Marx-Engels | Lenin | Stalin | Home Page
CONCERNING QUESTIONS OF LENINISMTHE PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION AND THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT
What are the characteristic features of the proletarian revolution as distinct from the bourgeois revolution?
The distinction between the proletarian revolution and the bourgeois revolution may be reduced to five main points.
1) The bourgeois revolution usually begins when there already exist more or less ready-made forms belonging to the capitalist order, forms which have grown and matured within the womb of feudal society prior to the open revolution, whereas the proletarian revolution begins when ready made forms belonging to the socialist order are either absent, or almost absent.
2) The main task of the bourgeois revolution consists in seizing power and making it conform to the already existing bourgeois economy, whereas the main task of the proletarian revolution consists, after seizing power, in building a new, socialist economy.
3) The bourgeois revolution is usually consummated with the seizure of power, whereas in the proletarian revolution the seizure of power is only the beginning, and power is used as a lever for transforming the old economy and organizing the new one.
4) The bourgeois revolution limits itself to replacing one group of exploiters in power by another group of exploiters, in view of which it need not smash the old state machine; whereas the proletarian revolution removes all exploiting groups from power and places in power the leader of all the toilers and exploited, the class of proletarians, in view of which it cannot manage without smashing the old state machine and substituting a new one for it.
5) The bourgeois revolution cannot rally the millions of the toiling and exploited masses around the bourgeoisie for any length of time, for the very reason that they are toilers and exploited; whereas the proletarian revolution can and must link them, precisely as toilers and exploited, in a durable alliance with the proletariat, if it wishes to carry out its main task of consolidating the power of the proletariat and build ing a new, socialist economy.
Here are some of Lenin's main theses on this subject:
"One of the fundamental differences between bourgeois revolution and socialist revolution," says Lenin, "is that for the bourgeois revolution, which arises out of feudalism, the new economic organizations are grad ually created in the womb of the old order, gradually changing all the aspects of feudal society. Bourgeois revolution was confronted by only one task -- to sweep away, to cast aside, to destroy all the fetters of the preceding society. By fulfilling this task every bourgeois revolution ful fils all that is required of it: it accelerates the growth of capitalism.
"The socialist revolution is in an altogether different position. The more backward the country which, owing to the zigzags of history, has proved to be the one to start the socialist revolution, the more difficult it is for it to pass from the old capitalist relations to socialist relations. To the tasks of destruction are added new tasks of unprecedented difficulty -- organizational tasks." (See Vol. XXII, p. 315.)[1] [1] Seventh Congress of the R.C.P.(B.), March 6-8, 1918. "1. Report on War and Peace."
"Had not the popular creative spirit of the Russian revolution." continues Lenin, "which had gone through the great experience of the year 1905, given rise to the Soviets as early as February 1917, they could not under any circumstances have seized power in October, because succcss depended entirely upon the existence of ready-made organizational forms of a movement embracing millions. These ready-made forms were the Soviets, and that is why in the political sphere there awaited us those brilliant successes, the continuous triumphant march, that we experienccd; for the new form of political power was ready to hand, and all we had to do was, by passing a few decrees, to transform the power of the Soviets from the embryonic state in which it existed in the first months of the revolution into a legally recognized form which has become established in the Russian state -- i.e., into the Russian Soviet Republic." (Ibid.)
"But two problems of enormous difficulty still remained," says Lenin, "the solution of which could not possibly be the triumphant march which our revolution experienced in the first months. . . ." (Ibid.)
"Firstly, there were the problems of internal organization, which confront every socialist revolution. The difference between socialist revolution and bourgeois revolution lies precisely in the fact that the latter finds ready-made forms of capitalist relationships, while Soviet power -- proletarian power -- does not inherit such ready-made relationships, if we leave out of account the most developed forms of capitalism, which, strictly speaking, extended to but a small top layer of industry and hardly touched agriculture. The organization of accounting, the control of large enterprises, the transformation of the whole of the state economic mechanism into a single huge machine, into an economic organism that works in such a way that hundreds of millions of people are guided by a single plan -- such was the enormous organizational problem that rested on our shoulders. Under the present conditions of labour this problem could not possibly be solved by the 'hurrah' methods by which we were able to solve the problems of the Civil War." (Ibid., p. 316.)
