ON MAOISM
Marxism was distilled as the science of revolution of international proletariat during the course of historical experience and development of class struggle. It is well known to all that Marxist science founded by Karl Marx through an intermittent struggle and show of a great genius has three component parts, including philosophy, political economy and scientific socialism. Being a science, continuous development of Marxism is a natural process. In the light of new experiences and problems of class struggle, Lenin raised Marxism in its totality to its second stage of development i.e. Leninism. Today this science has in the very process of struggle entered into a third, new and higher stage of development. This third, new and higher stage is the stage of Maoism developed by Mao Tse-tung. Thus, in the hands of international proletariat today there is Marxism-Leninism-Maoism as a total and integral entity of universal theory. Without grasping Maoism as the Marxism-Leninism of present day world nobody can be a true communist. Because of its being the Marxism-Leninism of the present day world, reactionaries and revisionists the world over have been attacking Maoism and Maoists viciously. Just as Marxism-Leninism was established in the process of struggle by the communist revolutionaries against all sorts of reaction, revisionism and opportunism, so will Maoism be established from the midst of vicious struggles.In our movement, despite the spirit of grasping Mao's contributions as Marxism-Leninism these contributions have been expressed by the terminology 'Mao Tse-tung Thought'. We have been fighting against reaction and revisionism by accepting Mao's contributions as the universal theory of the proletariat and declaring "Mao Tse-tung Thought is the Marxism-Leninism of the present day world." However, with the domination of Right revisionism in the international communist movement after the death of Com. Mao and restoration of capitalism in China, the situation has undergone a change. Today, the revisionist Deng clique has been killing the spirit of Mao's revolutionary teaching by using the terminology of 'Mao Tse-tung Thought'. Presently, the terminology of 'Mao Tse-tung Thought' has been used, on the one hand, by the reformists in the sense of a hypothesis according to the actual weightage of the word 'thought' and on the other, by the communist revolutionaries in the sense of a universal principle. In this context, to continue with the usage of misleading terminology "thought" despite having the scientific terminology of "ism" with the weightage of expressing a universal principle is nothing but to provide loophole for Right revisionism. Hence it is essential for communist revolutionaries who have already been grasping Mao Tse-tung Thought as today's Marxism-Leninism to use the terminology 'Maoism' readily and firmly. In the light of rightist attacks on Mao's contributions after the counter revolution in China many of the former revolutionaries, too, have been terrorized into attempting to use the terminology 'thought' in the sense of downgrading Mao's contributions, and not accepting it as the third stage of development of Marxism and as a universal principle. Here lies the crux of the problem. Such tendencies ultimately lead to the direction of reformism and revisionism. Because of this situation, theoretical importance of the interpretation of development of the three components of Marxism by Mao and the usage of the terminology 'Maoism' has increased all the more. Therefore, it is essential here to explain briefly the important contributions made by Mao in the field of philosophy, political economy and scientific socialism, which have raised Marxism to a new stage.A. The Field of Philosophy1. Mao has established the law of contradiction as the essence of dialectical materialism and as the fundamental law of dialectics in all the fields of nature, society and human knowledge. The analysis of universality of contradiction and the process and importance of determining principal contradiction has raised to new heights the development of understanding of dialectics. The important role-played by fundamental law of contradiction in formulating the strategy and tactics of revolution is self-evident.2. It is indisputable that in the field of theory of knowledge Mao's analysis has made important contributions by identifying class struggle, struggle for production and scientific experiment as the source of knowledge and through his analysis of the process of transformation of perceptual knowledge into rational knowledge and the interrelations of theory and practice.3. Profound analysis and application of the question of one dividing into two as the principal aspect of dialectics during the anti-revisionist struggle, has made available in the hands of the revolutionaries a sharp weapon to fight against revisionism.4. The analysis of consciousness and superstructure playing decisive role in certain concrete situations, while attacking the bourgeois thinking of the revisionists about the "theory of the productive forces" and "economism" with a metaphysical and one-sided approach on the question of interrelations of base and superstructure, has exposed the pseudo-bourgeoisie.5. The experimentations of Mao on the need and process of turning philosophy into an invincible weapon by moving it out of the library and reading rooms of the philosophers, have provided the basis for turning dialectical materialist philosophy into a mighty physical force.B. The Field of Political Economy1. In this field the analysis of the nature of bureaucratic capitalism is an important discovery of Mao. The exposition of the characteristics of bureaucratic capitalism in the oppressed nations as an agent of monopoly capitalism to plunder the people in alliance with feudalism, has helped, on the one hand, to expose the inhuman character of imperialism in the form of neo-colonialism and, on the other, to clarify the target of revolution in the oppressed nations. The historical significance of the conclusion that only through the destruction of bureaucratic capitalism and confiscation of such properties can imperialism be driven away from the oppressed nations and the foundation of socialism be laid, is quite clear.2. Mao has played important role in laying a firm foundation of the basic principles of economy in the socialist stage (with a critical study of the experiences of the Soviet Union). The revolutionary significance of the slogans "Grasp Revolution, Promote Production" and "Red and Expert" put forward with the view that not by bureaucratic