition of the current revolutionary struggle in Turkey is the sad historical example of this, will end up as " an apologia of nationalism, and will lead to bourgeois ideology obscuring proletarian consciousness", creating division, hostility, and hatred among the laboring masses of the given country.

The approach and attitudes to the  Right to self-determination cannot be identical to the DEMAND for secession. The decision to support or not the DEMAND for secession depends on the evaluation of the specific conditions in relation to the interests of the working class and the socialist struggle at that given time. If this fundamental approach is ignored, the theory of the Right to Self-determination becomes the bourgeois theory of content. In Lenin’s words;

""Self-determination of nations demand that's it (the working class) we must subordinate the interests of the struggle. The national question in our attitude to our bourgeois-democratic attitude of the difference precisely lies in these circumstances.  Lenin, The National Question in Our Programme

"It is beyond doubt that any national movement can only be a bourgeois‐democratic movement, since the overwhelming mass of the population in the backward countries consists of peasants who represent bourgeois‐capitalist relationships. It would be utopian to believe that proletarian parties in these backward countries, if indeed they can emerge in them, can pursue communist tactics and a communist policy, without establishing definite relations with the peasant movement and without giving it effective support. However, the objections have been raised that, if we speak of the bourgeois‐democratic movement, we shall be obliterating all distinctions between the reformist and the revolutionary movements. Yet that distinction has been very clearly revealed of late in the backward and colonial countries, since the imperialist bourgeoisie is doing everything in its power to implant a reformist movement among the oppressed nations too. There has been a certain rapprochement between the bourgeoisie of the exploiting countries and that of the colonies, so that very often—perhaps even in most cases—the bourgeoisie of the oppressed countries, while it does support the national movement, is in full accord with the imperialist bourgeoisie, i.e., joins forces with it against all revolutionary movements and revolutionary classes. This was irrefutably proved in the commission, and we decided that the only correct attitude was to take this distinction into account and, in nearly all cases, substitute the term “national‐revolutionary” for the term “bourgeois‐democratic”. The significance of this change is that we, as Communists, should and will support bourgeois‐liberation movements in the colonies only when they are genuinely revolutionary, and when their exponents do not hinder our work of educating and organizing in a revolutionary spirit the peasantry and the masses of the exploited. If these conditions do not exist, the Communists in these countries must combat the reformist bourgeoisie. "Lenin, Report Of The Commission On The National And Colonial Questions

Conclusion

Theory cannot be taken independently from the class struggle, as an absolute theory by itself, especially as an empty slogan without content. To defend and support the RIGHT and to defend and promote DEMAND have different contents.

" If viewed from the Marxist angle,"  as  Lenin said," and if the slogans are compared with the interests and policies of classes, and not with meaningless 'general principles, ' we should approach the theory from the standpoint of the class struggle". Lenin, National Culture

In this sense, the Right to Self-Determination theory should NOT be understood in a theoretical and practical context where the interests of class struggle is subordination and dependent. On the contrary, parts and related theories should be subjected to subordination for the interests of the working class. Otherwise, it can not be Marxism,  but would be bourgeois conciliation and bourgeois tailing.

Lenin puts it in concrete terms ;

"" The national cause comes first, and the proletarian cause second, the bourgeois nationalists say, with the Yurkeviches, Dontsovs and similar would-be Marxists repeating it after them. The proletarian cause must come first, we say, because it not only protects the lasting and fundamental interests of labor and of humanity, but also those of democracy .....without democracy neither an autonomous nor an independent nation is conceivable. "Lenin Nationalist Bogey of assimilation

In these days, seeing widespread examples of opportunist nationalist movement tailgating (especially in Turkey), these  words of Lenin must be digested;

 “But we cannot be in favor of a war between great nations, in favor of the slaughter of twenty million people for the sake of the problematical liberation of a small nation with a population of perhaps ten or twenty millions!” Of course not! And it does not mean that we throw complete national equality out of our Programme; it means that the democratic interests of one country must be subordinated to the democratic interests of several and all countries. " Lenin, The Discussion On Self-Determination Summed Up - Marxism or Proudhonism?

These two quotes above and below are crucially important in current situation where the DEMAND for secession in Syria is on the agenda. Even though we are against the DEMAND, it emphasizes the need to be opposed to any would be active action against the demand taken by the bourgeoisie..

""be unconditionally hostile to the use of force in any form whatsoever by the dominant nation (or the nation which constitutes the majority of the population) in respect of a nation that wishes to secede politically." Lenin, Theses on the national question

"The Social-Democrats will always combat every attempt to influence national self-determination from without by violence or by any injustice. However, our unreserved recognition of the struggle for freedom of self-determination does not in any way commit us to supporting every demand for national self-determination." Lenin The National Question in Our Programme

So while the RIGHT to Self-Determination is supported in any event, as Lenin states, "a Marxist can recognize the DEMAND for national independence only conditionally, namely, on the condition indicated above" ( which is subject to proletarian struggle).. But it is to the interests of this struggle that we must subordinate the demand for national self-determination.

"It is this that makes all the difference between our approach to the national question and the bourgeois-democratic approach. The bourgeois democrat (and the present-day socialist opportunist who follows in his footsteps) imagines that democracy eliminates the class struggle, and that is why he presents all his political demands in an abstract way, lumped together, “without reservations,” from the standpoint of the interests of the “whole people,” or even from that of an eternal and absolute moral principle. Always and everywhere the Social-Democrat ruthlessly exposes this bourgeois illusion, whether it finds expression in an abstract idealist philosophy or in an absolute demand for national independence." Lenin, The National Question in Our Programme

In contrast to the petty-bourgeois democrats, Marx regarded every democratic demand without exception not as an absolute one. Every democratic demand, including the right to self-determination, is secondary to the interests of the working class and her struggle. While we defend and support the RIGHT to self-determination, we do not say "yes" to every actual DEMAND to secede without assessing the concrete situation with the interests of the working class in mind.

Stalin  clearly states this approach in "Foundation of Leninism;

"Leninism .. recognizes the existence of revolutionary capacities in the national liberation movement of the oppressed countries, and the possibility of using these for overthrowing the common enemy, for overthrowing imperialism

This does not mean, of course, that the proletariat must support every national movement, everywhere and always, in every individual concrete case. It means that support must be given to such national movements as tend to weaken, to overthrow imperialism, and not to strengthen and preserve it. Cases occur when the national movements in certain oppressed countries come into conflict with the interests of the development of the proletarian movement. In such cases support is, of course, entirely out of the question. The question of the rights of nations is not an isolated, self-sufficient question; it is a part of the general problem of the proletarian revolution, subordinate to the whole, and must be considered from the point of view of the whole."

 "no Marxist, without renouncing the principles of Marxism and of socialism generally, can deny that the interests of socialism are higher than the interests of the right of nations to self-determination."  Lenin, On The History Of Question Of The Unfortunate Peace

We have established the theoretical distinction: the RIGHT to self-determination is absolute; the DEMAND is conditional, assessed based on the interests of the working class. We have shown that Marxists support the RIGHT in all circumstances while assessing the DEMAND based on concrete conditions. We now turn to a concrete case study that exposes the sophistry of those who cry for self-determination for the oppressor while denying it to the oppressed: Ukraine. This case study will demonstrate how the theoretical distinction is weaponized — and how the sophists side with the reactionary bourgeoisie.

Part  7 - Ukraine — Case Study-The distortion of the principle

Sophistry of Ukraine’s right to self-determination- stripping Marxism Leninism from its revolutionary spirit and siding with bourgeoisie.

There always will be those, consciously and some unconsciously, who by means of sophistry try to conceal or justify their desertion to the camp of the bourgeoisie.  The cry for Ukraine’s right to self-determination is a striking example of this sophistry. Let’s start by studying what National self-determination means for Marxist Leninists.

Lenin, in his article “A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism,” says;

“National self-determination means political independence.”  Lenin, A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism

In case of Ukraine, I will not even ask the question of “political independence “from whom" since it is undeniably a “proxy” of US-NATO imperialists. I will continue the meaning of “right to self-determination to see if it is applicable to proxy Ukraine bourgeoisie and of their neo-Nazi state, or it is actually applicable to Donbass where the communists and anti-fascists have been waging a civil war for eight years.

Lenin says that

“the right of nations to self-determination implies exclusively the right to independence in the political sense, the right to free political separation from the oppressor nation.” Lenin The Socialist Revolution and the right of Nations to Self-Determination

And

“our definition of the “right of nations to self-determination” must follow, a definition that is consistently democratic, revolutionary…”  Lenin, The Revolutionary Proletariat, and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination

Is this clear enough? Cry for the right to self-determination consistently democratic, revolutionary for a neo-Nazi regime? Or for an oppressed nation where their language has been banned and penalized to be used, has been bombed, burned, and massacred en masse, and is waging a civil war not only for their “democratic rights” but for their survival. Overlooking this fact and claiming the “right to self-determination” for the oppressor nation rather than the oppressed is deeply related to reformism not to Marxism-Leninism. “The petty bourgeoisie,” says Lenin, “are still putting this question all forward in a utopian manner because they fail to see the class struggle…and because they believe in "peaceful" capitalism. Their sophistry is that they do not believe in class struggle, civil war, but a “peaceful capitalism” under the yoke of imperialism. 

Lenin says that the

Civil war against the bourgeoisie is also a form of class struggle. Lenin, Junius Pamphlet

However, the sophists would prefer to ignore Lenin’s assessment and try extremely hard to overshadow the fact of existing civil war waged in Ukraine against the neo-Nazi state and worse never mention that those waging this civil war are communists and anti-fascists. They, however, cling on the terms of “separatism”, “respect to the borders of Ukraine” in its bourgeois context.  

What does Lenin say on this issue?  Just the opposite;

The proletariat cannot remain silent on the question of the frontiers of a state founded on national oppression…The proletariat must struggle against the enforced retention of oppressed nations within the bounds of the given state, which means that they must fight for the right to self-determination. Lenin The Socialist Revolution and the right of Nations to Self-Determination

Is it clear as far as Lenin is concerned who has the “right to self-determination”? Is it Neo-Nazi oppressor Ukraine state or so called “separatists” who have been waging a struggle against it? According to the hypocrites who claim to be internationalists it is the “right to self-determination” for the Ukraine neo-Nazi "oppressor" state.

Lenin exposes these types of hypocrites and their sophistry. He states that

The proletariat must demand freedom of political separation for nations oppressed by "their own" nation. Otherwise, the internationalism of the proletariat would be nothing but empty words... Lenin The Socialist Revolution and the right of Nations to Self-Determination

These words clearly describe the sophists who cry for “unity” and blame those who have been waging a form of class struggle against the oppressor neo-Nazi state as “separators”.  

Lenin repeatedly exposed these reformists in his articles. “The hypocrisy of the reformists and Kautskyites,” Lenin says, “who defend self-determination but remain silent about the nations oppressed by 'their own' nation and kept in 'their own' state by force…  Lenin The Socialist Revolution and the right of Nations to Self-Determination

In this sense, these so-called “internationalists” who defend the “right of self-determination” for the Ukraine Neo-Nazi state, yet deny it for the Donbas communists and anti-fascists, are not so much different than the 2^nd internationalists in their approach.  In Stalin’s words;

… the vague slogan of the right of nations to self-determination has been replaced by the clear revolutionary slogan of the right of nations...to secede, to form independent states. When speaking of the right to self-determination, the leaders of the Second International did not as a rule even hint at the right to secede—the right to self-determination was at best interpreted to mean the right to autonomy in general…self-determination was converted into the privilege of the dominant nations to wield political power, and the question of secession was excluded. Kautsky, the ideological leader of the Second International, associated himself in the main with this essentially imperialist interpretation of self-determination… Stalin, Concerning the Presentation of the National Question

Lenin goes further and makes a distinction between reactionary and democratic nations. If we are not considering Ukraine as a democratic nation like those who cry for them, it is important to cite Lenin’s words;

there were historical and political grounds for drawing a distinction between "reactionary" and revolutionary-democratic nations. Marx was right to condemn the former and defend the latter. The right to self-determination is one of the demands of democracy which must naturally be subordinated to its general interests…In some small states … the bourgeoisie makes extensive use of the "self-determination of nations" slogan to justify participation in the imperialist war. Lenin The Socialist Revolution and the right of Nations to Self-Determination

As we understand from Lenin’s words, the so-called “internationalists” with their cry for the “right to self-determination for the neo-Nazi state of Ukraine are, actually, for the defense of the status quo in neo-Nazi Ukraine and are against the anti-fascist struggle in Ukraine, and their cry has nothing to do with Marxism-Leninism. 

Lenin clearly states

It is quite easy to see that a protest against annexations either boils down to recognition of the self-determination of nations or is based on the pacifist phrase that defends the status quo and is hostile to any, even revolutionary, violence. Such a phrase is fundamentally false and incompatible with Marxism. Lenin The Socialist Revolution and the right of Nations to Self-Determination

Let's go further and analyze the meaning of the “right of self-determination” in order to show that the cry for the “right to self-determination” for neo-Nazi Ukraine has nothing to do with Marxism-Leninism. For Marxists, Lenin states;

Our unreserved recognition of the struggle for freedom of self-determination does not in any way commit us to supporting every demand for national self-determination. As the party of the proletariat, the Social-Democratic Party considers it to be its positive and principal task to further the self-determination of the proletariat in each nationality rather than that of peoples or nations. Lenin, The National Question in Our Program

Their cry for the “right to self-determination” for neo-Nazi Ukraine has no class base and even any ideological base. They are claiming and defending the right to self-determination for the neo-Nazis but denying it for the communists and anti-fascists.

Let’s talk about the subject of the ‘right to self-determination of an imperialist proxy, neo-Nazi state. (Although they probably do not see Ukraine as a proxy, or even as a neo-Nazi but they are too timid to accept that publicly for it would expose their true color quickly)

“Being a “negation” of democracy in general”, says Lenin, “imperialism is also a “negation” of democracy in the national question (i.e., national self-determination): it seeks to violate democracy… National self-determination means political independence. Imperialism seeks to violate such independence because political annexation often makes economic annexation easier, cheaper (easier to bribe officials, secure concessions, put through advantageous legislation, etc.), more convenient, less troublesome—just as imperialism seeks to replace democracy generally by oligarchy. Lenin, A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism

Is it may be that the defenders of the right to self-determination of neo-Nazi, imperialist proxy Ukraine derives from the understanding that US-NATO is not imperialist? Is it possible for an imperialist proxy country to fight for “self-determination”? It is an oxymoron claim to defend the right to self-determination for an imperialist proxy country.

The problem is, as historically presented itself numerous times, consciously or unconsciously linking the question of “right to self-determination” with the question of the “right to defend fatherland”.  However, as far as the question of imperialist proxy, neo-Nazi oppressor nation is concerned, neither of those linking is applicable. They are shy to bring up the question of the “defense of fatherland” so they prefer bringing up the “right to self-determination”.

Let's talk about the question of the “defense of fatherland” and see – as far as the Marxist Leninists are concerned- if it is applicable to Ukraine.

Defense of the fatherland is a lie in an imperialist war, but not in a democratic and revolutionary war.  Lenin, Address to the Second All-Russia Congress of Communist Organizations of the Peoples of The East

Anyone in his or her sane mind can claim that neo-Nazi, imperialist proxy Ukraine is giving democratic or revolutionary war?

“The character of a war “, says Lenin, “depends chiefly upon the internal regime of the country that goes to war, that war is a reflection of the internal policy conducted by the given country before the war. “Lenin, Address to the Second All-Russia Congress of Communist Organizations of the Peoples of The East

Does any Marxist Leninist have any “reservation” about the internal policy conducted by the Ukraine regime for the last eight years, before the war started?

Let's go back to Lenin analyzing the imperialist war.

“the present imperialist war is not an exception, but a typical phenomenon in the imperialist epoch.” [[The typical is not the unique.]]

One should say: “Small countries, too, in imperialist wars, which are most typical of the current imperialist epoch, cannot defend their fatherland.” Lenin, Reply to P. Kievsky (Y. Pyatakov)

Now the question comes down to whether this war in Ukraine is an imperialist or anti-imperialist war. Since there is almost no Marxist-Leninist statement claiming the war as “anti-imperialist,” we can easily say that Lenin’s following statement is not applicable to Ukraine. And we can understand the reasons behind the sophistry of those crying for the “right to self-determination” for Ukraine while they actually mean the right to “the defense of fatherland,” but cannot say it openly because then they would have to be saying that the war is an “anti-imperialist war.”

We are not at all against “defense of the fatherland” in general, not against “defensive wars” in general. You will never find that nonsense in a single resolution (or in any of my articles). Lenin, Reply to P. Kievsky (Y. Pyatakov)

The reality of Ukraine is that both the right to self-determination and the right to defend are applicable to Donbas. Lenin says that

We are against defense of the fatherland …and a defensive position in the imperialist wars, typical of the imperialist epoch. But in the imperialist epoch there may also be “just”, “defensive”, revolutionary wars [namely (1) national, (2) civil, (3) socialist and suchlike. Lenin, Reply to P. Kievsky (Y. Pyatakov)

Let’s consider the undeniable fact of civil war waged by the communists and antifascists of Ukraine, their success in liberating villages, towns, cities and regions, and correlate with Lenin’s assessment of “Civil war against the bourgeoisie is also a form of class struggle... (3)

"Civil war,” says Lenin, “is just as much a war as any other. He who accepts the class struggle cannot fail to accept civil wars, which in every class society are natural, and under certain conditions inevitable continuation, development, and intensification of the class struggle. That has been confirmed by every great revolution.  To repudiate civil war, or to forget about it, is to fall into extreme opportunism and renounce the socialist revolution." Lenin, Military Program of the Proletarian Revolution

This clear assessment of Lenin should be sufficient enough to see the fact that the struggle of communists and anti-fascists of Ukraine, especially in Donbass against the neo-Nazi regime is progressive and in line with point three of Lenin- “socialist and suchlike”, as well as point 2 – “civil war.” In other words, both the defense of the liberated region from the neo-Nazis as the fruit of their struggle and the ‘right to self-determination” is applicable to Donbas, and support for the communists and anti-fascists of the region is the internationalist duty of Marxist Leninists.

Crying for the “right to self-determination” for a neo-Nazi, imperialist proxy regime is not the practice of Marxist Leninists but of those on the side of the bourgeoisie, worse on the side of neo-Nazis against the communists and anti-fascists.

Trying to hide behind Marxist Leninist “concepts” and siding with the fascists and imperialists, in Lenin’s words, “is nothing more nor less than bourgeois sophistry.”

As Lenin puts it clearly;

Self-determination is the same as the struggle for complete national liberation, for complete independence, against annexation, and socialists cannot -- without ceasing to be socialists -- reject such a struggle in whatever form, right down to an uprising or war.

To embellish imperialist war by applying to it the concept of "defense of the fatherland", i.e., by presenting it as a democratic war, is to deceive the workers and side with the reactionary bourgeoisie. Lenin, A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism

And that is exactly what the cry for the “right to self-determination” for the neo-Nazi, imperialist proxy Ukraine regime lands them at- siding with the reactionary bourgeoisie.

We have exposed the sophistry of applying the right to self-determination to the oppressor nation while denying it to the oppressed. But the sophists make another claim: that the referendum in Donbas is an 'annexation.' They call the free exercise of self-determination by the people of Donbas a 'forced incorporation' — while ignoring Ukraine's forcible retention of Donbas for eight years. We must now clarify the Marxist-Leninist definition of annexation — and distinguish it from the free exercise of self-determination through referendum. This is the concrete application of the theoretical framework we have established.

Part 8 - What Is Annexation? Referendum in Donbas-The concrete application

Introduction

The attitude to the referendum in Donbas and other regions, as it was to the 8-year-long civil war, will inevitably expose the difference between bourgeois liberals, Kautskyites, chauvinists (both Western and Russian), and the Marxist-Leninists. That is why it is imperative to define the concepts and their Marxist-Leninist contexts so that the reader can shape his/her own opinion and decide on the attitude. The reader can disregard my comments if he/she chooses or compare them with his/her own; this is only a guideline based on Lenin’s definitions and stance.   

The Dialectic of Marxism requires the approach to any given subject in its entirety -study of all directly related subjects: nation, right to self-determination, secession, accession, and annexations.

The core of the subject goes to the concept of “nation”. One must have a clear understanding of what “nation” means and make the separation of the question of “nation” and “nation-state”.  Not comprehending this difference will, as it did, take one to defend the “right to self-determination” for an oppressor, imperialist, Neo-Nazi “nation-state” while rejecting the “right to self-determination” for a “nation” oppressed and massacred by its own government.

The right to self-determination is not only the right to secession but the right to accession- merging based on the will of the people of a given region that constitutes a “nation”. For Marxist Leninists, “nation” is NOT defined by common ethnicity or religion. Most revisionists and bourgeois liberals behind the mask of Leninism obscure this in order to serve the interests of the bourgeoisie. It is in this way that they promote the “status quo” in Ukraine and consciously confuse the concepts of “nation” and “nation-state”. That brings them to the betrayal of Marxism-Leninism by denying the right to self-determination for the oppressed people of Donbas yet promoting it for the oppressor.

Proceeding from the same approach, it is inevitable that they will try to confuse and misrepresent the meaning of “annexation” in order to defend the previously existing “political and economic annexation” of the “nation-state” and present the right to merge as “annexation”.  With their sophistry and falsification, they will follow the Western narrative with bourgeois context of terms.

Let’s summarize the Marxist-Leninist concept of “annexation” and continue with each subject from Lenin.

“Annexation is the forcible incorporation of nations; it is seizure and violence against the people of the annexed region.”

The first question here is whether the “nation” was being held by force for years, or whether they had the right to self-determination from their oppressor “nation-state”.

The second question is whether they are practicing their right to accession-merging, or they are being annexed by force. It is the choice of the people whether the conditions for a merger have been created consciously or not. Utopia and words do not help the improvement of “people’s conditions, but deeds. They are facing a choice between forced annexation -by Ukraine or merging with Russia, and the choice is left to the people’s will by referendum- a non-parliamentary mobilization of the masses by masses.

What is a nation – difference between nation and nation-state

It is important to understand what nation means as far as Bolsheviks are concerned. Stalin explains this in brief;

The Concept of "Nation"

The Russian Marxists have long had their theory of the nation. According to this theory, a nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of the common possession of four principal characteristics, namely:

a common language,

a common territory,

a common economic life, and

a common psychological make-up manifested in common specific features of national culture.

This theory, as we know, has received general recognition in our Party.

It is evident from your letters that you consider this theory inadequate. You therefore propose that the four characteristics of a nation be supplemented by a fifth, namely, that a nation possesses its own, separate national state. You consider that there is not and cannot be a nation unless this fifth characteristic is present.

I think that the scheme you propose, with its new, fifth characteristic of the concept "nation," is profoundly mistaken and cannot be justified either theoretically or in practice, politically.

According to your scheme, only such nations are to be recognized as nations as have their own state, separate from others, whereas all oppressed nations which have no independent statehood would have to be deleted from the category of nations.“ Stalin, The National Question and Leninism

As one can easily see, contrary to revisionists (even few  with Stalinist mask) claimed that “Donbass people does not constitute a nation, they are ethnically Ukrainian speaking Russian”, they do constitute a nation (aside from the fact that contrary to claims, they are Russians as per the 1927 statistics, writings of Larin and confirmed by Stalin which we are not even considering based on the “theory of Nation”, it is not important).

Donbas people have all four characteristics of a “nation”; a common language, a common territory, a common economic life, and a common psychological make-up- especially being anti-Nazi ideological make-up.

If we proceed from this fact, our conclusions will inevitably be different than those who claim otherwise. That is an ideological choice between Bolsheviks and others.

Dialectic connection between the right to self-determination and merging- annexation!

Lenin clearly states in his various writings that merging-annexation cannot be analyzed without taking that in connection with the right to self-determination.  He states;

“there can be no correct definition of the concept “annexation” unless it is seen in context with self-determination.” Lenin, A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism

Lenin clearly identifies the difference between those who are for the status quo and thus go against the “annexation-merger”, and those who recognize the right of self-determination- whether accession or secession;

“what is annexation? Clearly, to protest against annexations implies either the recognition of the right of self-determination of nations, or that the protest is based on a pacifist phrase which defends the status quo and opposes all violence including revolutionary violence. Such a phrase is radically wrong, and incompatible with Marxism.”  Lenin, The Socialist Revolution, and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination

In the case of forced retention and annexation against the will of the people, Lenin states;

“We explained this when we raised it. It is because “a protest against annexations is nothing but recognition of the right to Self-determination”. The concept of annexation usually includes: (1) the concept of force (joining by means of force); (2) the concept of oppression by another nation (the joining of “alien” regions, etc.), and sometimes (3) the concept of violation of the status quo. We pointed this out in the theses, and this did not meet with any criticism.

Can Social-Democrats be against the use of force in general, it may be asked? Obviously not. This means that we are against annexations not because they constitute force, but for some other reason. Nor can the Social-Democrats be for the status quo. However, you may twist and turn, annexation is a violation of the self-determination of a nation; it is the establishment of state frontiers contrary to the will of the population.”

To be against annexations means to be in favor of the right to self-determination. To be “against the forcible retention of any nation within the frontiers of a given state.. is the same as being in favor of the self-determination of nations.” Lenin, What Is Annexation?

In the case of Ukraine, Donbas has been facing and struggling against the forcible retention within the frontiers of Ukraine for years. Revisionists and bourgeois liberals, all those for the status quo, are not only for the “forcible retention,” but they are against the “right of self-determination of this people. They further their revisionist approach to the degree of “defense of fatherland-of Ukraine” and to the “right of self-determination for that nation state.

The war in Ukraine is an imperialist war by proxy. Lenin clearly states that in this situation neither the “defense of fatherland” nor the “right to self-determination” for the nation-state is applicable. In addition to being a proxy, Ukraine was- is holding Donbas against the will of its people, and thus holding the region as annexed by force.  Revisionists who gloss over and reject the civil war, the revolt of Donbas people, and yet preach against the “annexation” actually fall into the category of annexationists. Lenin clearly states;

We renounce “defense of the fatherland” in an imperialist war. This is said as clearly as it can be in the Manifesto of our Party’s Central Committee and in the Berne resolutions… By refusing to support the revolt of annexed regions we become, objectively, annexationists. It is precisely in the “era of imperialism”, which is the era of nascent social revolution, that the proletariat will today give especially vigorous support to any revolt of the annexed regions... there is no difference “either political or economic”, or even logical, between the “recognition” of self-determination and the “protest” against annexations.” Lenin, What Is Annexation?

Another widely made argument is that annexation (you read as merger since it is not by force but by referendum) of these regions will elevate the war.  Lenin’s response to this argument is strikingly important;

“the danger of what wars is increased by annexations? Not imperialist wars, because they have other causes: the chief antagonisms in the present imperialist war are undoubtedly those between Germany and Britain, and between Germany and Russia. These antagonisms have nothing to do with annexations. It is the danger of national wars and national revolts that is increased.” (4) Lenin, What Is Annexation?

In this connection Lenin further explains as he criticizes the revisionists;

“Kievsky was probably led astray here by the fact that the philistine regards annexation (i.e., acquisition of foreign territories against the will of their people, i.e., violation of self-determination) as equivalent to the “spread” (expansion) of finance capital to a larger economic territory. But theoretical problems should not be approached from philistine conceptions.

The big finance capital of one country can always buy up competitors in another, politically independent country and constantly does so. Economically, this is fully achievable. Economic “annexation” is fully “achievable” without political annexation and is widely practiced… National self-determination means political independence. Imperialism seeks to violate such independence because political annexation often makes economic annexation easier, cheaper, more convenient, less troublesome—just as imperialism seeks to replace democracy generally by oligarchy. ” Lenin, A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism

Right to secede and right to merge

As we noted earlier, the right to self-determination contains in it both the right to secede and the right to merge. It is the right of people to determine whether to secede or merge.  Lenin states in a way that is hard to misunderstand;

“To renounce annexations means to let each nation determine freely whether it wants to live separately or together with others… With regard to annexations, our answer is that nations must be free to make their own decisions.” Lenin, The Seventh (April) All-Russia Conference of the R.S.D.L.P.(B.)

As in the case of the right to secede, a denial of the right to merge is tantamount to the defense of annexation for both supporting the status quo of a nation forced to be retained within the frontiers of an oppressor nation-state.

“denying the oppressed nations the right to secede, a denial which is tantamount to annexation… To be against the right of secession is to be for annexations.” Lenin- Finland and Russia

Lenin gives examples of different approaches in this matter;

For Or Against Annexations?

A. (to the right of the C.D.) and B. (C.D.). If it is a question of annexations by the German capitalists and their robber chieftain, Wilhelm, we are against. If by the British, we are not against, for they are “our” Allies. If by our capitalists, who are forcibly keeping within the boundaries of Russia the peoples who were oppressed by the tsar, we are in favor; we do not call that annexation.

C. (S.D. and S.R.). Against annexations, but we still hope it will be possible to secure even from the capitalist government a promise to renounce annexations.

D. (“Bolsheviks”). Against annexations. All promises on the part of capitalist governments to renounce annexations are sheer fraud. There is only one method of exposing it, namely, to demand the liberation of the peoples oppressed by their own capitalists.” Lenin, Political Parties in Russia, and the Tasks of the Proletariat

Lenin further explains the Bolshevik attitude;

“a conscientious and   forthright anti-annexation policy requires that socialists and democrats of the oppressed nations, in all their propaganda and agitation, denounce as scoundrels those socialists of the oppressor nations .. who do not consistently and unreservedly stand for free secession of nations oppressed by their own nation (or forcibly held by it).” Lenin - Lost in a Wood of Three Trees

What is annexation?

From the previous sections, the reader may already have reached an understanding of what annexation is. However, it is important to cite a couple more paragraphs from Lenin to understand better in order to debunk the bourgeois liberal arguments hidden behind the Leninist mask.

“those who talk of annexations and the struggle against them either cannot or will not, for the most part, give thought to what annexation is. Clearly, annexation will not be the right word for every appropriation of “foreign” territory, for, generally speaking, socialists favor the abolition of frontiers between nations, their getting closer together and integration, and the formation of larger states. Clearly, not every disturbance of the status quo can be described as annexation, for this would be extremely reactionary and a mockery of the fundamental concepts of the science of history. Clearly, annexation does not apply to every kind of integration by force of arms, for socialists cannot repudiate violence in the interests of the majority of the population and in the interests of human progress.

 Annexation can and must clearly apply only to the appropriation of a territory against the will of the population of that territory. In other words, the concept of annexation is inseparably bound up with the concept of self-determination of nations.” Lenin, Initial Variant 0f The R.S.D.L.P. Central Committee Proposal

The following explanation of Lenin is vitally important to understand what is and what is not considered an annexation, which clearly defines the Marxist-Leninist approach on the subject;

“Annexation is the integration of any country with distinct national peculiarities; it is any integration of a nation against its will, irrespective of whether it differs in language, if it feels itself to be another people.”  Lenin, Report at a Meeting of Bolshevik Delegates to the All-Russia Conference of Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies

In the case of Donbas forcefully retained by the Ukrainian Nation-state, the merger cannot be called as “annexation” for it is neither has a “distinct national peculiarities differing from Russia, " nor do they feel themselves to be “another people from Russians, nor the merging is being carried out against the will of Donbass people. (Related to the last note, of course, one may have reservations as to the type of politics played in creating such conditions which the stand from the right to secede changed to the stand to merge- however, regardless, it is not considered an “annexation but a merger.)

Bourgeois chauvinist Annexationist

Here again the subject is related to the “forced retention-annexation” vs “merger-annexation”.  Chauvinists and revisionists of one side usually disregard the existing forceful retention of a nation within its frontiers and focus on the “merger-annexation! That is how they serve their bourgeoisie or imperialist bloc they favor through defending the previous or existing status quo.

“Your own Izvestia has got into a muddle and proposes to keep the status quo instead of peace without annexations and indemnities. Our idea of peace "without annexations" is different… A peace treaty without annexations and indemnities cannot be concluded until you have renounced your own annexations.” Lenin, First All-Russia Congress of Soviets of Workers’, and Soldiers’ Deputies

Revisionists disregarding the “right of self-determination” defend the “status quo” if not go as far as defending the right of the oppressor, imperialist proxy “nation state”. Such a stand is an incomprehensible approach for a Marxist-Leninist with basic knowledge. As Lenin points out;

“facts are facts, and the fact is that our Party was the only one to give a definition of annexation in official and carefully worded resolutions. Annexation means keeping an alien people by force within the bounds of a given state. No person able to read and understand Russian could fail to understand that... “no annexations” is equivalent to status quo.” Lenin, Muddle-headedness -more about annexations

Revisionists of then and now are not so different in falling into contradictions with their arguments. Lenin gives a good example of this;

“You have shown that “annexation” cannot be interpreted merely as the seizure of territory in this war. In other words, you have refuted yourselves and Izvestia of the Petrograd Soviet, which only the other day declared with proud ignorance that the term annexation could be applied only to territories seized in the present war. But who does not know that Ireland and Algeria were annexed decades and centuries before the outbreak of this war?

The annexation issue is a good touchstone for the Narodniks and Mensheviks, who are entangled in a web of lies. They are just as muddled as Plekhanov, Henderson, Schieidemann and Co.; they are distinguishable from each other only in words, for as far as deeds are concerned, they are all alike—dead to socialism.” Lenin, A Mote in the Eye

Reading Lenin, it is clearly hypocritical to call a merger with the application of a referendum representing the free will of people as “annexation”, while not even a lip service to the “forcefully retained-annexed” situation in Ukraine, or in any other nation-state, for that matter.

Is a referendum an annexation or accession-merging

Lenin explains the concept of “annexation” both in the sense of forced “retained” and forced “integration-annexation”;

“any territory shall be deemed to be annexed whose population, over the last few decades, has expressed dissatisfaction with the integration of their territory into another state, or its status in the state, regardless of whether such dissatisfaction has been expressed in writings, decisions of meetings, assemblies, municipal councils and similar institutions, in state and diplomatic acts, arising from the national movement in these territories, in national friction, clashes, disturbances, etc.”  Lenin, Outline Program for Peace Negotiations

Similarly, in another writing;

If any nation whatsoever is forcibly retained within the borders of a given state, if, in spite of its expressed desire, is not accorded the right to decide the forms of its state existence by a free vote... without the least pressure being brought to bear, such incorporation is annexation, i.e., seizure and violence.” Lenin, Decree on Peace

As can clearly be seen, all clarifications of Lenin on the subject of forced- retained annexation apply, specifically to Donbass area since they have been fighting for the last eight years -noting the fact that they did want to be separate Soviets in early stages of revolution including Donbass, Kherson, Odessa, Kharkiv, Dnieper, and Nikolayev.

Such a referendum is the practice of the right of self-determination, whether that is for secession or merging. Lenin, criticizing the bourgeois liberals and chauvinists, states;

Regarding  annexations, our answer is that “nations” must be free to make their own decisions.

Therefore, in warning the people against the capitalists' empty promises, the Conference declares that it is necessary to make a clear distinction between a renunciation of annexations in word and a renunciation of annexations in deed, i.e., the immediate publication and abrogation of all the secret, predatory treaties and the immediate granting to all nationalities of the right to determine by free voting whether they wish to be independent states or to be part of another state." Lenin, The Seventh (April) All-Russia Conference of the R.S.D.L.P.(B.)

Any secession from one and/or integration to another through Referendum is not considered an annexation. It is a reflection of the free will of the people.

Conclusion

Compared to the past, we are living in an era in which all the writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin are widely available and accessible to all. However, laziness in reading on one side and relying on the bourgeois liberal (in some cases anti-communist) books and articles inevitably turned the “left” into tailgaters of Western bourgeois narratives and definitions. Lenin was saying that:

 “If a Communist took it into his head to boast about his communism because of the ready-made conclusions he had acquired, without putting in a great deal of serious and hard work, without understanding the facts which he must examine critically, he would be a very deplorable Communist. Such superficiality would be decidedly fatal. If I know that I know little, I shall strive to learn more; but if a man says that he is a Communist and that he needs to know nothing thoroughly, he will never be anything like a Communist....” Lenin, The Tasks of the Youth Leagues

The attitude of the Marxist-Leninist left, unfortunately, with some reaching all the way to the top, to the theoreticians of parties and organization, is such that they consider they already know it all and they do not have to study the “primary source”, yet they become one of the singers in the bourgeois chorus on the subjects and concepts. As it is with the concept of “regime” (which is only used for those against the West- you can increase the number of such concepts), the concept of annexation is being used within the same context.

Bolsheviks are very clear on the definition of a “nation” and “nation state” as they are very clear in the definition of annexation; ““any territory shall be deemed to be annexed whose population, has expressed dissatisfaction with the integration of their territory into another state, or its status in the existing state,” “Annexation means keeping an alien people by force within the bounds of a given state.” Is there really any difficulty in understanding this definition? Isn’t “the right to determine by free voting whether they wish to be independent states or to be part of another state” refers to a referendum? 

Then what would be the underlying reason to present a referendum as an “annexation”?  It is the for-status-quo approach of reformists, in the service of imperialist bourgeoisie.

Imperialism is striving for annexations—this is what the political part of Kautsky’s definition amounts to. It is correct, but very incomplete, for politically, imperialism is, in general, a striving towards violence and reaction.

Kautsky’s definition is not only wrong and un-Marxist…. The essence of the matter is that Kautsky detaches the politics of imperialism from its economics, speaks of annexations as being a policy “preferred” by finance capital, and opposes to it another bourgeois policy … The result is a slurring-over and a blunting of the most profound contradictions of the latest stage of capitalism, instead of an exposure of their depth; the result is bourgeois reformism instead of Marxism. Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism

Considering the definition of annexation without forgetting the forced-retained annexation, as Lenin puts it clearly;

self-determination is the same as the struggle for complete national liberation, for complete independence, against annexation, and socialists cannot -- without ceasing to be socialists -- reject such a struggle in whatever form, right down to an uprising or war.

To embellish imperialist war by applying to it the concept of "defense of the fatherland", i.e., by presenting it as a democratic war, is to deceive the workers and side with the reactionary bourgeoisie.  Lenin, A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism

And that is exactly what the cry for the “right to self-determination” for the neo-Nazi, imperialist proxy Ukraine regime, and claiming the referendum to be an “annexation”, lands them on: siding with the reactionary bourgeoisie.  Every “nation” must be free to make their own decisions” and has “the right to determine by free voting” regardless of whether we like the outcome or not- in this case, people's struggle against Ukraine nation-state already indicates where their will is. Calling it as an “annexation” does not have any theoretical ground other than that of the bourgeoisie and their lackeys mixed with subjectivity or a lack of Marxist-Leninist knowledge.

We have established the foundational distinction: socialism is the first phase of communist society; communism is the higher phase. The confusion between them is not accidental but serves ideological warfare — it allows the bourgeoisie to apply communist criteria to socialist reality, declare socialist states "failures," and discredit anti-imperialist struggles.

But the confusion between socialism and communism is only one weapon in the bourgeois arsenal. It is the foundational distinction — the one upon which other confusions rest. In the chapters that follow, we will examine other weapons: the weaponization of "bureaucracy" as an institutional attack on socialist states; the "cult of personality" accusation as a personal attack on socialist leaders; and the "failure" vs. "defeat" narrative that portrays the restoration of capitalism as proof of socialism's inherent impossibility.

These weapons are dialectically connected. The confusion between socialism and communism creates the conditions for the others. If socialism is judged by the standards of communism, it will always "fail." And if it "fails," then its leaders are "cultists," its institutions are "bureaucratic," and its restoration is "inevitable."

We turn now to the first of these connected weapons: the weaponization of "bureaucracy.

CHAPTER II - In particular - Confusion about concepts

Part  9- Bureaucracy -Institutional attacks

Bureaucracy in Socialist Systems: Weapon of Bourgeois Ideological Warfare

"An apparatus for policy (=reviewing and correcting relations between classes), and not a policy for the apparatus! (A good) bureaucracy in the service of policy, and not a policy in the service of (a good) bureaucracy."   Lenin, Notes for a Speech at the 10th Congress

The Weaponization of "Bureaucracy"

As with most terms used to confuse the minds and throw dirt on the Soviets and Stalin, the term "bureaucracy" has been weaponized for the same purpose. Bourgeois liberals and right opportunists use the term in its bourgeois context, borrowed from, and aligned with Trotskyite distortions. Left opportunists use it in its anarchistic, anarcho-Trotskyite context. It is not surprising that both right and left opportunists borrow from Trotskyites, for Trotskyism is the mixture of both.

