Part 14 - Ideological Warfare tactics of capitalists against socialism through concepts and theories
Ideological Warfare tactics of capitalists against socialism through concepts and theories
Part 14 -Compromise
As for most of the questions of
Marxism-Leninism, there have always been approaches to the question of
compromise disregarding the dialectical connection and the totality of the
subject as a whole. Each group, both right and left, rather than basing the approach
on theory, preferred eclecticism fitting their subjectivity and tendency.
The “Right” embraces
compromise as a 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 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 to understand 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”, in the final analysis, 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 the 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.