"The second enormous difficulty . . . was the international question. The reason why we were able to cope so easily with Kerensky's gangs, why we so easily established our power and without the slightest difficulty passed the decrees on the socialization of the land and on workers' control, the reason why we achieved all this so easily was only that a fortunate combination of circumstances protected us for a short time from international imperialism. International imperialism, with the entire might of its capital, with its highly organized military technique, which is a real force, a real fortress of international capital, could in no case, under no circumstances, live side by side with the Soviet Republic, both because of its objective position and because of the economic interests of the capitalist class which is embodied in it -- it could not do so because of commercial connections, of international financial relations. In this sphere a conflict is inevitable. Therein lies the greatest difficulty of the Russian revolution, its greatest historical problem: the necessity of solving the international tasks, the necessity of calling forth an international revolution." (See Vol. XXII, p. 317.)
Such is the intrinsic character and the basic meaning of the proletarian revolution.
Can such a radical transformation of the old bourgeois order be achieved without a violent revolution, without the dictatorship of the proletariat?
Obviously not. To think that such a revolution can be carried out peacefully, within the framework of bourgeois democracy, which is adapted to the rule of the bourgeoisie, means that one has either gone out of one's mind and lost normal human understanding, or has grossly and openly repudiated the proletarian revolution.
This thesis must be emphasized all the more strongly and categorically for the reason that we are dealing with the proletarian revolution which for the time being has triumphed only in one country, a country which is surrounded by hostile capitalist countries and the bourgeoisie of which cannot fail to receive the support of international capital.
That is why Lenin says:
"The emancipation of the oppressed class is impossible not only without a violent revolution, b u t a l s o w i t h o u t t h e d e s t r u c t i o n of the apparatus of state power which was created by the ruling class." (See Vol. XXI, p. 373.)[1][1] "The State and Revolution," August-September 1917.
"First let the majority of the population, while private property still exists, i.e., while the rule and yoke of capital still exists, express themselves in favour of the party of the proletariat, and only then can and should the party take power -- so say the petty-bourgeois democrats who call themselves 'Socialists' but who are in reality the servitors of the bourgeoisie."[*] (See Vol. XXIV, p. 647.)[1] [1] "The Constituent Assembly Elections and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat," December 1919.
"We say :* Let the revolutionary proletariat first overthrow the bourgeoisie, break the yoke of capital, and smash the bourgeois state apparatus, then the victorious proletariat will be able rapidly to gain the sympathy and support of the majority of the toiling non-proletarian masses by satisfying their needs at the expense of the exploiters." (Ibid.)
"In order to win the majority of the population to its side," Lenin says further, "the proletariat must, in the first place, overthrow the bourgeoisie and seize state power; secondly, it must introduce Soviet power and smash the old state apparatus to bits, whereby it immediately undermines the rule, prestige and influence of the bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeois compromisers over the non-proletarian toiling masses. Thirdly, it must entirely destroy the influence of the bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeois compromisers over the majority of the non-proletarian toiling masses by satisfying their economic needs in a revolutionary way a t t h e e x p e n s e o f t h e e x p l o i t e r s." (Ibid., p. 641.)
Such are the characteristic features of the proletarian revolution.
What, in this connection, are the main features of the dictatorship of the proletariat, once it is admitted that the dictatorship of the proletariat is the basic content of the proletarian revolution?
Here is the most general definition of the dictatorship of the proletariat given by Lenin:
"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." (See Vol. XXIV, p. 311.)[2] * My italics. -- J. St.
[2] "Foreword to the Published Speech 'On Deceiving the People with Slogans About Liberty and Equality,'" June 1919.
Arguing against confusing the dictatorship of the proletariat with "popular" government, "elected by all," with "non-class" government, Lenin says:
"The class which took political power into its hands did so knowing that it took power alone.[*] That is a part of the concept of dictatorship of the proletariat. This concept has meaning only when this one class knows that it alone is taking political power in its hands, and does not deceive itself or others with talk about 'popular' government, 'elected by all, sanctified by the whole people.'" (See Vol. XXVI, p. 286.)[1][1] "Speech Delivered at the All-Russian Congress of Transport Workers, March 27, 1921."