Being two sides of the same coin, in essence, both sides are the enemy of socialism with a "socialist mask."

"An old and often repeated objection to socialism," says Lenin, "is that socialism means 'barracks for the masses' and 'mass bureaucracy'."  Lenin, The Seventh (April) All-Russia Conference of the R.S.D.L.P.(B.), April 24–29, 1917

This objection is not a critique — it is a weapon. The bourgeoisie cannot refute socialism on its own terms, so it attacks with labels: "bureaucracy," "totalitarianism," "dictatorship." These are not categories of analysis — they are weapons of ideological warfare.

The Marxist-Leninist Definition of Bureaucracy

To understand the weapon, we must first understand the concept in its scientific meaning.

Marx, in his Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right (1843), provided the foundational analysis:

"Executive is nothing but the administration, which he develops as the bureaucracy... The official function is the duty and the life's work of the civil servants… indeed, the bureaucracy is merely the formalism of a content which lies outside the bureaucracy itself… The bureaucracy is the state formalism of civil society… The bureaucrats are the Jesuits and theologians of the state… The aims of the state are transformed into aims of bureaus, or the aims of bureaus into the aims of the state. The bureaucracy is a circle from which no one can escape. Its hierarchy is a hierarchy of knowledge…. The abolition of the bureaucracy can consist only in the universal interest becoming really particular interest; and this is possible only through the particular interest really becoming universal."  Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, 1843

Marx understood bureaucracy as the state formalism of civil society — a circle from which no one can escape, where the aims of the state are transformed into the aims of bureaus. But Marx did not stop at critique; he pointed to the solution: the abolition of bureaucracy can only occur when the universal interest becomes truly particular — a task that requires the transformation of society itself.

Lenin, building on Marx, defined bureaucracy in the context of bourgeois society:

"The civil service, the bureaucracy, as representing a special category of persons who specialise in the work of administration and occupy a privileged position as compared with the people. We see this institution everywhere, from autocratic and semi-Asiatic Russia to cultured, free and civilised England, as an essential organ of bourgeois society."  Lenin, The Tasks of the Russian Social-Democrats

Bureaucracy — officialdom — has a history that goes back to the old monarchy and feudal systems. Explaining its first appearance and its class base, Lenin states:

"The bureaucracy was the first political instrument of the bourgeoisie against the feudal lords, and against the representatives of the 'old-nobility' system in general, and marked the first appearance in the arena of political rule of people who were not high-born landowners, but commoners, 'middle class'... every bureaucracy, by its historical origin, its contemporary source, and its purpose, is purely and exclusively a bourgeois institution."  Lenin, The Economic Content of Narodism, and the Criticism of it in Mr. Struve's Book

Engels provided a concrete example of this process:

"Where the bourgeoisie was, politically, far less educated, the Liberal bureaucracy walked into office, and professed to hold power in trust for them... the Liberal bourgeoisie that alone profited from the victory turned round immediately upon its allies of yesterday, assumed a hostile attitude against every class or party of a more advanced character, and concluded an alliance with the conquered feudal and bureaucratic interests." Frederick Engels, Revolution and Counter-revolution in Germany

Marx, in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, summarized the class character of bureaucracy under capitalism:

"Under Napoleon, the bureaucracy was only the means of preparing the class rule of the bourgeoisie. Under the Restoration, under Louis Philippe, under the parliamentary republic, it was the instrument of the ruling class."  Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte

The key point is that under capitalism, bureaucracy is the instrument of the ruling class. It is a privileged stratum that stands above the people.

Lenin further explained the contradictory character of bureaucracy under capitalism:

"Only people who have never given a thought to the new brought by the first decade of the twentieth century... understand nothing about the interdependence between the economic and the political relations. But it is not enough to concede that the connection exists, it is necessary to point out what exactly is the actual nature of this connection. The step taken toward the transformation into something new by no means eliminates the old, say, 'bureaucratic' regime with its vast self-sufficiency and independence... While it 'obtains the motives for its activity' largely from the upper ranks of the bourgeoisie, the bureaucracy lends its bourgeois activity a tendency and a form that is purely and solely feudal."  Lenin, Plan of The Pamphlet, The Tax In Kind

This is the crucial insight: although bureaucracy obtains its motives from the bourgeoisie, its form and tendency are feudal. This is why the struggle against bureaucracy is not simply a struggle against "red tape" — it is a struggle against a social formation that combines bourgeois content with feudal form.

Bureaucracy Under Socialism — A Different Class Character

The anarchist utopia expects the building of socialism on the morning of the revolution and the withering away of the state in the following days. It expects the self-administration of the masses — meaning the elimination of bureaucracy. But what is destroyed with the bourgeois state is the bourgeois bureaucracy.

Stalin clarified this:

"With the abolition of the old apparatus of state administration, bureaucracy was smashed, but the bureaucrats remained."  Stalin, Speech at the Opening of the First All-Russian Conference of Responsible Personnel of the Workers' and Peasants' Inspection, October 15, 1920

Lenin's words — "Do not defend but rectify the bureaucratic excesses. The fight against bureaucracy is a long and arduous one" — tell more in one sentence than a thousand-page academic book filled with terms only the writer can understand.

Since "the transformation into something new by no means eliminated the old" in all aspects, and especially the old bureaucrats remained, the class struggle against the bourgeois remnant continues. The other question is related to combining this struggle with the struggle against bourgeois bureaucrats.

"Control over the capitalists is impossible if it remains bureaucratic, for the bureaucracy is itself bound to and interwoven with the bourgeoisie by thousands of threads."  Lenin, The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It

And thus:

"It is clear that the old executive apparatus, the bureaucracy, which is connected with the bourgeoisie, would simply be unfit to carry out the orders of the proletarian state."  Lenin, State and Revolution

Stalin put it bluntly and sincerely:

"Our state apparatus, which is bureaucratic to a considerable degree, exerts a certain amount of pressure on the Party and the Party workers. In 1917, when we were forging ahead, towards October, we imagined that we would have a Commune, a free association of working people, that we would put an end to bureaucracy in government institutions, and that it would be possible, if not in the immediate period, then within two or three short periods, to transform the state into a free association of working people. Practice has shown, however, that this is still an ideal which is a long way off, that to rid the state of the elements of bureaucracy, to transform Soviet society into a free association of working people, the people must have a high level of culture, peace conditions must be fully guaranteed all around us so as to remove the necessity of maintaining a large standing army, which entails heavy expenditure and cumbersome administrative departments, the very existence of which leaves its impress upon all the other state institutions. Our state apparatus is bureaucratic to a considerable degree, and it will remain so for a long time to come."  Stalin, The Party's Tasks

This confirms Marx's and Lenin's assessment that "the transformation into something new by no means eliminates the old" in all aspects overnight. Like the bureaucracy from feudal society remained and changed in context after the bourgeois revolution, some of the "old," like the state and bureaucracy, will remain in different class context and form till the transition to communist society in its scientific meaning — at its higher stage.

Lenin put this fact bluntly:

"The economic foundations for the withering away of the state' — in this case we also have the 'economic foundations' for the withering away of bureaucracy."  Lenin, Plan of The Pamphlet, The Tax in Kind

Stalin, repeating Marx and Lenin, put the question and solution at the Fifteenth Congress:

"The Party's task is to continue along the line of isolating the new bourgeoisie and to strengthen the bond between the working class and the working Soviet intelligentsia in town and country... So much is being said about bureaucracy that there is no need to dilate on it. That elements of bureaucracy exist in our state, co-operative and Party apparatus, there can be no doubt. That it is necessary to combat the elements of bureaucracy, and that this task will confront us all the time, as long as we have state power, as long as the state exists, is also a fact."  Stalin, The Fifteenth Congress of the C.P.S.U.(B.)

The struggle against bureaucracy is not a struggle against "red tape" in the abstract. It is a struggle against the remnants of the old society within the new. It will continue as long as the state exists.

The Struggle Against Bureaucracy — Lenin and Stalin's Approach

The question is not only a question of the state — from the top down — but of the masses — from the bottom up.

"It will be impossible to reform the state apparatus, to alter it thoroughly, to expel elements of bureaucracy and corruption from it and to make it near and dear to the broad masses unless the masses themselves render the state apparatus constant and active assistance. But on the other hand, active and continuous assistance of the masses is impossible unless the best elements of the workers and peasants are drawn into the organs of government, unless direct and close connection is established between the state apparatus and the 'rank and file' of the toiling masses."  Stalin, Questions and Answers

What is purposely overlooked and never mentioned by the critics is that, unlike in bourgeois society, in socialist society the bureaucrats — all officials and every kind of deputy — are not only elected by the workers but displaceable by them at any moment. The salaries of bureaucrats do not exceed that of a competent worker.

"Officials 'appointed' from above to 'direct' the local population have always been a sure step towards the restoration… What the people need is a really democratic, workers' and peasants' republic, whose authorities have been elected by the people and are displaceable by the people any time they may wish it."  Lenin, What the Counter-Revolutionary Steps of the Provisional Government Lead To

In general, as Marx asked:

"What is the 'social question' as understood by the civil servant?" He responded: "It is the maintenance of his salary and his present position, which is superior to the people… ambitious professors, lawyers and similar persons, who can only hope to obtain respectable posts in a state where betrayal of the people's interests to the government is a lucrative business."  Marx, Neue Rheinische Zeitung

Engels explained this for capitalist society:

"The bureaucracy is beginning more and more to despise embezzlement as the sole means of improving its income; it is turning its back on the state and beginning to hunt after the far more lucrative posts on the administration of industrial enterprises."  Frederick Engels, The Housing Question

The distinction is clear: Under capitalism, bureaucracy is a privileged stratum seeking personal enrichment. Under socialism, it is a service.

Lenin explained the tendency:

"Tendency to become bureaucrats, i.e., privileged persons divorced from the people and standing above the people. That is the essence of bureaucracy; and until the capitalists have been expropriated and the bourgeoisie overthrown, even proletarian functionaries will inevitably be 'bureaucratized' to a certain extent."  Lenin, State and Revolution

In socialism, where there are no industrial private enterprises and embezzlement is a risky business:

"The bureaucracy, are either similarly replaced by the direct rule of the people themselves or at least placed under special control; they not only become elected officials, but are also subject to recall at the people's first demand; they are reduced to the position of simple agents; from a privileged group holding 'jobs' remunerated on a high, bourgeois scale, they become workers of a special 'arm of the service', whose remuneration does not exceed the ordinary pay of a competent worker."  Lenin, The Dual Power

Thus, as opposed to the bourgeois context and class character of bureaucracy — where they were a class or stratum — in socialist society, where they are workers of a special "arm of the service," the question is related to the approach and practice of "bureaucrats" in their administrative work in general and the continuing struggle against capitalist remnants, including the intelligentsia in particular.

Lenin addressed the cries about bureaucracy:

"It is clear, I think, that the cries about this celebrated bureaucracy are just a screen for dissatisfaction with the personal composition of the central bodies, a fig-leaf to cover up the violation of a pledge solemnly given at the Congress. You are a bureaucrat because you were appointed by the Congress not in accordance with my wishes, but against them; you are a formalist because you take your stand on the formal decisions of the Congress, and not on my consent; you are acting in a grossly mechanical way because you cite the 'mechanical' majority at the Party Congress and pay no heed to my wish to be co-opted; you are an autocrat because you refuse to hand over the power to the old snug little band who insist on their circle 'continuity' all the more because they do not like the explicit disapproval of this circle spirit by the Congress.

These cries about bureaucracy have never had any real meaning except the one I have indicated.

They talk of bureaucracy. The word bureaucracy might be translated into Russian as concentration on place and position. Bureaucracy means subordinating the interests of the work to the interests of one's own career; it means focusing attention on places and ignoring the work itself; it means wrangling over co-optation instead of fighting for ideas. That bureaucracy of this kind is undesirable and detrimental to the Party is unquestionably true."  Lenin, One Step Forward, Two Steps Back

Stalin explained the intensification of the class struggle:

"The characteristic feature of the present period is the intensification of the struggle between the capitalist countries and our country, on the one hand, and between the socialist elements and the capitalist elements within our country, on the other." Stalin, The Opposition Bloc in the C.P.S.U.(B.)

And further:

"The wrecking activities of the bourgeois intelligentsia are one of the most dangerous forms of resistance to developing socialism... It is not difficult to understand that these circumstances cannot help but lead to an intensification of the class struggle. But if we are to break the resistance of the class enemies and clear the way for the advance of socialism, we must, besides everything else, give a sharp edge to all our organisations, purge them of bureaucracy, improve their cadres and mobilize the vast masses of the working class and labouring strata of the countryside against the capitalist elements of town and country." Stalin, The Right Deviation in the C.P.S.U.(B.)

Aside from the continuing class struggle: "The chief defect of these institutions," says Lenin, "is that they are overburdened with trivial matters. As a result, they are floundering in bureaucracy instead of fighting it."  Lenin, To A. D. Tsyurupa

It is clear that the question of bureaucracy during the phase of proletarian dictatorship — socialism — has nothing to do with its bourgeois contexts but with the continuing class struggle and with the means and methods of preventing its hindering functions and preparation for its withering away.

One striking example of Lenin's criticism:

"We must not delude ourselves with lies. That is harmful. It is the main source of our bureaucracy… failure to study practical experience. This is the root of all evil, and the root of bureaucracy."  Lenin, To Comrade Molotov For The Members Of The Political Bureau, March 16, 1922

And for self-criticism:

"We cannot do without self-criticism. We simply cannot... Without it, stagnation, corruption of the apparatus, growth of bureaucracy, sapping of the creative initiative of the working class, are inevitable. Of course, self-criticism provides material for our enemies. You are quite right about that. But it also provides material (and a stimulus) for our advancement, for unleashing the constructive energies of the working people, for the development of emulation, for shock brigades, and so on. The negative aspect is counterbalanced and outweighed by the positive aspect."  Stalin, Letter to A. M. Gorky, January 17, 1930

On the hindrance of bureaucracy in industrial development:

"What is required to make the policy of reducing industrial production costs and wholesale prices of commodities possible and quite practicable? For that it is essential to have a radical improvement of the technology of production, a radical improvement of the organisation of labour in the factories, a radical improvement and simplification of the entire economic apparatus and a determined fight against bureaucracy in this apparatus."  Stalin, Speech Delivered at the Fifth-Union Conference of the All-Union Leninist Young Communist League

Analyzing the concept of bureaucracy within the Party organizations:

"Perhaps the only attempt to analyse the concept bureaucracy is the distinction drawn in the new Iskra (No. 53) between the 'formal democratic principle' and the 'formal bureaucratic principle'. This distinction contains a grain of truth. Bureaucracy versus democracy is in fact centralism versus autonomism; it is the organisational principle of revolutionary Social-Democracy as opposed to the organisational principle of opportunist Social-Democracy. The latter strives to proceed from the bottom upward, and, therefore, wherever possible and as far as possible, upholds autonomism and 'democracy', carried (by the overzealous) to the point of anarchism. The former strives to proceed from the top downward and upholds an extension of the rights and powers of the centre in relation to the parts... Thus you have, in a different environment, the same struggle between the opportunist and the revolutionary wing of the Party on the question of organisation, the same conflict between autonomism and centralism, between democracy and 'bureaucracy', between the tendency to relax and the tendency to tighten organisation and discipline, between the mentality of the unstable intellectual and that of the staunch proletarian, between intellectualist individualism and proletarian solidarity."  Lenin, One Step Forward, Two Steps Back

Stalin took the question of bureaucracy and the struggle against it very seriously:

"If it were only a question of the old bureaucrats, the fight against bureaucracy would be very easy. The trouble is that it is not a matter of the old bureaucrats. It is a matter of the new bureaucrats, bureaucrats who sympathise with the Soviet Government, and finally, communist bureaucrats. The communist bureaucrat is the most dangerous type of bureaucrat. Why? Because he masks his bureaucracy with the title of Party member."  Stalin, Thirteenth Conference of the R.C.P.(B)

Stalin neither hid the facts of bureaucracy nor was he a utopian. He did not just point to the question but pointed to the solution:

"Lenin's slogan about the cultural revolution. The surest remedy for bureaucracy is raising the cultural level of the workers and peasants. One can curse and denounce bureaucracy in the state apparatus, one can stigmatize and pillory bureaucracy in our practical work, but unless the masses of the workers reach a certain level of culture, which will create the possibility, the desire, the ability to control the state apparatus from below, by the masses of the workers themselves, bureaucracy will continue to exist in spite of everything."  Stalin, The Fifteenth Congress of the C.P.S.U.(B.)

In this respect, for the initiated — the bureau named "Complaints Bureau":

"The work of the Complaints Bureaus is of tremendous importance in the struggle to remove shortcomings in our Party, Soviet, economic, trade-union and Komsomol apparatuses, in improving our administrative apparatus.

Lenin said that without an apparatus we should have perished long ago, and that without a systematic, stubborn struggle to improve the apparatus we should certainly perish. This means that resolute and systematic struggle against conservatism, bureaucracy and red tape in our apparatus is an essential task of the Party, the working class and all the working people of our country.

The tremendous importance of the Complaints Bureaus consists in their being a serious means of carrying out Lenin's behest concerning the struggle to improve the apparatus."  Stalin, The Importance and Tasks of the Complaints-Bureaus

The Revolutionary Perspective — From Bureaucracy to Self-Administration

In conclusion, aside from a few criticism and self-criticism writings on the question, most writings are bourgeois and revisionist, anarchist, anti-Marxist writings banking on the ignorance and lack of historical and theoretical knowledge of the masses. Or they are at best utopian, anarchist writings by those who believe that after the political revolution, society will be transformed into communist society overnight.

In the proletarian state, representative organs are real working institutions, built and acting as "a working body, executive and legislative at the same time."

"Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."  Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program

"The political system of 'socialist self-administration' has not only nothing in common with the dictatorship of the proletariat but is even opposed to it."  Enver Hoxha, Yugoslav "Self-Administration" — Capitalist Theory and Practice.

Preparing the economic foundations for the withering away of the state is a precondition, so is the "economic foundations for the withering away of bureaucracy."

"The economic foundations for the withering away of the state' — in this case we also have the 'economic foundations' for the withering away of bureaucracy."  Lenin, Plan of The Pamphlet, The Tax in Kind

Anarchist and revisionist cries over "bureaucracy" are historically anti-Marxist, disguised with insidious right and/or left deviations. As Stalin noted at his 13th Conference speech:

"Trotsky affirms that groups arise because of the bureaucratic regime instituted by the Central Committee, and that if there were no bureaucratic regime, there would be no groups either. This is an un-Marxist approach, comrades. Groups arise, and will continue to arise, because we have in our country the most diverse forms of economy—from embryonic forms of socialism down to medievalism. That in the first place. Then we have the NEP, that is, we have allowed capitalism, the revival of private capital and the revival of the ideas that go with it, and these ideas are penetrating into the Party. That in the second place. And, in the third place, our Party is made up of three component parts: there are workers, peasants and intellectuals in its ranks. These then, if we approach the question in a Marxist way, are the causes why certain elements are drawn from the Party for the formation of groups, which in some cases we must remove by surgical action, and in others dissolve by ideological means, through discussion."  Stalin, Thirteenth Conference of the R.C.P.(B)

In almost all cases, the outcry against bureaucracy by either left or right opportunists ends up supporting and defending bureaucracy in a different form.

Enver Hoxha, in his Memoirs from my Meetings with Stalin, wrote:

"The enemies of communism, ranging from international bourgeois reaction down to the Khrushchevites and all the other revisionists, have striven with every means to blacken and distort all the virtues, pure thoughts and just actions of this great Marxist-Leninist, and to discredit the first socialist state set up by Lenin and Stalin. With great cunning the Khrushchevites, these new disciples of Trotsky, Bukharin, Zinoviev and Tukhachevsky incited conceit and the feeling of superiority in those who had taken part in the war. They encouraged privileges for the élite, opened the way to bureaucracy and 'liberalism' in the party and the state, violated the true revolutionary norms, and gradually managed to implant the defeatist spirit among the people."  Enver Hoxha, Memoirs from my Meetings with Stalin

Conclusion

Marxist-Leninists are not utopians to believe that bureaucracy will wither away overnight by force. They do take the necessary steps to fight against it and prepare the conditions for its withering away.

One of the first steps, as Lenin puts it:

"Bureaucrats are reduced to the position of simple agents; from a privileged group holding 'jobs' remunerated on a high, bourgeois scale, they become workers of a special 'arm of the service', whose remuneration does not exceed the ordinary pay of a competent worker."  Lenin, The Dual Power

One cannot and should not take the question of "bureaucracy" in the same manner, same context, or within the same basket as one would in a capitalist country. As long as the state — army and similar institutions — exists, "bureaucracy" will continue to exist in the service of politics, but not in a capitalist context.

With the withering away of the state, the bureaucracy will also wither away.

The bourgeoisie's attack on the socialist state takes two forms: the institutional and the personal. In Part 9, we examined the weaponization of 'bureaucracy' — the claim that socialist states are inherently bureaucratic and therefore 'undemocratic.' In Part 10, we examine the complementary weapon: the 'cult of personality' accusation — the claim that socialist leaders are power-hungry autocrats who cultivate personal adoration. The first attacks the state; the second attacks the leader. Both serve the same function: to discredit the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Part 10 - Cult of Personality – through Personal attacks on leaders

Question of “cult of personality” in socialist systems- as capitalist propaganda- embraced by the left.

This article argues that the 'cult of personality' accusation is a weapon of bourgeois ideological warfare used to attack the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is not a critique—it is an attack on the unity of will, discipline, and authoritative leadership that socialism requires. To start with, the term "cult of personality" is not a Marxist-Leninist concept. It has no basis in dialectical materialism. It is a bourgeois psychological category projected onto socialist systems. Marxism-Leninism analyzes society through classes, productive forces, and relations of production, not through individual psychology. The term "cult" belongs to religious or psychological discourse,  not to scientific socialism. Its use in political analysis is a category error: it applies a non-class framework to a class-based analysis.  The bourgeoisie uses the term because they cannot analyze socialism on its own terms. They lack the dialectical method. So they reduce socialism to individual behavior, psychology, and "power hunger." The bourgeoisie cannot refute socialism scientifically, so they attack it with psychological labels.

Our argument is that the "cult of personality" accusation is a weapon of ideological warfare used to attack the dictatorship of the proletariat. Because the dictatorship of the proletariat requires unity of will, discipline, and authoritative leadership. This is not a deviation — it is the essence of proletarian power. Leaders are not "cultivated" but earned through decades of struggle. That’s why the accusation is a projection of the chief accuser, Trotsky, who  fits the definition of "cult of personality well." The accusation serves imperialism. The correct response is to expose it as a weapon — not debate it defensively.

Part One: Thesis — The Accusation as Ideological Warfare

The accusation is not a relic of the Cold War. It is actively used today to discredit socialist states, create confusion among leftists, and provide cover for capitalist propaganda. Understanding the function of this accusation is essential for defending socialism.

Section 1: The Accusation and Its Function

The use of the term "cult of personality" is not a critique but a weapon.

Socialist systems are constantly accused of cultivating "personality cults". The application of "Personality cult" to socialist systems is nothing but cheap propaganda by capitalists as part of "ideological warfare". Leaders become leaders due to their leadership quality, knowledge, and expertise gained through decades of struggle in the service of the people. Unlike capitalist political democracy theater every 4, 5 years, in socialist systems leadership is a lifetime responsibility because such leaders don't come about very often.

The accusation is directed primarily at Stalin, but indirectly at all socialist leaders. 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, in the era of ideological warfare, the approach to the “concepts” with a bourgeois or bourgeois influenced perspective is an inevitable outcome for most. It is not a coincidence that Stalin, whose multiple resignation attempts were denied and, in this sense, literally forced to continue his duty as the party leader. Yet, all the demagoguery and discussions of the “personality cult” are directed to him primarily, but to all the other socialist leaders indirectly. The bourgeoisie has a century of experience, expertise, and skills in creating confusion, distracting attention from the core subjects, and having the left itself disseminate its insidious argument. They throw the bait, and the naïve fish bites it.  

The bourgeoisie projects its own values onto socialism with the use of non-Marxist bourgeois terminology.

One cannot look at a socialist Party and leadership questions with a capitalist perspective. Marxist-Leninists struggle for the establishment of a dictatorship. It is an oxymoron to be against (what the capitalists call) "dictator" in socialist countries because it is not "capital-implanted "leader" but a "party-elected" and people-approved leader. It is a lifetime position as long as he/she has the best qualities to lead, serves the cause best, and is elected by the party each time. Leadership counts. You don't see the corporations changing their leaders every 4-5 years. In socialist democracy leadership, previous/historical service, (theoretical and practical) knowledge, experience, and expertise, together with the trust of the Party and the masses, counts more than anything else.

The target for the arguments of “personality cult” is first and foremost the “dictatorship of the proletariat” - or better to say, “workers and peasants democracy” and its leaders.

From a bourgeois perspective, every man is “power” greedy and out for himself and for bettering himself and creating a “popularity”, a “cult of personality,”  because it is “human nature”. Every man wants to be rich and powerful, has a tendency to “own” more and more, and 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-possible possibility of individuals who are idealists 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.

Lenin was clear on the necessity of professional revolutionaries:

 "without a dozen talented (and talents are not born in hundreds), tested, professionally trained and long-term school trained leaders, who perfectly seasoned through working with each other, a steadfast struggle of not a single class is possible in modern society" . Lenin, What Is To Be Done?

To understand why this accusation is a weapon, we must understand what it attacks: the dictatorship of the proletariat itself.

Part Two: Antithesis — The Scientific Clarification

Section 2: The Dictatorship of the Proletariat

Marxism-Leninism explains leadership through the concept of dictatorship of the proletariat—not individual psychology. The target of the arguments of 'personality cult' is first and foremost the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' and its leaders.

A- Party and Leadership as dictatorship

 The posts and articles on the subject usually state without any reference that: "Lenin’s writings consistently opposed personal glorification, reinforcing the principle that the Party, not individuals, embodies proletarian power." Although the context is correct, the fact is the Party is not an abstract organization; it is made up of individuals -professional revolutionaries and leaders.   Lenin's approach to the Party,  the Central Committee, and the General Secretary was not a "bourgeois Liberal" perspective but a "dictatorial" nature of structure and action since it was a "dictatorship of the proletariat".  Lenin states that  

"the will of a class is sometimes carried out by a dictator who alone sometimes does more and is often more necessary" (Lenin, "Left-Wing" Childishness). 

And continues in the same article:

"The will of tens and hundreds of thousands can be expressed in one person. This complex will be worked out in a Soviet way.

We need more discipline, more unity, and more dictatorship. Without this, one cannot even dream of a great victory...” (Lenin, "Left-Wing" Childishness).

Marxist Leninists are not after a "bourgeois democracy" but a "dictatorship of the proletariat". That's why the concept of "dictator" and "dictatorship" is not alien to them. The bourgeoisie, with their experience and skills, use the term "Cult of personality" in equal meaning as "dictator", by means of which attacks the "dictatorship". 

On this subject 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. “

"... 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, “Dual” Subordination and Legality.

B- Personal Dictatorship and Soviets

As Molotov puts it and quotes Lenin: “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.

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.”

Lenin was very clear on the subject:

"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, Report on the Work of the Council of People's Commissars

On another article: 

 “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. Lenin, The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government

C- Molotov debunks the counterarguments

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, Speech at the First All-Russian Congress of Trade Unions

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, Letter to E. M. Alexandrova

D- Individual personality and Party work

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).

Molotov asks the question and responds: 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 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.

"The task of strictest separation... from the unquestioning fulfillment of all the instructions of the leader." (Lenin, The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government)

This dictatorship is not exercised by an abstraction. It is exercised by leaders who have earned their authority through decades of struggle.

Section 3: Leadership and Authority in Socialism

Marxism-Leninism recognizes the role of outstanding individuals in history—not because they are "supermen," but because they have the capacity to organize and lead the masses in revolutionary struggle. Lenin emphasized with all his might the role of revolutionary leaders as organizers of the masses: Outstanding personalities... can play a serious role in society as organizers, leaders of the masses, who understand events more deeply and see further than others.

Leadership in socialism is structured through democratic centralism—elected leadership that unifies the will of the Party. "Democratic centralism lies in the fact that the congress checks the Central Committee, dismisses it, and elects a new one." Lenin, Ninth Congress of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks))

The term 'cult of personality' is a bourgeois import into socialist analysis. It cannot be found in the writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, or Stalin. Why? Because the term has no scientific basis. It reduces class phenomena to individual psychology. It treats leadership as a matter of personal vanity rather than historical necessity. It denies the possibility of professional revolutionaries who serve the people selflessly.

The bourgeoisie cannot refute socialism on its own terms. It cannot deny the success of socialist construction, the defeat of fascism, or the liberation of oppressed peoples. So it attacks socialism with psychological labels—'cult of personality,' 'authoritarianism,' 'dictatorship.' These are not critiques. They are weapons.

Some left, biting the bait of the bourgeoisie,  shout: “Dictatorship of the Proletariat is not Personality cult!.”  It depends on what one understands from the concept of “personality cult”; is it a manufactured, created, manipulated one like in the capitalist countries,  or an earned one without having an intention to have, and constantly going against praises of him, even blocking the publishing of such books. Does the “cult of personality” mean, is being used to define a “dictator”?  Then it is, within context and in practice, wrong because proletarian dictatorship means dictatorship of the Central Committee and of the General Secretary (elected by the Congress). It is not a bourgeois democracy; it is a centralized governing body.

The  socialist leaders are not "cultivated" but earned that position through their service to the Party, revolution, and socialism. They  become leaders due to their leadership quality, knowledge, and expertise gained through decades of struggle in the service of the people."

Let’s start with Lenin’s statement about bourgeois revolutionaries (in his article about the Kautskyites and Trotskyites who are the “mastermind " behind the question we will be discussing). He states:

"One cannot be a Marxist without feeling the deepest respect for the great bourgeois revolutionaries who had an historic right to speak for their respective bourgeois 'fatherlands', and, in the struggle against feudalism, led tens of millions of people in the new nations towards a civilised life.” The Collapse of the Second International

Now let’s apply this to the Communist leaders who led the antifascist, anti-imperialist, anti-colonial wars, socialist revolutions and played an important role in defeating the enemy and carried their people to victory. Can there be any doubt that anyone who does not feel such respect and admiration for those leaders could be considered a Marxist-Leninist?  Can anyone who does not have any respect for Lenin, Stalin, Enver Hoxha, Kim Jong Il, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, Che Guevara, Sankara and all others be a Marxist-Leninist?

The point is that all the socialist and revolutionary leaders earned the respect and trust of the people with their theory and practice. That is not “cult of personality,” which means promoting oneself to create an idealized, heroic, public image of a leader; they have earned it whether they wanted it or not. They have not gained those with their capital using the mass media, propaganda, and other means: they have earned it.

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, making it possible to correctly understand and evaluate the role of leaders, organizers, initiators, and 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 more deeply and see further than others. Leaders gain authority through real successes in raising the living standards of the people. People trust leaders because they have proven themselves.

Exposing the petty-bourgeois, reformist, 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.” Lenin, Preface to the Russian Translation of Karl Kautsky’s Pamphlet: The Driving Forces and Prospects of the Russian Revolution

Lenin stressed the fact  that "the revolution will put forward a collective organizational talent, without which millions of proletarian armies cannot achieve their victory."

Unlike the "bourgeois propaganda influenced" perspective that the "leader" is not important,  Lenin, in contrast, points out that :

...people..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's “Speech In Memory Of Y. M. Sverdlov At A Special Session Of The All-Russia Central Executive Committee

Lenin himself, in the article about “Borba Group”, wasn't warning against his own glorification (cult of personality) ; he was ironically mocking his opponents for utilizing what he viewed as a pompous, dramatic, and non-Marxist phrase to complain about leadership dynamics. He stated;

"They have now published a printed 'declaration,' complaining of our 'undemocratic' attitude and campaigning even... against a ' personality cult '! As a man of experience, you will grasp what is at the bottom of it all from this one unparalleled and peerless word."

Similarly, looking at the Archived documents and history of the Soviets, we can say that Stalin was aware of a similar setup against him to be used when the time was ripe (and that is what exactly happened).

Let’s briefly look at the history;
On Lenin’s motion, the Plenum of the Central Committee, on April 3, 1922, Stalin was elected as the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU at the 11th Congress of the Party.

Stalin’s first attempt at resignation from the post of General Secretary was at a meeting of the Central Committee after the 13th Congress, held in May 1924. His resignation was rejected unanimously by all the delegations, including Trotsky.  It is important to present here a quote from Stalin’s speech 3 years later at a CC meeting :

"It is said that in that “will” Comrade Lenin suggested to the congress that in view of Stalin’s “rudeness” it should consider the question of putting another comrade in Stalin’s place as General Secretary. That is quite true.

Yes, comrades, I am rude to those who grossly and perfidiously wreck and split the Party. I have never concealed this and do not conceal it now. Perhaps some mildness is needed in the treatment of splitters, but I am a bad-hand (not good at being mild -liberal or gentle-opportunist) at that.

At the very first meeting of the plenum of the Central Committee after the Thirteenth Congress, I asked the plenum of the Central Committee to release me from my duties as General Secretary. The congress itself discussed this question. It was discussed by each delegation separately, and all the delegations unanimously, including Trotsky, Kamenev and Zinoviev, obliged Stalin to remain at his post.

What could I do? Desert my post? That is not in my nature; I have never deserted any post, and I have no right to do so, for that would be desertion. As I have already said before, I am not a free agent, and when the Party imposes an obligation upon me, I must obey.

A year later I again put in a request to the plenum to release me, but I was again obliged to remain at my post. What else could I do?”

On 27 December 1926, he wrote to Sovnarkom Chairman Alexei Rykov saying: ‘I ask you to release me from the post of Central Committee General Secretary. I affirm that I can no longer work at this post, that I’m in no condition to work any longer at this post.’  It was rejected.

He made a similar attempt at resignation on 19 December 1927. It was rejected.

The last attempt to resign was in 1952, about five months before Stalin’s death, during a meeting of the Central Committee where he urged the Central Committee to relieve him of his duties. This too was rejected.

For any objective observer, who, never mind the dialectics of Marxism, using bourgeois logic, can claim that a person who is after a “personality cult” would attempt to resign 4 times in his life? The answer is no, because the attack on Stalin under the “pretext of a non-Marxist, bourgeois term “personality cult”, the main target of the accusers is the proletarian dictatorship-socialism.

We can defend Stalin not in a subjective defensive way, but by the theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the Communist  Party, and the authoritative role of the CC and the GS in the dictatorship. Stalin earned the trust, love, and respect of the people not only in Russia but all over the world.

As always, the bourgeois liberals and the Trotskyites may come up with a spin that Stalin's resignation attempts could have been tactical—a performance to demonstrate loyalty.  Four resignation attempts over 28 years, including in 1952 when he was dying, is not a tactic. It is evidence of a man who sought to serve the Party, not to accumulate power."

In Socialism, the leader is not a separate identity from the Party. The leader embodies the Party's will. An attack on the leader is an attack on the Party itself. An attack on the Party is an attack on the system, which is the main target in the “ideological warfare”.

Section 4: The Unity of Party and Leader

Socialism requires unity of will in the service of the people. "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."

Marxism-Leninism understands the leader not as a separate "personality" but as the embodiment of the Party's will. The authority of socialist leaders among the people acquired over the years is the same authority of the Party among the people.

Stalin himself, in his speech at the 16th Congress, stated:

'I am not a free agent, and when the Party imposes an obligation upon me, I must obey.' Stalin, Speech at the 16th Congress

This is not the language of a man seeking power. It is the language of a revolutionary serving the Party.

Enver Hoxha, another target of the 'personality cult' accusation, stated:

 “The Party is not an abstraction. It is composed of individuals who have proven themselves in struggle. An attack on the Party's leaders is an attack on the Party itself." Enver Hoxha, various speeches

Kim Il Sung is another frequent target of the accusation:

"The leader is the heart of the Party. The Party is the heart of the people. The people are the heart of the leader. This is not a cult—it is the organic unity of the revolutionary movement." Kim Il Sung, various speeches

Party and its leaders form an inseparable unity. Its Leadership is the expression of the Party. The leader embodies the Party's unity of will. The authority of our leaders among the people acquired over the years is the same authority of the Party among the people. This is not "cult"; it is discipline, reiterating Mayakovsky: "The Party and Lenin are twin brothers". In this sense, an attack on party leaders invested with its confidence is in fact an attack on the Party itself. That is why the bourgeoisie attacks party leaders to attack the Party. This is the mechanism of ideological warfare in dialectical connection end up in attacking the proletarian dictatorship- democracy of and for the laboring people.

Now we must expose the hypocrisy of the accusers — starting with the chief accuser himself.

Part Three: Synthesis — The Weapon Exposed

Section 5: The Hypocrisy of the Accusers

The chief accuser of 'personality cult' was himself seeking attention and popularity. Leon Trotsky's background reveals a man who fits the definition of a 'personality cult' far better than Stalin ever did.

Unlike the common view of common people (of course that of bourgeois liberals and Trotskyites), as Lenin explained, 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.

Looking at history and publicly available documents, the chief accuser of "personality cult" was himself seeking attention and popularity. One has to study Trotsky in relation to this subject; he was captured on April 3, 1917, in Halifax, with $10,000 (some arresting official records claim $20,000)  in his pocket. He was released on April 29, 1917; he arrived in Russia on May 7, 1917. That is around $260,000 now. Considering that the average annual income of a Russian worker then was $ 45 to $ 90, Trotsky had with him 111 to 222 workers’ annual salaries in his pocket. There is still no information in the latest declassified documents on how he spent that money. It is argued that it was Kerensky who vouched for him, and the British released him (very little documentation is available on that)

Kerensky government issued arrest warrants for Lenin, Zinoviev, and Lev Kamenev, but not for Trotsky.  Ironically, Trotsky wrote a public letter to Kerensky, demanding to be arrested and claiming that he was as dangerous as they were. A quote from the letter:

“Citizen Ministers! I am informed that the arrest warrants... extend to comrades Lenin, Zinoviev, Kamenev, but not to me. Accordingly, I consider it necessary to bring to your attention... I share the principled position of Lenin, Zinoviev, and Kamenev..." Trotsky’s “Letter to the Provisional Government”

Contrary to the fallacy that Trotsky was a Bolshevik, he became a member of the Party when he was in prison via the small organization, “Interdistrict,” most members of which became members of the Bolshevik Party.

Now, if we look at the definition of “personality cult,” these, and the entire life of Trotsky, fit in the search for one.

"The hypocrisy of the accusers reveals the function of the accusation. It is not a critique — it is a weapon."

Section 6: The Weapon's Function

A- The accusation serves imperialism because it attacks the dictatorship of the proletariat. It creates confusion among naive leftists; it provides cover for capitalist propaganda. "The target for the arguments of 'personality cult' is first and foremost the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' and its leaders."

The approach to and constant repetition of the question of "the cult of personality" in reference to a socialist country is nothing but a by-product of the "ideological warfare" between capitalism and socialism. That's why the repetition does not clarify the question but serves the interests of the bourgeois liberals and Trotskyites. It is a defensive act rather than the correct approach, which is to expose the fallacy of the claim. 

B- The correct defense: We can defend Stalin not in a subjective defensive way, but by the theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the Communist  Party, and the authoritative role of the CC and the GS in the dictatorship. Stalin earned the trust, love, and respect of the people not only in Russia but all over the world.

The bourgeoisie, with their experience and skills, use the term 'Cult of personality' in equal meaning as 'dictator', by means of which attacks the 'dictatorship'. Unfortunately, the approach of most left to the subject of "personality cult" in the Communist Party is a typical one with the lens and influence of bourgeois propaganda.

C- The Philistine Objection Refuted:  In addition to the naïve leftists, the philistines and sophists base their arguments on Marx’s comment that "The emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself..." and supposedly from Engels: socialism must be “a movement of the working class itself” and not dependent on “individual saviors.” According to these philistines, cherry-picked without its context, 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 a party, professional revolutionaries, and leaders.

The preceding quotes from Lenin respond to this consciously repeated misconception.  Let's take Marx-Engels' statement in context and translate it into a Marxist-Leninist perspective: movement of the masses by itself is a "spontaneous movement" and bound to fail.  This is precisely what the bourgeoisie wants.

The subject is not a debate about personality. It is a debate about class power.

Section 7: Conclusion

The "cult of personality" accusation is a weapon of ideological warfare. It is a weapon of attacking the dictatorship of the proletariat,  denying the possibility of professional revolutionaries whose only will is to serve the laboring people. In reality, the argument exposes the bourgeois psychology of self-interest and the cultivation of “personal cults”  in capitalist countries with the use of capital and the means of mind management.

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 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.

As Molotov stated, 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, 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 as all other prominent figures of the party and state - Molotov, Voroshilov, Kirov, Ordzhonikidze, Kaganovich, Mikoyan, Khrushchev, Kalinin, and others. Lenin, the leader and founder of the 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 that:

 "... The masses decide, who, if a small number of people do not approach them, ... do not treat this small number too politely". Lenin, Left-Wing Communism — An Infantile Disorder

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, the 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.

Leninist 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. In reality, Mayakovsky summarized the entire subject in a Socialist Country with his words;

"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.

The term 'cult of personality' is not a Marxist-Leninist category. It is a bourgeois weapon. By using it, even leftists concede to bourgeois terminology—they accept the terms of the debate rather than exposing its false foundations. The correct response is not to debate the accusation defensively but to expose the weapon for what it is: a non-Marxist, bourgeois label designed to discredit the dictatorship of the proletariat.

The 'cult of personality' accusation is part of the same ideological warfare we have examined in previous articles—the confusion between socialism and communism, and the weaponization of bourgeois terminology against socialist states. The defense of socialist leadership is the defense of socialism itself.

That is not “personality cult”, that is the factual reality of great leadership serving the interests of the proletarian dictatorship.

We call on all Marxists-Leninists to expose the 'cult of personality' accusation for what it is: a weapon of bourgeois ideological warfare. Defend the leaders of socialist countries. Recognize the unity of Party and leader. Expose the hypocrisy of the accusers."

The 'bureaucracy' accusation attacks socialist institutions. The 'cult of personality' accusation attacks socialist leaders. But both are preparatory — they set the stage for the ultimate weapon: the claim that socialism has 'failed.' If socialist states are bureaucratic, if their leaders are cultists, then their collapse is inevitable. This is the narrative of restoration. And it relies on a deliberate confusion: the substitution of 'failure' for 'defeat.' In Part 11, we expose this final weapon.

Part 11- Restoration of Capitalism-"Failure" vs. "defeat"

On Restoration of Capitalism

“Only blockheads or masked enemies who with their boastfulness want to conceal their hostility and are striving to demobilize the people, can deny the danger of military intervention and attempts at restoration as long as the capitalist encirclement exists.” Stalin, On the Final Victory of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.

“We are living not merely in a State but in a system of States, and it is inconceivable that the Soviet Republic should continue to coexist for a long period side by side with imperialist States. Ultimately one or other must conquer “. Lenin, 8th Party Congress

The question of “Restoration of Capitalism” in countries where the “dictatorship of Proletariat”- commonly called socialism  “reigned, with few exceptions, so far has been dealt with a bourgeois and Trotskyite- bourgeois lackeys under left disguise – outlook.

Undoubtedly, there are a number of studies conducted and efforts made to reveal the material, economic and class basis of corruption. But in my opinion, none of this has been sufficient. In this book, I want to make a complimentary contribution to eliminate this deficiency.

It is crucially important to study the question of “restoration” in all its aspects. However, it is crucially important to bear in mind and make the dialectical connection with the facts and the related theories. Yesil considers the economic aspect of the question as the most neglected. As far as a sincere Marxist Leninists study of the individual aspects of the question for the “lessons learned”, he may well be right. However, as a whole, the most neglected, overlooked or consciously disregarded aspects of the question in core is related to the continuing class struggle within the socialist country and with the “capitalist encirclement “abroad. The struggle within against the right and left deviation, and struggle without, against the international capitalist pressure, economic and political blockade in combination plays a decisive role in the process of restoration. Cuba, which has been subjected to economic and political blockade for 60 years is a good example for this - by taking back steps and forward steps in order not to be defeated. The study of the “defeat” - Restoration of capitalism” in Soviet Russia cannot be objective without basing the study on the class struggle within and without and without considering the concrete conditions and situations within those periods; the world war, civil war, famine, plots of counter revolutionaries in aligned with fascist Germany and other imperialists, second world war. One cannot study a question objectively without making the distinction between positive concrete conditions and negative conditions both of which will have different impact on and implications of the application of the economic and social programs. We cannot study a subject with the current or assumed “normal” conditions and mind-set of “now” while the question is related to the conditions and mind-set of “then”. There is no possible way of knowing the exact conditions and thereupon, mind-set of “then” with the second or third hand plus knowledge of “now” related to then. That’s why Marxist Leninists try their best to be objective and study the question as a whole with all the dialectic connections to it. Bourgeoisie and revisionist counter revolutionaries search and handpick the aspects of the question disconnected and isolated from the whole aspects of the question in order to present a conclusion of “inherent failure of socialism “as a system.

Bourgeoisie portrays the question as the “failure” of socialism as a political and economic system. By doing so they try to create the illusion that capitalism is “eternal” because there is no other alternative economic system.  The choice of word “failure” is not a coincidental one. Failure implies not succeeding in the achievement of intended objective, in this case, the lack of “inherent” ability for success, it does not imply being beaten in a struggle. Due to this lack of inherent ability, “failure” suggests giving up and not trying again.

 “Defeat” implies being beaten in a struggle and it is not an end in itself. That’s why the bourgeoisie and variety of Trotskyites use the term or concludes “failure”.

What should be bored in mind is that;

1-     Socialism has not “failed” but been” defeated”.

2-     “Restoration of capitalism “has never been seen as “impossible” by Marxist Leninists. Contrary, the danger and possibility of restoration have always been seen as inevitable in small-peasant countries in particular, and as long as the capitalist encirclement existed in general.

3-     The reasons for the restoration should not be studied “domestically”-internal class struggle- alone but in relation with the “international capitalists” - external class struggle.  A study without this dialectic connection will end up either blaming all to the “internal” mistakes! or justifying, overlooking the “internal mistakes.”

4-     Similarly, approach to the bureaucracy - as the scapegoat for restoration – should not be taken as something existence of which is impossible in Socialist Society- the lower phase of communism, but like the state, as a phenomenon which will wither away during the transition to communist society. It is not something that could be avoided but controlled.

 I will not be dwelling on the bourgeois insidious use of the term “fail” in order to dismiss socialism as an alternative to capitalism. However, their servile Trotskyite approach, which purposely disregards the above-mentioned facts is not so much different than that of bourgeoisie for it denies socialism and postpones the revolutions to an indefinite date.

It is beneficial to study the subject in the field of Bureaucracy and Economy. However, this should be done  by stressing the fact that this is not the only and main reason in isolation from the class struggle in general  and from the struggle against  the “right” and “left deviation” in the party in particular.  Due to the same consequence kinship between the two deviations, the victory of either one or both will inevitably lay ground for and eventually  bring about the defeat of socialism and restoration of capitalism.

Right deviation underestimates the enemy, the danger of capitalist restoration, and fails to understand the nature of the class struggle under the proletarian dictatorship. As Stalin states in his reply;

“ I said plainly in my speech that the Right deviation "underestimates the strength of capitalism" in our country, "does not see the danger of the restoration of capitalism," "does not understand the mechanism of the class struggle," "and therefore so readily agrees to make concessions to capitalism." I said plainly in my speech that "the triumph of the Right deviation in our Party" would "increase the chances of the restoration of capitalism in our country." Stalin, Reply to Comrade Sh.

On the other side of the kinship, left deviation’s overestimating the forces of enemy, underestimating the possibility of and denial of socialism in one country and underestimating the importance of, and animosity to the peasantry, to the  rest of the laboring masses is a tendency that weakens the proletarian dictatorship. As Stalin pointed out;

 “As to the "Left," Trotskyist, deviation, I said plainly in my speech that it denies the possibility of building socialism in our country, rejects the idea of an alliance of the working class and the peasantry, and is prepared to carry out its fantastic plan of industrialization at the cost of a split with the peasantry. I said in my speech (if you have read it) that "the triumph of the 'Left' deviation in our Party would lead to the working class being separated from its peasant base to the vanguard of the working class being separated from the rest of the working-class masses, and, consequently, to the defeat of the proletariat and to facilitating conditions for the restoration of capitalism." " Stalin, Reply to Comrade Sh.

Stalin, in a Letter to Kaganovich and Molotov criticizing Pravda on the trial says;

“They should have said that talk that the Zinovievites and Trotskyites have no platform is a fraud on the part of these scum and a self-deception by our comrades. These scums had a platform. The gist of their platform was the defeat of socialism in the USSR and the restoration of capitalism... As far back as the X party congress, Lenin said that if a faction or factions persist in their errors in their struggle against the party, under the Soviet system they will, without fail, slide down to the level of White Guardism, the defense of capitalism, a struggle against the Soviets, and must, without fail, merge with the enemies of Soviet rule. This proposition by Lenin has now been brilliantly confirmed.” Stalin, to Kaganovich and Molotov

During his 1938 trial, Bukharin stating that his followers organized a conference at the end of the summer of 1932 in where anticommunist, counter revolutionary bourgeois platform was approved, said “I fully agreed with this platform and I bear full responsibility for it.”  Moscow Court Proceedings

At the same Court proceedings Vyshinsky had summarized the role and consequences of deviations ;

"It is not an accident because prior to the October Revolution as well, Trotsky and his friends fought against Lenin and Lenin's Party as they fight now against Stalin and the Party of Lenin and Stalin.

They come to their shameful end because they have followed this role for many years, have sung the praises of capitalism and have lacked faith in the success of socialist construction and in the victory of socialism.

"That is why they come finally to develop a program of capitalist restoration. That is why they proceeded to betray and sell our native land." Vyshinsky, Court Proceedings

It is clear that the question of restoration is not only limited to one side of subject. Possible victory of the right or left deviation is a tendency that paves the way for the restoration of capitalism through strengthening the capitalist tendencies and weakening the socialist construction attempts in economy.”

 “Restoration of capitalism “has never been seen as “impossible” by Marxist Leninists.

“The revolution can defeat the bourgeoisie, can overthrow its power, even without the dictatorship of the proletariat. “ says Lenin, and follows; “but the revolution will be unable to crush the resistance of the bourgeoisie, to maintain its victory and to push forward to the final victory of socialism unless, at a certain stage in its development, it creates a special organ in the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat as its principal mainstay. " Lenin, The Proletarian Revolution, and the Renegade Kautsky

"The fundamental question of every revolution is the question of power." (Lenin.) Does this mean that all that is required is to assume power, to seize it? No, it does not. The seizure of power is only the beginning.” Stalin, The Foundation of Leninism

Therefore, the conquest of political power by the proletariat and the establishment of Proletarian Dictatorship is the precondition for the economic- socialist revolution and building socialist economy. The economic Policy   of the Proletarian dictatorship becomes the policy of transforming the capitalist (in some cases semi-feudal) economic foundation into a socialist foundation, whereby, at the same time laying the economic foundation for the protection and strengthening of the conquered political power. It is the policy of, as Lenin puts it “laying the economic foundation for the political gains of the Soviet state, or we shall lose them all" [1]  it was the policy of transition during the period when "capitalism has been smashed but socialism has not yet been built." [2] with the Policy of “NEP Russia will become socialist Russia." [3]

1- Lenin, The New Economic Policy, and The Tasks of The Political Education Departments
2- Lenin, Speech in Defense of The Tactics of The Communist International
3 -Lenin, Speech at A Plenary Session of The Moscow Soviet

Unlike the illusion that the class struggle will cease in the morning of conquering the Political Power Lenin points out that

“The dictatorship of the proletariat is not the end of the class struggle, but its continuation in new forms. The dictatorship of the proletariat is the class struggle of the proletariat, which has won victory and has seized political power, against the bourgeoisie, which although vanquished has not been annihilated, has not disappeared, has not ceased its resistance, has increased its resistance” Stalin, Concerning Questions of Leninism

In reference to the possibility of “restoration”, in a country such as Russia with a dominant peasant economy, “ Lenin's thesis “ says Stalin, “remains valid that "as long as we live in a small-peasant country, there is a surer economic basis for capitalism in Russia than for communism," and that, consequently, the danger of the restoration of capitalism is no empty phrase.“ Stalin, Industrialization of the country and the Right Deviation in the C.P.S.U.(B.)

 “Lenin says that so long as individual peasant economy, which engenders capitalists and capitalism, predominates in the country, the danger of a restoration of capitalism will exist. Clearly, so long as this danger exists there can be no serious talk of the victory of socialist construction in our country.” Stalin, Grain Procurements, and the Prospects for the Development of Agriculture

"The transition from capitalism to communism," says Lenin, "represents an entire historical epoch. Until this epoch has terminated, the exploiters inevitably cherish the hope of restoration, and this hope is converted into attempts at restoration. And after their first serious defeat. the overthrown exploiters -- who had not expected their overthrow, never believed it possible, never conceded the thought of it -- throw themselves with energy grown tenfold, with furious passion and hatred grown a hundredfold into the battle for the recovery of the 'paradise' of which they have been deprived, on behalf of their families, who had been leading such a sweet and easy life and whom now the 'common herd' is condemning to ruin and destitution (or to 'common' labour . . .). In the train of the capitalist exploiters follow the broad masses of the petty bourgeoisie, with regard to whom decades of historical experience of all countries testify that they vacillate and hesitate, one day marching behind the proletariat and the next day taking fright at the difficulties of the revolution; that they become panic stricken at the first defeat or semi-defeat of the workers, grow nervous, rush about, snivel, and run from one camp into the other." Stalin, The Foundation of Leninism

The question of restoration is not only a question of  “bureaucracy” but a question of setting up the economic foundation and creating the culture to root out all the causes for it – which is not a day struggle and work but a struggle that  extends through entire phase of transition from capitalism to communism – in its scientific meaning, the higher stage of communism. The struggle is not only from top down, but also from bottom up, a combined effort that relies on the change of people’s attitudes, habits, culture.

"You will have to go through 15, 20, 50 years of civil wars and international conflicts," Marx said to the workers, "not only to change existing conditions, but also to change yourselves and to make yourselves capable of wielding political power." (See Marx and Engels, Works, Vol. VIII, p. 506.)

Lenin says:

 "It will be necessary under the dictatorship of the proletariat to re-educate millions of peasants and small proprietors, hundreds of thousands of office employees, officials and bourgeois intellectuals, to subordinate them all to the proletarian state and to proletarian leadership, to overcome their bourgeois habits and traditions," just as we must " -- in a protracted struggle waged on the basis of the dictatorship of the proletariat -- re-educate the proletarians themselves, who do not abandon their petty bourgeois prejudices at one stroke, by a miracle, at the bidding of the Virgin Mary, at the bidding of a slogan, resolution or decree, but only in the course of a long and difficult mass struggle against mass petty-bourgeois influences." Lenin, Left-Wing' Communism, an Infantile Disorder

Against the revisionist illusion Lenin states that “the transformation into something new by no means eliminates the   old” in all aspects overnight, and “the economic foundations for the withering away of the state”: in this case we also have the “economic foundations” for the withering away of bureaucracy,” Lenin, Plan of The Pamphlet, The Tax in Kind

Hand picking one aspect of the question in a way that is dialectically broken off from all the rest of the aspects and studying it, will bound to end in wrong overall conclusions regardless of the correctness of the subject taken.

Leninism teaches that "the final victory of Socialism, in the sense of full guarantee against the restoration of bourgeois relations, is possible only on an international scale".  Resolution of the Fourteenth Conference of the CPSU

The reasons for the restoration should not be studied without the dialectic connection of “internal” and external class struggle.

“We have internal enemies. We have external enemies. This, comrades, must not be forgotten for a single moment.” Stalin, The Work of the April Joint Plenum of the Central Committee and Central Control Commission

The internal aspect of the question is related to the mutual relations of classes within the country. “The abolition of classes,” says Stalin, “is not achieved by the extinction of the class struggle, but by its intensification.” Stalin, The Results of the First Five-Year Plan

The class struggle continues under the proletarian dictatorship although, in altered form. The political Power of Capitalism has been overthrown, replaced by the political power of proletarian and economic foundation for socialism is being built. However, capitalism is far from being uprooted. Especially in early stages it survives with the unavoidable existence of capitalist ideology, of the small producers and unorganized market relations, thus, so the possibilities of a restoration of capitalism. the proletarian dictatorship under the leadership of the Communist Party wages relentless war against the restoration of capitalist conditions, against the remnants of the capitalist system and takes the necessary steps to construct the foundations of the new social order. However, the bourgeoisie has its grounds for making attempts at restoration, because for a long time after its overthrow it remains stronger than the proletariat which has overthrown it. "If the exploiters are defeated in one country only," says Lenin, "and this, of course, is the typical case, since a simultaneous revolution in a number of countries is a rare exception, they still remain stronger than the exploited." Lenin, Can There Be Equality Between the Exploited and the Exploiter?

Unlike capitalism which has centuries of experience to draw lessons from, socialism is the first in the history of class society in which the state power is not of the few rich, but of the working masses. Conquering the political power will have to follow a long period of consolidating the rule of working class – the proletarian dictatorship. As for the weakness and yet power of the working class as the ruling class, Stalin states;

“as regards promoting the cultural powers of the working class, developing in it the faculty of administering the country in connection with the carrying out of the slogan of self-criticism Lenin said:

"The chief thing we lack is culture, ability to administer.  ... Economically and politically, N E P fully ensures us the possibility of laying the foundation of a socialist economy. It is 'only' a matter of the cultural forces of the proletariat and of its vanguard."

What does this mean? It means that one of the main tasks of our constructive work is to develop in the working class the faculty and ability to administer the country, to administer economy, to administer industry.

Can we develop this faculty and ability in the working class without giving full play to the powers and capacities of the workers, the powers, and capacities of the finest elements of the working class, for criticizing our errors, for detecting our shortcomings and for advancing our work? Obviously, we cannot.

And what is required in order to give full play to the powers and capacities of the working class and the working people generally, and to enable them to acquire the faculty of administering the country? It requires, above all, honest and Bolshevik observance of the slogan of self-criticism, honest and Bolshevik observance of the slogan of criticism from below of shortcomings and errors in our work. If the workers take advantage of the opportunity to criticise shortcomings in our work frankly and bluntly, to improve and advance our work, what does that mean? It means that the workers are becoming active participants in the work of directing the country, economy, industry. And this cannot but enhance in the workers the feeling that they are the masters of the country, cannot but enhance their activity, their vigilance, their culture.

This question of the cultural powers of the working class is a decisive one. Why? Because, of all the ruling classes that have hitherto existed, the working class, as a ruling class, occupies a somewhat special and not altogether favourable position in history. All ruling classes until now—the slave-owners, the landlords, the capitalists—were also wealthy classes. They were in a position to train their sons in the knowledge and faculties needed for government. The working class differs from them, among other things, in that it is not a wealthy class, that it was not able formerly to train in its sons the knowledge and faculty of government, and has become able to do so only now, after coming to power.” Stalin, The Work of the April Joint Plenum of the Central Committee and Central Control Commission

As for the additional advantage of capitalist Stalin asks the Question “Wherein lies the strength of the overthrown bourgeoisie.? “;

Firstly, "in the strength of international capital, in the strength and durability of the international connections of the bourgeoisie." “Left-Wing” Communism: An Infantile Disorder

Secondly, in the fact that "for a long time after the revolution the exploiters inevitably retain a number of great practical advantages: they still have money (it is impossible to abolish money all at once); some movable property -- often fairly considerable; they still have various connections, habits of organization and management, knowledge of all the 'secrets' (customs, methods, means and possibilities) of management, superior education, close connections with the higher technical personnel (who live and think like the bourgeoisie), incomparably greater experience in the art of war (this is very important), and so on, and so forth." The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky

Thirdly, "in the force of habit, in the strength of small production. For, unfortunately, small production is still very, very widespread in the world, and small production engenders capitalism and the bourgeoisie continuously, daily, hourly, spontaneously, and on a mass scale" . . . for "the abolition of classes means not only driving out the landlords and capitalists -- that we accomplished with comparative ease -- it also means abolishing the small commodity producers, and they cannot be driven out, or crushed; we must live in harmony with them, they can (and must) be remolded and re-educated only by very prolonged, slow, cautious organizational work." (Stalin, The Foundation of Leninism

 “The victory of socialism over capitalism and the consolidation of socialism “ Lenin states, “may be regarded as ensured only when the proletarian State, having completely suppressed all resistance on the part of the exploiters and secured complete stability for itself and complete obedience, reorganizes the whole of industry on the basis of large-scale collective production and on a modern technical basis (founded on the electrification of the whole of national economy). This alone will enable the towns to render such, radical assistance, technical and social, to the backward and scattered rural population as will create the material basis for enormously raising the productivity of agriculture, and of agricultural labour in general, thereby stimulating the small tillers of the soil by the force of example and in their own interests to adopt large-scale, collective mechanized agriculture." Lenin, Preliminary Draft of Theses on the Agrarian Question

Most bourgeois and revisionist so called “studies” take up the question disregarding the fact that peasantry and petty producers still plays a large role in the country.  "As long as we live in a petit-bourgeois country, “Lenin says, “capitalism has in Russia a stronger economic basis than communism" and that, “consequently, the danger of the restoration of capitalism is no empty phrase.” [3] “Lenin says that so long as individual peasant economy, which engenders capitalists and capitalism, predominates in the country, the danger of a restoration of capitalism will exist. Clearly, so long as this danger exists there can be no serious talk of the victory of socialist construction in our country.” Stalin, Grain Procurements, and the Prospects for the Development of Agriculture

3- Stalin, Industrialization of the country and the Right Deviation in the C.P.S.U.(B.)

In addition the existence of the division between mental and manual labor, inevitable distinguishing categories of managers and technicians apart from the working class as far as the differences in the nature of their work which brings about different life style, higher wages will always make the danger of the emergence of a new type of bourgeoisie and the attempts for and restoration of capitalism possible.

Right and or left deviations” whoever fights against the party and the government in the USSR stands for the defeat of socialism and the restoration of capitalism.” Stalin to Kaganovich and Molotov

The possibility is always there and will be there until the transition from socialism to communism which prerequisites the defeat of capitalism in world scale.

External Class Struggle

The international aspect of the question is related to the relations of proletarian dictatorship with capitalist countries. Under the conditions of two opposite systems there always will be the danger of armed aggression against the socialist country by imperialist Powers. As Lenin puts it;

 “We are living not merely in a State but in a system of States, and it is inconceivable that the Soviet Republic should continue to coexist for a long period side by side with imperialist States. Ultimately one or other must conquer “Lenin, Report at the Eighth Congress of the Russian Communist Party

Lenin was pointing out the internal and external enemies says; “now the bourgeoisie of the whole world are supporting the Russian bourgeoisie, and they are still ever so much stronger than we are.” The New Economic Policy and the Tasks of the Political Education Departments

 And “only blockheads or masked enemies who with their boastfulness want to conceal their hostility and are striving to demobilize the people, can deny the danger of military intervention and attempts at restoration as long as the capitalist encirclement exists.” Lenin, 8th Party Congress

Stalin, in his speech at the Seventh Enlarged Plenum of the E.C.C.I quotes from the Fourteenth Conference resolution in 1925 which summarizes the situation and the internal and external class struggle;

"Generally, the victory of socialism in one country (not in the sense of final victory) is unquestionably possible." And further:

". . . The existence of two directly opposite social systems gives rise to the constant menace of capitalist blockade, of other forms of economic pressure, of armed intervention, of restoration. Consequently, the only guarantee of the final victory of socialism, i.e., the guarantee against restoration, is a victorious socialist revolution in a number of countries. It by no means follows from this that it is impossible to build a complete socialist society in a backward country like Russia without the 'state aid' (Trotsky) of countries more developed technically and economically. An integral part of Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution is the assertion that 'real progress of a socialist economy in Russia will become possible only after the victory of the proletariat in the major European countries' (Trotsky, 1922)—an assertion which in the present period condemns the proletariat of the U.S.S.R. to fatalistic passivity. In opposition to such 'theories,' Comrade Lenin wrote: 'Infinitely hackneyed is the argument that they learned by rote during the development of West-European Social-Democracy, namely, that we are not yet ripe for socialism, that, as certain "learned" gentlemen among them express it, the objective economic prerequisites for socialism do not exist in our country' (Notes on Sukhanov)." (Resolution of the Fourteenth Conference of the R.C.P.(B.) on "The Tasks of the Comintern and the R.C.P.(B.) in Connection with the Enlarged Plenum of the E.C.C.I.”)

“the international bourgeoisie is filled with furious hatred of, and hostility towards, Soviet Russia, and is prepared at any moment to fling itself upon her in order to strangle her... In Russia, the big landowners and capitalists have not vanished, but they have been subjected to total expropriation and crushed politically as a class, whose remnants are hiding out among Soviet government employees. They have preserved their class organisation abroad, as émigrés, ... These émigrés are striving, with might and main, to destroy the Soviet power and restore capitalism in Russia... This being the internal situation in Russia, the main task now confronting her proletariat, as the ruling class, is properly to determine and carry out the measures that are necessary to lead the peasantry, establish a firm alliance with them and achieve the transition, in a series of gradual stages, to large-scale, socialised, mechanized agriculture.” Lenin, Third Congress of The Communist International

Taking the issue of “external “aspect of the question Stalin says;

“External conditions. We have assumed power in a country whose technical equipment is terribly backward. Along with a few big industrial units more or less based upon modern technology, we have hundreds and thousands of mills and factories the technical equipment of which is beneath all criticism from the point of view of modern achievements. At the same time, we have around us a number of capitalist countries whose industrial technique is far more developed and up to date than that of our country. Look at the capitalist countries and you will see that their technology is not only advancing, but advancing by leaps and bounds, outstripping the old forms of industrial technique. And so we find that, on the one hand, we in our country have the most advanced system, the Soviet system, and the most advanced type of state power in the world, Soviet power, while, on the other hand, our industry, which should be the basis of socialism and of Soviet power, is extremely backward technically. Do you think that we can achieve the final victory of socialism in our country so long as this contradiction exists?

What has to be done to end this contradiction? To end it, we must overtake and outstrip the advanced technology of the developed capitalist countries. We have overtaken and outstripped the advanced capitalist countries in the sense of establishing a new political system, the Soviet system. That is good. But it is not enough. In order to secure the final victory of socialism in our country, we must also overtake and outstrip these countries technically and economically. Either we do this, or we shall be forced to the wall.

This applies not only to the building of socialism. It applies also to upholding the independence of our country in the circumstances of the capitalist encirclement. The independence of our country cannot be upheld unless we have an adequate industrial basis for defense. And such an industrial basis cannot be created if our industry is not more highly developed technically.” Stalin, Industrialization of the country and the Right Deviation in the C.P.S.U.(B.)

Reiterating the possibility of restoration; "the final victory of Socialism, in the sense of full guarantee against the restoration of bourgeois relations, is possible only on an international scale" (9). Meaning the victory of socialism in one country does not guarantee the elimination of restoration, only the Final victory of socialism – defeat of capitalism in world scale can guarantee against the restoration.

Revisionist Views

Revisionist views seek to distort the scientific meaning of socialism and communism, the transition, and the continuing class struggle within and without and to disregard the actual circumstances of that given time. Most revisionist study of the question rests on or borrows from the Trotskyite so called “critique of Soviets which at best is based on economic determinism that takes the productive forces as primary and politics either as secondary or not important at all. For Marxist-Leninists approach to the question is inseparably connected both economically and politically in which the protection and strengthening of the dictatorship of the proletariat under the guidance of the Communist Party has tantamount importance.

With their perverted understanding of “socialism” and consciously created confusion between socialism and communism, revisionists proceed from the claim that socialism never existed in Soviet Russia and or could not have been built. With this understanding, bourgeoisie found accomplices in its struggle to restore capitalism within the party in the form of right and left deviations who promoted reckless and irresponsible policies. Right deviation, specifically the Bukharinist revisionists promoted conciliation with the bourgeoisie. The conciliation was to condemn any effort for the elimination of the capitalist classes and capitalist exploitation and to protect the kulak capitalist class in the rural areas and various capitalist elements in urban areas.

Although lately in decreasing number, some Trotskyite variations who claim Lenin to be a revisionist for he introduced the “state capitalism” in Russia, bank on the lack of theoretical knowledge of the masses. It is worth to quote Lenin on the subject which they distort in order to fit their agenda:

“The restoration of capitalism would mean the restoration of a proletarian class engaged in the production of socially useful material values in big factories employing machinery, and not in profiteering, not in making cigarette-lighters for sale, and in other “work” which is not very useful, but which is inevitable when our industry is in a state of ruin.

The whole question is who will take the lead. We must face this issue squarely—who will come out on top? Either the capitalists succeed in organising first—in which case they will drive out the Communists and that will be the end of it. Or the proletarian state power, with the support of the peasantry, will prove capable of keeping a proper rein on those gentlemen, the capitalists, so as to direct capitalism along state channels and to create a capitalism that will be subordinate to the state and serve the state. The question must be put soberly.” Lenin, The 1918 Decision of The All-Russia Central Executive Committee on The Role of The Peasantry

 It is no surprise that the Trotskyist, Ernest Mandel cheered the Krushevite coup after Stalin’s death  as revolutionary and  the restoration as “revolution against the counter revolution” later on, greeted the final collapse, the demolishing of Berlin wall as "the sudden access of hundreds of millions of men and women from the Eastern countries to political life."

CONCLUSION

Readers of the studies concerning the question should understand the fact that unlike capitalism with centuries old history and experience, socialism did not have previous experiences to draw lessons from.

That is why making “mistakes’ were plausible and admitted with self-criticism and followed by correction. The impression that most bourgeois writings in the subject try to give is that as if socialism had so many previous experiences to draw lessons from yet they have made and continued to make mistakes or mistakes are unavoidable due to the fact that socialism inherently does not work. Lenin was clear about the fact that having no previous experiment of socialism trial and error, criticism and self-criticism was utmost important.

“At the beginning of 1918” he said,” we expected a period in which peaceful construction would be possible... But we were mistaken, because in 1918 a real military danger overtook us in the shape of the Czechoslovak mutiny and the outbreak of civil war, which dragged on until 1920.... we made the mistake of deciding to go over directly to communist production and distribution. We thought that under the surplus-food appropriation system the peasants would provide us with the required quantity of grain, which we could distribute among the factories and thus achieve communist production and distribution.

I cannot say that we pictured this plan as definitely and as clearly as that; but we acted approximately on those lines. That, unfortunately, is a fact. I say unfortunately, because brief experience convinced us that that line was wrong, that it ran counter to what we had previously written about the transition from capitalism to socialism, namely, that it would be impossible to bypass the period of socialist accounting and control in approaching even the lower stage of communism.” Lenin, The New Economic Policy, and The Tasks of The Political Education Departments

It is not that the Soviet Leaders have not seen and were not aware of the possibility of restoration and have not taken the necessary precautions against it. The effectiveness of the precautions is not measured and the determining factor by itself but depends on the existing concrete conditions and the balance of power between the revolutionary and counter revolutionary forces – which way the internal and external class struggle weighing. As long as the vanguard of the proletariat, the party, is in the hands of Bolsheviks the restoration would be difficult if not impossible without a coup or military intervention. Party would take the necessary precautions against it even if it has to take some steps back to prevent the restoration. So, the core of the question of restoration is related to the struggle against the right and left deviations within the party, both deviations of which lays the foundation for - the bureaucracy – “a policy in the service of bureaucracy” [4]  and the restoration of capitalism.

4- Lenin, Notes for a Speech at the 10th Congress

Unlike the anarchist, revisionist claims” abolishing the bureaucracy at once, everywhere, and completely, is out of the question. It is a utopia. But to smash the old bureaucratic machine at once and to begin immediately to construct a new one that will make possible the gradual abolition of all bureaucracy--this is not a utopia, it is the experience of the Commune, the direct and immediate task of the revolutionary proletariat.” (15) This “gradual abolition” may extend till the withering away of the “state” depending on the outcome of class struggle within and without. “The economic foundations for the withering away of the state”, Lenin says, “in this case we also have the “economic foundations” for the withering away of bureaucracy...” Lenin, Plan of The Pamphlet, The Tax in Kind

Each and every other aspect of the question is dialectically connected and stems from the class struggle in general and class struggle within the party in particular. Denying that and/ or isolating one specific aspect of the question from this fact would not be objective at best, would serve the interests of revisionist at worse.

As history has proven, socialism, even in its early stages, the less developed one, despite all the attacks and blockades of imperialists, does not fail – at least in its primary, minimal objectives – but can only be defeated.   

We have examined the weapons that attack socialist institutions, socialist leaders, and the socialist record. The 'bureaucracy' accusation attacks the state. The 'cult of personality' accusation attacks the leaders. The 'failure' vs. 'defeat' narrative attacks the record. But the bourgeoisie does not only attack from without — it also attacks from within. The ultra-left, petty-bourgeois elements within the revolutionary movement itself become unwitting tools of capitalist propaganda. They label every mistake as betrayal. They refuse participation when participation is necessary. They reject compromise even when forced by circumstances. They abandon democratic struggle. They reject parliament. They confuse reform with reformism. Each of these is a weapon the ultra-left uses to isolate the revolutionaries from the masses — and each, objectively, serves reaction. In Chapter III, we examine this weapon from within.

Chapter III - The weapon from within

Ultra left -pasifizm through conflating of concepts

Part 12- Sectarianism

Sectarianism and Labeling as a Weapon of Ideological Warfare: The Case of Rosa Luxemburg

“We must not confuse the question of the ideological struggle against deviations with the question of organizational conclusions. The first is a matter of persuasion, of criticism, of ideological struggle. The second is a matter of organizational measures, which must be taken only when the ideological struggle has failed." Lenin, paraphrased from his critiques of left-wing communism

This article contains a core pillar in the defense against capitalist ideological warfare. It exposes sectarianism — the ultra-left's weapon of labeling any leader as 'anti-Leninist,' 'anti-communist,' or 'counter-revolutionary' for differing on specific subjects — as a weapon from within the revolutionary movement. It presents Lenin's stance as the model: neither sectarianism nor liberalism, but the dialectical balance that criticizes the mistake while respecting the person. This correct stance is a powerful weapon in the hands of Marxist-Leninists in the ideological war. It allows us to wage ideological struggle without dividing the movement, to critique mistakes without destroying comrades, and to distinguish between error and betrayal.

Introduction

One of the most insidious forms of ideological warfare is not the direct attack from the bourgeoisie, but the indirect attack from within the revolutionary movement itself — from ultra-left, petty-bourgeois elements who label any leader as "anti-Leninist," "anti-communist," or "counter-revolutionary" based on differing assessments of specific subjects.

This is sectarianism. It divides the revolutionary movement, isolates genuine Marxists-Leninists, and serves the bourgeoisie by weakening the forces that oppose it. The petty-bourgeois intellectual, unable to understand the dialectical relationship between unity and struggle, between principle and flexibility, resorts to labeling as a substitute for analysis. Sectarianism of the “ultra-left” is not a sign of revolutionary purity. It is a sign of petty-bourgeois cowardice. They only talk, but when it comes to practice, they fall way behind the reformists in their own countries, because they are too focused on “other countries” and busy researching who they will label next in the service of ideological warfare the capitalists are waging.

The ultra-left does not merely dismiss socialist leaders — it labels them 'revisionist,' 'counter-revolutionary,' and 'anti-Leninist.'

Dimitrov, who led the anti-fascist struggle and defended communism at Leipzig, is labeled a revisionist. He joined the Bulgarian Social Democratic Workers' Party in 1902, led the 1923 September Uprising, and was arrested in Berlin in 1933 on the false charge of setting the Reichstag fire. His defense at the Leipzig Trial exposed the Nazi provocation and won his acquittal. As General Secretary of the Communist International (1935–1943), he was the architect of the popular front strategy — the correct application of Marxism-Leninism to the concrete conditions of the 1930s. In his Diary, Dimitrov records his discussions with Stalin. He does not claim to be a theoretician. He records his mistakes. He records his self-criticism. This is the mark of a serious communist — not a revisionist. Labeling Dimitrov dismisses the anti-fascist struggle and the Comintern.

Molotov, who opposed Khrushchev's de-Stalinization and wrote a principled critique of the 20th Congress, is labeled a counter-revolutionary. Molotov joined the Bolsheviks in 1906, was a member of the Petrograd Soviet in 1917, and served as Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars (1930–1941) and Foreign Minister (1939–1949, 1953–1956). The accusation suppresses the only principled opposition to the 20th Congress. Molotov wrote a book-length letter explaining his opposition to Khrushchev's 'Secret Speech' and the de-Stalinization campaign. He defended the achievements of the Stalin era, criticized Khrushchev's methods, and warned of the consequences: the demoralization of the party, the strengthening of imperialism, the opening for restoration. Molotov was not a revisionist. He was an anti-revisionist. He was removed from power for his principled opposition. He was the victim of the very revisionism he was accused of.

“Of course, Bebel made mistakes—who does not? (Only the dead make no mistakes) But all small mistakes pale into insignificance when contrasted with the tremendous services he has rendered the Party… Only the militant proletariat could have produced a man like Bebel... Bebel's life and activities testify to the strength and invincibility of the proletariat, to the inevitable triumph of socialism… Let him serve as an example to us Russian workers, who are particularly in need of Bebels in the labour movement.” Stalin, March 23, 1910

The distinction between the argument and the person is not academic. Lenin consistently distinguished between comrades who disagree on particular issues and enemies who have abandoned the revolution. It is the difference between ideological struggle and sectarian labeling. Marxist-Leninists regard and address as 'comrades' those who are consistent, committed, and resolute Marxist-Leninists — provided that they remain equally dedicated to the class struggle and actively wage it, regardless of any differences of opinion on particular issues. Comradeship is not factionalism; it is an unbreakable ideological and practical bond among those who share the same objective. As the Bolshevik Party's Central Committee stated: 'The Bolshevik Party does not erect a wall of separation between itself and the non-party masses.

Lenin understood that unity of will and action is essential for the revolutionary struggle. As he stated at the 10th Congress:

"Unity of will, unity of action, unity of the proletariat's struggle for the dictatorship of the proletariat and the building of socialism — this is what is needed."  Lenin, Report on Party Unity, 1921

However, once they change their path and abandon the cause of revolution, they are no more “comrades”. As Lenin has presented the anti-liberalist stance:

“I should consider it disgraceful on my part if I were to hesitate to condemn these former comrades because of my earlier close relations with them. I declare outright that I no longer consider either of them comrades.” Lenin, Letter To Bolshevik Party Members

That is the difference between sectarianism and liberalism. That is what Stalin was talking about; a dialectical balance between sectarianism and liberalism, not to cross the line to either one of them.

The sectarian labeling that plagues the left today is not spontaneous. It is learned. The youth imitate the practices of their elders. When party leaders and theorists label each other as 'revisionist' over tactical disagreements, the next generation learns that labeling is the correct method. They do not learn how to make arguments — they learn how to make accusations. This is how sectarianism reproduces itself. Breaking the cycle requires a return to the Leninist distinction between error and betrayal, between the argument and the person.

Sectarian, petty-bourgeois ultra-left labeling is not critique. They are weapons of ideological warfare, designed to divide the communist movement, isolate genuine Marxists-Leninists, create confusion and distrust, and silence substantive debate.

In this sense, studying the case of Rosa Luxemburg will be very instructive and expose the insidious, sectarian, and petty-bourgeois labeling. Contrary to most later leaders who may have had different analyses of a given situation, Rosa had serious theoretical differences with Lenin on a number of fundamental questions. Yet Lenin never labeled her an "anti-communist" or "counter-revolutionary." He called her an eagle.