This does not mean, however, that the power of one class, the class of the proletarians, which does not and cannot share power with other classes, does not need aid from, and an alliance with, the labouring and exploited masses of othee classes for the achievement of its aims. On the contrary. This power, the power of one class, can be firmly established and exercised to the full only by means of a special form of alliance between the class of proletarians and the labouring masses of the petty-bourgeois classes, primarily the labouring masses of the peasantry.
What is this special form of alliance? What does it consist in? Does not this alliance with the labouring masses of other, non-proletarian, classes wholly contradict the idea of the dictatorship of one class?
This special form of alliance consists in that the guiding force of this alliance is the proletariat. This special form of alliance consists in that the leader of the state, the leader in the system of the dictatorship of the proletariat, is one party, the party of the proletariat, the Party of the Communists, which does not and cannot share leadership with other parties. * My italics. -- J. St.
As you see, the contradiction is only an apparent, a seeming one.
"The dictatorship of the proletariat," says Lenin, "is a special form of class alliance between the proletariat, the vanguard of the working people, and the numerous non-proletarian strata of working people (the petty bourgeoisie, the small proprietors, the peasantry, the intelligentsia, etc.), or the majority of these; it is an alliance against capital, an alliance aiming at the complete overthrow of capital, at the complete suppression of the resistance of the bourgeoisie and of any attempt on its part at restoration, an alliance aiming at the final establishment and consolidation of socialism. It is a special type of alliance, which is being built up in special circumstances, namely, in the circumstances of fierce civil war; it is an alliance of the firm supporters of socialism with the wavering allies of socialism and sometimes with 'neutrals' (then instead of an agreement for struggle, the alliance becomes an agreement for neutrality), an alliance between classes which differ economically, politically, socially and ideologically."[*] (See Vol. XXIV, p. 311.)[1]
In one of his instructional reports, Kamenev, disputing this conception of the dictatorship of the proletariat, states:
"The dictatorship is not* an alliance of one class with another."
I believe that Kamenev here has in view, primarily, a passage in my pamphlet The October Revolution and the Tactics of the Russian Communists, where it is stated:
"The dictatorship of the proletariat is not simply a governmental top stratum 'skilfully' 'selected' by the careful hand of an 'experienced strategist,' and 'judiciously relying' on the support of one section or another of the population. The dictatorship of the proletariat is the class alliance between the proletariat and the labouring masses of the peasantry for the purpose of overthrowing capital, for achieving the final victory of socialism, on the condition that the guiding force of this alliance is the proletariat."** * My italics. -- J. St.
** See this volume, p. 122. --Ed.
[1] "Foreword to the Published Speech 'On Deceiving the People with Slogans About Liberty and Equality,'" June 1919.
I wholly endorse this formulation of the dictatorship of the proletariat, for I think that it fully and entirely coincides with Lenin's formulation, just quoted.
I assert that Kamenev's statement that "the dictatorship is not an alliance of one class with another," in the categorical form in which it is made, has nothing in common with Lenin's theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
I assert that such statements can be made only by people who have failed to understand the meaning of the idea of the bond, the idea of the alliance of the proletariat and peasantry the idea of the hegemony of the proletariat within this alliance.
Such statements can be made only by people who have failed to understand Lenin's thesis:
"Only an agreement with the peasantry[*] can save the socialist revolution in Russia as long as the revolution in other countries has not taken place." (See Vol. XXVI, p. 238.)[1][1] Tenth Congress of the R.C.P.(B.) March 8-16, 1921. "6. Report on the Substitution of a Tax in Kind for the Surplus-Grain Appropriation System."
Such statements can be made only by people who have failed to understand Lenin's thesis:
"The supreme principle of the dictatorship* is the maintenance of the alliance of the proletariat and peasantry in order that the proletariat may retain its leading role and state power." (Ibid., p. 460.)[2][2] Third Congress of the Communist International June 22-July 12,1921. "4. Report on the Tactics of the R.C.P."
Pointing out one of the most important aims of the dictatorship, the aim of suppressing the exploiters, Lenin says:
"The scientific concept of dictatorship means nothing more nor less than completely unrestricted power, absolutely unimpeded by laws or regulations and resting directly on the use of force." (See Vol. XXV, p. 441.)[3] * My italics. -- J. St.