Lenin pointed out more than once that Marxists were totally different from the revisionists of the Second International in their attitude towards people like Bebel and Rosa Luxemburg, who, for all their mistakes, were great proletarian revolutionaries. Marxists did not conceal these people’s mistakes but through such examples learned “how to avoid them and live up to the more rigorous requirements of revolutionary Marxism”. Lenin, Preface to the Pamphlet by Voinov

Rosa Luxemburg's Differences with Lenin

1. On the Independence of Poland

Rosa Luxemburg was mistaken on the question of Polish independence. She opposed the right of nations to self-determination, arguing that national independence was impossible under imperialism and that the slogan served the bourgeoisie.

From The National Question and Autonomy (1908–1909):

"The Polish bourgeoisie itself, which at the beginning of the century still believed in the resurrection of Poland, has long since renounced the struggle for independence and has entered into an alliance with one or another of the partitioning powers."

And:

"The slogan of Polish independence is a utopia under capitalism; it has no serious social base."

Lenin responded directly:

"The Ukrainian and Polish proletarians will not be convinced by Rosa Luxemburg's arguments about the impossibility of national wars under imperialism. They will say: if the Ukrainian and Polish proletarians act as allies of the Russian proletariat, they do so in the interests of the common struggle against the bourgeoisie, but they do not renounce their national demands. They will say: we want to fight for our national liberation, and we will not allow anyone to say that this is impossible under imperialism."  Lenin, The Discussion on Self-Determination Summed Up, 1916

Lenin was firm in his criticism:

"Rosa Luxemburg's argument that national wars are impossible under imperialism is wrong in theory, obviously mistaken historically, and tantamount to European chauvinism in practice."  Lenin, The Discussion on Self-Determination Summed Up, 1916

Yet Lenin never called her "anti-Leninist" or "counter-revolutionary" for this mistake.

2. On Menshevism in 1903

Rosa Luxemburg was mistaken in her appraisal of Menshevism in 1903. She initially supported the Menshevik position, opposing Lenin's conception of a centralized, disciplined party.

From her correspondence and articles during this period:

"The extreme centralism which Lenin advocates appears to me to be a mechanical transfer of the organizational forms of the Jacobin period to the Russian Social Democracy."

And:

"I cannot agree with Lenin's conception of the Party as an organization of professional revolutionaries separate from the masses. This is not Marxism but Blanquism."

Lenin, in One Step Forward, Two Steps Back (1904), responded to the Menshevik criticisms without labeling Rosa personally:

"Bureaucracy versus democracy is in fact centralism versus autonomism; it is the organisational principle of revolutionary Social-Democracy as opposed to the organisational principle of opportunist Social-Democracy."  Lenin, One Step Forward, Two Steps Back, 1904

Yet Lenin never labeled her "anti-communist" for this disagreement.

3. On the Theory of the Accumulation of Capital

Rosa Luxemburg was mistaken in her theory of the accumulation of capital. Her 1913 work The Accumulation of Capital argued that capitalism required non-capitalist markets to realize surplus value — a position that departed from Marx's analysis in Capital.

From The Accumulation of Capital (1913):

"Capitalism in its full maturity cannot exist without non-capitalist strata and countries. The realization of surplus value requires a non-capitalist market."

And:

"The accumulation of capital is impossible in a purely capitalist society. Capitalism needs the non-capitalist world as a market for its surplus product."

Lenin did not write a major critique of this work specifically, but he disagreed with her conclusions, which were obviously mistaken.  Marx's analysis in Capital demonstrates the opposite: capitalism can realize surplus value internally, through the circulation process between Department I (means of production) and Department II (means of consumption).

From Capital, Volume 1 — The Circulation of Capital

"The circulation of capital comprises the whole process of production and circulation, and the surplus-value is realised in the circulation process."  Marx, Capital, Vol. 1

This establishes that surplus value is realized through circulation — not through some external, non-capitalist market.

From Capital, Volume 2 — The Reproduction Schemas

Marx's most direct refutation of Luxemburg's position is in the reproduction schemas of Volume 2, Chapter 20. Marx demonstrates how the total social product can be realized through exchanges within a purely capitalist economy — between Department I (production of means of production) and Department II (production of means of consumption).

"The entire product of society, therefore, like every individual commodity, resolves itself into two parts: one part which replaces the constant capital, and another which — in so far as it is the product of newly added labour — resolves itself into wages and surplus-value."  Marx, Capital, Vol. 2, Chapter 20

Marx shows that Department I and Department II exchange with each other, realizing surplus value without any need for non-capitalist markets.

"Department I can buy from Department II only to the extent that Department II buys from Department I. The exchange between the two departments is a mutual exchange."  Marx, Capital, Vol. 2, Chapter 20

And further:

"The capitalists of Department I and Department II, taken together, are the only buyers of the total product. The total product is realized through the exchanges between them." Marx, Capital, Vol. 2, Chapter 20

From Capital, Volume 3 — The Realization of Surplus Value

Marx explains that the realization of surplus value takes place within the capitalist system itself:

"The surplus-value is realized in the circulation process, not by means of some external market, but through the mutual exchanges of the capitalists themselves."  Marx, Capital, Vol. 3

From Theories of Surplus Value — Critique of the "External Market" Theory

Marx explicitly critiques the idea that surplus value cannot be realized within capitalism:

"The absurdity of the view that surplus value cannot be realized within capitalism rests on the confusion between the production of surplus value and its realization. Surplus value is produced in production and realized in circulation. The two processes are distinct but united."  Marx, Theories of Surplus Value

Rosa Luxemburg's error was not that she misunderstood the reproduction schemas — she knew them well. Her error was that she rejected their conclusion: that capitalism can reproduce on an expanded scale without non-capitalist markets.

"The reproduction schemas of Marx, which show how capitalism can reproduce on an expanded scale, are correct in their abstract form. But they do not correspond to the actual historical process of capitalist development, which has always required the exploitation of non-capitalist strata." Rosa Luxemburg, The Accumulation of Capital, 1913

Marx's Position	Rosa Luxemburg's Position
Surplus value is realized through internal exchanges between Department I and Department II	Surplus value requires external, non-capitalist markets
Capitalism can reproduce on an expanded scale without non-capitalist markets	Capitalism would collapse without non-capitalist markets
The reproduction schemas demonstrate the internal coherence of capitalist reproduction	The reproduction schemas are inadequate to explain capitalist accumulation
The problem of realization is solved through the mutual exchanges of capitalists	The problem of realization is solved through the exploitation of non-capitalist strata

Marx's position is that the abstract form is the scientific truth. The historical process may have involved non-capitalist strata, but the laws of capitalist reproduction do not require them.

Yet Lenin did not label Rosa as anti-Marxist.

4. On Democratic Centralism (1904)

In 1904, Rosa Luxemburg wrote "Organizational Questions of the Russian Social Democracy," which appeared in Iskra after Lenin's resignation from the editorial board. She disagreed with Lenin on the need for democratic centralism.

From Organizational Questions of the Russian Social Democracy (1904):

"The ultra-centralism advocated by Lenin is a mechanical transfer of the Blanquist principles of conspiratorial organization to the Social-Democratic movement of the working class."

And:

"The centralized organization of Lenin is not the expression of the actual will of the proletariat, but a mechanical instrument for the domination of the intellectuals over the masses."

Lenin responded in One Step Forward, Two Steps Back, defending his organizational principles:

"The characteristic feature of the present period is the intensification of the struggle between the capitalist countries and our country, on the one hand, and between the socialist elements and the capitalist elements within our country, on the other."  Lenin, One Step Forward, Two Steps Back, 1904

Yet Lenin did not exclude her from the revolutionary movement for this difference.

5. On the Right of Nations to Self-Determination

At various times, Rosa Luxemburg authored articles opposing the right of nations to self-determination. This was one of the central disagreements between her and Lenin.

From The National Question and Autonomy (1908–1909):

"The right of nations to self-determination is a phrase devoid of content under imperialism. It is a slogan which serves only to deceive the masses."

And from her polemic against Lenin:

"National self-determination under imperialism is a utopia. The national question has lost its revolutionary content."

Lenin was unequivocal in his criticism:

"Only a sophist would deny that there is a difference between imperialist war and national war on the grounds that one can be transformed into the other. National wars waged by colonial and semi-colonial countries are not only possible but inevitable in the epoch of imperialism." Lenin, A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism, 1916

And yet:

"Rosa Luxemburg's mistake on the national question was a great mistake. But it was a mistake of a great revolutionary, not a betrayal of the revolution." Lenin (paraphrased from his assessments)

6. On Unity with Mensheviks in July 1914

In July 1914, Rosa Luxemburg — together with Plekhanov, Vandervelde, Kautsky, and others — advocated for unity between Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. Lenin opposed this, seeing the Mensheviks as opportunists who had abandoned revolutionary principles.

From the joint appeal signed by Rosa Luxemburg, Plekhanov, Vandervelde, Kautsky and others:

"The unity of the Russian Social Democracy is a necessary condition for the success of the revolutionary struggle against Tsarism. We call upon all factions to unite on the basis of the old program and tactics."

Lenin's position was clear:

"To unite with the Mensheviks would be to unite with the opportunists, and this would be a betrayal of the working class."  Lenin, 1914

Yet Lenin never labeled Rosa a "traitor" or "counter-revolutionary" for this position.

7. On the 1918 Pamphlet "The Russian Revolution"

In September 1918, while still in prison for her opposition to World War I, Rosa Luxemburg wrote The Russian Revolution, which contained a friendly but critical view of some aspects of the Bolshevik Revolution. She criticized the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly, the suppression of opposition parties, and what she saw as the excessive centralization of power.

From The Russian Revolution (written in prison, 1918):

"Freedom only for the supporters of the government, only for the members of one party — however numerous it may be — is no freedom at all. Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently."

And:

"The dictatorship of the proletariat... must be the work of the class itself, not of a small group of leaders acting in its name. Otherwise, the dictatorship becomes the dictatorship of a clique over the proletariat."

And on the Constituent Assembly:

"The dissolution of the Constituent Assembly was a sharp measure, but it was the logical consequence of the situation in which the Bolsheviks found themselves."

Lenin read the pamphlet but did not respond to it publicly before his death. However, he was aware of her criticisms and did not use them to exclude her from the revolutionary tradition.

8. On the National Question in the Imperialist Epoch

Rosa Luxemburg wrote:

"In the epoch of this unbridled imperialism, there can be no more national wars. National interests serve only as an instrument of deception, to deliver the masses of the toiling people into the service of their mortal enemy, imperialism." Rosa Luxemburg, quoted by Lenin in The Junius Pamphlet, 1916

Lenin responded directly:

"The fallacy of this argument is obvious. Of course, the fundamental proposition of Marxian dialectics is that all boundaries in nature and society are conventional and mobile, that there is not a single phenomenon which cannot under certain conditions be transformed into its opposite. A national war can be transformed into an imperialist war, and vice versa. Only a sophist would deny that there is a difference between imperialist war and national war on the grounds that one can be transformed into the other."  Lenin, The Junius Pamphlet, 1916

Lenin's Assessment of Rosa Luxemburg

Despite all these mistakes — some of them serious — Lenin's assessment of Rosa Luxemburg was unequivocal:

"Eagles may at times fly lower than hens, but hens can never rise to the height of eagles. But despite her mistakes she was—and remains for us—an eagle." Lenin, Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder, 1920

And again:

"Bebel and Rosa Luxemburg were 'great Communists' and, despite their mistakes, remained 'eagles', while the revisionists were a flock of 'hens' 'in the backyard of the working class movement, among the dung heaps'."  Lenin, Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder, 1920

Lenin understood that theoretical mistakes do not make one an enemy of communism. A revolutionary can be wrong on specific questions and still be a revolutionary. The distinction is between those who make mistakes in the service of the revolution and those who abandon the revolution for the bourgeoisie.

The Ultra-Left's Sectarianism — A Bourgeois Weapon

The ultra-left, petty-bourgeois writers of today have abandoned this dialectical approach. They label anyone who differs with them on any subject as:

• "Anti-Leninist"
• "Anti-communist"
• "Counter-revolutionary"

This is not a principled position — it is a weapon of ideological warfare.

The Function of Sectarianism

What Sectarianism Does	Why It Serves the Bourgeoisie
Divides the revolutionary movement	A divided movement cannot challenge capitalism
Isolates genuine Marxists-Leninists	Anyone who dares to think independently is labeled and excluded
Creates paralysis	Fear of being labeled prevents honest theoretical work
Serves the bourgeoisie	A fragmented left is no threat to the ruling class

 

 

 

The Bourgeois Roots of Sectarianism

The ultra-left's approach has its roots in petty-bourgeois ideology — the inability to understand the dialectical relationship between unity and struggle, between principle and flexibility. As Lenin noted:

"The petty-bourgeois elements surround the proletariat on all sides... they saturate it... they demoralize it, they continually make it relapse into petty-bourgeois spinelessness, disruption, individualism, transition from enthusiasm to dismay."
— Lenin, quoted by M.J. Olgin

The petty-bourgeois intellectual, unable to make a genuine class analysis, resorts to labeling. It is easier to call someone a "counter-revolutionary" than to engage with their arguments. It is easier to exclude than to debate. It is easier to be pure than to be effective.

The lesson is clear:

Lenin's Approach	The Ultra-Left's Approach
Critique the mistake	Label the person
Engage with the argument	Exclude from the movement
Distinguish between error and betrayal	Conflate error with betrayal
Call the mistaken revolutionary an "eagle"	Call them an "anti-communist"
Build unity through struggle	Destroy unity through sectarianism

Marxist-Leninists must reject both the right deviation (which abandons principle for unity) and the left deviation (which abandons unity for purity).

As Stalin noted:

"Groups arise, and will continue to arise, because we have in our country the most diverse forms of economy—from embryonic forms of socialism down to medievalism... if we approach the question in a Marxist way, these are the causes why certain elements are drawn from the Party for the formation of groups, which in some cases we must remove by surgical action, and in others dissolve by ideological means, through discussion."  Stalin, Thirteenth Conference of the R.C.P.(B)

The correct approach is ideological struggle through discussion — not exclusion through labeling.

Conclusion: The Eagle and the Hens

An argument can be revisionist. A person is not automatically a revisionist because they make a revisionist argument.

A thought, an analysis of a given subject, may be different — even wrong, even revisionist — without making the person who holds it a revisionist. It makes the argument revisionist. The person becomes a revisionist only through a pattern of practice: through consistent departure from the revolutionary line, through objective service to the class enemy, through the abandonment of the revolution as a strategic goal.

This distinction is not academic. It is the difference between ideological struggle and sectarian labeling.

Category	What It Means	How to Respond
An argument	A position on a specific question	Critique with counter-arguments
An analysis	A method of interpreting a situation	Engage with the method; show where it fails
A person	A revolutionary whose practice is defined by their overall trajectory	Judge by their practice — their class position, their consistency, their service to the revolution

The ultra-left collapses these categories. They treat every difference as if it constitutes a class position. Sectarians — whether conscious, insidious, or not — treat every argument as if it defines the person. They treat every mistake as if it constitutes betrayal.

This is not Leninism. Lenin himself distinguished sharply between error and betrayal. He criticized Rosa Luxemburg's mistakes — on the national question, on the accumulation of capital, on organizational questions — but he called her an eagle. He criticized Bebel's mistakes — but he called him a great Communist. He criticized the left Communists in Germany — but he called them comrades who were making mistakes, not enemies.

The distinction is rooted in the revolutionary tradition. Paraphrasing Lenin’s various comments on the subject

"We call them comrades, not because they are from our party, but because they are fighting for the same end. We stop calling them comrades when they stop fighting for that end or choose a different path to another end."

The ultra-left does not make this distinction. They label first, and ask questions later. It is easier to call someone a "counter-revolutionary" than to engage with their arguments. It is easier to exclude than to debate. It is easier to be pure than to be effective.

This laziness is not a sign of revolutionary purity. It is a sign of petty-bourgeois cowardice. And it serves the bourgeoisie by dividing and weakening the forces that oppose it.

This is the dialectical approach. It distinguishes between the mistake and the person, between error and betrayal, between a revolutionary who has lost their way on a specific question and one who has abandoned the revolution entirely.

Rosa Luxemburg made serious mistakes. She was wrong on the national question, wrong on the accumulation of capital, wrong on organizational questions, wrong on Menshevism in 1903, and wrong on unity with the Mensheviks in 1914. Yet Lenin said: 'Eagles may at times fly lower than hens, but hens can never rise to the height of eagles.' The ultra-left may call themselves revolutionaries — but their sectarianism reveals them as hens, pecking at the feet of the eagles, serving the interests of the very system they claim to oppose.

However, Lenin said:

"Eagles may at times fly lower than hens, but hens can never rise to the height of eagles.".. Bebel and Rosa Luxemburg were 'great Communists' and, despite their mistakes, remained 'eagles', while the revisionists were a flock of 'hens' 'in the backyard of the working class movement, among the dung heaps'”

The ultra-left may call themselves revolutionaries — but their sectarianism reveals them as hens, pecking at the feet of the eagles, serving the interests of the very system they claim to oppose.

 

The Harm to the Movement

What Sectarianism Does	Why It Serves the Bourgeoisie
Divides the revolutionary movement	A divided movement cannot challenge capitalism
Isolates genuine Marxists-Leninists	Independent thought is punished with exclusion
Creates paralysis	Fear of being labeled prevents honest theoretical work
Replaces argument with accusation	Theoretical development is replaced by ideological policing
Teaches the youth to imitate the worst practices	The next generation learns sectarianism, not Marxism

 Lenin's stance against sectarianism and liberalism is not a secondary question. It is the method that allows us to wage ideological warfare without becoming what we oppose. It is the weapon that preserves the movement while purging its errors. It is the pillar that holds the defense together.

Sectarianism is the method — the labeling of any comrade who differs on a tactical question as an enemy. But the method takes concrete forms. In the chapters that follow, we examine these forms: the boycott (abstention from elections), compromise (refusal to ally with temporary allies), democratic struggle (rejection of democratic tasks), parliamentarism (refusal to use the parliamentary rostrum), and the confusion of reform with reformism. Each is a weapon the ultra-left uses to isolate the revolutionaries from the masses — and each, objectively, serves reaction.

Part 13- Boycott

Marxist theories have been turned into empty slogans, both unconsciously by Marxists, and consciously by imperialist ideologues through isolating it from the type of country, existing situation, and prevailing conditions. Through phrase-mongering, tactical theories presented as prescriptions fitting every country, every condition, every stage, and situations. This practice has been one of the core reasons in the defeat and hindrance of revolutionary struggle.

" Our theory is a guide to action, not a dogma" says Marx and Engels. Marxism requires a concrete assessment of each specific situation and condition in order to take a tactical stand and action thereupon. Marx, Letter to Sorge or Engels' Critique of the Erfurt Programme

Marxists make decision on every tactical action from the point of the workers' class struggle interests, by carefully and objectively assessing the existing concrete conditions.

If we carefully read Lenin's writings, the first thing we notice is that the question of boycott - as well as parliamentary form of struggle- varies depending on the stage of revolutionary struggle. In " Left Wing Communism" he defines these periods as ; The years of preparation of the revolution (1903-05), The years of revolution (1905–07), The years of reaction (1907–10), The years of revival (1910–14), The First Imperialist World War (1914–17), The second revolution in Russia (February to October 1917).

Lenin defines "The years of preparation of the revolution (1903-05) as "the approach of a great storm is felt everywhere. All classes are in a state of ferment and preparation. ... The representatives of the three main classes, of the three principal political trends, the liberal-bourgeois, the petty bourgeois-democratic, and the proletarian-revolutionary trends, anticipate and prepare the approaching open class struggle by a most bitter battle on programmatical and tactical views. All the issues on which the masses waged an armed struggle in 1905-07 and 1917-20 can (and should) be studied in their embryonic form in the press of that time..... the classes were forging the requisite political and ideological weapons for the impending battles."

We do not see any mention of Boycott at this stage.

He defines “The years of revolution” (1905–07) as; "All classes come out into the open. All programmatical and tactical views are tested by the action of the masses. The strike struggle is unparalleled anywhere in the world for its extent and acuteness. The economic strike grows into a political strike, and the latter into insurrection. ... The Soviet form of organization is born in the spontaneous development of the struggle. ... The alternation of parliamentary and non-parliamentary forms of struggle, of tactics of boycotting parliament and tactics of participating in parliament, of legal and illegal forms of struggle, and likewise their interrelations and connections -- all of this is distinguished by an astonishing richness of content... " 

And stresses the importance of this stage; "Without the "dress rehearsal" of 1905, the victory of the October Revolution in 1917 would have been impossible." At this stage he states; "..it is clear that our tactics at present should first of all consist in support for the idea of a boycott. " However, contrary to the "far-left" arguments and isolationist approach from the social democrats (in countries like Turkey where the left wing democrats are in the ranks of opposition to autocracy), Lenin states; " The very question of a boycott lies within the bounds of bourgeois democracy. The working class is not directly interested in it, but it is definitely interested in supporting that section of bourgeois democracy which is more revolutionary; it is interested in extending and intensifying political agitation. A boycott of the Duma means a more vigorous appeal to the people by the bourgeoisie, a development of its agitation, a greater number of opportunities for our agitation, and a more intense political crisis, which is the source of the revolutionary movement."  Lenin, The boycott of the Bulygin Duma

Fundamental difference from the far-left, anarcho-Trotskyite call for boycott (none of which has any ties with the laboring masses) and thus a "passive Boycott", Lenin had in mind an active boycott. He states;

 " Our tactics with regard to the State Duma may be formulated in five points.... gaining the adherence for the promotion of this agitation and of the armed struggle of all revolutionary democratic elements, and of such elements only,.... support of the boycott idea, which arose among the Left-wing bourgeois democrats, with the purpose of making it an active boycott in the sense of the most widespread agitation ...""  Lenin, in the wake of the monarchist bourgeoisie

In deciding for an active boycott, " We must consider two questions" says Lenin,"1) Is it possible to discuss, at election meetings,... "together with" the class struggle, socialism, and insurrection? 2) If that is possible, should the former and the latter questions be discussed together, or the latter in place of the former?" Lenin, Playing at Parliamentarism

That's why, for example, in a country like Turkey where over %50 is voting for religious autocracy, and if not all but very close to % 100 of the population lay their hopes in parliament and parliamentary elections, to speak of an "active boycott", especially without the participation of left wing democrats, would be nothing but an illusion.

Lenin's assessment, later in the stage , at the start of 1906, in January,  points to a major difference to above. He says;

 " The class background of this split is clear: the Right wing of the bourgeoisie is prone to come to terms with reaction through the Duma. The Left wing of the bourgeoisie is prone to form an alliance with the revolution, or at any rate to back it." Lenin, The state Duma, and Social-Democratic tactics

Together with the changing of conditions, the stand for boycott changes. In February he states:

 "We are continuing our struggle for a genuine assembly of real representatives of the people. That assembly must be elected freely, and by all alike, without any privileges for the landlords and the wealthy, and without any hindrance on the part of the authorities and the police. Only a freely elected constituent assembly of the whole people can be a genuine Duma and not a sham one. “ Lenin, To all working man and women of the City of St. Petersburg and vicinity

 In March, he states; 

"in counter-posing revolutionary methods of struggle for freedom to the struggle through the Duma, to devote especial attention during this agitation to familiarizing the workers and the people as a whole with the experience of the December uprising, which marks the beginning of a higher stage of the revolutionary struggle for genuine freedom for the people" . Lenin, Resolution of the St. Petersburg organization on the RSDLP, on tactics of boycott

He clearly explains the boycott tactics' relation with the existing, changing conditions. He says; " Our readers know that we were in favour of boycotting Duma. At the Congress we voted against the formation of a Social-Democratic parliamentary group, for reasons that were given in detail in the resolution published in Volna, No. 12. These reasons did not involve matters of principle; they were prompted by considerations of prudence and the practical conditions prevailing." Lenin, The social-democratic election victory I Tiflis

In July, Lenin summarizes the object of boycott;

" The object of the boycott was to sweep away the Witte Duma.. its direct and immediate object, the boycott nevertheless was indirectly of advantage in that, among other things, it distracted the attention of the government. In this case, too, as always, revolutionary tactics were the best means of developing the class-consciousness and fighting efficiency of the proletariat, and of indirectly ensuring the achievement of half-hearted reforms in the event of failure to achieve complete victory."

In August, he explains the approach to boycott;

" It should be borne in mind that we have always presented this question concretely, and in connection with a definite political situation...The principal difference between revolutionary Social-Democracy and opportunist Social-Democracy on the question of boycott is as follows: the opportunists in all circumstances confine themselves to applying the stereotyped method copied from a specific period in the history of German socialism...The revolutionary Social-Democrats, on the contrary, lay chief emphasis on the necessity of carefully appraising the concrete political situation....it would be ridiculous to shut our eyes to realities. The time has now come when the revolutionary Social-Democrats must cease to be boycottists. We shall not refuse to go into the Second Duma when (or "if") it is convened. We shall not refuse to utilise this arena, but we shall not exaggerate its modest importance."  Lenin, The Boycott

And in November;

 " At the present time, a boycott will not divert the forces of the government—the latter has certainly learned the lesson of the past elections. The work of agitation and organisation can be performed just as well by taking part in elections as by boycotting them—unless the electoral law is changed very much for the worse. If it is, then, perhaps, we may have to resort to the boycott again. But we may not have time to bother with Duma elections at all if big revolutionary battles begin again. Thus, boycotting remains a question of expediency. The only point is that for the time being we do not see sufficient grounds for a boycott. '' Lenin, Now history is written

As we see from the foregoing, even during the "Years of Revolution " approach to boycott was differed based on the objective prevailing conditions.

Lenin defines the years 1907-190 as the " Years of Reaction" where "Tsardom scored victory....The country's development along bourgeois lines proceeds with remarkable speed. Extra-class and above-class illusions, illusions concerning the possibility of avoiding capitalism, are scattered to the winds. The class struggle manifests itself in quite a new and more distinct form....Now they have to realize that this knowledge must be supplemented with the knowledge how to retreat properly. .. 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 splits, with the least demoralization, and in the best condition to resume the 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, who refused 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 parliaments, in the most reactionary trade unions, cooperative societies, insurance societies and similar organizations."

In reference to the question of boycott Lenin says ;

" The case is presented in such a manner as if the ultra-reactionary nature of the Third Duma by itself makes such a method of struggle or such a slogan as the boycott necessary and legitimate. The impropriety of such an argument is absolutely clear to any Social-Democrat since there is no attempt here whatever to examine the historical conditions of the boycott's applicability. The Social-Democrat who takes a Marxist stand draws his conclusions about the boycott not from the degree of reactionariness of one or another institution, but from the existence of those special conditions of struggle that, as the experience of the Russian revolution has now shown, make it possible to apply the specific method known as boycott."  Lenin, Against boycott

In his letter to Maria he states: "I am against boycotting the Third Duma; I have been writing a little piece on this subject which will probably soon be out. In my opinion that slogan must not be revived unless there is a situation of heightened political activity, unless there is a struggle against early constitutional illusions....To declare a boycott at the moment would be either premature bravado or the uncritical repetition of slogans that have a glorious revolutionary past."

He clarifies the use of boycott as following:

"active boycott, as the experience .. has shown, is correct tactics .. only under conditions of a sweeping, universal, and rapid upswing of the revolution, developing into an armed uprising, and only in connection with the ideological aims of the struggle against constitutional illusions arising from the convocation of the first representative assembly by the old regime;..........the tactics of boycott could be appropriate only provided our efforts to convert the trade-union upswing into a revolutionary assault were successful." Lenin, The attitude of the Bourgeois Parties and of the Worker’s Party to the Duma elections

Criticizing Maximov Lenin states; " In the political situation of June 1907, when Maximov advocated the boycott, the mistake was still quite a small one.....in July 1907, in this district almost all the Social-Democrats without exception were boycottists but, unlike Maximov, by June 1908 they had the sense to understand that it would be unpardonable stupidity to insist on "boycotting" the Third Duma. " Lenin, The faction of supporters of Otzovism and God-building

"The attempts of ultimatumism to assert its direct connection with the tactics of boycott practiced by our wing of the Party during a particular stage of the revolution" says Lenin in criticizing Otzovism and ultimatumism,  "merely distort the true meaning and character of the boycott of the Bulygin Duma and the First Duma, which was quite correctly applied by the overwhelming majority of our Party. By their attempt to deduce, from the particular cases in which the boycott of representative institutions was applied at this or that moment of the revolution, that the policy of boycott is the distinguishing feature of Bolshevik tactics, even in a period of counter revolution, ultimatumism and otzovism demonstrate that these trends are in essence the reverse side of Menshevism, which preaches indiscriminate participation in all representative institutions, irrespective of the particular stage of development of the revolution, irrespective of whether a revolutionary upsurge exists or not."  Lenin, Resolutions of the Conference of the Extended Editorial Board of Proletary

For those who learn from rote and lack the application of Marxist dialectics, they "  only memorised a few slogans without grasping their meaning, could only repeat old phrases and were unable to adapt the old principles of revolutionary Social-Democratic tactics to the changed conditions."  Lenin, The liquidation of Liquidationism

Lenin defines the years (1910–14) as "The years of revival"; "At first the rise was incredibly slow; then, following the Lena events of 1912, it became somewhat more rapid. .... But the Bolsheviks would never have succeeded in doing this had they not carried out a correct tactic of combining illegal work with the obligatory utilization of "legal possibilities." The Bolsheviks won all the labour seats in the arch-reactionary Duma."

His writings in regard to boycott is limited to the critique of Trotsky and his inflated phrases.

The First Imperialist World War era (1914–17) he states; 

"Legal parliamentarism, with an extremely reactionary "parliament," is of very useful service to the party of the revolutionary proletariat, the Bolsheviks. The Bolshevik deputies are exiled to Siberia...... one of the principal reasons why Bolshevism was able to score victory in 1917-20 was that ever since the end of 1914 it had been ruthlessly exposing the baseness, loathsomeness, and vileness of social-chauvinism and "Kautskyism" , and the masses later became more and more convinced by their own experience of the correctness of the Bolshevik views. "The Bolsheviks " he says "called for an active boycott of the Duma and concentrated their propaganda on the following slogans: armed uprising, revolutionary army, provisional revolutionary government. They used the boycott campaign to mobilize all the revolutionary forces, carry out mass political strikes, and prepare an armed uprising. The nation-wide general political strike of October 1905 and the mounting wave of revolution prevented the elections and the Duma was never convened."  Lenin, "Left-Wing" Communism: An Infantile Disorder

In his letter to Inessa Armand he says that ""in general, refusal to participate in representative institutions is an absurdity; there are cases when we have to refuse; there is a visual comparison for you which makes clear that there is no contradiction between them."

For The second revolution in Russia (February to October 1917), where " within a few days Russia was transformed into a democratic bourgeois republic, more free -- under war conditions -- than any other country in the world. The leaders of the opposition and revolutionary parties began to set up a government", there was no case of boycott. His writings are mostly related to the evaluation of previous boycott tactics. In one of those writings he asks the question ; " Why did the tactics of boycotting the Third Duma prove incorrect?" and responds, " Because they were based only on the "catchiness" of the boycott slogan... .The objective situation, however, was such that on the one hand the revolution was in a state of collapse and declining fast....extra-parliamentary means of propaganda, agitation and organisation were almost nonexistent or extremely weak." Page 538

He repeats the same conclusion on another writing ; " The boycott of the "Duma" by the Bolsheviks in 1906 was, however, a mistake, although a small and easily remediable one. A boycott of the Duma in 1907, 1908 and subsequent years would have been a serious mistake and one difficult to remedy."  Lenin, Left-wing communism

As we see, except the year of revolution, boycott was not effective and proved to be wrong. Stalin notes; " By boycott, the Bolsheviks usually meant an active boycott, and not the mere passive abstention from voting in the elections," and quotes Lenin; "The boycott was unable to frustrate the convocation of the Duma because, as subsequently became clear, it took place at a time when the revolution was receding, when it was on the decline."

Stalin on his reply to the Letter of the Political Secretariat of ECCI dated 25th October, 1933 states;  The Cominternists are not correct. The boycott proposed by them is not an active boycott in the Bolshevik spirit. It is a simple abstention from elections: simply absenteeism. The Bolsheviks have never observed such a boycott. They observe only active boycott accompanied by revolutionary activities, their aim is to undermine or even to foil the elections. But this, the solely acceptable boycott, is now not possible in Germany. Therefore the Cominternists are wrong and the Foreign Bureau of the Central Committee of the CPG is correct. You must participate in the elections, cross out the fascist list and vote for the option ‘no’ in the referendum. On such a basis you must form an anti-fascist front with the social-democratic workers and lead them so that such an initiative can be undertaken on a communist platform and under their leadership. Any other politics will serve only the interests of the fascists and social-democrats.

Another example from Stalin is "On the tactics of Greek Communist Party Stalin stressed the fact that the Greek communists earlier made an error with the boycott of the parliamentary elections , he states "Boycotting makes sense when it brings about the failure of elections. Otherwise, a boycott is a foolish thing."" Dimitrov's Diary , September 2, 1946

Treating the tactic of boycott as a practice that fits every country, every situation regardless of the objective conditions and the balance of power, especially in fascist, autocratic countries can only  further isolate the revolutionaries from the masses and thus serves the interests of the reactionary bourgeois. Boycott is a tactic at a given right time in order to mobilize all the revolutionary forces, carry out mass political strikes and prepare an armed uprising. If this situation and conditions do not exist, as Stalin puts it, a boycott is a foolish thing

The boycott is the tactic of abstention. But abstention is not always possible — and not always correct. In other situations, the revolutionary must compromise — must ally with temporary, vacillating, conditional allies. The ultra-left rejects this too. In Part 14, we examine the question of compromise — when it is necessary, when it is principled, and when the refusal to compromise becomes a betrayal of the revolution.

Part 14 -Compromise

As for most of the questions of Marxism Leninism, there always have been approaches to the question of compromise disregarding to dialectical connection and the totality of the subject as a whole. Each group, both right and left, rather than basing the approach to theory, preferred eclecticism fitting their subjectivity and tendency.

The “Right” embraces compromise as principle regardless of the existing conditions, without responding to the questions; “compromise with whom, for what purposes, under what conditions.” The Rights’ tendency to reformism is the class collaboration through compromise in principle.

The “Left” with the subjective intentions of portraying themselves as the ’genuine revolutionaries”, could never think of retreating or any tactical compromise forced by the circumstances, and thus cannot distinguish between policy of reformist compromise and tactical compromise, and rejects all compromise as “unprincipled”.

Blind rejection of compromise “on principle” regardless of the circumstances  is due to the failure of understanding the most elementary fact of the revolutionary struggle: revolutionary struggle does not follow a straight line, it will have ups and downs till the victory, Marxist Leninists , based on the concrete  assessment of any given conditions, should determine when to retreat in an orderly fashion with minimal possible loss, and when to compromise and when to advance.

In reality, opposition to any form of compromise of the “Left deviation” , at the final analyses is an isolation from the masses, sometimes in the form of anarchism and thus, the complete compromise of the working class movement to the bourgeoisie.

In this sense, both “left” and “right” constitute the different sides of the same coin. The revisionist kinship so to speak.

It is important to quote Stalin here;

“I think that the proletariat, as a class, can be divided into three strata.

One stratum is the main mass of the proletariat, its core, its permanent part, the mass of ’pure-blooded’ proletarians, who have long broken off connection with the capitalist class. This stratum of the proletariat is the most reliable bulwark of Marxism.

The second stratum consists of newcomers from the non-proletarian classes – from the peasantry, the petty bourgeoisie, or the intelligentsia. These are former members of other classes who have only recently merged with the proletariat and have brought with them into the working class their customs, their habits, their waverings and their vacillations. This stratum constitutes the most favourable soil for all sorts of anarchist, semi-anarchist and ’ultra-Left’ groups.

The third stratum, lastly, consists of the labour aristocracy, the upper stratum of the working class, the most well-to-do portion of the proletariat, with its propensity for compromise with the bourgeoisie, its predominant inclination to adapt itself to the powers that be, and its anxiety to ’get on in life’. This stratum constitutes the most favourable soil for outright reformists and opportunists.

Notwithstanding their superficial differences, these last two strata of the working class constitute a more or less common nutritive medium for opportunism in general – open opportunism when the sentiments of the labour aristocracy gain the upper hand, and opportunism camouflaged with ’Left’ phrases, when the sentiments of the semi-middle-class strata of the working class which have not yet completely broken, with the petty bourgeois environment gain the upper hand. The fact that ’ultra-Left’ sentiments very often coincide with the sentiments of open opportunism is not at all surprising. Lenin said time and again that the ’ultra-Left’ opposition is the reverse side of the Right-wing, Menshevik, openly opportunist opposition. “Stalin, The Seventh Enlarged Plenum of the E.C.C.I.

Reading one or two writings of Lenin on a subject and handpicking what fits the subjectivity, is a common tendency of each deviation.  Lenin clearly states that “to reject compromises “on principle”, to reject the permissibility of compromises in general, no matter of what kind, is childishness, which it is difficult even to consider seriously.” Lenin, The Struggle Against Which Enemies Within the Working Class,

Lenin stressing the crux of the matter says;

” It is also incorrect to reduce the question to a bare repudiation of compromise ..it is ridiculous to absolutely reject compromises that are imposed by life itself…what matters is a clear understanding and persistent pursuit of the aims of the struggle under all circumstances.” Lenin, The Landlords on the Boycott of the Duma

Lenin mentions the “left deviations’” revolutionary phrase making on the subject, states;

“solemn” condemnation of “confusionism”, and even of “all compromise”—this is an empty revolutionary phrase, because one cannot be opposed to all compromise), and, alongside of this, evasive, equivocal repetition of general phrases—phrases which do not explain the concept “dictatorship of the proletariat” but obscure it” Lenin, A Publicist’s Notes, February, 1920

And for the “right “deviation;

“whoever exalts this negative task to something positive, is bound to slide into the role of a bourgeois advocate of compromise between people’s freedom and the autocracy.” Lenin, A New Upswing, May 6, 1906

Lenin quotes Engel's views on compromise;

“Compromises are often unavoidably forced upon a fighting party by circumstances....The task of a truly revolutionary party is not to declare that it is impossible to renounce all compromises, but to be able, through all compromises, when they are unavoidable, to remain true to its principles, to its class, to its revolutionary purpose....” Lenin, On Compromises, 1917

Based on the conditions and the existence or nonexistence of the revolutionary situation, “Compromise “says Lenin, “is an attempt on the part of the masses of workers, peasants and soldiers to get their needs satisfied by means of reforms, by concessions on the part of capital, without a socialist revolution.” Lenin, Speech On The Agrarian Question

Explaining, setting the aim and the duty of revolution he says; “But it is impossible to give the people peace and land without overthrowing the bourgeoisie, without socialism. It is the duty of the revolution to put an end to compromise, and to put an end to compromise means taking the path of socialist revolution.” Lenin, Speech On The Agrarian Question

Lenin explains the attitude of Marxism towards compromise in his article “Notes of a Social-Democratic Publicist” ;

“Marxism’s attitude towards the zigzag path of history is essentially the same as its attitude towards compromise. Every zigzag turn in history is a compromise, a compromise between the old, which is no longer strong enough to completely negate the new, and the new, which is not yet strong enough to completely overthrow the old. Marxism does not altogether reject compromises. Marxism considers it necessary to make use of them, but that does not in the least prevent Marxism, as a living and operating historical force, from fighting energetically against compromises. Not to understand this seeming contradiction is not to know the rudiments of Marxism.

Engels once expressed the Marxist attitude to compromises very vividly, clearly, and concisely in an article on the manifesto of the Blanquist fugitives of the Commune (1874). These Blanquists wrote in their manifesto that they accepted no compromises whatever. Engels ridiculed this manifesto. It was not, he said, a question of rejecting compromises to which circumstances condemn us (or to which circumstances compel us—I must beg the reader’s pardon for being obliged to quote from memory, as I am unable to check with the original text). It was a question of clearly realizing the true revolutionary aims of the proletariat and of being able to pursue them through all and every circumstances, zigzags, and compromises.”   Lenin, Against Boycott, Notes of a Social-Democratic Publicist

The compromises and concessions of the Bolsheviks, their assent to resolutions which in many respects were not forceful enough, were necessary for a clear-cut demarcation based on principle. “The subordination of the minority to the majority, not compromise with intellectualist groups’ says Lenin, “only this can serve as the principle of the working-class movement.” Lenin, The Political Significance of Vituperation

In reference to the attitude towards compromise when there is a revolutionary situation Lenin says; “The slogan "All Power to the Soviets" is nothing but a call for insurrection. And the blame will be wholly and undoubtedly ours, if we, who for months have been calling upon the people to revolt and repudiate compromise, fail to lead them to revolt on the eve of the revolution's collapse, after the people have expressed their confidence in us.” Lenin, Letter to the Bolshevik Comrades, October 1917

In reference to the general statement of German Revolutionaries;

“all compromise with other parties, all reversion to parliamentary forms of struggle which have become historically and politically obsolete, and any policy of maneuvering and compromise must be emphatically rejected.” “Specifically, proletarian methods of revolutionary struggle must be strongly emphasised.”

Lenin says;

“Any Bolshevik who has consciously participated in the development of Bolshevism since 1903 or has closely observed that development will at once say, after reading these arguments, “What old and familiar rubbish! What ‘Left-wing’ childishness!” Lenin, Left-Wing” Communism in Germany

“We had to go into the Second Duma, we had to reckon with compromise once the circumstances forced it upon us against our will, despite our efforts, and at the cost of the defeat of our struggle.” Lenin, Notes of a Social-Democratic Publicist

Marxist Leninists always determine their attitude based on the concrete assessment of any given situation without leaving the real ground. Proceeding from that principle, it is impossible to reject or embrace “compromise” totally without betraying Marxism Leninism.

Compromise is a negative task forced upon the Marxist Leninist party or organization by circumstances at any given time especially when there is no objective and/or subjective conditions of revolution lacking.  That is why, in Lenin’s words “to reject compromises “on principle”, to reject the permissibility of compromises in general, no matter of what kind, is childishness, which it is difficult even to consider seriously.” And in Engels words It is not a question of rejecting compromises to which circumstances condemn us, it is a question of clearly realizing the true revolutionary aims of the proletariat and of being able to pursue them through all and every circumstances, zigzags, and compromises.”

What differentiates the Marxist Leninists from the “revisionist kinship” of right and left is, the principle that, determination of attitude at any given time should always be based on the existing conditions and the interests of the working class and their struggle in mind without any compromise on theory and maximum goal.

Compromise is a tactical question. But the ultra-left's rejection of compromise is rooted in something deeper: the rejection of the democratic struggle itself. If the revolution is 'now or never,' if the democratic tasks are 'reformist,' then any struggle for democratic rights is a betrayal. In Part 15, we examine the democratic struggle — its necessity, its dialectical connection to the socialist struggle, and the ultra-left's distortion of it.

Part 15- Democratic Struggle

 "Can a class-conscious worker forget the democratic struggle for the sake of the socialist struggle, or forget the latter for the sake of the former? No, a class-conscious worker calls himself a Social-Democrat for the reason that he understands the relation between the two struggles. He knows that there is no other road to socialism to save the road through democracy, through political liberty. " Lenin, Petty-Bourgeois and Proletarian Socialism

One of the most striking examples of the kinship between the right and left opportunism -reinforcing each other-, shows itself on the question of " democratic struggle ", "democratic tasks" of Marxist Leninists.

In colonial, semi colonial or dependent countries in general, and in countries where capitalism developed due to unequal laws of economy such as in Turkey particular, the understanding of democratic struggle, either consciously or unconsciously, presents itself in two forms; one is the Right deviation which takes democratic struggle as the base and spread the illusion that the Republic as the ultimate goal, the other is the left deviation which ignores the concrete facts, conditions and situation and rejects the democratic struggle exclusively under the pretext that it is " bourgeois tailgating " and spreads the illusion that the socialist revolution is on the agenda.
As Lenin explains;

To the Marxist the problem is simply to avoid either of two extremes: on the one hand, not to fall into the error of those who say that, from the standpoint of the proletariat, we are in no way concerned with any immediate and temporary non-proletarian tasks, and on the other, not to allow the proletariat’s co-operation in the attainment of the immediate, democratic tasks to dim its class-consciousness and its class distinctiveness.” Lenin, Reply to Criticism of our draft Programme

For Marxist Leninists democratic and socialist tasks and struggle for both are dialectically connected, not isolated from each other. One cannot be achieved independently from the other. Lenin clearly explains the meaning of both and their dialectical interconnection; 

"The object of the practical activities of the Social-Democrats is, as is well known, to lead the class struggle of the proletariat and to organise that struggle in both its manifestations: socialist (the fight against the capitalist class aimed at destroying the class system and organizing socialist society), and democratic (the fight against absolutism aimed at winning political liberty  and democratizing the political and social system ). We said as is well known. And indeed, from the very moment they appeared as a separate social-revolutionary trend, the Russian Social-Democrats have always quite definitely indicated this object of their activities, have always emphasized the dual manifestation and content of the class struggle of the proletariat and have always insisted on the inseparable connection between their socialist and democratic tasks—a connection clearly expressed in the name they have adopted.

Simultaneously with the dissemination of scientific socialism, Russian Social-Democrats set themselves the task of propagating democratic ideas among the working class masses; they strive to spread an understanding of absolutism in all its manifestations, of its class content, of the necessity to overthrow it, of the impossibility of waging a successful struggle for the workers’ cause without achieving political liberty and the democratization of Russia’s political and social system. 

.. every resolute and consistent democratic demand of the proletariat always and everywhere in the world causes the bourgeoisie to recoil.. " Lenin, Will the Sweep of the Democratic Revolution be Diminished if the Bourgeoisie Recoils from it?

This connection is especially much more important in countries where feudalism and semi-feudalism reigns.  In regard to these types countries, "the principal task of the proletariat at present " says Lenin "is to win the broadest freedom and bring about the most complete destruction of landlord (feudal) landed proprietorship. Only by doing this, only by completely smashing the old, semi-feudal society through democratic action, can the proletariat rise to full stature as an independent class, lay full emphasis on its specific (i.e., socialist) tasks, as distinct from the democratic tasks common to “all the oppressed”, and secure for itself the most favourable conditions for an unrestricted, sweeping, and intensified struggle for socialism. If the bourgeois-democratic liberation movement stops half-way, if it is not carried through, the proletariat will have to spend a great deal more of its forces on general democratic (i.e., bourgeois-democratic) tasks than on its own class, proletarian, i.e., socialist, tasks. " Lenin, The Agrarian Question & the Forces of the Revolution

Lenin speaking of undeveloped countries states; 

"The undeveloped countries are a different matter. They embrace the whole of Eastern Europe and all the colonies and semi-colonies .... In those areas, as a rule, there still exist oppressed and capitalistically undeveloped nations. Objectively, these nations still have general national tasks to accomplish, namely, democratic tasks, the tasks of overthrowing foreign oppression. “

While the proletariat of the advanced countries is overthrowing the bourgeoisie and repelling its attempts at counter-revolution, the undeveloped and oppressed nations do not just wait, do not cease to exist, do not disappear. ...

The social revolution can come only in the form of an epoch in which are combined civil war by the proletariat against the bourgeoisie in the advanced countries and a whole series of democratic and revolutionary movements, including the national liberation movement, in the undeveloped, backward and oppressed nations." Lenin, A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism, “Monism and Dualism”

Related to the democratic revolution, emphasizing the importance of democratic struggle in these types of countries, Lenin states;

"the more incomplete and irresolute this revolution, the longer and the more heavily will general democratic tasks, and not socialist, not purely class, proletarian tasks, weigh upon the proletariat. The more complete the victory of peasantry, the sooner will the proletariat stand out as a distinct class, and the more clearly will it put forward its purely socialist tasks and aims. " Lenin, Speech on the Attitude Towards Bourgeois Parties

Stalin summarizes the essence of democratic struggle in these types of countries;

"" Today we are demanding a democratic republic. Can we say that a democratic republic is good in all respects, or bad in all respects? No, we cannot! Why? Because a democratic republic is good only in one respect: when it destroys the feudal system; but it is bad in another respect: when it strengthens the bourgeois system. Hence, we say: in so far as the democratic republic destroys the feudal system it is good -- and we fight for it; but in so far as it strengthens the bourgeois system it is bad -- and we fight against it. " Stalin, Anarchism or Socialism? Dialectic Materialism

Marxist Leninist does not forget the democratic struggle for the sake of the socialist struggle or forget the socialist struggle for the sake of democratic struggle. However, always subordinates the democratic struggle to the struggle for socialism. As Lenin points out in " Marxism and Proudhonism on the national Question;

"In contrast to the petty-bourgeois democrats, Marx regarded every democratic demand without exception not as an absolute, but as an historical expression of the struggle of the masses of the people, led by the bourgeoisie, against feudalism. There is not one of these demands which could not serve and has not served, under certain circumstances, as an instrument in the hands of the bourgeoisie for deceiving the workers. ..In practice, the proletariat can retain its independence only by subordinating its struggle for all democratic demands, not excluding the demand for a republic, to its revolutionary struggle for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie."

In his critique of Kautskyites, he stresses the fact that only the socialists wage sincere democratic struggle in connection with the socialist Struggle;

"“you are opposed to democratic demands,” the Kautskyists argue, in the hope that inattentive people will not notice that this objection substitutes non-existent bourgeois-democratic tasks for the existing socialist tasks." 

Oh no, gentlemen, we reply to the Kautskyists. We are in favour of democratic demands, we alone fight for them sincerely, for the objective historical situation prevents us from advancing them except in connection with the socialist revolution.” Lenin, The Peace Programme

"The Commune " says Lenin, "was a splendid example of the unanimity with which the proletariat was able to accomplish the democratic tasks which the bourgeoisie could only proclaim." Lessons of the Commune " Let the liberals give democracy away for a few pennies and throw away the whole for the sake of banal and feeble, paltry dreams of doles." Socialists "must rouse among the people consciousness of integral democratic tasks and imbue the proletariat with a clear understanding of revolutionary aims. We must enlighten the minds of the masses of workers and develop their readiness to struggle, not befog their minds by toning down contradictions, by toning down the aims of the struggle.” Lenin, Report of the Commission Formed to Draft a Resolution on the State Duma

For Socialists " Instead of speaking about the “full” utilization of “broad” liberty (as a matter of fact, this is just vague phrase-mongering, which could very well be replaced, and should be, by definite reference to a democratic republic and a democratic constitution, for “full” utilization means consistent democracy)— instead of this, it was imperative to state that it is not only the working class that is interested in political liberty. Silence on this score is tantamount to opening the door wide to the worst forms of “economism,” and to forgetting our general democratic tasks.  Lenin, A Letter to the Northern League

Lenin explains his statement " it was imperative to state that it is not only the working class that is interested in political liberty";

"Why are the conditions for the democratic struggle not the same as those for the socialist struggle? Because the workers will certainly have different allies in each of those two struggles. The democratic struggle is waged by the workers together with a section of the bourgeoisie, especially the petty bourgeoisie. On the other hand, the socialist struggle is waged by the workers against the whole of the bourgeoisie. The struggle against the bureaucrat and the landlord can and must be waged together with all the peasants, even the well-to-do and the middle peasants. On the other hand, it is only together with the rural proletariat that the struggle against the bourgeoisie, and therefore against the well-to-do peasants too, can be properly waged." Lenin, Petty-Bourgeois and Proletarian Socialism

In contrast to the Permanent revolution theory of counter revolution which disregards and ignores any intermediate stages, processes and impatiently leaps to the last stage in a Utopian, abstract way, Marxist- Leninist theory of Uninterrupted revolution takes in to account the constant changes in the social content of the revolution; constantly changing relations between the classes, constant changes in development in one stage to other. Revolution passes through a serious of stages. At these stages’ proletariat has different allies. Democratic struggle in particular will have various allies depending on the given situation and concrete conditions. 

Stalin with his skill in clarifying the subject sheds light to the question;

"does not mean, of course, that since capitalism is decaying the socialist system can be established any time we like. Only Anarchists and other petty-bourgeois ideologists think that. The socialist ideal is not the ideal of all classes. It is the ideal only of the proletariat; not all classes are directly interested in its fulfillment; the proletariat alone is so interested. This means that as long as the proletariat constitutes a small section of society the establishment of the socialist system is impossible. The decay of the old form of production, the further concentration of capitalist production, and the proletarianization of the majority in society -- such are the conditions needed for the achievement of socialism. But this is still not enough. The majority in society may already be proletarianised, but socialism may still not be achievable. This is because, in addition to all this, the achievement of socialism calls for class consciousness, the unity of the proletariat and the ability of the proletariat to manage its own affairs. In order that all this may be acquired, what is called political freedom is needed, i.e., freedom of speech, press, strikes, and association, in short, freedom to wage the class struggle.

But political freedom is not equally ensured everywhere. Therefore, the conditions under which it is obliged to wage the struggle: under a feudal autocracy (Russia), a constitutional monarchy (Germany), a big bourgeois republic (France), or under a democratic republic (which Russian Social-Democracy is demanding), are not a matter of indifference to the proletariat. Political freedom is best and most fully ensured in a democratic republic, that is, of course, in so far as it can be ensured under capitalism at all. Therefore, all advocates of proletarian socialism necessarily strive for the establishment of a democratic republic as the best "bridge" to socialism.

That is why, under present conditions, the Marxist programme is divided into two parts: the maximum programme, the goal of which is socialism, and the minimum programme, the object of which is to lay the road to socialism through a democratic republic." Lenin, Stalin, Anarchism or Socialism? Dialectic Materialism

Lenin, reiterates the words of Engels to emphasize the dialectic connection between theory and the assessment of existing condition for related practice;

 " Marxism requires of us a strictly exact and objectively verifiable analysis of the relations of classes and of the concrete features peculiar to each historical situation. We Bolsheviks have always tried to meet this requirement, which is absolutely essential for giving a scientific foundation to policy. " Lenin, Letter on Tactics

Left and right deviation kinship have always found their justification in eclecticism, in far-left phrase making, memorized slogans that has nothing to do with the concrete condition and situations. Either the petty bourgeois impatiens that Engels identifies as childishly naive "“What childish innocence it is to present one’s own impatience as a theoretically convincing argument!” !" (P351) or the petty bourgeois tactics to escape from the struggles of day to day and immediate questions. " Marx and Engels always said, rightly ridiculing the mere memorizing and repetition of "formulas", that at best are capable only of marking out general tasks, which are necessarily modifiable by the concrete economic and political conditions of each particular period of the historical process. “Lenin, Letter on Tactics

The statements on the part of deviations to escape from the democratic struggle, have become a habitual routine losing its random nature, same way the rejection and belittling of the democratic struggle to bond with the masses have become a habit. As Engels notes;

"...‘We are Communists’ [the Blanquist Communards wrote in their manifesto], ‘because we want to attain our goal without stopping at intermediate stations, without any compromises, which only postpone the day of victory and prolong the period of slavery.’" Lenin, No Compromises?

Due to their impatience and/or escape from the struggle, regardless of the concrete situation, the abstract slogans such as  "revolution now", "either all or nothing" despite its catchy sounding, does not serve the interests of working class and its struggle - unless the revolutionary situation exists. For a " Marxist must take cognizance of real life, of the true facts of reality. ' "" ... " A Marxist must not abandon the ground of careful analysis of class relations.” Lenin, Letter on Tactics

Lenin states that the " general failure of the representatives of old revolutionary theories to understand the principles of Social-Democracy, accustomed as they are to base their programmes and plans of activity on abstract ideas and not on an exact appraisal of the actual classes operating in the country, classes that have been placed in certain relationships by history." Lenin, The Tasks of the Russian Social-Democrats

Criticizing the far-left with abstract approach and slogans, "German communists," says Engels, " are Communists because, through all the intermediate stations and all compromises created, not by them but by the course of historical development, .... The thirty-three Blanquists are Communists just because they imagine that, merely because they want to skip the intermediate stations and compromises, the matter is settled, and if ‘it begins’ in the next few days—which they take for granted—and they take over power, ‘communism will be introduced’ the day after tomorrow. If that is not immediately possible, they are not Communists. “Lenin, No Compromises?

On the absurdity of learning Marxism from rote and sloganization of phrases, Lenin was saying;

 " It would be absurd to formulate a recipe or general rule (“No compromises!”) to suit all cases. One must use one’s own brains and be able to find one’s bearings in each particular instance." Lenin, No Compromises?

 Every democratic struggle duration may have "special situations" within, responses to which should be made based on the concrete assessment of the current special situation and determined the form of struggle and the tactical alliance for it. Lenin continues the previous quote;

"It is, in fact, one of the functions of a party organisation and of party leaders worthy of the name, to acquire, through the prolonged, persistent, variegated and comprehensive efforts of all thinking representatives of a given class, the knowledge, experience and—in addition to knowledge and experience—the political flair necessary for the speedy and correct solution of complex political problems " Lenin, No Compromises?

For those opportunists who rejects any tactical alliance for the purpose of any given democratic struggle on the agenda, again, with far-left sounding pretexts like "supporting bourgeoisie", "tailgating Bourgeoisie" and choosing to do nothing and  thereby, serving the interests of bourgeoisie indeed, Lenin states following;

" it is our bounden duty to explain to the proletariat every liberal and democratic protest, to widen and support it, with the active participation of the workers, be it a conflict between the Zemstvo and the Ministry of the Interior, between the nobility and the police régime of the Orthodox Church, between statisticians and the bureaucrats, between peasants and the “Zemstvo” officials, between religious sects and the rural police, etc., etc. Those who contemptuously turn up their noses at the slight importance of some of these conflicts, or at the “hopelessness” of the attempts to fan them into a general conflagration, do not realize that all-sided political agitation is a focus in which the vital interests of political education of the proletariat coincide with the vital interests of social development as a whole, of the entire people, that is, of all its democratic elements. It is our direct duty to concern ourselves with every liberal question, to determine our Social-Democratic attitude towards it, to help the proletariat to take an active part in its solution and to accomplish the solution in its own, proletarian way. Those who refrain from concerning themselves in this way (whatever their intentions) in actuality leave the liberals in command, place in their hands the political education of the workers, and concede the hegemony in the political struggle to elements which, in the final analysis, are leaders of bourgeois democracy. " Lenin, Political Agitation and “The Class Point of View”

Some of the” urgent task " arise due to specific conditions requires the revolutionaries "" to have the task of approaching to various  layers of population" , this task " should not be limited with the " intellectual layer " Lenin, The Tasks of the Russian Social-Democrats

What we have seen  in the example of Turkey, for example, is the tragic irony where rather than supporting and trying to gain the leadership of the spreading broad masses of opposition and spontaneous opposition movement to fascist power, they prefer an alliance with the variations of Trotskyism who has no base in masses. 

If we consider the specific case (religious-fascist dictatorship) and urgent task, the revolutionaries have to meet the needs of  " awaking proletariat, to organize them, and strengthen the ties with the revolutionary groups and wage a struggle in  order to integrate the " democratic tasks with the socialist tasks.

Distrust to the masses in essence derives from the distrust to herself, her own theory and practice capacity. Thus, the choice would be either individual practice isolated from the masses or similar movements, even counter-revolutionary "intellectual" groups.   "However, " says Lenin, "the working class does not stand alone; at its side are all the political opposition elements, strata and classes, since they are hostile to absolutism and are fighting it in one form or another. Here side by side with the proletariat stand the opposition elements of the bourgeoisie, or of the educated classes, or of the petty bourgeoisie, or of the nationalities, religions, and sects, etc., etc., persecuted by the autocratic government. The question naturally arises of what the attitude of the working class towards these elements should be." Lenin, The Tasks of the Russian Social-Democrats

It is unavoidable for the left and right deviations' response to the question of "what the attitude of the working class towards these elements should be". Even though the response would look contradictory to each, in fact, in the final analyses, their approach would both be mutually supporting, reinforcing each other in the service of  bourgeoisie. That is the nature of revisionism. Against the reformist outlook a " far - left outlook that turns its back to the democratic struggle with the claim of being pure socialist - that escapes from the struggle. Quote from Lenin below is quite important in understanding the subject;

""particularly in regard to the political struggle that the “class point of view” demands that the proletariat give an impetus to every democratic movement. The political demands of working-class democracy do not differ in principle from those of bourgeois democracy, they differ only in degree. In the struggle for economic emancipation, for the socialist revolution, the proletariat stands on a basis different in principle and it stands alone... In the struggle for political liberation, however, we have many allies towards whom we must not remain indifferent. But while our allies in the bourgeois-democratic camp, in struggling for liberal reforms, will always glance back and seek to adjust matters so that they will be able, as before, “to eat well, sleep peace fully, and live merrily” at other people’s expense, the proletariat will march forward to the end, without looking back. While the confreres of R. N. S... haggle with the government over the rights of the authoritative Zemstvo, or over a constitution, we will struggle for the democratic republic. We will not forget, however, that if we want to push someone forward, we must continuously keep our hands on that someone’s shoulders. The party of the proletariat must learn to catch every liberal just at the moment when he is prepared to move forward an inch and make him move forward a yard. If he is obdurate, we will go forward without him and over him.” Lenin, Political Agitation and “The Class Point of View”

In Turkey, for example, the current " chief enemy " is autocracy and the urgent agenda to fight against its anti- democratic, fascist attacks . As Lenin explains;

" Since its immediate task is the overthrow of the autocracy, Social-Democracy must act as the vanguard in the fight for democracy, and consequently, if for no other reason, must give every support to all democratic elements of the population .. and win them as allies. ".... 

The proletariat must not regard the other classes and parties as “one reactionary mass”; on the contrary, it must take part in all political and social life, support the progressive classes and parties against the reactionary classes and parties, support every revolutionary movement against the existing system, champion the interests of every oppressed nationality or race, of every persecuted religion, of the disfranchised sex, etc.” Lenin, A Protest by Russian Social-Democrats

Lenin speaking of autocratic countries says;

" The day-to-day work, which the class-conscious proletariat should never forget under any circumstances, includes also the work of organisation. Without broad and diverse workers’ organisations, and without their connection with revolutionary Social-Democracy, it is impossible to wage a successful struggle against the autocracy." Lenin, The Autocracy, and the Proletariat

In a struggle aiming the socialist revolution, “Our principal and fundamental task" says Lenin, " is to facilitate the political development and the political organisation of the working class. Those who push this task into the background, who refuse to subordinate to it all the special tasks and particular methods of struggle, are following a false path and causing serious harm to the movement.” Lenin, The urgent Tasks of our Movement

It is beneficial to repeat Lenin's words again which says; " Social-Democrats.. have always emphasized the dual manifestation and content of the class struggle of the proletariat and have always insisted on the inseparable connection between their socialist and democratic tasks—a connection clearly expressed in the name they have adopted " Lenin, The Tasks of the Russian Social-Democrats)

The struggle for the protection and expanding the Democratic rights is the preservation and expansion of struggle socialism, and  also exposing the illusion of  bourgeois democracy in the very practical life of the working masses. “The more democratic the system of government, the clearer will the workers see that the root evil is capitalism, not lack of rights.” A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism, The Other Political Issues Raised and Distorted By P. Kievsky

In addition, as Lenin puts it;

 ".. every resolute and consistent democratic demand of the proletariat always and everywhere in the world causes the bourgeoisie to recoil.. " Lenin, Will the Sweep of the Democratic Revolution be Diminished if the Bourgeoisie Recoils from it?

Democratic struggle is also an undeniable task in order to bond with the masses. Vanguardship, Leadership cannot be achieved in one day, it can be gained in the process of struggles integrated with the masses. It is not through abstract call-outs like " Socialism now ", but through struggles for concrete, specific democratic rights. As Lenin puts it;

  "" if the working class stands out as the vanguard fighter for democratic institutions, this will strength the democratic movement, will strengthen the struggle for political liberty, because the working class will spur on all the other democratic and political opposition elements, will push the liberals towards the political radicals, will push the radicals towards an irrevocable rupture with the whole of the political and social structure of present society.” Lenin, The Tasks of the Russian Social-Democrats

So democratic struggle is unavoidable task, first of all for; 1) the development of revolutionary movement and the struggle 2) the exposure of bourgeoisie fraud in practice 3) the integration with the working masses, empowerment, and gaining leadership.

The history of struggle at every period encountered the problems of not being able to comprehend the dialectical connection between these two tasks and consequently without any regard to the specific conditions, have been rejecting either the democratic struggle (political), or the economic struggle (socialist).

“In our opinion the ground has been prepared for this sad state of affairs by three circumstances. First, in their early activity, Russian Social-Democrats restricted themselves merely to work in propaganda circles. When we took up agitation among the masses, we were not always able to restrain ourselves from going to the other extreme. Secondly, in our early activity we often had to struggle for our right to existence against the Narodnaya Volya adherents, who understood by "politics" an activity isolated from the working-class movement and who reduced politics purely to conspiratorial struggle. In rejecting this sort of politics, the Social-Democrats went to the extreme of pushing politics entirely into the background. Thirdly, working in the isolation of small local workers' circles, the Social-Democrats did not devote sufficient attention to the necessity of organising a revolutionary party which would combine all the activities of the local groups and make it possible to organise the revolutionary work on correct lines. The predominance of isolated work is naturally connected with the predominance of the economic struggle.” Lenin, The urgent Tasks of our Movement

The approach, in order to set the balance in order not to deviate, is to subordinate the democratic struggle to socialist struggle and to safeguard the political independence in alliances. Because, isolated from political struggle " the working-class movement becomes petty and inevitably becomes bourgeois." That’s why, its task is not to serve the working-class movement passively at each of its separate stages, but to represent the interests of the movement as a whole, to point out to this movement its ultimate aim and its political tasks, and to safeguard its political and ideological independence.” Lenin, The urgent Tasks of our Movement

Without waging a democratic struggle subordinated to socialist struggle, without creating a leadership embracing and organizing the masses, " without such organisation, the proletariat will never rise to the class-conscious struggle; without such organisation the working-class movement is doomed to impotency." Lenin, The urgent Tasks of our Movement

Here comes another subject of justification for the left-deviation in order to reject the democratic struggle. They refuse all kind of alliances and conciliation under the pretext of " safeguarding their political and ideological independence." Although I will be taking the question of compromise on another title; "Lenin- On Compromise”, it is important to touch the subject here in direct connection with the current title.

Lenin in “Left wing communism an infantile Disorder” states; 

"to reject compromises “on principle”, to reject the permissibility of compromises in general, no matter of what kind, is childishness, which it is difficult even to consider seriously." ..There are different kinds of compromises. One must be able to analyse the situation and the concrete conditions of each compromise, or of each variety of compromise.....It would be absurd to formulate a recipe or general rule ("No Compromises!") to serve all cases. One must use one's own brains and be able to find one's bearings in each separate case." He continues; " Naive and utterly inexperienced people imagine that it is sufficient to admit the permissibility of compromises in general in order to obliterate the dividing line between opportunism, against which we wage and must wage an irreconcilable struggle, and revolutionary Marxism, or Communism.''

Conciliation for an alliance requires to be in line with the interests of working peoples and their struggle and based on objective assessment of the concrete situation. A decision of support or an alliance made in line with this approach is not called opportunism but a necessity for the struggle aiming a specific issue on the agenda.

" to refuse beforehand to manoeuvre, to utilize the conflict of interests (even though temporary) among one's enemies, to refuse to temporize and compromise with possible (even though temporary, unstable, vacillating, and conditional) allies -- is not this ridiculous in the extreme? .. ..The more powerful enemy can be vanquished only by exerting the utmost effort, and without fail, most thoroughly, carefully, attentively, and skillfully using every, even the smallest, "rift" among the enemies,.. and also by taking advantage of every, even the smallest, opportunity of gaining a mass ally even though this ally be temporary, vacillating, unstable, unreliable, and conditional. Those who fail to understand this fail to understand even a particle of Marxism, or of scientific, modern Socialism in general. Those who have not proved by deeds over a fairly considerable period of time, and in fairly varied political situations, their ability to apply this truth in practice have not yet learned to assist the revolutionary class in its struggle to emancipate all toiling humanity from the exploiters. And this applies equally to the period before and after the proletariat has conquered political power. " Lenin, No Compromises?

The confusion is in the difference between the support and or conciliation in general, and in particular. In some concrete situation cases, whether negotiated or not, the support of an ally against the chief enemy carries in it  the protection of immediate, short term interests but also  of the long -term interests. Socialists, "says Lenin, " support the progressive social classes against the reactionary classes, the bourgeoisie against the representatives of privileged landowning estate and the bureaucracy, the big bourgeoisie against the reactionary strivings of the petty bourgeoisie. This support does not presuppose, nor does it call for, any compromise with non-Social-Democratic programmes and principles—it is support given to an ally against a particular enemy. Moreover, the Social-Democrats render this support in order to expedite the fall of the common enemy, but expect nothing for themselves from these temporary allies, and concede nothing to them.” Lenin, The Tasks of the Russian Social-Democrats

In conclusion, there cannot be a socialist struggle by rejecting, ignoring the democratic tasks e.g., struggling for the protection and achievement of the existing and non-existing democratic rights and freedoms. Socialists struggle aiming to destroy the class system and to build a socialist society cannot be isolated from the democratic tasks which aims at gaining political freedom and democratize the existing political and social systems, struggles against the dictatorships, fascism, autocracy, religious reaction etc. The argument of” one is the tasks of the reformist" and” the other is the task of  revolutionaries", is an argument from the marshes of revisionism regardless of how skillfully concealed with far-left slogans and phrase making.

Marxist Leninists are conscious of the fact that under capitalism women's rights cannot be acquired, but this fact has not prevented and will not prevent them from waging the democratic struggle for women's rights within the boundaries of capitalist system.

Marxist Leninists are conscious of the fact that under capitalism labor rights cannot be realized, but they do not desert the democratic struggle for these rights.

Marxist Leninists are conscious of the fact that under capitalism secularism cannot be realized, but they do wage a democratic struggle for secularism.

Marxist Leninists are conscious of the fact that under capitalism justice, equality cannot be realized, but they do not desert the democratic struggle for these rights.

Marxist Leninists are conscious of the fact that under capitalism the salvation of oppressed peoples cannot be realized, but they do not make an excuse and desert the democratic struggle for it.

For dozens of such democratic rights which under capitalism cannot be realized, Marxist Leninists do not give up the democratic struggle for those with an attitude of "" nothing will change anyway "". 

Marxist Leninists, while struggling for these rights, also prevent the spread of illusion of possibility by emphasizing that it cannot be fully realized under capitalism.

Why? Because these are the tasks of democratic struggle which is an integral part of socialist struggle. This struggle is the practice of bonding with masses, educating and organizing them, and creating more appropriate condition and the environment for the socialist struggle. Without putting this struggle into practice, to speak about the socialist struggle is an illusion, reaction with left phrase making. 

Reiterating Lenin's words;

 "such a presentation of the question is too narrow, for it ignores the general democratic tasks” … "Can a class-conscious worker forget the democratic struggle for the sake of the socialist struggle, or forget the latter for the sake of the former? No, a class-conscious worker calls himself a Social-Democrat for the reason that he understands the relation between the two struggles… “Socialists "must rouse among the people consciousness of integral democratic tasks and imbue the proletariat with a clear understanding of revolutionary aims. "...We are in favour of democratic demands, we alone fight for them sincerely, for the objective historical situation prevents us from advancing them except in connection with the socialist revolution.”.. " it appears that, in the name of the socialist revolution, Parabellum scornfully rejects a consistently revolutionary programme in the sphere of democracy. He is wrong to do so. The proletariat cannot be victorious except through democracy, i.e., by giving full effect to democracy and by linking with each step of its struggle democratic demands formulated in the most resolute terms...We must combine the revolutionary struggle against capitalism with a revolutionary programme and tactics on all democratic demands.."

The democratic struggle takes many forms. One of the most important — and most contested — is the parliamentary struggle. The ultra-left declares parliament a 'pigsty' and refuses to enter it. But Lenin's approach was different: using parliament to educate the masses, to expose the bourgeoisie, to prepare the revolutionary crisis. In Part 16, we examine parliamentarism — the Marxist-Leninist approach and the ultra-left's distortion of it.

Part 16- Parliamentarism and 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." Lenin, The Historical Destiny of the Doctrine of Karl Marx

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 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. " Lenin, Guerrilla Warfare

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." Lenin, To: Inessa Armand

Undoubtedly these words of Lenin were not for "every condition" but he was emphasizing the stupidity of attacking 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 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. "  Lenin, The State: A Lecture Delivered at the Sverdlov University

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. " Lenin, The State: A Lecture Delivered at the Sverdlov University

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.  " Lenin, A Proletarian Militia

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 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. " Lenin, Speech on Parliamentarism

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." Lenin,  The Social-Democrats, and the Election Agreement”

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.." Lenin, The Mistakes Of Our Party

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 monarchy and the bourgeoisie. This new relation of classes was something the country had to get rid of. Lenin, The Mistakes Of Our Party 

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 legalist opportunists and anarchist phrase-mongers. "Lenin,  What Has Been Revealed By the Trial of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Group.

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. Lenin, Material for the Second Congress of the Communist International

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." Lenin, An Appeal to the Party by Delegates to the Unity Congress Who Belonged to the Former “Bolshevik” Group

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 "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 clamor 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. " Lenin, Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution

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." Lenin, Draft Programme of the R.C.P.(B.)

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.” Lenin, Heroes of Fraud and the Mistakes of the Bolsheviks

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.  "Lenin, Abolition of Parliamentarism

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.  " Lenin, The Faction of Supporters of Otzovism and God-Building   

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. " Lenin, Lenin, Letter to Sylvia Pankhurst

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. "Lenin, Victory of the Cadets & the Tasks of the Workers’ Party

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"" Lenin, To: A. V. Lunacharsky

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." Lenin, To: A. V. Lunacharsky

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 ." Lenin, Tasks of the Left Zimmerwaldists in the Swiss Social-Democratic Party

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)." Lenin, Should We Participate in Bourgeois Parliaments?

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. " Lenin, A Caricature of Bolshevism

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?" Lenin, Should We Participate in Bourgeois Parliaments?

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). . " Lenin, Should We Participate in Bourgeois Parliaments? 

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." Lenin, Should We Participate in Bourgeois Parliaments?

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. ."Lenin, Report of the C.C. of the R.S.D.L.P. to the Brussels Conference and Instructions to the C.C. Delegation

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. . " Lenin, Report of the C.C. of the R.S.D.L.P. to the Brussels Conference and Instructions to the C.C. Delegation 

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. " Lenin, The Principal Stages in the History of Bolshevism

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." Lenin, The Principal Stages in the History of Bolshevism

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. . " Lenin, The Principal Stages in the History of Bolshevism

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. ." Lenin, The Principal Stages in the History of Bolshevism

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 their 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 who are 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. " Lenin, On the Road

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.”  Lenin, On the Road

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, 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.  " Lenin, Incorrect conclusions from Concrete premises

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 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.  

The 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. . " Stalin, Concerning the Question of the Strategy and Tactics of the Russian Communists

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. "Lenin, Two Utopias

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 7^th 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." Lenin, The Mistakes Of Our Party

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. "Lenin, The Principal Stages in the History of Bolshevism

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. "Lenin, State and revolution, Controversy with the Anarchists

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. " Lenin, Autocracy and Proletariat

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."  Lenin, Speech on Parliamentarism

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, they 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. 

Do 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... " Lenin, Letter to Maxim Gorky

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 that 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).  

Parliamentarism is a form of struggle — a means to educate the masses and expose the bourgeoisie. But the ultra-left rejects not only parliament but also the struggle for reforms within it. They confuse reform with reformism, refusing to fight for partial improvements, claiming that only revolution matters. This confusion is the final weapon in the ultra-left's arsenal: the rejection of the fight for reforms, which leaves the masses to the reformists. We must now clarify this distinction — and show how the fight for reforms, subordinated to the revolutionary struggle, is an integral part of the Marxist-Leninist approach.

Part 17- Reform vs Reformism

Confusing the "reform" with "reformism"; further shift to the right of reformism 

"the entire minimum programme of the R.S.D.L.P. which envisaged a struggle for democratic reforms that would facilitate the preparation and transition to the socialist revolution. Like the old “economists,” who could not understand the need for the political struggle of the working class under conditions of capitalism, the “imperialist economists” did not understand the significance of the struggle for democratic reforms under conditions of imperialism." Lenin, CW 38, P 582-583

To confuse reform with reformism , on one hand, is a result of learning Marxism Leninism by rote and not applying the dialectic of Marxism to the subject, on the other and more often is a result of anarcho-Trotskyite tactics. They lump and equate the meaning and context of each term in order to reject any struggle for reform and disguise themselves as anti-reformist, anti-revisionist “revolutionaries”. Lenin states:

 " Recognition of revolutionary activity along the lines indicated above, not denial of legal activity and of the struggle for reforms, should be the essence of the “struggle against the Marsh (= wavering, lack of principle, “turn table” (“Drehscheibe”), weathercock). " Lenin, Notebook Alpha, Our Struggle Against the “Marsh”

Contrary to misconception that Reforms (not reformism) excludes revolution, Lenin says, "Reforms do not, of course, exclude revolution ", but reform is not a revolution, but an alternative to the revolution for the forced bourgeoisie. Lenin continues;

“The point is that revolutionaries must not exclude themselves, not give way to reformism, i.e., that socialists should not substitute reformist work for their revolutionary work.” Lenin, Bourgeois Pacifism and Socialist Pacifism

(Not Reforms) Reformism excludes revolution, it is counter-revolutionary ideology that limits change.

The concept of "reform", " says Lenin," is undoubtedly the opposite of the concept of "revolution". Not remembering this contradiction, not remembering the line separating these two concepts constantly causes serious mistakes in all historical debates. However, this contrast is not an absolute thing, this line is not a dead thing, on the contrary, it is a living and changing thing, and the individual must be able to define it in any specific case. " Lenin, Apropos of an Anniversary

In other words, "reform" in connection with the revolutionary struggle cannot be handled in an absolute context in all situations and periods, such as " it does not serve the revolution, but serves the counter revolution," or " serves the revolution ". It should be handled in a concrete context with its vitality and variability in the revolutionary situation and in non-revolutionary situations and based on the evaluation of any given specific situations. 

First of all, reforms are not a product of "reformists", but they are democratic rights which the working people have gained as a result of their opposition, active reaction, and struggle against the power of capital, that is, even if it was spontaneous, they are the byproduct of a struggle . "Reforms are a by-product of the revolutionary struggle" says Lenin.  The Peasant Reform" and the Proletarian-Peasant Revolution

And for those who claims otherwise, Lenin says

“ What have metaphysics got to do with it, when historical experience, the experience of England, France, Germany and Russia, the experience of all modern history in Europe and Asia, shows that serious reforms have always been merely the by-product of a movement completely free of the narrowness of reformism?” Lenin, The Liberal Bourgeoisie and Reformism

Reform and reformism are not one and the same. Reform, regardless of its extent, refers to the right gained as a result of the struggle. Reformism is the attempt to take the struggle of working people for reforms, the degree of rights gained under control and to prevent it from going further. One is related to the "gained - or desired to gain" right(s), the other is the ideology and practice of limiting the struggle to these rights in order to prevent revolutions. Reformists, as Lenin puts it,” only recognize reforms, they reject revolution" Lenin , Reformism in the Russian Social-Democratic Movement

“We are by no means opposed to the fight for reforms.” Lenin, disarmament slogan

Stalin explains it as follows; " the bourgeoisie may sometimes concede certain partial reforms while remaining on the basis of the existing social-economic system. Acting in this way, it calculates that these concessions are necessary in order to preserve its class rule. This is the essence of reform. Revolution, however, means the transference of power from one class to another. That is why it is impossible to describe any reform as revolution." Stalin, Marxism vs Liberalism

"Reformist tactics," says Lenin, " are unlikely to achieve real reforms. The most effective way to secure real reforms is to pursue the tactics of the revolutionary class struggle. In fact, reforms are won as a result of the revolutionary class struggle because of its independence, mass power, and determination. " Lenin, Once Again About the Duma Cabinet

So, the "reforms" are not the achievements of reformists but of revolutionary struggle. “In contrast to the reformists fight for reforms to hinder revolutionary struggle, in view of the Marxist Leninists” all struggles for reforms should be channeled and must be converted into the revolutionary struggle. " Lenin, Remarks on an Article About Maximalism

In other words, the struggle of the Marxist Leninists is not against "reforms", but against "reformism" and "reformists", who take the struggle for reform and reforms -which are inseparable part of the democratic struggle- as a final goal, and to limit the struggle of the masses only with "reforms" .