[3] "A Contribution to the History of the Question of the Dictatorship," October 1920.
"Dictatorship means -- note this once and for all, Messrs. Cadets -- unrestricted power, based on force and not on law. In time of civil war any victorious power can be only a dictatorship." (See Vol. XXV, p. 436.)[1]
But of course, the dictatorship of the proletariat does not mean only the use of force, although there is no dictatorship without the use of force.
"Dictatorship," says Lenin, "does not mean only the use of force, although it is impossible without the use of force; it also means the organzation of labour on a higher level than the previous organization." (See Vol. XXIV, p. 305.)[2] [2] First All-Russian Congress on Adult Education, May 6-19, 1919. "2. On Deceiving the People with Slogans About Liberty and Equality."
"The dictatorship of the proletariat . . . is not only the use of force against the exploiters, and not even mainly the use of force. The economic foundation of this revolutionary use of force, the guarantee of its effectiveness and success is the fact that the proletariat represents and creates a higher type of social organization of labour compared with capitalism. This is the essence. This is the source of the strength and the guarantee of the inevitable complete triumph of communism." (See Vol. XXIV, pp. 335-36.)[3] [3] "A Great Beginning," June 1919.
"Its quintessence (i.e., of the dictatorship -- J. St.) is the organization and discipline of the advanced detachment of the working people, of its vanguard, its sole leader, the proletariat, whose object is to build socialism, to abolish the division of society into classes, to make all members of society working people, to remove the basis for any exploitation of man by man. This object cannot be achieved at one stroke. It requires a fairly long period of transition from capitalism to socialism, because the reorganization of production is a difficult matter, because radical changes in all spheres of life need time, and because the enormous force of habit of petty bourgeois and bourgeois conduct of economy can be overcome only by a long and stubborn struggle. That is why Marx spoke of an entire period of the dictatorship of the proletariat, as the period of transition from capitalism to socialism." (Ibid., p. 314.)[4] [1] Ibid.
[4] "Greetings to the Hungarian Workers," May 1919.
Such are the characteristic features of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Hence the three main aspects of the dictatorship of the proletariat:
1) The utilization of the rule of the proletariat for the suppression of the exploiters, for the defence of the country, for the consolidation of the ties with the proletarians of other lands, and for the development and victory of the revolution in all countries.
2) The utilization of the rule of the proletariat in order to detach the labouring and exploited masses once and for all from the bourgeoisie, to consolidate the alliance of the proletariat with these masses, to draw these masses into the work of socialist construction, and to ensure the state leadership of these masses by the proletariat.
3) The utilization of the rule of the proletariat for the organization of socialism, for the abolition of classes, for the transition to a society without classes, to a socialist society.
The proletarian dictatorship is a combination of all these three aspects. No single one of these aspects can be advanced as the sole characteristic feature of the dictatorship of the proletariat. On the other hand, in the circumstances of capitalist encirclement, the absence of even one of these features is sufficient for the dictatorship of the proletariat to cease being a dictatorship. Therefore, not one of these three aspects can be omitted without running the risk of distorting the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Only all these three aspects taken together give us the complete and finished concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
The dictatorship of the proletariat has its periods, its special forms, diverse methods of work. During the period of civil war, it is the forcible aspect of the dictatorship that is most conspicuous. But it by no means follows from this that no constructive work is carried on during the period of civil war. Without constructive work it is impossible to wage civil war. During the period of socialist construction, on the other hand, it is the peaceful, organizational and cultural work of the dictatorship, revolutionary law, etc., that are most conspicuous. But, again, it by no means follows from this that the forcible aspect of the dictatorship has ceased to exist or can cease to exist in the period of construction. The organs of suppression, the army and other organizations, are as necessary now, at the time of construction, as they were during the period of civil war. Without these organs, constructive work by the dictatorship with any degree of security would be impossible. It should not be forgotten that for the time being the revolution has been victorious in only one country. It should not be forgotten that as long as capitalist encirclement exists the danger of intervention, with all the consequences resulting from this danger, will also exist.