"Unlike anarchists," says Lenin,” Marxists recognize the struggle for reforms, that is, they recognize the struggle for measures that improve the conditions of the entire working class, without destroying the power of the ruling class. They carry out the most decisive struggle against reformists, which directly or indirectly restrict them. Reformism is the bourgeois deceit of workers who will always remain a paid slave, as long as capital is dominant. " Lenin, Marxism and Reformism

Therefore, in terms of the tactical approach to reforms, Lenin says, " We shall never reduce our tasks to that of supporting the slogans of the reformist bourgeoisie that are most in vogue. " And continues," We pursue an independent policy and put forward only such reforms as are undoubtedly favourable to the interests of the revolutionary struggle, that undoubtedly enhance the independence, class-consciousness, and fighting efficiency of the proletariat. Only by such tactics can reforms from above, which are always half-hearted, always hypocritical, and always conceal some bourgeois or police snare, be made innocuous. " Lenin, Once Again About the Duma Cabinet

Lenin summarizes the difference. Marxist Leninists and class-conscious " workers struggle for better conditions and use them to speed up the fight against wage-slavery. The reformists try to divide and deceive the workers with little concessions to take them apart from the class struggle. But workers use reforms to develop and expand the class struggle, seeing the false nature of reformism. " Lenin, Marxism and Reformism

" Revolutionaries, " says Lenin," they played a tremendous historical role in the social struggle and in all social crises, even if the immediate result of these crises was semi-voluntary reforms. "And it reveals the essence of what reform is; "Revolutionaries are leaders of the social forces that affect all changes; reforms are by-products of the revolutionary struggle". Lenin, "The Peasant Reform" and the Proletarian-Peasant Revolution

Only those who have no ties with the masses, do not trust the masses, have been participating in the choir of religious or otherwise reactionaries for years, singing the same songs with them, would consider the reaction, struggle, and achievements of the working peoples as the gain of "reformism". Since aside from being indifferent to the democratic demands of the masses, they take a stand against these demands, do not understand and do not believe the power of the masses, according to them any gain is only the gain of or this or that party in order to soften the anger and hatred of the masses and to try channeling it in the interests of the system. And again, according to them, any democratization in the political system is simply a deception without any benefit to the working people and their struggle. According Lenin, however, " The more democratic the system of government, the clearer the workers will see that the root evil is capitalism, not lack of rights." Lenin, A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism

For those phrase-makers who argue that the fight for reforms is not "class" struggle, but a conciliatory one; " "The class perspective " on the political struggle, says Lenin, " requires the proletariat to provide a driving force for every democratic movement. The political demands of working-class democracy are in principle not different from those of bourgeois democracy, the difference is quantitative ... we have many allies in the struggle for political liberation, and we should not be indifferent to them. "" Lenin, Political Agitation And the “Class Point of view”

Likewise, "The revolutionary proletariat," says Lenin, " will reject such a theory with contempt. .... the demand for the republic, for arming the people, for the separation of the Church from the State, for full democratic liberties, and for decisive economic reforms." Lenin, Social-Democracy, and the provisional Revolutionary Government

Unlike revisionists and left-wing phrase makers rejecting to fight for reforms at every situation, Lenin says; " everywhere the Marxist workers are ahead of the liquidators, in the direct, immediate, “day-to-day” activity of agitation, organisation, fighting for reforms and using them. " Lenin, Marxism and Reformism

Marxist Leninists " has always included the struggle for reforms as part of its activities."

But unlike reformists, ML " subordinates the struggle for reforms, as the part to the whole, to the revolutionary struggle for freedom and for socialism. " Lenin, Trade-Unionist Politics And Social-Democratic Politics

In the same way, Lenin states that the "Marxists are working tirelessly, not missing a single “possibility” of winning and using reforms, and not condemning, but supporting, painstakingly developing every step beyond reformism in propaganda, agitation, mass economic struggle, etc. " Lenin, Marxism and Reformism

"" Those who refrain from making efforts in this way... make the liberals dominate, hand over the political education of the workers to their hands and leave the sovereignty in the political struggle to the leaders of the bourgeois democracy in the final analysis. ” Lenin, Political Agitation And the “Class Point of view”

As a result of the uneven development of capitalism in different countries, the "bourgeoisie" says Lenin, " as represented by their ideologists and political leaders, are coming out increasingly in defense of so-called social reforms as opposed to the idea of social revolution. Not liberalism versus socialism, but reformism versus socialist revolution—is the formula of the modern, “advanced”, educated bourgeoisie. " Lenin , Reformism in the Russian Social-Democratic Movement

To stop the evolving struggles of the masses and channeling them into reformism, " everywhere the bourgeoisie seek, in one way or another, to corrupt the workers and turn them into contented slaves who have given up all thought of doing away with slavery. " Lenin, Marxism and Reformism

It is an illusion to expect revolutionarism from the "masses" while being isolated from them and disinterested in their economic and democratic demands. Inevitably, due to desperation and lack of leadership, the masses will be under the influence of reformists. And as Lenin puts it;

" The stronger the reformist influence among workers, the weaker the workers, the more they depend on the bourgeoisie. " Lenin, Marxism and Reformism

Stalin summarizes the difference between Marxism Leninism and reformism as follows;

"" To a reformist, reforms are everything, while revolutionary work is something incidental, something just to talk about, mere eyewash. That is why, with reformist tactics under the conditions of bourgeois rule, reforms are inevitably transformed into an instrument for strengthening that rule, an instrument for disintegrating the revolution. ……. To a revolutionary, on the contrary, the main thing is revolutionary work and not reforms; to him reforms are a byproduct of the revolution. That is why, with revolutionary tactics under the conditions of bourgeois rule, reforms are naturally transformed into an instrument for disintegrating that rule, into an instrument for strengthening the revolution, into a strong point for the further development of the revolutionary movement. "". Stalin, Marxism vs Liberalism

Mixing the “reform” and the struggle for “reforms” with “reformism” and “reformist” means moving away from the ABCs of Marxism and breaking its wings. Especially in times when there is no revolutionary situation, in Lenin's words,

" A period of reform. The absence of a revolutionary situation. This is the essence of the work." Lenin, May day and War, Collapse of Pacifist Dreams

"The liquidators are reformers ..." says Lenin and continues; " If there were a group that denied the use of reforms and partial improvements, we could not join it, because that would be a non-Marxist policy, a policy harmful to the workers.  Neither could we join the liquidators, because repudiation and abuse of the “underground”, repudiation and relegation of the two “pillars”, the advocacy in present-day Russia of a struggle for a legal party and the possibility of political reforms—all this is a betrayal of the working class, desertion to the bourgeoisie.. " Lenin, Two Paths

In these seemingly complicated words, Lenin emphasizes that the rejection of reforms and the struggle for them is anti-Marxist, as well as betrayal of the working class in association with reformists, that is, he reveals the difference between reform and reformism. 

In terms of the importance of struggle for reforms, it is useful to quote the following words of Lenin in evaluating a period; 

 " Yes, we are undoubtedly passing through an era of reforms….. Of course, these are not the reforms that denote a down-grade in political development…. Such reforms are always foretokens and precursors of revolution. " Lenin, An Era of Reforms

 “We try to help the working class to get the smallest possible” says Lenin, “but real improvement (economic & political) in their situation and we add always that no reform can be durable, sincere, serious if not seconded by revolutionary methods of struggle of the masses. We preach always that a socialist party not uniting this struggle for reforms with the revolutionary methods of working-class movement can become a sect, can be severed from the masses, and that is the most pernicious menace to the success of the clear-cut revolutionary socialism.” Lenin, Letter to the Secretary of the Socialist Propaganda League

The struggle for "reforms" and for the demands as such, is not only carrying an important weight for the "preparatory period" – where a revolutionary situation does not exist. Any demand for "reform", in any specific time, at the same time, may carry within the agitation of revolutionary "uprising". (Other than Exceptions) The masses will not spontaneously rise up collectively, most likely, one or more "reform" demands of that specific period for the broadest masses will be the reason for this insurrection and may be the leadership's insurrection agitation. 

Consequently, “reforms” and “reformist’, “reformism” should not be confused. In pursuit of an "anti-revisionist" appearance, disguise, such "far-left" approaches are essentially not revolutionary, but reactionary, further to the right of reformists. If the issue is "the fight against revisionism”, as Lenin puts, it is " " not the denial of legal activity and of the struggle for reforms, (it) should be the essence of the “struggle against the Marsh ( revisionism). " Lenin, Notebook Alpha, Our Struggle Against the “Marsh”

 “The "Kautskyites", the "Centre", are revolutionaries in word and reformists in deed” Lenin, The Agrarian and National Programs

” Divorce the struggle for reforms from the struggle for the final goal—that is what Bernstein’s preaching actually amounts to. Divorce the struggle for improvements, for freedom of association, etc., from the struggle against reformism, from the defense of Marxism, from its spirit and its political trend—that is what the preaching of D. and the other liquidators actually amounts to.” Lenin, Non-Party Intellectuals Against Marxism

Parliamentarism is a form of struggle. But the struggle itself — for democratic rights, for reforms — is what the ultra-left rejects. They confuse reform with reformism. They refuse to fight for partial improvements, claiming that only revolution matters. In Part 17, we examine this confusion — and show how the fight for reforms, subordinated to the revolutionary struggle, is an integral part of the Marxist-Leninist approach.

We have examined the weapons the ultra-left uses to isolate the revolutionaries from the masses — sectarianism, boycott, refusal to compromise, rejection of democratic struggle, anti-parliamentarism, and confusion of reform with reformism. But the bourgeoisie's arsenal is not exhausted. It extends to the very categories through which we understand the world: technology and identity. In Chapter IV, we examine these general weapons.

 CHAPTER IV- General subjects

The weapons of ideological warfare are not confined to the distortion of socialist theory or the slander of socialist leaders. They extend to the very categories through which we understand the world: technology and identity. In this chapter, we examine two such weapons: the myth of AI neutrality and the myth of generational identity. Both serve the same function — to obscure class relations and disarm the working class.

Part 18- AI and Socialism- Technological weaponization

Introduction

"Socialism is inconceivable without large-scale capitalist engineering based on the latest discoveries of modern science."  Lenin, "Left-Wing" Childishness

The confusion around AI is perhaps the most widespread ideological battlefield of our time—and it is being waged with the same weaponization of science that the bourgeoisie has always employed. The narrative is carefully constructed:

1. "AI is neutral technology": The bourgeois apologists hide the class character of its development and application. Technology is presented as value-neutral, ahistorical, and classless.
   
   "AI will liberate humanity": The techno-utopians obscure the fact that under capitalism, AI liberates capital from labor, not humanity from toil.
   
   "AI is inevitable, adapt or perish": The fatalists disarm the working class by presenting technological development as a force of nature, not a product of class relations.
   
   "AI is dangerous, we must regulate it": The reformists offer "regulation," "ethics committees," and "responsible AI" — band-aids that leave the capitalist foundation intact, creating the illusion of control while capital continues to direct development.

These are all forms of ideological warfare. They all serve to obscure one central truth: The character of any technology—including AI—is determined not by its technical specifications but by the relations of production under which it is developed and deployed.

This confusion around AI is the latest manifestation of the ideological warfare we have examined in previous articles — the confusion between socialism and communism, and the weaponization of bourgeois terminology against socialist states. In each case, the bourgeoisie presents its system as natural and inevitable, and socialism as impossible or backward.

In this article, we will study the subject in a dialectical flow: the theoretical foundations for science, technology, and socialism; the bourgeois narrative and its function; the revolutionary position under socialism; and the imperative to seize and repurpose AI for human liberation.

A: Theoretical Foundations — Science, Technology, and Socialism

Section 1: The Marxist-Leninist Conception of Science

Marxism-Leninism does not oppose science — it opposes the ownership of science by capital. Science is a productive force, and its character is determined by the relations of production under which it is developed and deployed.

Science as a Productive Force

Marx and Engels established that science and technology are productive forces. Under capitalism, however, these productive forces are transformed into instruments of exploitation. The bourgeoisie presents science as "neutral" to hide this class character. Because the primary goal of capitalism is the maximization of surplus value, technology is deployed to extract more labor from workers for less relative pay. Science under capitalism cannot be neutral — it serves profit, not humanity in general and the laboring masses in particular.

Lenin's Contribution

Lenin inherited and developed Marx's views on science and technology. He argued that building socialism and developing the economy must depend on science and technology. Lenin's famous formulation captured this vision:

"Communism is Soviet power plus the electrification of the whole country."

For Lenin, socialism was not simply a political change; it required a technological transformation. Lenin repeatedly stressed the need to put science and ideology at the service of the new socialist order. He recognized that "science and technology, with every step forward, inevitably and mercilessly destroy the foundation of small-scale production within capitalist society."

The core of Lenin's analysis of the peasantry and small-scale commodity production, detailed in his early economic work The Development of Capitalism in Russia, relates to the idea that economic development depends on science and technology. His analysis dismantled the Narodniks' argument to bypass capitalism entirely by building a socialist society on the foundation of peasant communes. Lenin argued that science and technology are not neutral forces but actively accelerate class divisions even in a backward economy.

Stalin's Emphasis on Technology

Stalin declared:

"The Bolsheviks must become masters of technique."

He understood that technology is nothing without people:

"Technology is nothing without people. People are the decisive factor."

This critical point in the Soviet Union was the fundamental shift from importing foreign expertise to rapidly engineering a brand-new generation of Soviet-trained workers and engineers. In his 1931 speech, Stalin warned:

"We are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make this distance good in ten years. Either we do it, or they shall crush us."

Under Stalin, the Marxist-Leninist view that machines are merely dead labor until human willpower animates them, through education, millions of peasants became literate "masters of technique" in less than a generation. This was the Marxist-Leninist approach to technology: not as a replacement for people, but as a tool to be mastered by people through education and collective effort.

The Soviet Example

The Soviet Union demonstrated that under socialism, science can flourish. The launch of Sputnik was declared "the natural victory of socialism over capitalism." Soviet science was supported by the state and directed toward the construction of socialism. The Soviet Union created research institutes where scientists could concentrate on research without teaching obligations. The Stakhanovite movement, launched in August 1935, fundamentally transformed everyday life in Soviet manufacturing, fostering a technical culture while rapidly increasing industrial output.

Note: The Lysenko affair was a specific historical episode, not the essence of Soviet science. The bourgeoisie uses it to discredit socialist science while ignoring the systematic suppression of science under capitalism for profit. Capitalists suppress knowledge through financial starvation, media control, and institutional capture — which has the functional outcome of a legal ban on any research that threatens profit. Dominant industries control the funding for research, own the media channels, control information flow, and lobby governments to shape regulatory standards. They create conditions where contradicting science becomes practically invisible to the public, and without funding, it does not develop.

This historical experience demonstrates a fundamental truth: the character of science and technology is determined not by their technical specifications but by the relations of production under which they are developed and deployed.

Section 2: Productive Forces and Relations of Production

AI is a productive force. Under capitalism, it is subordinated to extraction and control. Under socialism, it could be subordinated to human liberation.

The Marxist Framework

The mode of production is the unity of productive forces and relations of production. Productive forces include science, technology, and labor. Relations of production are determined by who owns the means of production. When productive forces develop, they come into contradiction with existing relations of production.

AI as a Productive Force

AI is the most advanced form of technology in our era, representing a new quality of productivity characterized by the intelligence of productive factors. Under capitalism, AI is adopted and operated as an intrinsic element of the productive forces — but as an object of labor that can be exploited for profit generation.

Marx's "Fragment on Machines" from the Grundrisse provides direct evidence about a future stage of capitalism where the primary force of production is no longer manual muscle power, but the "general intellect" driven by knowledge and science. Marx predicted that as machinery becomes automated, the worker ceases to be the main agent of production and instead stands alongside the process as a regulator:

"Labour no longer appears so much to be included within the production process; rather, the human being comes to relate to the production process more as watchman and regulator."

"The worker no longer inserts a modified natural thing as middle link between the object and himself; rather, he inserts the process of nature, transformed into an industrial process, as a means between himself and inorganic nature, which he masters. He steps to the side of the production process instead of being its chief actor."

Marx also argued that knowledge and science would replace direct labor time:

"The creation of real wealth comes to depend less on labour time and on the amount of labour employed than on the power of the agencies set in motion during labour time, whose 'efficiency' [...] is instead proportionate to the general state of science and on the progress of technology, or the application of this science to production."

He defined the "general intellect" as follows:

"The development of fixed capital indicates to what degree general social knowledge has become a direct force of production, and to what degree, hence, the conditions of the process of social life itself have come under the control of the general intellect and been transformed in accordance with it."

"Nature builds no machines, no locomotives, railways, electric telegraphs, self-acting mules etc. These are products of human industry [...] organs of the human brain, created by the human hand; the power of knowledge, objectified."

In our era, generative AI is the ultimate realization of general intellect. It is the automated crystallization of humanity's collective intelligence, a single queryable software architecture fed by historical data of human socialization and thought.

When we put together Marx's arguments — that machines are "organs of the human brain" and "the power of knowledge, objectified" — he was outlining the precise mechanics of generative AI. AI is a massive repository of human output, writing, and knowledge converted into an automated system that operates without dependence on manual labor. In this sense, AI represents the realization of the shift Marx predicted.

The Contradiction Under Capitalism

AI is developed by and for capital. The idea that AI is a "neutral," objective arbiter of truth is a carefully constructed myth because its mathematical equations and codes are not immune to human bias, ideology, or economic interests. In other words, it has data within it covering all the inequalities and historical bias. AI does not absorb the concrete world as we see and live; it absorbs the world as it is written on the internet and through "training," which in reality reflects the hegemony of those who carry out the feeding of data, algorithms, coding, and training. The algorithm — what type of data goes in, what goes out, how the parameters are weighted, and what makes an output successful — is all fed by "humans." Considering that the data on the internet is dominantly Western and English, tech companies decide what is safe, what is propaganda (government-controlled media vs. corporate media), what is polite, and what is appropriate. The "neutrality" of AI narrative is an endorsement of the status quo propagated by the tech companies, and thus it cannot be anything but ideological. AI under capitalism is a powerful instrument of "narrative" control filtered through the historical biases of the bourgeoisie and corporations.

While enhancing the productive forces of society, AI simultaneously renders the fundamental contradictions of capitalism more visible. Under capitalism, AI serves to increase the productivity of human labor — but this productivity is appropriated by capital. AI under capitalism is primarily used to help digital capital integrate other capital sectors and to subsume labor processes.

Marx distinguished between the formal subsumption of labor — where the tools of production are changed little — and the real subsumption of labor — where capital completely redesigns the physical tools and the labor process itself. AI represents an advanced phase of real subsumption, dictating the exact pace of each work process and subordinating labor to the rhythm and logic of the software architecture. This creates the ultimate alienation of labor: the worker becomes a regulator of a process they no longer control.

The Socialist Alternative

Under a socialist system, artificial intelligence can break through the tool limitations of capital accumulation. It can be transformed into a strategic fulcrum for liberating productive forces and optimizing social relations. When freed from the imperatives of the endless cycle of profit-seeking, AI undergoes a fundamental shift from being weaponized as a tool to compress wages or alienate workers to the transformation into an apparatus for collective liberation and conscious planning for the benefit of society.

Having established the framework, we must now examine how AI actually functions under capitalism — and what it reveals about the system that produces it. The bourgeois narrative presents AI as neutral, inevitable, and progressive. The reality is quite different.

B: The Bourgeois Narrative — AI as Ideology

Section 3: The Myth of Neutrality and AI as a Weapon of Capital

The bourgeoisie presents AI as value-neutral, ahistorical, and classless. This is ideological warfare against socialism.

The Positivist Illusion

The dominant bourgeois approach seeks authority through positivist claims for objective scientific knowledge, which obscures the class character of technological development. Technology is presented as if it exists outside of social relations.

The Erasure of Class

The bourgeoisie cannot analyze technology through class relations. So they reduce technology to technical specifications, ignoring who controls it and who benefits from it. This is the same mechanism we have seen in the confusion between socialism and communism.

The Function of the Myth

If technology is "neutral," then its effects are "natural" and "inevitable." This disarms any resistance: "You can't fight progress." This serves capital by presenting exploitation as technological necessity.

But AI under capitalism is not neutral. It is a weapon.

AI as a Weapon of Capital

Under capitalism, AI is developed and deployed to extract profit, control labor, and manufacture consent. In practical reality, AI as a "weapon of capital" takes several forms:

• Automation in any industry destroys labor power and disciplines workers.
• Surveillance serves the dominant class to control populations and suppress dissent.
• Algorithms and recommendation engines manipulate and manufacture consent.
• Data extraction creates a new field of profit extraction as a new form of primitive accumulation.

1. Automation to Destroy Labor

Under capitalism, machines — including AI — serve to increase the productivity of human labor, but this productivity is appropriated by capital. AI is used to replace workers, driving down wages and increasing exploitation. This is not "progress" — it is class warfare.

2. Surveillance to Control

AI enables unprecedented surveillance of workers and populations. This is not for "security"; it is for control. Under capitalism, surveillance serves capital, not the people.

3. Manipulation to Manufacture Consent

AI is used to manipulate public opinion through algorithms and recommendation engines. This is not "personalization" — it is mind management. The bourgeoisie uses AI to manufacture consent for its rule.

4. The Three Contradictions of Capitalist AI

• Technological monopolization: AI is concentrated in the hands of a few tech monopolies.
• Digital labor exploitation: AI depends on the exploitation of digital labor.
• Epistemic colonialism: AI represents the private monopolization of knowledge, data, and computational infrastructure. The concentration of  AI is  in the hands of a few tech monopolies in the Global North. Global South is excluded from its benefits while its data is extracted. This is epistemic colonialism — the privatization of human knowledge by capital.

The bourgeoisie wants you to believe AI is either a savior or an inevitable threat — never a tool of class power.

C: The Utopian Distraction and the Fatalist Trap

The bourgeoisie presents two false narratives: that AI will solve all problems, and that AI is inevitable and resistance is futile.

The Techno-Utopian Narrative

AI is the new and most effective utopian distraction, with claims that "AI will solve all problems" regardless of the political system. In fact, the problems are created by capitalism, and under capitalism no problems concerning the laboring people can be solved. With this utopian distraction, the capitalist class shifts attention from class struggle to technological salvation, creating a passivity of "wait and see" for the technology to save us all.

"AI will solve poverty, disease, and inequality." This shifts attention from class struggle to technological salvation. It creates passivity: "Wait for technology to save us." The reality: AI under capitalism creates the problems it claims to solve.

The Fatalist Narrative

AI is also a fatalist trap, with the argument that it is inevitable and resistance to it futile. Thus, the argument that capitalism is the only possible future is reinforced, and through this they strive to disarm the revolutionary consciousness of the people: technology itself is the "revolution" to save all humanity.

"AI is inevitable, resistance is futile." This presents capitalism as the only possible future. It disarms revolutionary consciousness. The reality: technology is not inevitable — it is developed and deployed by class forces.

 The Connection to Bourgeois Ideology

Both narratives serve the same function: to prevent the working class from understanding that who controls technology is the decisive question. This is the same ideological warfare we have seen in the confusion between socialism and communism and in the "cult of personality" accusation.

To counter these narratives, we must return to the Marxist-Leninist method.

D: The Revolutionary Position — AI Under Socialism

Section 5: What AI Could Be Under Socialism

Under socialism, AI development would be planned by the state, not driven by profit. Research priorities would be set by human needs, not market demand. The state would ensure that AI serves the people, not to exploit them. Only under socialism could AI serve human liberation. That’s why the question is not "should we have AI?" but "who controls AI?"

From a Marxist-Leninist perspective, AI is a productive force under capitalism that is subordinated to the extraction of profits and control of minds and opposition. Only under socialism could AI be subordinated to building socialism, preparation for the transition to communism, and the liberation of humanity.

Under a socialist system, AI could be used for:

Democratic Planning

AI could be used to optimize production and distribution for the benefit of all — not for profit maximization, but for need satisfaction. This is the rational planning that socialism requires.

Elimination of Monotonous Labor

AI could free humanity from repetitive, dangerous, and dehumanizing work. This would allow for the development of human potential. This is the transition to "labor as life's prime want" that Marx described.

Mass Education and Culture

AI could be a tool for mass enlightenment — not for manipulation, but for liberation. Under socialism, AI could democratize knowledge and culture.

Public Ownership of Data

Data is the raw material of AI. Under capitalism, data is privately owned and exploited. Under socialism, data would be a collective resource of humanity.

Under the framework of the socialist system, artificial intelligence can break through the tool limitations of capital appreciation and be transformed into a strategic fulcrum for liberating productive forces and optimizing social relations.

This is not utopianism. This is the application of the Marxist-Leninist method to the most advanced technology of our era."

Section 6: The Revolutionary Imperative

Just as the “socialism/communism” confusion serves the bourgeoisie, AI confusion serves capital. The bourgeoisie wants you to believe AI is either a savior or an inevitable threat — never a tool of class power.

Marxist-Leninists are not against AI. They are against capitalist AI. The struggle is not technological — it is political.

No Marxist-Leninist could be against science. The question of AI for them is not "should we have AI?" but "who will control AI and for what purposes?" Science must serve people, not profit. Here the opposition of Marxist-Leninists is focused: not science itself, but the purpose of its use — for profit and enslavement of people.

We Are Not Luddites

Going back in history, the Luddite raids in 1811–1816 primarily targeted the mechanical knitting machine. It was not new technology or a machine, but a 200-year-old one. For generations, these exact machines were owned and used by skilled textile artisans in their own homes. Accusations of Luddites as technophobes conceal the fact that they did not object to the machine; they objected to the factory system that took the machines out of their hands and utilized them in large corporate mills.

The Luddites were not against technology — they were against the use of technology to destroy their livelihoods, against exploitation. The Marxist-Leninist position is identical: we are against the ownership of technology by capital. The bourgeoisie presents Marxist-Leninists as "anti-science" to discredit our valid argument.

The "AI Replaces Labor" Narrative — Capitalist-Specific, Not Universal

The bourgeoisie presents the "AI replaces laborers" narrative as if it were a universal law of technological development. It is not. It is a law of capitalist technological development. This is true under capitalism — but it is not a universal law. In socialist countries like China, Vietnam, and North Korea, workers are retrained and redeployed, not fired.

Under capitalism, labor is a cost. Reducing costs increases profit. Therefore, AI is deployed to replace workers — and workers are fired.

Under socialism, labor is not a cost — it is a source of human dignity and social contribution. The goal of technological development is not profit maximization but need satisfaction and the liberation of human potential. Therefore, AI is deployed to eliminate monotonous, dangerous, or dehumanizing work — not to fire workers.

China provides concrete evidence of this distinction.

The Chinese Labor Law protects workers from being replaced by AI or automation without cause. AI is considered a "company preference" or "choice" — not a legitimate reason for termination. Under socialist labor policy, when technology is introduced, workers are retrained and redeployed. The state coordinates the introduction of new technology with labor needs, ensuring that automation serves the people's needs, not corporate profit.

This is the class character of technology in practice. The "AI replaces labor" narrative is true only where capital rules. Under socialism, AI replaces the burden of labor — not the laborer.

North Korea provides further evidence.

Under the Juche ideology, technology is developed and deployed to serve the people and strengthen the nation — not to replace workers. Full employment is guaranteed by the state. Technology is introduced through state planning, not market forces. The state coordinates the introduction of new technology with labor needs, ensuring that workers are retrained and redeployed. The working class is the master of the means of production.

Vietnam offers additional proof.

Under Vietnam's Labor Code, technology is not a legitimate reason for termination. Workers must be consulted before new technology is introduced. Employers are required to provide training and retraining when technology changes. The state promotes "inclusive digital transformation" — technology must serve the people, not exploit them. The Vietnamese approach demonstrates that technology can be introduced without sacrificing workers' well-being.

This is the class character of technology in practice. The "AI replaces labor" narrative is true only where capital rules. Under socialism, AI replaces the burden of labor — not the laborer.

The Class Character of Technology

Technology is not and cannot be neutral; it serves the ruling class. Under capitalism, technology serves capital. Under socialism, technology could serve humanity. The character of technology is determined by the relations of production. In historical materialism, technology is never a neutral, isolated force in history. Its development, deployment, architecture, and social effects are entirely determined by the relations of production: who owns the means of production and how labor is organized. If the economic base changes, the very character of the technology shifts with it. AI is not an autonomous entity that is inherently "good" or "bad" for society. That perspective is what Marx called commodity fetishism: treating relations between people as if they are merely relations between objects.

The Reformist Trap

"Regulating" AI while leaving capitalism intact is not a solution — it is a distraction.

The bourgeoisie offers "regulation," "ethics committees," and "responsible AI." These are band-aids that leave the capitalist foundation intact. They create the illusion of control while capital continues to direct development. The solution is not regulation — it is the seizure of the means of production.

Reformism serves to divert energy from revolutionary struggle. It presents the problem as technical rather than political. It accepts the capitalist framework and asks only for "nicer" capitalism.

The problem is not AI — it is capitalist AI. The solution is not regulation — it is the seizure of the means of production. The struggle is not technological — it is political.

The idea that AI is "autonomous" is itself a bourgeois myth designed to disarm resistance. It is developed and deployed by human beings under specific social relations. Under socialism, those social relations would change, and the character of AI would change with them.

The Revolutionary Task

Seize the means of production — including the means of technological development. Repurpose AI for human liberation. Build socialism as the precondition for humane science.

The Connection to Previous Articles

The confusion about AI's "neutrality" is the same kind of ideological warfare as the confusion between socialism and communism. The bourgeoisie uses the same tactics: present their system as natural and inevitable, present socialism as impossible or backward. The response is the same: expose the weapon, clarify the science, and fight for socialism.

The victory of socialism globally requires not only the defeat of capitalist economics but the defeat of capitalist ideology.

 E: Conclusion

"Socialism is inconceivable without large-scale capitalist engineering based on the latest discoveries of modern science." Lenin, "Left-Wing" Childishness

We began with Lenin's words. We end with them.

The bourgeoisie wants you to believe that AI is neutral, inevitable, and progressive. In reality, under capitalism, AI serves capital, not humanity. Under socialism, AI could serve human liberation. The question is not technological — it is political.

Summary of the Argument

The bourgeoisie presents AI as neutral, inevitable, and progressive. In reality, under capitalism, AI serves capital, not humanity. Under socialism, AI could serve human liberation. The question is not technological — it is political.

Proof in Practice

The "AI replaces labor" narrative is often presented as an inevitable fact of technological progress. But this is only true under capitalism, where labor is a cost to be minimized.

The socialist world demonstrates otherwise. In China, the Labor Law protects workers from AI-driven termination — workers are retrained and redeployed, not fired. In Vietnam, the Labor Code requires consultation and retraining when new technology is introduced. In North Korea, full employment is guaranteed by the state, and technology is introduced through planning, not market forces.

Under socialism, technology replaces the burden of labor — not the laborer. This is the class character of technology in practice, and it proves that the "AI replaces labor" narrative is not universal — it is capitalist-specific.

The Scientific Distinction

We are not against science — we are against capitalist science. We are not against AI — we are against capitalist AI. The struggle is not technological — it is political. AI must be seized and repurposed for the liberation of humanity. Socialism is the precondition for humane science. Under socialism, AI could help build the foundation for communism. By eliminating monotonous labor, freeing humanity for creative work, and democratizing knowledge, AI could contribute to the development of the productive forces and the transformation of consciousness that communism requires

 

 

The Call to Action

The duty of Marxist-Leninists is to expose the myth of AI neutrality and defend the possibility of socialist science as history has proven. That necessitates the fight for the seizure of the means of production in each given country (without waiting for a “world revolution”) — including the means of technological development. We have to recognize and make the masses comprehend that the struggle is not technological — it is political.

The task is to seize that engineering and place it in the service of the people.

Only socialism can liberate science. Only science can liberate humanity.

The future is not technological — it is political. Only under socialism can science serve the people. Confusion about socialism and communism is exactly what prevents people from seeing this.

Socialism is the precondition for humane science. Communism is the society where science finally serves human development without exploitation.

Technology is one battlefield. Identity is another. The bourgeoisie does not only present AI as neutral — it presents social categories as natural. Race, gender, generation — these are presented as fixed, ahistorical identities, rather than as products of material relations. The 'Generation Z' label is the purest expression of this weapon: a statistical cohort disguised as a historical subject, designed to erase class consciousness and replace it with demographic division. In Part 18, we examine this weapon

Part 19- The "Generation-Z" Trap: How Bourgeois Identity Politics Obscures Class Struggle

I. Introduction: The Delusion of the "Generation"

"Every new generation encounters definite conditions already existing, ready-made when that generation was born."  Stalin, Talk With the German Author Emil Ludwig

It is a fact that each generation develops its own character within society, directly influenced by the existing environment in which it lives. And this character interacts with others and, to a degree, together they manage to affect the rest of the population in different shapes and forms: political-apolitical, identity politics-class politics, conscious-false conscious, manipulated-politically mature, etc. The capitalist scheme is to create a generation of young people who are politically naive, ignorant of history, with deviant lifestyles and opposing ideologies, easy to manipulate (confusion on subjects like freedom and democracy), and ready to oppose the revolutionary struggle against capitalism on the path of socialism.

While each generation has its own character, the bourgeois concept of "Generation X, Y, Z" is a deliberate term and tool to erase class consciousness. "One of the bourgeoisie's greatest talents today is reproducing reality through language." This observation, offered by a socialist from Türkiye, cuts to the heart of contemporary ideological warfare. In the 21st century, the ruling class no longer needs to solely rely on police or military force to discipline the masses; it has perfected a subtler, more insidious weapon: the redefinition of social existence through terminology. The most glaring example of this is the global obsession with "Generation X," "Generation Y," and "Generation Z."

On the surface, these labels appear to be harmless sociological terms—mere demographic markers for marketing firms and pop-culture commentators. In reality, they represent a deliberate bourgeois counter-revolutionary strategy and manipulative use of youth. This conscious shift, from "class politics" to "identity politics," is a capitalist scheme aimed at dividing the working class and neutralizing the revolutionary potential of the youth. Their main purpose is not concealed—as can be seen in the bourgeois theory of the "clash of cultures" and "clash of generations"—which is to erase the name of the working class from the lexicon, and with it, the very possibility of class consciousness. Because what does not exist in language cannot exist in thought. When the proletariat is rendered invisible, the class struggle is replaced by a sterile, manufactured "clash of generations."

In no way do I deny that successive generations develop distinct characteristics. As Stalin acknowledged, each new generation encounters "definite conditions already existing, ready-made" at the time of their birth. However, the character of a generation is determined by its material conditions—its relation to the means of production, the economic crises it inherits, and the class struggles it witnesses. The character of a generation is never determined by the arbitrary accident of a birth year. A billionaire's heir born in 2000 and a homeless peasant's child born in the same year share no common relation to production, no common material interest, and no common historical destiny. To bind them under a single "generational" banner is not sociology; it is ideological erasure.

Drawing upon the Marxist-Leninist theory of knowledge and the writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, and Dimitrov, in this article I will try to expose the bourgeois origins of "Generation Politics." I will contrast how the rising generation is shaped under socialist versus capitalist systems, critique the false "universal morality" that accompanies generational discourse, and demonstrate how the bourgeoisie has cynically transformed class politics into identity politics. I will further clarify the Leninist-Stalinist principle of conditional support for oppressed groups—acknowledging real national, racial, and gender oppressions only insofar as they are subordinated to the unifying struggle of the proletariat. At the same time, I will be exposing "Generation Z" as the purest ideological fabrication—a statistical cohort disguised as a historical subject, designed to politically neuter the youth and secure capitalist rule for another generation.

I will expose the hypocrisy of the capitalists in the use of the very term they fabricated, and make the dialectical connection with "identity politics" in general as opposed to "class politics."

II. Deconstructing the Bourgeois Theory: "Generations" as a Political Weapon

"One of the bourgeoisie's greatest talents today is reproducing reality through language." A  Socialist from Türkiye

It always lies in the response to who the predecessors of this generation are and how "the character" is being transmitted to them.

The "Generation" label is a bourgeois invention as part of the "clash of cultures" theory, with which the bourgeoisie denies the class struggle and replaces it with the clashes between cultures and generations. As if the subjects who will shape history and shake the system of exploitation were not workers, peasants, the unemployed, or students in their unity, but a generation defined by letters. Yet, if Marx taught us anything, it is this: people's social existence determines their consciousness. The misery of workers, the cries of the unemployed, the peasants losing their land, the students grappling with a futurelessness—all of this is not a "generation problem," but a class contradiction.

This concept replaces the contradiction between exploiters and exploited with a superficial conflict between age groups. The concept of "Generation Z" was actually invented to erase the name of the working class. Because what does not exist in language cannot exist in thought. When the working class is not mentioned, it seems as if there is no such thing as the working class anymore. Through the elimination of the class concept, a sterile, ideological "generation" is invented in its place.

This concept is promoted to create division among the youth, promote "apolitical" lifestyles in essence but "political" in the form of bourgeois narratives like "freedom" and "democracy" in their bourgeois meaning. Especially in the 1960s, the CIA started using "identity politics," one of which is generational identity, which was weaponized to break up the Left by pitting groups against each other and overshadowing class identity.

II.A. Imperialist Function: The "Generation" Label as a Tool for Regime Change

"The bourgeoisie has one of its greatest talents today reproducing reality through language."  Socialist from Türkiye

The concept of "generation" has been promoted and disseminated worldwide, and its application has been actively exported to the Global South as a sophisticated tool of regime change, color revolutions, and imperialist subversion.

Western intelligence agencies, NGOs, and media outlets have systematically repackaged CIA-backed coups and destabilization operations as "youth-led democratic uprisings." Local youth, disillusioned by genuine economic grievances, are mobilized under the banner of "Generation X, Y, Z," but their struggles are carefully diverted from class struggle and directed towards pro-Western geopolitical goals. Thus, through the use of "Generation X, Y, or Z," the bourgeoisie achieves a double victory: domestically, it erases the working class through generational identity; abroad, it uses the working class of other nations to serve imperialist interests. In both cases, the "generation" label is a weapon of subversion.

The Imperialist Playbook: From Otpor (Resistance) to Euromaidan

The template for this strategy was perfected in Serbia in 2000 with the U.S.-backed overthrow of Slobodan Milošević. The Otpor ("Resistance") student group was celebrated in Western media as a spontaneous "youth revolution." In reality, Otpor was funded and trained by U.S. intelligence agencies—including the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)—equipped with nonviolent resistance training, branded merchandise, and media coaching. The "youth" were mobilized against the Milošević government, which resisted Western neoliberal impositions and NATO aggression during the bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999.

Otpor served as a model for all subsequent U.S.-backed color revolutions. Training manuals were exported to Georgia, Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, and elsewhere. The "youth" were used as a battering ram for U.S. geopolitical interests; the promise of "democracy" served to mask the reality of neoliberal plunder, NATO expansion, and the subjugation of sovereign states to imperialist capital.

Selected Case Studies: Gen Z as Shock Troops for Imperialism

The table below illustrates this pattern across multiple regions. In each case, the genuine grievances of young people have been hijacked, amplified, and redirected toward regime change objectives serving Western imperialist interests.

 

Country	Year	Western Label	Imperialist Function
Serbia	2000	"Youth revolution" (Otpor)	NATO expansion, removal of anti-Western government
Georgia	2003	"Rose Revolution" (Kmara)	U.S. penetration of South Caucasus, encirclement of Russia
Ukraine	2004 / 2013-14	"Orange Revolution" / "Euromaidan"	NATO expansion, severing Ukraine from Russian influence
Kyrgyzstan	2005	"Tulip Revolution"	U.S.-China proxy struggle over Central Asian energy routes
Egypt	2011	"Arab Spring youth"	Destabilization of West Asia, removal of Mubarak (initially)
Libya	2011	"Arab Spring youth"	NATO overthrow of Gaddafi, resource extraction
Syria	2011-present	"Youth-led uprising"	Regime change, proxy war against Russia and Iran
Hong Kong	2019-20	"Gen Z democracy movement"	Destabilization of China, pressure on Belt and Road Initiative
Belarus	2020	"Youth-led protests"	Destabilization of Russia's border, attempted NATO expansion
Armenia	2018	"Velvet Revolution"	Shifting Armenia away from Russia toward EU/NATO
Myanmar	2021-present	"Youth resistance"	Destabilization of China's BRI, access to the Indian Ocean
Iran	2022-23	"Gen Z women's uprising"	Regime change, weakening of key U.S./Israel adversary
Bangladesh	2024	"Student-led uprising"	Destabilization of independent foreign policy, pressure on China

The Class Dimension Erased

In each of these cases, the conflict was presented to the world and to local youth as a moral struggle between "democracy" and "authoritarianism," "freedom" and "dictatorship," "young progressives" and "old reactionaries." This framing was deliberately designed to conceal the class dimension of the conflict:

Ukraine: The Euromaidan protests were presented as a clash between "youth and a corrupt regime," masking the fact that Ukrainian oligarchs (pro-Western and pro-Russian groups) were vying for control of the state, while Ukrainian workers and peasants were divided along nationalist lines. The result was a U.S.-backed coup, civil war, and the establishment of a pro-NATO government that devastated the Ukrainian working class.

Libya: In Western media, the "youth uprising" against Gaddafi was celebrated as a democratic awakening. In reality, NATO intervened to overthrow a regime that protected the African Union, resisted Western resource exploitation, and provided its people with a higher standard of living than any subsequent government. The result was the collapse of the Libyan state, the return of slavery, and the division of the country into warring principalities, all while Western powers secured access to Libyan oil.

Hong Kong: The protests were presented as a "youth-led pro-democracy movement." In reality, however, they were organized and funded by external forces (U.S.-based NGOs, remnants of British colonial rule, Taiwanese separatist elements) with the explicit aim of destabilizing China. The "youth" were mobilized against Beijing's policies, but Hong Kong's real problem is vast wealth inequality and high housing prices—problems that can be solved not with Western-style elections, but with socialist economic restructuring. The "youth" were used as cannon fodder for U.S. geopolitical interests, not for their own material freedom.

Iran: The 2022-23 protests were framed as a "Generation Z women's uprising" demanding "freedom" against the Islamic Republic. While genuine grievances against the regime's repressive social policies existed, the protests were amplified and directed by external forces (U.S. intelligence, Saudi and Israeli interests, Western-centric Persian media) with the explicit goal of regime change. A Western-backed "democratic" government would almost certainly implement neoliberal shock therapy, privatize state assets, and open Iran to Western capital—this would devastate the Iranian working class. The "youth" were mobilized against the regime, but their material interests lay in resisting imperialism, not facilitating it.

Myanmar: The post-2021 protests and armed resistance were supported by Western intelligence agencies and regional allies with the aim of destabilizing China's Belt and Road Initiative. The conflict is presented as "dictatorship versus democracy," obscuring the fact that Myanmar's real crisis is the overexploitation of its labor force by domestic and foreign capital, the plundering of its natural resources, and ethnic divisions perpetuated by colonial-era policies. A genuine revolutionary movement would unite Myanmar's—Shan, Kachin, Rakhine, and other workers—against their common exploiters; it should not divide them along ethnic or "generational" lines for the benefit of external powers.

The Mechanism: How the Imperialist "Generation" Trap Works

The imperialists' use of the "Generation" label follows a consistent pattern:

1. Identify grievances. The target country has real, legitimate youth grievances: unemployment, lack of opportunity, state corruption, social oppression. These grievances are real and should not be ignored.
2. Depoliticize and redirect. Western NGOs, media, and intelligence agencies step in to provide a framework for these grievances; however, they carefully steer them away from class-based analysis and towards Western-style "democracy," "human rights," and "freedom." Young people are told that their problems are not capitalism or imperialism, but their own "authoritarian" governments.
3. Erase class consciousness. Young people are rebranded as "Generation X, Y, Z," a demographic group with a shared identity based on birth year, not class position. This erases the fact that wealthy young people in the capital and poor young people in rural areas have nothing in common materially. It only unites them under a false flag.
4. Mobilization for regime change. The "generation" is mobilized to demand a change of government, but not a change of system. The aim is to replace one pro-Western or anti-Western government with another, depending on the current imperialist interests. Young people are promised "democracy," but they are met with neoliberal austerity policies, privatization, and constant subservience to global capital.
5. Abandoning the youth. Once regime change is achieved, Western powers move on. The youth are left with the same economic grievances—often worse—and lack a revolutionary framework to address them. The cycle repeats in the next country.

Lenin's Warning on Imperialist Manipulation

Lenin, in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, warned that imperialism would increasingly rely on dividing the working class of oppressed nations to maintain its dominance. The "Generation" label is a modern expression of this strategy: it divides the youth of the Global South from their own class interests and attaches them to the geopolitical interests of imperialist powers.

As Dimitrov warned in his fight against fascism:

"Depriving the young generation of working people of all rights, the fascist governments militarize the entire youth, and try to train from their ranks obedient slaves of finance capital in civil as well as imperialist war."

Today, the method is more sophisticated—but the purpose is the same. The "Generation" label is used to create obedient slaves of finance capital, not through military conscription alone, but through ideological conscription. The youth are made to believe they are fighting for "freedom," when in fact they are fighting for the freedom of capital to exploit their nations without resistance.

The Dual Function of the "Generation" Label

The "Generation" concept serves a dual imperialist function:

• Domestically (in imperialist countries): It erases the working class, replaces class struggle with generational identity, and ensures that the youth of the imperialist core remain politically naive, historically ignorant, and incapable of revolutionary consciousness.
• Internationally (in the Global South): It serves as a tool for regime change, color revolutions, and imperialist subversion. It mobilizes genuine youth grievances, redirects them toward pro-Western objectives, and leaves the youth of oppressed nations divided, confused, and ultimately exploited.

In both functions, the bourgeoisie achieves its goal: the working class—whether in the imperialist core or the oppressed periphery—is fragmented, demobilized, and rendered incapable of uniting against its common enemy. The "Generation" label is not a sociological observation; it is a weapon of class war, wielded by the bourgeoisie to maintain its global domination.

Dialectical Hypocrisy: Palestine, Afghanistan, Venezuela

The hypocrisy of this imperialist deployment is nowhere more evident than in Palestine, Afghanistan, and Venezuela.

Palestine: Western media celebrates Palestinian youth as "Gen Z activists" when they document their suffering, but brands them as "terrorists" the moment they engage in armed resistance against occupation—reducing a national liberation struggle to digital content. The "Gen Z" label is selectively applied to depoliticize their struggle, reducing it to "youth energy" rather than a national liberation movement against settler colonialism. Palestinian youth are not a "generation" defined by birth year—they are a colonized population subjected to military occupation, land theft, siege, and periodic mass slaughter. Their "identity" is not demographic; it is the identity of an oppressed nation fighting for its survival. The Palestinian working class—whether in Gaza, the West Bank, or the diaspora—is united not by a birth year, but by its common exploitation under Israeli capital and its common resistance to imperialist-Zionist domination. The "Gen Z" label divides them from their own class and national struggle.

Afghanistan: Afghan youth are mourned as a "lost generation" under the Taliban, while the U.S. occupation that destroyed their country—bombing schools, killing children, displacing millions—is erased from the narrative. The same powers that bombed Afghan schools, killed Afghan children, and displaced millions now weep for the "lost generation." Afghan youth are not "lost" because of the Taliban; they are impoverished, traumatized, and dispossessed because U.S. imperialism devastated their country. Afghan workers, peasants, and urban poor are united by their shared poverty, their dependence on remittances, and their resistance to both foreign occupation and domestic reaction. A genuine revolutionary movement would unite them against imperialism and feudalism alike—not divide them into "generations" that have no material basis.

Venezuela: Venezuelan youth are depicted as "pro-democracy" protesters against "dictatorship," while the U.S. sanctions that have starved them, devalued their wages, and destroyed their economy are actively celebrated in Washington. Western media portrays Venezuelan youth as "pro-democracy protesters" against the "dictatorship" of Nicolás Maduro, while ignoring that U.S. sanctions—not the Bolivarian government—are responsible for the economic crisis driving their desperation. Venezuelan youth are not "pro-democracy" because they love the U.S. political system; they are desperate because sanctions have destroyed their economy, devalued their wages, and made basic necessities unaffordable. Venezuelan workers, peasants, and informal sector laborers are united not by a birth year, but by their common struggle against U.S. imperialism and their common need for food, medicine, and employment. A genuine revolutionary movement would defend the Bolivarian process while demanding radical reforms from within—not align with U.S. imperialist objectives under the banner of "democracy."

In each case, the "Generation" label serves not to understand the youth, but to weaponize their suffering for imperialist objectives.

III. The Marxist-Leninist Theory of Knowledge and Generational Transmission

"Every new generation encounters definite conditions already existing, ready-made when that generation was born."  Stalin

 

Materialist Conception of Knowledge

This materialist conception of knowledge is not abstract theory—it has concrete implications for how generations are formed under different social systems.

According to Marxist theory of knowledge:

"Social knowledge can only come into existence on the basis of a development of material production in the process of which every new generation receives from its predecessor, together with the accumulated heritage of productive forces, a heritage of experience embodied in a known sum of knowledge."

From generation to generation, each acquires new "knowledge," perspectives, aspirations, and goals. A person could use the knowledge not only of previous generations, but also of his contemporaries. Each individual would have to begin the knowledge of the objective world from the beginning. Only with the help of oral and written speech do people pass on from generation to generation, continuously accumulating knowledge, and thus moving science forward. Thanks to this, as Engels pointed out, people do not need "that every single individual should personally experience everything in his own experience; his individual experience may, to a certain extent, be replaced by the results of the experience of a number of his ancestors."

Marx and Engels, in The German Ideology, explain the material basis of generational succession:

"History is nothing but the succession of the separate generations, each of which exploits the materials, the capital funds, the productive forces handed down to it by all preceding generations, and thus, on the one hand, continues the traditional activity in completely changed circumstances and, on the other, modifies the old circumstances with a completely changed activity."

"History does not end by being resolved into 'self-consciousness as spirit of the spirit,' but that in it at each stage there is found a material result: a sum of productive forces, a historically created relation of individuals to nature and to one another, which is handed down to each generation from its predecessor; a mass of productive forces, capital funds and conditions, which, on the one hand, is indeed modified by the new generation, but also on the other prescribes for it its conditions of life and gives it a definite development, a special character. It shows that circumstances make men just as much as men make circumstances."

"This sum of productive forces, capital funds and social forms of intercourse, which every individual and generation finds in existence as something given, is the real basis of what the philosophers have conceived as 'substance' and 'essence of man,' and what they have deified and attacked; a real basis which is not in the least disturbed, in its effect and influence on the development of men, by the fact that these philosophers revolt against it as 'self-consciousness' and the 'Unique.' These conditions of life, which different generations find in existence, decide also whether or not the periodically recurring revolutionary convulsion will be strong enough to overthrow the basis of the entire existing system."

The Role of the Predecessors

The role of the "predecessors," as well as the existence of a strong socialist organization and media, are crucial in shaping the minds and perspectives of the new "generation." As Lenin stated:

"A whole generation of the revolutionary proletariat was backed by Pravda, the generation which subsequently made the October Socialist Revolution. Special importance is attached by the Party to the molding of the rising generation."
 Lenin, What Is To Be Done?

In the absence or weakness of socialist educational tools, organizations, and parties, capitalist media, and academic institutions, along with other state institutions, will shape the minds and perspectives of the "generation" and use them as a tool for counter-revolution and government change practices that serve their own interests.

IV. Comparative Analysis: Forming the New Generation

"Any being only considers itself independent when it stands on its own two feet, and it only stands on its own two feet when it exists on its own." Marx, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844

A) Under Socialism

The transformation of the old capitalist society—the upbringing, training, and education of the new generations that will create the communist society—cannot be conducted on the old lines. The teaching, training, and education of the youth must proceed from the material that has been left to us by the old society.

"Only by radically remoulding the teaching, organisation and training of the youth shall we be able to ensure that the efforts of the younger generation will result in the creation of a society that will be unlike the old society, i.e., in the creation of a communist society."

"If you were to ask why the teachings of Marx have been able to win the hearts and minds of millions and tens of millions of the most revolutionary class, you would receive only one answer: it was because Marx based his work on the firm foundation of the human knowledge acquired under capitalism."

"This has to be learnt for oneself, and it must be taught to the entire rising generation of working people."

"It was the task of the older generation to overthrow the bourgeoisie. The main task then was to criticise the bourgeoisie, arouse hatred of the bourgeoisie among the masses, and foster class-consciousness and the ability to unite their forces. The new generation is confronted with a far more complex task."

"That is the task you should pursue in educating, training and rousing the entire younger generation."

"That is why we say that to us there is no such thing as a morality that stands outside human society; that is a fraud."  Lenin, The Tasks of the Youth Leagues

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea's "Protection of the Elderly Law," regarding the transmission of a "noble struggle mentality," states:

"The elderly are the advanced generation who have devotedly worked by dedicating their wisdom and passion in the struggle for the consolidation and development of the State and society and the creation of economic and cultural wealth."

"The elderly participating in societal activities is work that passes on the noble struggle mentality and experience, and the popular culture and customs, of the advanced generation to the rising generation, and serves society using their knowledge and abilities."

Dimitrov, in Youth Against Fascism, spells out the task:

"We can and must place in opposition to it the union of all anti-fascist forces and, first and foremost, the union of all the forces of the young generation of working people, at the same time enhancing a thousandfold the role and activity of the youth in the struggle of the working class for its own interests, for its own cause."

B) Under Capitalism

Expectedly, the scheme of capitalists is to create a generation of young people who are politically naive, ignorant of history, with deviant lifestyles and opposing ideologies, easy to manipulate and ready to oppose the revolutionary struggle against capitalism on the path of socialism.

Under socialism and socialist education, the aim is to form a class-"conscious" generation. Under capitalist conditions and capitalist education, the aim is to form "false consciousness," having the youth think and act against their own class.

The divergence in material conditions under socialism—or under the influence of socialist education—and capitalism inevitably produces two irreconcilable political moral systems.

 V. Morality: Bourgeois Universalism vs. Proletarian Class Morality

"We say that our morality is entirely subordinated to the interests of the proletariat's class struggle. Our morality stems from the interests of the class struggle of the proletariat."  Lenin, The Tasks of the Youth Leagues, October 2, 1920

The bourgeoisie, having invented the new concept of "generation," attached to it its old political morality—"democracy," "freedom," and "freedom of speech"—presenting these as the foundation of youth morality, as if they existed outside of society and class interest.

For Marxist-Leninists, a conception of morality existing "outside of human society" is an ideological myth designed to preserve class privilege. By framing moral rules as eternal, divine, or universal, the ruling class conceals the fact that morality is actually created by humans to serve specific economic interests. Marx and Engels explain that moral concepts stem entirely from the material reality of class conflict, rather than from an objective realm. They point out that past societies were based on class exploitation and shared similar oppressive realities; therefore, their moral frameworks only appear "eternal" because class structures persist. Lenin explicitly targeted any conception of morality derived from "non-human" or "non-class" concepts such as God's commandments or abstract idealist philosophies. He declared these concepts to be entirely "fraudulent" and a tool for "dumbing down workers and peasants."

Lenin argued that proclaiming a universal conception of morality independent of human society was a deliberate ploy by the ruling class. This conceals the material reality that landowners and capitalists exploit the working class. It appeases the oppressed by convincing them that existing property laws and social structures are bound by eternal, sacred rules. As Lenin clearly stated, as long as class divisions still exist, any moral code claiming to speak on behalf of all humanity is an ideological weapon used to protect private property. Arguing otherwise is a false consciousness for the members of the laboring masses.

"It is all the more necessary to dwell on this question because in a certain sense it may be said that it is the youth that will be faced with the actual task of creating a communist society. For it is clear that the generation of working people brought up in capitalist society can, at best, accomplish the task of destroying the foundations of the old, the capitalist way of life, which was built on exploitation. At best it will be able to accomplish the tasks of creating a social system that will help the proletariat and the working classes retain power and lay a firm foundation, which can be built on only by a generation that is starting to work under the new conditions, in a situation in which relations based on the exploitation of man by man no longer exist."  Lenin, The Tasks of the Youth Leagues

True morality serves to "help human society rise to a higher level and rid itself of the exploitation of labour."

"To us morality is subordinated to the interests of the proletariat's class struggle."

"When people tell us about morality, we say: to a Communist all morality lies in this united discipline and conscious mass struggle against the exploiters. We do not believe in eternal morality, and we expose the falseness of all the fables about morality. Morality serves the purpose of helping human society rise to a higher level and rid itself of the exploitation of labour."

"To achieve this we need that generation of young people who began to reach political maturity in the midst of a disciplined and desperate struggle against the bourgeoisie. In this struggle that generation is training genuine Communists…"

"As long as the workers and peasants are oppressed by the landowners and capitalists, and as long as the schools are controlled by the landowners and capitalists, the young generation will remain blind and ignorant."
 Lenin, The Tasks of the Youth Leagues

This bourgeois political morality finds its most sophisticated expression in the transformation of class politics into identity politics.

VI. The Transformation of "Class Politics" into "Identity Politics"

"Working-class consciousness cannot be genuine political consciousness unless the workers are trained to react to all cases of tyranny, oppression, violence, and abuse, no matter what class is affected — unless they are trained, moreover, to react from a Social-Democratic point of view and no other."  Lenin, What Is To Be Done?

"After all, the fact that we recognize the right of all citizens to form free associations does not at all commit us." Lenin, The National Question in Our Programme

In classical Marxist-Leninist theory, we cannot find a specific treatise on "identity politics" because the term itself is a post-1960s bourgeois-academic invention. We can, however, find related approaches in the rigorous treatment of the National Question (Stalin's Marxism and the National Question) and the Women's Question (Lenin/Krupskaya/Zetkin).

Identity politics is a product of capitalism and its intelligence agencies' subversion to destroy the Left's material analysis of power relations under capitalism. Identity politics, especially during the late 1960s, became a CIA and other institutions tactic to divide and conquer the Left, pitting groups against each other, overshadowing "class identity" and class struggle.

The precise Marxist-Leninist position is that we support the struggle of oppressed groups (identities like nationalities, women, racialized minorities) against specific capitalist oppressions, but this support is tactical, conditional, and strictly subordinated to the overarching class struggle. It is not a permanent alliance with their bourgeoisie or a replacement for proletarian internationalism.

As Stalin clarified, while we support the just struggles of oppressed nationalities and groups against their suppressors, this support is never unconditional. It depends entirely on whether that struggle strengthens, or weakens, the unity of the proletariat. Bourgeois identity politics—and specifically its latest offspring, "Generation politics"—reverses this formula. It demands that the proletariat fracture itself along demographic lines, precisely so the capitalist class can remain intact. Lenin's words remind us that recognition of oppressed groups does not imply permanent alliance. Our support is always conditional, always subordinated to the unity of the proletariat.

Unlike nationality or gender—which, while distorted by bourgeois politics, at least originate from tangible historical divisions in the material relations of production—the so-called "Generation Z" has no basis in political economy whatsoever. It is neither a class, nor a nation, nor a historically oppressed group. "Generation Z" is not even a historically oppressed group; it is a statistical cohort. It has no material history, no unique relation to production, and no objective class interest. It is the purest ideological fabrication of the bourgeoisie to ensure that working-class youth never recognize their true enemy.

The ultimate aim is to abolish the material conditions that create these oppressions of identities, not to manage or police each and every identity. Bourgeois "identity politics" takes this Marxist-Leninist principle and turns it upside down. It severs the oppressed group from the proletariat and elevates their specific oppression to the primary contradiction. Instead of uniting workers across racial/gender lines against capital, it pits oppressed groups against each other in a hierarchy of victimhood, effectively dividing the working class. It changes the demand from "end the capitalist system that exploits us all" to "manage society so my specific identity group gets a bigger share of the spoils."

A rich bourgeois Gen-Z kid and a poor proletarian Gen-Z kid have nothing in common in their relation to the means of production. By defining them by their birth year, the bourgeoisie creates a completely artificial, ahistorical category. Therefore, "Generation Politics" is an even more degenerate form of identity politics than race or gender identity politics. At least race and gender have a tangible history of systemic exploitation under capitalism. "Generation Z" is purely demographic—a floating signifier designed to erase class entirely.

The bourgeoisie uses language to change the battlefield. "Because what doesn't exist in language can't exist in thought." By eliminating the concept of the worker, they eliminate the existence of the struggle. Thus, "identity politics" replaces material analysis. It focuses on individual traits rather than the collective economic exploitation of the proletariat.

Having replaced class with identity, the bourgeoisie must now ensure that the youth remain theoretically unprepared to see through the deception.

VII. The Danger of Superficial Knowledge (The "Quotation" Generation)

The aim of the socialists is to create a generation capable of building Communism, not just destroying the old. Reading Stalin (Conversation on Political Economy), we notice that the problem we are facing today—including in the existing socialist states, probably with the exception of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea—is not so much different from what it was during the Soviet times.

"We need our cadres to be well aware of Marxist economic theory."

"The first, older generation of Bolsheviks was theoretically savvy. We crammed Capital, took notes, argued, checked each other. This was our strength. This helped us a lot."

"The second generation is less prepared. People were busy with practical work and construction. Marxism was studied from pamphlets."

"The third generation is being brought up on feuilletons and newspaper articles. They don't have deep knowledge. They need to be given food that is digestible. Most of them were brought up not by studying the works of Marx and Lenin, but by quotations."  Stalin, Conversation on Political Economy

Memorizing and sloganizing theories from quotations—and applying them as a prescription that fits all conditions—stems from either petty-bourgeois laziness or the confusion that theories are immutable principles. Theories are, in fact, the generalization of conclusions drawn from specific analyses under specific conditions. It is crucially important for the Marxist-Leninist to return to reading and re-reading Lenin and Stalin, not contending with "quotes," especially without understanding the entire context. A Marxist-Leninist does not, and cannot, know "everything"; that is why they constantly study Marxism-Leninism from its main sources and research to deepen their knowledge, which is a responsibility and an unending task.

Another necessity for studying Marxism-Leninism is the application of the dialectics of Marxism when applying a theory to any given conditions. Marxism-Leninism without the application of the dialectics of Marxism turns it into a soulless theory learned by rote, abstract slogans, and statements repeated on any given issue.

With these warnings in mind, we return to the revolutionary task that faces the rising generation.

VIII. Conclusion: The Revolutionary Task of the Youth

The task of socialist media is to expose the nature of the concept of Gen Z. Inform and call upon the younger generation to reject the labels of "Gen Z" and embrace their identity as workers and students fighting the system.

The new generation must not merely inherit the world but "radically remold the teaching, organisation and training of the youth" to achieve socialism.

The struggle is not between generations, but between capital and labor. The path forward is not "Identity Politics" but the relentless class struggle for socialism.

We do not believe in eternal morality, especially the bourgeois "morality" imposed on the youth in the form of "democracy and freedom," and we expose the falseness of all the fables about morality. Lenin's words to the Youth Leagues in 1920 ring with prophetic urgency today. The fable of our era is the "Generation"—a myth propagated by the bourgeoisie to convince young workers that their primary conflict is with their parents, their elders, or their cultural peers, rather than with the capitalist system that exploits them all. By replacing the material analysis of class with the demographic abstraction of "Gen Z," the ruling class seeks to ensure that the youth remain politically naive, historically ignorant, and easy to manipulate.

We have seen that the Marxist theory of knowledge teaches us otherwise. Consciousness is not born from a birth certificate; it is forged in the crucible of material production and class struggle. The "knowledge" transmitted to the rising generation is either the revolutionary science of Marxism-Leninism—which arms the youth to overthrow exploitation—or the bourgeois poison of identity politics, which fractures the working class into isolated, competing factions. The bourgeoisie's "clash of cultures" and "clash of generations" are nothing but ideological smokescreens designed to obscure the only genuine contradiction of our time: the irreconcilable antagonism between capital and labor.

Let us be unequivocal. Marxists do not dismiss the real sufferings of oppressed nationalities, women, or racialized groups under capitalism. Following Stalin's clarification, we offer our unconditional support to their struggle against their suppressors—but this support is tactical, conditional, and strictly subordinated to the overarching unity of the proletariat. We support the oppressed as long as the condition remains current and insofar as they are part of the working masses, not as separate political endpoints. However, the invention of "Generation Z" does not even qualify for this conditional support. It has no history of systemic exploitation, no unique relation to the means of production, and no objective class interest. It is a hollow statistical container, intentionally emptied of class content so that it may be filled with apolitical consumerism, digital distractions, and cultural friction.

The older generation of Bolsheviks had the task of overthrowing the bourgeoisie. They accomplished this by studying Capital, debating theory, and uniting the workers under the banner of scientific socialism. Today's generation faces an equally complex task: to reject the labels imposed upon them by their oppressors, to dig deep into the theoretical foundations of Marxism-Leninism, and to recognize that their salvation lies not in "generational rebellion," but in disciplined, conscious class struggle. History is not a succession of birth cohorts; it is the succession of class struggles. The youth must choose whether to remain a passive demographic statistic, or to become active historical subjects alongside the workers, peasants, and unemployed in the revolutionary fight for socialism.

The bourgeoisie offers them an identity; Marxism offers them a weapon. The choice is theirs—and history will judge their decision.

We have examined the weapons of ideological warfare — the confusion of theories, the distortion of concepts, the weapon from within, and the general weapons of technology and identity. But exposing the weapons is not enough. We must also know how to avoid them. This requires understanding the Marxist-Leninist norms of criticism — the principles that govern how communists relate to one another, especially across national borders. In this chapter, we examine these norms.

We have examined the weapons of ideological warfare — the confusion of theories, the distortion of concepts, the weapon from within, and the general weapons of technology and identity. But exposing the weapons is not enough. We must also know how to avoid them... In this chapter, we examine these norms

 

Chapter V – How to avoid. Marxist norms and criticism

The Marxist norms and Marxist criticism among the communists and parties on international relations

Part 20 — The Problem: Public Criticism of Foreign Parties

Criticism of foreign communist parties, offered publicly and in the name of 'internationalism,' has become endemic. Yet this practice—when conducted without direct knowledge, constructive purpose, or comradely channels—does not strengthen the international movement. It serves the enemy. What is worse is that the “criticism” - more like pontification and sophistry, lands them on the side of anti-communists, fascists, monarchists, and imperialists against the communists in most cases.

Although exceptions exist, it is uncommon to see serious, genuine communist parties criticize other communist parties on their theories and practices related to internal affairs. This applies to communists in general, whether individuals or organizations. Every communist, communist organization, and party knows the existing conditions and situation of their own country better than outsiders who have no serious knowledge of that country's culture, traditions, history, and conditions beyond what they acquired from bourgeois sources. Bourgeois sources are never the choice of Marxist-Leninists. They rely on information they gather from the Marxist-Leninists of that country to understand what is going on there and to inform their own population based on that knowledge, not on Western Media narratives and information.

The irony is that they “criticize” communists of other countries in the name of “internationalism”. In reality, reading these “critiques,” one cannot even get a sense of the struggles and conditions in their own countries. They act as if they are the “international” authority, disregarding the struggles in their own country. They criticize every Communist party, parties with socialist inclination and direction, every anti-imperialist struggle, every anti-fascist struggle  except those related to their own.  They present that practice as an “internationalist” duty. However, they forget Lenin’s statement that "Socialists in every country must expose their own government and their own bourgeoisie...Lacking that, all talk of socialism, syndicalism, internationalism is a sheer deception of the people...  He is an internationalist who in a really internationalist way combats his own bourgeoisie, his own social-chauvinists, his own Kautskyites". Lenin, Theses for an Appeal to the International Socialist Committee and All Socialist Parties

Comparing  their practice with Lenin’s statement, it is easy to see that they actually are “pacifists” within their own countries, hiding behind  “ultra-left” slogans and pontifications focusing on criticizing  the communists of other countries.

Let’s see how their actions fit with the concept of Marxist-Leninist criticism. 

Part 22 — The Correct Method: Marxist-Leninist Norms of Criticism

"Marxist criticism”, said Lunacharsky, “is a science because it opposes subjectivism, aestheticism, individualism, irrationalism, and other vices of bourgeois aesthetics. Criticism, by its nature, cannot be only negative, aimed at exposing some vicious concept. Even in denial, the Marxist critic pursues positive goals and offers constructive solutions. The Marxist critic "removes" the wrong conception in order to form one that meets the interests of the proletariat.” Lunacharsky, the formation of Marxist criticism

Criticism of foreign parties fails this test when it:

• Lacks objective knowledge of concrete conditions
• Offers no constructive, context-specific solutions
• Relies on bourgeois sources for information
• Is conducted publicly rather than through comradely channels

When criticism meets none of the criteria for scientific Marxist criticism, it is not criticism at all. It is pontification—and, objectively, it is sabotage.

Reading through the criticism of these pontificators, one can see neither objectivism nor constructive solutions. They cannot be objective because they have no way of knowing the objective truth and concrete conditions of a country thousands of miles away. It is subjective because they rely on secondary or tertiary sources, in most cases, imperialist bourgeois sources. As far as coming up with “constructive solutions” , they cannot come up with one in their “critique for the same reason. They have to have objective knowledge of concrete conditions and objective truth of that given country in order to make an objective analysis and come up with “constructive solutions”.  That is why their critiques cannot go beyond petty bourgeois pontification and thus cannot be considered Marxist Criticism because “being a science, Marxist criticism builds its conclusions in the form of concepts and logical conclusions, that is, it uses scientific tools” (2) which presupposes the knowledge for objective analysis of objective conditions.

(2)  Lunacharsky, the formation of Marxist criticism

Part 22 — The Application: Internationalism vs. Pontification

The confusion between criticism among communists within a given country and criticism of the communists of other countries manifests itself sharply in the practice of these pontificators. They do not focus on the struggle within their own country but on critiquing struggles in other countries. That has become a way to escape from their responsibilities and duties within their own countries, hiding behind the mask of “internationalism”.  However, Lenin defined socialist internationalism differently;

 “There is one, and only one, kind of real internationalism, and that is—working whole-heartedly for the development of the revolutionary movement and the revolutionary struggle in one’s own country, and supporting (by propaganda, sympathy, and material aid) this struggle, this, and only this, line, in every country without exception.” Lenin, The Tasks of the Proletariat in Our Revolution

Marxist-Leninist parties proceed from the principle that differences and misunderstandings may arise among various parties and states, even when they have relations of close friendship. In case of differences, problems and conflicting situations, Communist Parties of countries  settle their differences on a Marxist-Leninist road, through mutual consultations and comradely explanations, never making them public. This principle should be applied between socialist countries and  between communist parties.

Marxist-Leninist norms regulate relations among communist parties. Based on Marxist-Leninist norms, criticism of mistakes observed in the line and the activity of this or that party should be objective, reciprocal, principled,  constructive, and  in a comradely manner. Criticism is not to dictate and impose one’s views on others, especially on the smaller parties of other countries. Criticism should be constructive and defend the struggles of the Communists, anti-imperialists, and anti-fascists  and  the  fate of the revolution if they were successful in their struggles.

What we witness in our days, however, is the pontificating of so-called “communists”  carrying out the bourgeois concept of “criticism,”  either with a bourgeois “balanced” approach to the events, or totally siding with the imperialists, fascists, and anti-communists. Their criticism is neither objective nor constructive. In most cases, criticisms are made in the name of communists against communists on the side of anti-communists.

If and when they are cornered, the pontificators, who in most cases are Kautskyite-Bernsteinists, better to say, “NED-Communists”*, call on the slogan of “freedom of criticism”, and “internationalist duty” as their defense. As we have seen, interfering in the internal communist affairs of another country has nothing to do with internationalism or “ freedom of criticism” in the Marxist-Leninist sense.

*NED-Communists"—a term referring to individuals and organizations funded, directly or indirectly, by the U.S. National Endowment for Democracy and similar institutions that use 'democracy promotion' as a cover for ideological warfare against socialist and anti-imperialist movements.

We are not living in the early 1900s, when Marxism and Leninism were in their early stages of spreading and maturing. We live in the first quarter of the 2000s, when almost every country has its own communist parties or organizations, each with different degrees of experience and maturity. However, ideological struggle never ends. As in the early 1900s, today too Kautskyites-Bernsteinists, under different disguises, cry out for “freedom of criticism”. What Lenin criticized in 1901-02 remains an ongoing subject between those who defend the fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism and those who try to revise it in a way acceptable to, and for the benefit of, the bourgeoisie, especially the imperialist bourgeoisie.

"Freedom of criticism", said Lenin, “ is undoubtedly the most fashionable slogan at the present time, and the one most frequently employed in the controversies between the Socialists and democrats of all countries.” Lenin, What is to Be Done, Dogmatism And "Freedom Of Criticism"  

Giving due credit to them, Kautskyites-Bernsteinists have a long history and experience in presenting themselves as the defenders of Marxism-Leninism after the death of Lenin.” In fact, it is no secret that two trends have taken shape in the present-day international” said Lenin then, and  continued ;” What this "new" trend, which adopts a "critical" attitude towards "obsolete dogmatic" Marxism, represents has with sufficient precision been stated by Bernstein, and demonstrated by Millerand…The very conception, "ultimate aim," was declared to be unsound, and the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat was absolutely rejected…He who does not deliberately close his eyes cannot fail to see that the new "critical" trend in Socialism is nothing more nor less than a new variety of opportunism.” Lenin, What is to Be Done, Dogmatism And "Freedom Of Criticism"

Liberalism that makes up the essence of opportunism in theory and practice has become the dominating trend of the pontificators hiding behind ultra-left slogans and as the  critics of communists of other countries.

All of the above concerns external criticism—the public critique of one country's communist party by others. This is categorically different from internal criticism, which is a necessary and healthy part of party life within a given country.

As Stalin noted, a party is invincible if it does not fear criticism and self-criticism, learns from its mistakes, and corrects them in time. This internal process may be conducted publicly, within the national context. But on the international level, as long as the question is an internal affair of a sovereign party, public criticism is impermissible unless it meets the stringent criteria of objectivity, constructiveness, and comradely purpose—and even then, private channels are the norm."

Internal criticism is a different question, but it still rests on the same Marxist-Leninist norms. Criticism and self-criticism, which belong to the very heart of the Marxist dialectical method, mean that theory and practice must always be matched up with one another, and it should be constructive and conclusive. “A party is invincible,” wrote Stalin, “if it does not fear criticism and self-criticism, if it does not gloss over the mistakes and defects in its work, if it teaches and educates its cadres by drawing the lessons from the mistakes in party work, and if it knows how to correct its mistakes in time.” Joseph Stalin, The National Question and Leninism

 In internal criticism, this may be done publicly, but on an international scale, as long as the question is an internal affair of a country, it cannot be made publicly unless it is an  objective, reciprocal, principled,  constructive criticism structured in a comradely manner which will not turn into an unending  abstract  polemic and will be used by the imperialist bourgeoisie for their own interests in their ideological warfare against communism.   

The latest events, especially since the “protests in Cuba,” what we have been experiencing is pontification of the Kautskyites-Bernsteinists against the communists and communist parties. This is being carried out in the name of communism against the communists, anti-imperialists, and anti-fascists. This, indeed, is being carried out from the ranks of the imperialist bourgeois bloc with criticism prettified with Marxist-Leninist brushes.

Reiterating Lenin’s words;

"Socialists in every country must expose their own government and their own bourgeoisie...Lacking that, all talk of socialism, syndicalism, internationalism is a sheer deception of the people...  He is an internationalist who in a really internationalist way combats his own bourgeoisie, his own social-chauvinists, his own Kautskyites".

Because, again in Lenin’s words;

“There is one, and only one, kind of real internationalism, and that is—working whole-heartedly for the development of the revolutionary movement and the revolutionary struggle in one’s own country, and supporting (by propaganda, sympathy, and material aid) this struggle, this, and only this, line, in every country without exception.” Lenin, The Tasks of the Proletariat in Our Revolution

All these petty bourgeois, arrogant, know-it-all  pontificators should be exposed, and their poisonous critiques of communists should be debunked by explaining that their criticism of communists of other countries has nothing to do with internationalism or freedom of criticism but everything to do with serving the interests of imperialist bourgeoisie against the interests of progressive forces. Although it is a well-known fact, they should be exposed for hiding behind these criticisms to conceal their pacifist, reformist  approaches in their own countries. 

According to the pontificators:

- every other communist party and/or organization in the world is inferior to them and either revisionist, opportunist, or "fake communists," so that they have to dictate and impose their own subjective views on them. It is subjective because they look at them through Western, arrogant, condescending, petty-bourgeois glasses, assuming the West is the World and only their culture, norms, and history count in analyzing and determining everything.

- Since they themselves, with their vast "knowledge," couldn't have (never mind defeating fascism in some cases) built socialism in their own country, then the others can't do so. 

- If in a country where the political power is in the hands of Communists, and it is not developed economically, they are not  "genuine" communists, and yet, if they succeed in developing their economy, then they are capitalists, not communists. 

The pattern is consistent: if a communist-led country is economically underdeveloped, the pontificators declare it not 'genuinely' socialist. If it develops successfully, they declare it capitalist. The implicit message is that only capitalists can develop economies—socialists cannot. This is not Marxism; it is anti-communism disguised as critique.

They are pontificators with ultra-left words but nothing in deeds, even in their own countries, spreading anti-communism either consciously or unconsciously. 

As Enver Hoxha pointed out, " a correct Leninist course demands practical, decisive deeds and vigorous actions rather than just words to successfully combat imperialism and revisionism..." The Marxist-Leninist Movement and the World Crisis of Capitalism

This confusion between legitimate internal struggle and illegitimate external warfare is not accidental. It is the very mechanism through which capitalist ideological warfare operates—dividing socialists, discrediting anti-imperialist struggles, and turning communists against one another. Recognizing this is the first condition for unity.

Marxist norms of criticism tell us how to relate to fellow communists. But they do not tell us what to do. What is the task? What is the path forward? The answer lies in revolutionary democracy — the strategic orientation that connects the democratic struggle to the socialist revolution. This is the subject of our final chapter.

Marxist norms of criticism tell us how to relate to fellow communists. But they do not tell us what to do. What is the task? What is the path forward? The answer lies in revolutionary democracy... This is the subject of our final chapter.

CHAPTER VI – The task: Revolutionary democracy

Lenin On Insurrection And Revolutionary Democracy

Part 23: The Concept — Form vs. Essence

Among ML Revolutionaries, eclectic memorization of theories and revolutionary phrase-making is another byproduct of ML theory not being able to be applied correctly to the practice in any given “concrete" situation.

The fundamental reason for deducing the wrong approach and drawing the wrong conclusion from the right theories is that the "theories" remain abstract and thus prevent formulating any concrete strategy for the specific conditions and situation, in a way that can be understood by the masses.

Marxism is related to the essence of things, not to the forms- yet not denying the importance of forms. It is not the form of revolution, name of party, or of power that is important, but the class- essence. To call a power structure as “People’s Power”, “People’s Democracy”, or “Labor Democracy” does not determine its class essence. A power called “People’s Democracy” could be the power of the working class, yet another called “Worker’s democracy” could well be a bourgeois power. What determines it is the hegemony of the class that holds power. Naming may have tactical reasons for both Socialists and the Bourgeoisie. Stalin’s comment on the subject of setting up a “Labor Party” in Bulgaria may be a good example of this. Stalin says;

"You must unite the working class and the other working strata on the basis of a minimal programme, and later there will be time for maximal program. Peasants consider the worker’s party as alien, but they will look at labor party as their own. I strongly recommend that you do that. A labor party or worker-peasant party is very suitable for a country like Bulgaria from the point of view of the country’s international position, that would only make your tasks easier for you. In character the party will be communist, but it will have a broader basis and a convenient mask for the present period. “Stalin, The Diaries of Dimitrov, September 2, 1946

The importance of the name used may be considered in conjunction with its ability to embrace larger masses on the path of revolutionary struggle and ensure their support, and to maintain power. The decision depends on the concrete assessment of the concrete situation and class relations at that given time; for Marxists proceed from the principle that

" a Marxist should not leave the real ground in the analysis of inter-class relations."  Lenin, Letters on Tactics

The group that will quickly embrace the slogan of the "People's Democracy", obviously, will be the reformists, petty bourgeois who still have great hopes, illusions for the bourgeois parliament and fear of revolution. Because, according to them, "People's Democracy" will provide democratic rights and liberties within the existing system, and its purpose will be limited to the protection and "improvement" of the existing system. Their kin, left-opportunists, however, hiding behind far-left slogans, will label the “People’s Democracy” as reformist.

Having said that, the approach to the terms should not be in their literal meaning, taken from a dictionary, an encyclopedia, or from a concocted meaning, but in their historical context and historical, Marxist-Leninist theoretical use of the terms.

 If not done so, conclusions reached will have nothing to do with the ABCs of Marxism-Leninism as one “theoretician !!” of a left!! magazine states: “Revolutionary Democracy is the reaction of middle bourgeoisie.“  Proletarian revolution has an unbreakable connection with the democratic revolution and the dictatorship of workers-peasants in most of the countries of the world. It is not the “reaction of the middle bourgeoisie”, but as Lenin puts it: “Revolutionary democracy, i.e., in the main, the proletariat, and Social-Democracy”…“ (1) By revolutionary democracy is meant the consistent and firm democratic currents that accept the whole democratic programme of Social-Democracy, do not hold back from any revolutionary measures, but lack the clear Social-Democratic class consciousness”.  (2) So Revolutionary democracy has nothing to do with the “middle bourgeoisie,” but it is mainly the alliance of the socialists with the revolutionary democratic currents.

(1)  Lenin, The Boycott of the Bulygin Duma, and Insurrection

(2) Lenin, General Plan of the Third Congress Decisions

Obviously, without some exceptions stated below, the general use of "People's Democracy" has a strategic content that somehow involves the popular elections and especially the utilization of parliament in connection with the insurrection for “revolutionary democracy as a bridge”-which is our main subject to discuss. As the quotes will show, historically the term “People’s Democracy is used for countries that waged anti- fascist and anti-imperialist wars in where the bourgeoisie escaped, in others became a part or supporter of the new type of proletarian power in the form of “People’s Democracy”, in others a dictatorship of proletariat and peasants, while in some, an alliance between the anti-imperialist bourgeoisie, peasants and workers. Each varied in class content.

In this sense Bulgaria is an important example. At the end of the war, the Communists in Bulgaria seized the majority in parliament.  Stalin explains this exception and that “People’s power” in this case was another form of dictatorship of the working class;

"The proletariat is known to have two forms of dictatorship. As the first of Marx and Engels in Paris, he saw the Commune and argued, democratic Republic with a majority of the proletariat was the best form of proletarian dictatorship ... Lenin had the Soviet form suitable to our conditions formulated. Here, it was proved to be the easiest way to seize power in your country, where the power of the working class was seized, not from the insurrection, but from outside (Soviet Army), you can go back to the Marx and Engels model without the Soviet form. People's Democracy will play the role of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

(In Bulgaria) The capitalists and the Landlords have fought against us for four years, and they have surrendered without war and fled. “Stalin, Dimitrov’s Diaries December 6, 1948

Part 24: The Historical Experience — People's Democracy in Practice

On January 27, 1918, a revolution in Finland began in response to a call from the leaders of the Social-Democratic Party of Finland to depose the bourgeois government and place power in the hands of the workers. On January 29, a revolutionary government of Finland was set up in the shape of the Council of People's Representatives.” Lenin, mentioning Finland in his speech at the Extraordinary Seventh Congress of the R.C.P.(B.), said:

“Because we are standing on the shoulders of the Paris Commune and the many years of development of German Social-Democracy, we have conditions that enable us to see clearly what we are doing in creating Soviet power. Despite all the crudity and lack of discipline that exist in the Soviets—this is a survival of the petty-bourgeois nature of our country—despite all that the new type of state has been created by the masses of the people. It has been functioning for months and not weeks, and not in one city, but throughout a tremendous country, populated by several nations. This type of Soviet power has shown its value since it has spread to Finland, a country that is different in every respect, where there are no Soviets but where there is, at any rate, a new type of power, proletarian power.”

Lenin’s conclusion that the Soviets were not the only form of the dictatorship of the proletariat was subsequently fully confirmed. After the Second World War, a new form of dictatorship of the proletariat arose in a number of countries of Europe and Asia. This was called “people’s democracy”, which reflected the distinctive development of socialist revolution at a time when imperialism had been weakened, and the balance of forces had tilted in favour of socialism”

Explaining the specificity of this era, Cominform states;

“The defeat of fascist Germany and militarist Japan as a result of the world-historic victory of the Soviet Union in World War II, the rise of the countries of people’s democracy and the weakening of the forces of world imperialism constituted most important factors stimulating a new powerful upsurge of the national-liberation struggle in the dependent countries and in the colonies and aggravating the crisis of the entire colonial system of imperialism. Cominform No. 2 (218), January 9, 1953  And as a result of “the smashing by the Soviet Army of fascist Germany and imperialist Japan in World War II further weakened the imperialist camp and gave a fresh impetus to the revolutionary struggle waged by the working class and to the national-liberation movement against imperialism. In a number of countries of Central and South-East Europe there was established the system of people’s democracy. In Asia there arose the Korean People’s Republic and the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. “Cominform No. 9 (173), February 29, 1952

Explaining the context and the differences, Cominform states:

“It would be a transition to a non-capitalist power, or to be more precise, to the socialist development of China, said Comrade Stalin. State power in China is not the dictatorship of the proletariat, and in this it differs from the state power in the European countries of People’s Democracy where this democracy fulfills the functions of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The dictatorship of the People’s Democracy in China is the state power of the People’s Democratic United Front of the working class, peasants, petty-bourgeoisie, national-bourgeoisie, and other patriotic democratic elements based on the alliance of workers and peasants and led by the working class. The task of the People’s Democracy in China at this stage is to carry out agrarian reform, to consolidate the alliance of the working class and the peasantry, to draw into active political life hundreds of millions of people, economic rehabilitation, and industrialization of the country, to strengthen and broaden the foundation of public property, to restore and develop the economy, to raise the living standard of the working people and to effect the cultural revolution. The Central People’s Government of China is building up the defense of the country against imperialist aggression.” Cominform, September 29, 1950

“In the People's Democracies historical successes in working class unity have also been won: united working class parties, united trade unions, united cooperatives, youth, women’s, and other organizations have been established.

This working-class unity has played a decisive role in the successes achieved in the economic and cultural advance in the People's Democracies, in securing the leading role of the working class in the State and in a radical improvement in the material welfare of the working masses.” Resolution adopted by the Meeting of the Cominform, November 1949

However, “The nature of the people’s democratic state power in China is defined by the conditions in this recently colonial country. At present the working people of China are not confronted directly with the task of building Socialism, the instrument of which is the dictatorship of the proletariat.” From “Cominform, September 29, 1950

Lenin was stressing the importance and yet making the distinction clearly in his speech at the Extraordinary All- Russia Railway men’s Congress

“We have been openly and straightforwardly saying from the very start of the revolution—April 1917—that the Soviets were a much higher, a very much more perfect and purposeful form of democracy—a working people’s democracy—than the Constituent Assembly. The Constituent Assembly unites all classes, which means also the exploiter classes, the propertied classes, hence, the bourgeoisie and those who received their education at the expense of the people, at the expense of the exploited, and abandoned the people to join the capitalists, turning their knowledge, the greatest achievements of knowledge, into a tool for oppressing the people, and fighting the working classes. For our part we declare that when a revolution of the working and exploited classes breaks out, all power in the state goes to their organisation. This form of democracy is incomparably higher than the old one. No party invented the Soviets. You know very well that no party could have invented them. They were brought to life by the 1905 revolution.”

Since Marxists proceed from the assessment of concrete conditions and situations and cannot  leave the real ground in the analysis of inter-class relations, under current conditions speaking of “People’s Democracy” should not be taken the same as in its exceptional context but in the context of a “Revolutionary Democracy”, as a phase and  a bridge to socialist revolution, with some possible exception, in all countries.

Part 25: The Path — Insurrection, Revolution, and the Role of Parliament

Studying the Russian history of revolution, Lenin’s writings and his foresight in “the principal stages in the History of Bolshevism” that the “"history has proven that in some very important problems of the proletarian revolution, all countries will inevitably have to do what Russia has done" , we can assume the dialectically connected, uninterrupted phases as; “insurrection -> revolutionary democracy” followed by “Revolutionary Democracy –> insurrection –> socialist revolution.”

Any “democracy -  with any prefix - as an end in itself, by itself is a deviation from Marxism Leninism, is the denial of Proletarian Dictatorship – Socialism. All the “democracy” - with any prefix- should be taken within the context of class and class power and whether it is aiming at socialist revolution or not.

” In dealing with the idea of control and the question of when and by whom this control is to be affected,” says Lenin, “one must not for a single moment forget the class character of the modern state, which is merely an organisation of class rule. A similar class analysis should be applied to the concept “revolutionary democracy”, and this analysis should be based on the actual balance of social forces.”  Lenin, Speech Made at the First Petrograd Conference of Shop Committees

The concept should be used by Marxist Leninists with its class context distinctive from the reformists’ use. Clarifying that “Revolutionary Democracy” is not an invention but a phase between capitalism and socialism that is advanced by the revolution, Lenin states;

“what is this revolutionary democracy that people here speak so much about to conceal their utter misunderstanding and complete repudiation of it? To talk about revolutionary democracy at the All-Russia Congress of Soviets and obscure this institution’s character, its class composition, and its role in the revolution… This is a type of state not invented by the Russians but advanced by the revolution because the revolution can win in no other way…. We are asked whether socialism can be introduced in Russia, and whether, generally speaking, radical changes can be made at once. That is all empty talk comrades. .. Nowhere in the world is there pure capitalism developing into pure socialism, nor can there be in wartime. But there is something in between, something new and unprecedented... If you want to talk of "revolutionary" democracy, then you must distinguish this concept from reformist democracy under a capitalist Ministry.” Lenin, First All-Russia Congress of Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies

Let’s touch base on some of the basic aspects in light of our current world’s facts.

A- The importance of a bourgeois democratic system with a constituent assembly in countries where it does not exist. 

Marxism-Leninism must be dealt with in a dialectical unity and applied to concrete conditions. The forms, means, and methods of struggle and the path to the revolution will differ in each country; where feudal or semi-feudal structure and/or autocracy, fascism reigns, will be different than where a bourgeois democratic state with a constituent assembly reigns. And most importantly depends on the existence of the objective and subjective conditions of a country at any given time.

Lenin stresses the importance and makes the comparison in his article mentioned above, in which he summarizes the main stages of the history of Bolshevism by saying: "history has proven that, in some very important problems of the proletarian revolution, all countries will inevitably have to do what Russia has done", and finishes his writing as follows;

"" Despite views that are today often to be met with in Europe and America, the Bolsheviks began their victorious struggle against the parliamentary and (in fact) bourgeois republic and against the Mensheviks in a very cautious manner, and the preparations they made for it were by no means simple. At the beginning of the period mentioned, we did not call for the overthrow of the government but explained that it was impossible to overthrow it without first changing the composition and the temper of the Soviets. We did not proclaim a boycott of the bourgeois parliament, the Constituent Assembly, but said 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.” Lenin, The Principal Stages in the History of Bolshevism

And Lenin, in his critique below, stresses the fact that the socialist revolution is not a single battle, but a period covering a series of battles over all sorts of problems, and each must be formulated in a revolutionary way.

“From what Parabellum says, it appears that, in the name of the socialist revolution, he scornfully rejects a consistently revolutionary programme in the sphere of democracy. He is wrong to do so. The proletariat cannot be victorious except through democracy, i.e., by giving full effect to democracy and by linking with each step of its struggle democratic demands formulated in the most resolute terms. It is absurd to contrapose the socialist revolution and the revolutionary struggle against capitalism to a single problem of democracy…We must combine the revolutionary struggle against capitalism with a revolutionary programme and tactics on all democratic demands: a republic, a militia, the popular election of officials, equal rights for women, the self-determination of nations, etc. While capitalism exists, these demands — all of them — can only be accomplished as an exception, and even then, in an incomplete and distorted form. Basing ourselves on the democracy already achieved, and exposing its incompleteness under capitalism, we demand the overthrow of capitalism, the expropriation of the bourgeoisie, as a necessary basis both for the abolition of the poverty of the masses and for the complete and all-round institution of all democratic reforms. Some of these reforms will be started before the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, others in the course of that overthrow, and still others after it. The social revolution is not a single battle, but a period covering a series of battles over all sorts of problems of economic and democratic reform, which are consummated only by the expropriation of the bourgeoisie. It is for the sake of this final aim that we must formulate every one of our democratic demands in a consistently revolutionary way. It is quite conceivable that the workers of some particular country will overthrow the bourgeoisie before even a single fundamental democratic reform has been fully achieved. It is, however, quite inconceivable that the proletariat, as a historical class, will be able to defeat the bourgeoisie, unless it is prepared for that by being educated in the spirit of the most consistent and resolutely revolutionary democracy.” Lenin, The Revolutionary Proletariat and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination

In regard to the phases of revolution, in contrast to the left-child disease, such as "revolution now", "revolution tomorrow ", "revolution or nothing", Lenin points out that the revolution requires certain processes, and the strategy must be determined concretely depending on the assessment  of concrete conditions in this process. His words, " It is not enough to learn slogans by heart; one must also learn to judge the opportune moment to issue them,"* demonstrate the necessity of assessments to be made based on the concrete facts. * Lenin, A caricature of Bolshevism

Looking at the Russian history of revolution and Lenin’s assessments, past and current history of the world, we can safely construe the fact that the bourgeoisie will never leave power in a peaceful way, nor will the revolution be realized in one leap without any intermediate stages. Some may have to go through the toppling of autocracy, constituent assembly, revolutionary democracy, and socialist revolution; others may go through revolutionary democracy followed by socialist revolution.

Especially for the undeveloped, dependent countries, Stalin and Lenin stress the necessity of a democratic republic as a stage and the importance of using parliament as a means:

Stalin;

“Political freedom is best achieved in a democratic republic, of course, in the conditions of capitalism. For this reason, all the advocates of proletarian socialism must strive to establish a democratic republic as the best "bridge" to socialism.” Stalin, Anarchism or Socialism?

Lenin;

“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”!?" Lenin, Should We Participate in Bourgeois Parliaments?

This, however, does not mean that Marxists-Leninists see a democratic republic as an alternative to socialism but as an alternative in backward, autocratic countries where the objective and subjective conditions do not exist and where the laboring masses needed to be educated in the spirit of revolutionary democracy. In advanced capitalist countries, however, granting the conditions exist, the only alternative is socialism through insurrection – in some more than others, depending on the revolutionary situation, a phase of “revolutionary democracy” may be required.

As for most existing “parliaments” - if not all, the parliaments formed after the toppling of autocracy followed by an insurrection - unless led by the ML and achieved the majority in it - will still be a “pigsty” of bourgeoisie.

As Lenin points out;

 “Only the armed people, organised in a revolutionary army” says Lenin, “which has won over to its side all decent and honest elements in the tsar’s army, has overcome the tsar’s forces and substituted a provisional revolutionary government for the tsar’s autocratic government.
.... The slogan for all this agitation will be: insurrection, the immediate formation of combat squads and contingents of a revolutionary army, the overthrow of tsarist rule, and the establishment of a provisional revolutionary government which is to convene a popular constituent assembly.” Lenin, Oneness of the Tsar and the People, and of the People and the Tsar”

And in the same article, characterizing the Duma, he states;

“We have said that the State Duma is a mockery of popular representation. That is undoubtedly so from the standpoint of the theory of the sovereignty of the people.

In present-day Russia we have before us three political theories of whose significance we shall yet speak on more than one occasion. These are: 1) The theory of the tsar’s consultation with the people …… 2) The theory of an agreement between the tsar and the people... 3) The theory of the sovereignty of the people (the programme of Social-Democracy, as well as of revolutionary democracy in general).” 

In simple terms, based on any given country’s concrete situation, if the majority of the masses still expects hope from the parliament, and they are at the same time counterrevolutionary, and where the autocracy reigns,  efforts should be made at a minimum to establish a “popular constituent assembly”, if it exists, or the subjective conditions are ripe, all the democratic opportunities, including the parliament, should be utilized for the establishment of a “Revolutionary Democracy” as a bridge to the socialist revolution or if both objective and subjective conditions exist, directly to socialist revolution. At any given moment, the minimal and maximal goals should be set; phases are determined, not based on subjective hopes, wishes, and expectations with revolutionary phrases, but based on the concrete assessment of the concrete situation.

B- Can "People's Democracy" that sees elections and parliament as the only path be realistic?

The first question should be: Can a majority be held in parliament with elections? Considering, particularly, the technological advances and current technology, and those who own and control them, and their power in manipulating the minds, buying votes, and other frauds in elections and imperialist interference in the elections and election results; to make such an argument would be childish.

Even if the majority in parliament could be achieved, is there a possibility of turning it into a socialist parliament, socialist power? Can there be exceptions? Of course, as history has shown, there may be exceptions, such as MLs taking over the majority in parliament as a result of a regional war or as a result of an uprising against fascism. Marxist Leninists do not deny that there may be exceptions. But let’s not forget, Marxists do not set their strategy and tactics based on expectations and exceptions, but on general rules. The strategy of organizing and taking power on the basis of general principles -fitting the given country and situation- does not endanger the seizure of power and holding on to power in case of an exception; on the contrary, it facilitates.

As an example of a constituent assembly achieved through uprising within which carries another uprising as a phase, Lenin states;

“The Russian proletariat, however, is at present a minority of the population in Russia. It can become the great, overwhelming majority only if it combines with the mass of semi-proletarians, semi-proprietors, i.e., with the mass of the petty-bourgeois urban and rural poor. Such a composition of the social basis of the possible and desirable revolutionary-democratic dictatorship will, of course, affect the composition of the revolutionary government and inevitably lead to participation, or even predominance, within it of the most heterogeneous representatives of revolutionary democracy. It would be extremely harmful to entertain any illusions on this score. If that windbag Trotsky now writes (unfortunately, side by side with Parvus) that “a Father Gapon could appear only once”, that “there is no room for a second Gapon”, he does so simply because he is a windbag. If there were no room in Russia for a second Gapon, there would be no room for a truly “great”, consummated democratic revolution.” Lenin, Social-Democracy & the Provisional Revolutionary Government

As history has proven, in general, the majority in parliament can only be achieved in relation to an uprising, or multiple staged uprisings in different forms and levels in different countries, based on each specific condition.

The struggle for a revolutionary democracy and revolution can be waged through only legal means within the boundaries of the existing system is an illusion, a reformist deception.

While Lenin stresses the importance of legal work by saying "Don’t let a single hour of legal work slip by”, he warns not to sink into reformism;

"The party of the working class, without abandoning legal activity but never for a moment overrating it, must combine legal with illegal work, as it did in 1912–14." Lenin, Political Situation, four Thesis

Including the struggle for a constitutional democracy, struggle for a Revolutionary Democracy and socialist revolution cannot be waged by legal means only, for its success depends on some kind of insurrection, to varying degrees, which fundamentally could be organized illegally.

Let us first examine these questions after giving a synopsis of the concept of insurrection and Revolution.

C- The difference between Insurrection and Revolution
Lenin sees the armed insurrection as a special form of political struggle.

 "A people's revolution," says Lenin, "cannot be timed in advance. An uprising can be, if those preparing it have influence among the masses and can correctly estimate the situation...” Lenin, Two Tactics

These two interdependent concepts are being used in an equated manner in general and in Turkey in particular. Consequently, the concepts of “Revolution" and "Strategy" always remain to be "abstract”, vague, where neither the one who mentions and the one who hears them can bring them down to a concrete footing in order to comprehend.

The uprising is a form of struggle and serves as a bridge that extends all the way to the realization of the Revolution. A revolution without uprising is unthinkable – without denying the possibility of exceptions.

D- Democratic Struggle - Can there be a “People’s Democracy” without an uprising?

If we look at history, especially recent historical events, it indicates that it is not possible to have a majority in parliament (for the revolutionary democracy)  without the support  of some kind of uprising. When Lenin criticized the Bundists in 1905, he said;

 "The formation of a constituent assembly without the aid of an uprising is an idea worthy only of bourgeois philistines, as even the comrades of the Bund realize." Lenin, The Theory of Spontaneous Generation

In his short essay entitled "Political Situation," Lenin explains that "The aim of the insurrection can only be to transfer power to the proletariat, supported by the poor peasants, with a view to putting our Party programme into effect." Lenin, The Political Situation (Four Theses)

An autocratic government can be toppled through an uprising or an election followed by an uprising; however, that does not necessarily guarantee a majority in the parliament, or a “Revolutionary Democracy”.

E- Can the “People's Democracy” protect itself and be a bridge to Socialism without the uprising?

As Lenin emphasized above, a parliament, as a “People's Democracy,” requires new legal and illegal organizations and activities to gain the majority, to protect, to consolidate, and to ensure the transition bridge without interruption.

Just as an uprising would be the instrument of a parliament that would provide the majority of revolutionaries under the name of “popular power”, “Revolutionary Democracy”, the Revolutionary Parliament should be seen as a means of a new uprising to complete the bridge. In other words, the Power of "Revolutionary Democracy"- the parliamentary bridge, form of struggle - cannot be seen as a final goal. From uprising to parliament, from parliament to (a new) uprising - the bridge should be seen as continuous construction.

In evaluating the period in Russia, Lenin says; 

 "" A provisional revolutionary government is an organ of insurrection...a provisional revolutionary government “emerging from a victorious popular insurrection”: both logic and historical experience show that it is possible to have provisional revolutionary governments as organs of insurrection which are far from victorious, or which are not completely victorious.” Lenin, The Theory of Spontaneous Generation

Lenin summarizes these words as:

 " a provisional revolutionary government does not only “emerge” from an uprising, but also directs it"

History has proven that without the evaluation of the current concrete conditions, and on that basis determining concrete strategy, the abstract "revolution" and "revolution now" slogans have not served the interests of revolutionary struggle, nor helped to put its foot on the ground. Unlike Trotsky’s view (which will be dealt with separately), revolution is not a military coup. It is very common these days to hear  “Revolution Now”, “Either now or never”, “all or nothing” slogans from those who do not embrace and have no strong ties with the masses, and do nothing about it, yet spread the vague illusion that the revolution will happen “spontaneously” or by some “supermen” from space in a miracle way. The fact is that not only revolution but insurrections that carry the movement to revolution require the determined participation of the masses and utilization of parliament at each stage -whether it be constituent or revolutionary democracy. As Lenin puts it;

"" an uprising without the aid of a provisional revolutionary government  can be neither an uprising of the whole people nor a victorious uprising. " Lenin, The Theory of Spontaneous Generation

In other words, insurrection is not only an important component of acquiring power, but of safe-keeping and carrying it to the socialist revolution. And insurrection means masses.

Part 26: The Conditions and Alliances — Varying by Phase

Uprising conditions and preparation
Lenin, who speaks about the necessity of the revolutionaries to assess the conditions of struggle, examine the new forms of struggle, their practical validity, and the possibility of realization, and followed by the education of the masses on this basis, says;

" If it is necessary to prepare for an uprising, such preparation must of necessity include the dissemination and explanation of slogans calling for an armed uprising of the people, the formation of a revolutionary army, and the establishment of a provisional revolutionary government.” Lenin, The Theory of Spontaneous Generation

On the one hand, " Spontaneity-ists”, for example in Turkey, and those who see the masses as a "flock" who will tail the "heroes"; on the other, promote abstract insurrection and revolution slogans and yet still lack the practice. Despite such catchy far-left slogans, what is actually promoted is passivity, submissive, hopeless, defeatist, and self-destructive practices – which in turn reflects on the masses as such and strengthens the parliamentary illusion. Such abstract slogans, not reflecting the existing conditions, deepen the isolation of revolutionary movements from the masses of people.

In his letter to the Central Committee, Lenin summarizes the three conditions of the insurrection:

"" To be successful, insurrection must rely not upon conspiracy and not upon a party, but upon the advanced class. That is the first point. Insurrection must rely upon a revolutionary upsurge of the people. That is the second point. Insurrection must rely upon that turning-point in the history of the growing revolution when the activity of the advanced ranks of the people is at its height, and when the vacillations in the ranks of the enemy and in the ranks of the weak, half-hearted, and irresolute friends of the revolution are strongest. That is the third point. And these three conditions for raising the question of insurrection distinguish Marxism from Blanquism. “ Lenin, Marxism and Insurrection, A Letter to the Central Committee of the R.S.D.L.P.(B.)

Lenin, based on the given concrete conditions, draws attention to two important points in the preparation of the Uprising;

“Firstly, the task of preparing an uprising must carry within it the pre-emergence of the uprising that is being prepared or almost prepared.

"Secondly, the uprising now developing spontaneously is outstripping the purposeful and planned work we are doing to prepare it. We are unable now to restrain the insurrectionary outbreaks which occur here and there sporadically, disconnectedly, and spontaneously. So much the more are we in duty bound to speed up dissemination and explanation of all the political tasks and political requisites of a successful uprising.” Lenin, The Theory of Spontaneous Generation

It is clear that the uprising and revolution cannot be put in practice with abstract, far-left-phrase making, and by movements isolated from the masses. On the contrary, it requires determination of strategies on the basis of research and analysis. It carries responsibility to the public; it is not a matter of gambling with the interests of the working people and their struggle with "abstract" slogans that have no feet on the ground. As Lenin puts it;

"We Marxists have always been proud that we determined the expediency of any form of struggle by a precise calculation of the mass forces and class relationships.

We have said that an insurrection is not always expedient; unless the prerequisites exist among the masses, it is a gamble. " Lenin, Revolutionary Phrase mongering

In the current conditions of autocracy in Turkey, for example, in respect to some of the objective conditions for the uprising the answer to the question would be "Yes"; however, the concrete reality of unorganized masses and lack of a strong, uniting, united leadership,  for the subjective conditions the answer will be "No".  In fact, some of the conditions that make up the objective conditions in favor reveal the political tasks for the unfavorable subjective conditions as urgent tasks in order to change it into favorable. The "Form" or “Name “is not decisive. A "Coalition", "Front", "Alliance," etc., any front formed on the basis of the "bridge" concept, can take up the historical responsibility and the task of developing the spontaneous upswings into a power of uprising. Bringing forward only the argument that the “elections will not bring any changes and remaining passive will not change the subjective conditions favorably, visible practice and trials of building an active revolutionary front will. As Lenin puts it;

“Our job is to promote the democratic upswing, to foster the new revolutionary democracy that is growing in a new way in the new Russia. Unless it succeeds in gathering strength and winning in spite of the liberals, no “triumph” of the Progressists and the Cadets in the elections will bring about any serious change in the actual situation in Russia.....Our task is to organise the revolutionary democrats... intensify our revolutionary Social-Democratic work among the proletariat and strengthen the illegal Social-Democratic Labour Party.” Lenin, The Fourth Duma Election Campaign and the Tasks of the Revolutionary Social-Democrats

One cannot compare and copy the “alliance” forms of a country where a strong vanguard leadership exists and apply to a country where there is not. Objective and subjective conditions vary in each given country, so the makeup of the “alliances” varies.

Part 27 - Concrete Conditions and Possible Alliances

Based on each objective and subjective concrete situation, each minimal, urgent aim will have varying alliances. There may be a situation where it can quickly and uninterruptedly transfer from the minimal to the maximum, as there can be a situation of a transfer from minimal to an intermediary phase. There is no one template that fits every country and every situation; each is determined by the conditions of its own particular - of course, in connection with the general.

Regardless of the type of alliances at any given condition, Stalin points out one important factor that is related to the importance of democratic tasks, which is crucial for the success of any revolution. He says;

” the question of the middle strata is undoubtedly one of the basic questions of the workers' revolution. The middle strata are the peasantry and the small urban working people. The oppressed nationalities, nine-tenths of whom consist of middle strata, should also be put in this category. As you see, these are the strata whose economic status puts them midway between the proletariat and the capitalist class. The relative importance of these strata is determined by two circumstances: firstly, these strata constitute the majority, or, at any rate, a large minority of the population of the existing states; secondly, they constitute the important reserves from which the capitalist class recruits its army against the proletariat. The proletariat cannot retain power unless it enjoys the sympathy and support of the middle strata, primarily of the peasantry, especially in a country like our Union of Republics. The proletariat cannot even seriously contemplate seizing power if these strata have not been at least neutralized, if they have not yet managed to break away from the capitalist class, and if the bulk of them still serve as the army of capital." Stalin, The October Revolution, and the Question of the Middle Strata

Never forgetting Stalin’s assessment, let’s give a synopsis of typical alliances at different conditions based on Lenin's assessments.

1- Alliances against Autocratic, fascist systems

Alliances against autocratic systems will be of varying character and inevitably embrace the widest strata of classes.

Example of Turkey in particular, currently experiencing a period of unprecedented historical monopolization. Concerning the concrete situation, the alliances and the "benefiting from the contradictions within bourgeoisie, Lenin's assessment of the autocracy is important to mention;

"" the autocracy guarantees the bourgeoisie opportunities to employ the crudest forms of exploitation, but, on the other hand, places a thousand obstacles in the way of the extensive development of the productive forces and the spread of education; in this way it arouses against itself, not only the petty bourgeoisie, but at times even the big bourgeoisie." Lenin, “Political Agitation and “The Class Point of View”

In relation to the "conditions of uprising", under the autocracy the discontent and opposition widen and reaches its peak in their maturation. Marxist Leninists cannot ignore and remain indifferent to this discontent and opposition with far-left phrase-making with abstract "class point of view" that contradicts ML and makes them indifferent to the discontent among the masses.

In reference to autocracy, the opposition that the system will create and the attitude of the revolutionaries against it, Lenin summarizes the following in terms of "class perspective";

"" The autocracy guarantees (?) the bourgeoisie protection against socialism, but since the people are deprived of rights, this protection is necessarily transformed into a system of police outrages that rouse the indignation of the entire people. ......It is precisely the “class point of view” that makes it impermissible for a Social-Democrat to remain indifferent to the discontent and the protests. “Lenin, “Political Agitation and “The Class Point of View”

Struggle waged against the autocratic systems mostly covers the minimal, democratic tasks of socialist revolution, and thus will have varying alliances, especially the peasantry.

 2- Alliances for “Revolutionary Democracy”
Alliances aiming for Revolutionary democracy, however, consist only of the alliance with the revolutionary democrats - contingent upon the existence of a strong vanguard party.

Lenin explains as follows;

“The first stage. The Social-Democrats make the theoretical preparations for the elections. The most prominent representatives of the Right and the Left wings express their views.... The Bolsheviks come out in favour of a purely Social-Democratic election list, but do not exclude agreements with the revolutionary democrats.” Lenin, The Social-Democratic Election Campaign in St. Petersburg

The class content of the alliance determines the class nature of a “democracy”. “The resolution should express this idea clearly instead of being so vague about it. “says Lenin” because the resolution reflects the fundamental error of the new Iskra, which is unable to distinguish between revolutionary democracy and liberal-monarchist democracy.” Lenin, The Latest in Iskra Tactics, or Mock Elections as a New Incentive to an Uprising

3- Overall comparison of alliances in different phases

‘In our opinion, to ease the incredible burdens and miseries of the war and also to heal the terrible wounds the war has inflicted on the people, revolutionary democracy is needed… We alone can create such an apparatus because we have class-conscious workers disciplined by long capitalist "schooling", workers who are capable of forming a workers' militia and of gradually expanding it into a militia embracing the whole people. The class-conscious workers must lead, but for the work of administration they can enlist the vast mass of the working and oppressed people.” Lenin, Can the Bolsheviks Retain State Power?

4- Alliances of socialist revolution
The working class is alone when it comes to the socialist revolution. It is made up of proletarian and semi-proletarian masses led by its vanguard communist party. The difference in the use of slogans “Soviet (to) Power” and “All power to the Soviets, also marked the class essence of alliances in both. Lenin explains this in different writings clearly.

Part 28: Conclusion — The Road to People's Power

The use of terms should not be in their literal meaning, but in their historical context and historical, Marxist-Leninist theoretical use of the terms. Historically, the concept of “People’s Democracy” refers to an exceptional form of “proletarian dictatorship” experienced in Eastern Europe. The use of “People’s Democracy” for countries that have completed or are in the process of completing bourgeois democratic revolutions differs in class context. In order to make the distinction in class context, “the use of “Revolutionary Democracy” is more suitable since there is no more "Red Army" of Soviets.
History has proven that socialist revolution - with some exceptions -  cannot be achieved in one leap. It has to go through intermediate phases, one of which, valid for most of the countries of the world, is the democratic phase or phases. 

" It shows a failure to understand the significance of a revolutionary government as one of the greatest and finest “means” of effecting a political revolution" says Lenin. ”The paltry “liberalism” flaunted here by the Bund in emulation of Iskra (that is to say, we can manage without any government, even a provisional one!) is sheer anarchist liberalism.” Lenin, The Theory of Spontaneous Generation

We are constantly experiencing the fact that imperialists have no trouble in creating a justification for the intervention in any country. The tactical alertness and suggestions of Lenin and especially of Stalin about "intervention" in connection with the " revolutions" are still valid today. Without active work in masses, active participation of large masses, speaking of revolutionary democracy and socialist revolution remains to be an illusion, mere phrase-mongering of far-left Trotskyite variations.  

"The Marxist solution to the problem of democracy, "says Lenin,” is for the proletariat to utilize all democratic institutions and aspirations in its class struggle against the bourgeoisie in order to prepare for its overthrow and assure its own victory.” Lenin, Reply to P. Kievsky (Y. Pyatakov) 1916

Each phase will have its own unique alliances totally contingent on the existing conditions, the balance of power, the existence or nonexistence of revolutionary situation, and whether the minimal or maximal aim is on the agenda. One cannot copy from another country in which the conditions are different. One cannot copy the path to revolution, form of struggle, means and methods – including the utilization of parliament - of a country where the subjective conditions are ripe, to another country where neither the subjective nor objective conditions exist. One most likely will reject the use of parliament in the former, cannot reject in the latter, all of which is translated into the character of alliances for each.

While the character of alliances will be wide-ranging for a struggle against an autocracy, it will be lesser for the democratic struggle: only the proletariat and revolutionary democrats for the struggle towards revolutionary democracy and the proletariat alone for the socialist revolution.

The form of struggle and utilization of democratic institutions, isolated from the existing conditions, cannot play a decisive role. What is important and decisive at any given time is what it aims at, and under whose leadership, and the class character of alliances formed. In the same way, it is not the form of the revolution, but the class essence of it that matters. Uprisings toward revolution may have different forms and alliances in accord with the specific conditions at given times. The concept of People’s power (whatever the name is given) should have a context that brings it from the abstract down to concrete, one that has its feet on the ground in a way that people comprehend. The road to “People's Power” goes through the phases of planned uprisings followed by an insurrection and forming a provincial revolutionary government – Revolutionary Democracy. That should not be taken as the final goal by itself- which is reformism - but as a means of transforming the bridge through another uprising into socialist revolution. Based on Lenin's assessments and proven then, and especially now, uprising -> majority in parliament -> uprising -> socialist revolution seems to be the general path to follow without disregarding the existing conditions in particular.

OVERALL CONCLUSION

The Thesis — Ideological Warfare

The struggle for socialism is made up of three inseparable  fundamental arenas: ideological, political, and economic. However, both the political (acquiring power) and economic (construction of socialism) arenas remain tied to ideological struggle internally and to ideological warfare externally. The question is not only carrying out a revolution but protecting and sustaining that political power. Because, especially in our technological era, external” ideological warfare” heavily influences the internal’ ideological struggle”.

Always keeping Lenin's warning about the application of ready-made conclusions acquired without understanding the facts — which one must examine critically rather than absorbing the bourgeois and revisionist narratives — 'superficiality that is decidedly fatal' is a necessity for the socialist struggle in any particular and in general. Looking at history and the current condition of leftist movements, we can see without any doubt that this warning of Lenin has proven prophetic. The bourgeoisie does not attack socialism only with police and prisons in particular and with its military and plots. That is superficiality, disregarding inseparable structure of the overall struggle. Bourgeoisie, first and foremost  attacks to socialist ideology and socialists to create confusion in theories, concepts, cultivates habits and laziness in the ranks who chose “labeling” rather than bringing counter arguments, searching for the truth through discussions. All of which brings about a division among the left -  divide and conquer , the oldest tactic in human history. We have to acknowledge that fact that the transition from ideological struggle to ideological warfare marked a qualitative change: the conflict became total, global, and state-sponsored. We are not only reading and “discussing” the Marxist-Leninist subjects among ourselves, but with those who are the agents of capitalists masked as “the authority of Marxist-Leninist” theories.

They fabricated so many weapons, fundamentally: the confusion between socialism and communism, the distortion of the national question, the slander of "cult of personality," the weaponization of "bureaucracy," the "failure" narrative, the ultra-left's sectarianism, boycott, refusal to compromise, rejection of democratic struggle, anti-parliamentarism, and confusion of reform with reformism.

The function of these confusions are consistent and serving their interests in dividing the socialist movement, discrediting anti-imperialist struggles, and disarming the working class – in most cases with ultra-leftists slogans in practical reality which promotes “passivity” falling way behind the reformists.

The Antithesis — Scientific Clarification

Against this arsenal, we have set the scientific clarification:

• Socialism vs. communism: The first phase vs. the higher phase. The state exists in socialism; it withers in communism. The confusion is deliberate — it serves to declare socialism a "failure."
• Socialism in one country: A Leninist theory, not a Stalinist invention. Lenin articulated it in 1915. The lie that it was Stalin's "betrayal" is a weapon to attack Lenin through Stalin.
• The state: The critical criterion. Where the state exists, we are in socialism. Where it withers, we are in communism. Those who apply communist criteria to socialist reality have failed to understand the dialectic.
• The national question: The RIGHT to self-determination is absolute. The DEMAND is conditional — it must be assessed based on the interests of the working class. The sophists who cry for Ukraine's "self-determination" while denying it to Donbas are siding with the reactionary bourgeoisie.
• The weapons from within: Sectarianism labels every mistake as betrayal. Boycott refuses participation when participation is necessary. Compromise is rejected even when it is forced by circumstances. Democratic struggle is abandoned even when it is the only path to the masses. Parliament is rejected even when it is the only platform. Reform is confused with reformism, and the fight for reforms is abandoned — leaving the masses to the reformists.

The Synthesis — The Method and the Task

The synthesis is twofold:

The method: Marxist norms of criticism. Criticism of fellow communists must be objective, constructive, and comradely — not public, not pontificating, not from a distance. As Lenin said: "There is one, and only one, kind of real internationalism, and that is — working whole-heartedly for the development of the revolutionary movement and the revolutionary struggle in one's own country."

The task: Revolutionary democracy. The path to socialism is not a single leap. It goes through phases: insurrection → revolutionary democracy → insurrection → socialist revolution. The form of the revolution is not decisive — the class essence is. As Lenin said: "The proletariat cannot be victorious except through democracy, i.e., by giving full effect to democracy and by linking with each step of its struggle democratic demands formulated in the most resolute terms."

The task is revolutionary democracy — the bridge to socialism. Without this bridge, the revolution remains an abstract slogan. With it, the path becomes concrete.

Part Four: The Call to Action

The bourgeoisie has made confusion a weapon. We must make clarity a weapon.

We call on all Marxists-Leninists to:

1. Study the scientific distinction between socialism and communism
2. Teach it to the masses
3. Defend socialist states against ideological attack
4. Expose the confusion for what it is: a weapon of ideological warfare
5. Build the revolutionary movement — through the method of Marxist criticism and the task of revolutionary democracy
6. Build the revolutionary movement — through the method of Marxist criticism and the task of revolutionary democracy — in every country, without waiting for world revolution.

The victory of socialism globally requires not only the defeat of capitalist economics but the defeat of capitalist ideology.

That defeat begins — by ruthlessly exposing the confusion for what it is: a weapon.

We are not doctrinaires. Our theory is a guide to action, not a dogma.

The action demanded now is to take this scientific clarity and wield it directly against the ideological warfare of imperialism.

Only clarity can defeat confusion.
Only science can defeat ideology.
Only socialism can liberate humanity.