command but by increasing the initiative of the masses (through massive propagation of correct economic policy) can the socialist economy be developed firmly, is quite evident.3. In the context of New Democratic revolution, the rationality of such economic policies as to destroy feudalism on the basis of land to the tiller, to confiscate all foreign and domestic economic establishments with a monopolistic character and to limit, control and guide private capital that do not control public life, have been proved in practice. From the above facts the developments made by Mao in the field of political economy is quite clear.C. The Field of Scientific Socialism1. Mao's historical contribution in the development of the total concept of New Democratic revolution in the oppressed nations is clear to all.2. The international proletariat has been armed with a powerful weapon with the development of the theory of People’s War as the pinnacle of the Marxist military science on the basis of the experiences of class struggle in the era of imperialism. This theory has clarified the scientific method of defeating a powerful enemy. The significance of Mao's crisp saying, "Power grows out of the barrel of a gun" is self-evident.3. The theory of continued class struggle during the entire period of socialism and from this the theory of continuing revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat as developed by Mao keeping in mind the counter-revolution in Soviet Union, has been a mighty theoretical weapon to prevent restoration of capitalism in the socialist period. The successful implementation of the total plan of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China as the third great revolution carried out under the leadership of the proletariat, has been the historic beacon for the world proletariat.4. Such sayings (of Mao) as "Imperialism and all reactionaries are paper tigers" and "In the coming 50 to 100 years, the world will pass through great upheavals" have unique significance. This has made great contribution in formulating the strategy of revolution for the world proletariat. Mao himself has used these in the struggle against Russian revisionism and American imperialism.Thus, in the totality of the three components of philosophy, political economy and scientific socialism Mao has raised the Marxist science qualitatively to a new stage, in this situation the proletariat has acquired the theory of its liberation in the form of a single weapon of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.In the Nepalese communist movement, arguments against the usage of the terminology 'Maoism' have been forwarded even from the direction of undermining Mao's contributions. Without refuting them it is not possible to move ahead. Primarily they are as follows:1. "Theory of the era": Some people say, to constitute an "ism" it should represent a whole era. According to them, Marxism is the product of the era of capitalism. Leninism is the product of the era of imperialism. But Mao has no era, and hence there cannot be any Maoism, etc.The people who argue this way have neither understood the simple law and development process of science, nor grasped Marxism as a science. To attempt to confine the development of science to the speed of development of an era is absolutely unscientific and ridiculous. In a single era science can develop into many stages. If one really talks of an era, from the point of view of development of society imperialism, too, is not any new era but only the highest and moribund state of capitalism. Therefore it is not proper to say 'Leninism'. Bankruptcy of those advancing the argument of an era is thus, clear.2. Some people say, since Mao has no original contributions it is not appropriate to use the terminology 'Maoism'. According to them, whatever Mao has said was already told by Lenin. The situation gets all the more serious when the people supporting the usage of the terminology 'thought' argue that way. It is no doubt that the people who argue this way have taken the road to abandoning even 'Mao Tse-tung Thought' and towards rightist opportunism. Mao's contributions have already been discussed briefly. However, the question may arise if one argues this way, why not say even Lenin had interpreted Marxism in a new context ? Why have such people then accepted Mao Tse-tung Thought as their guiding principles ? The answer is simple only to mislead the people. If not so, either they have to reject Mao Tse-tung Thought as the guiding principle of the party or should stop the act of undermining Mao's contributions.3. Some people are found to argue, we should not call Maoism in haste; nobody will hear our words in such a big issue and ever that terminology cannot be established also this will merely flare up unnecessary dispute. Even if there may be honesty in the intention of many of the people who argue this way, the arguments themselves donot conform to the Marxist method. The question here is of right or wrong and no of haste or no haste. Such arguments are wrong because they will ultimately lead to unnecessary compromise and merely work towards perpetuating illusion.In conclusion, to conduct anti-revision is struggle at a higher level, to accelerate the process of development of a new type of and a militant Communist Party, to provide new pace to the work of development of revolutionary struggle and People’s War the usage of not the misleading terminology 'Mao Tse-tung Thought' but the scientific terminology 'Maoism' is absolutely essential.
*Resolution adopted by the National Unity Congress of C.P.N. (Unity Centre). December 1991
(Courtsey: The Worker, 1st issue, February1993)
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Maoism(aka Mao Zedong Thought)
Maoism(aka Mao Zedong Thought)
A theory and practice which claims to be an advancement of Marxism, developed as a critique of the Soviet Union. While Mao Zedong (1893-1976) valued Stalin as a “great Marxist-Leninist”, he explained Stalin committed some crucial errors:
1) He did not understand dialectics and ended up in metaphysics. He hence sometimes did not understand the demands of the masses. He did not distinguish between the different kinds of contradictions.2) During the 30’s the regime of Stalin sentenced many innocents to death.3) He did not conduct democratic centralism within the party good enough.4) He did not handle the connections with foreign Communist parties well enough, espeically his handling of the 1927 events in China.
The result of these errors according to Maoism was that the Soviet Union was governed by a bureaucratic nomenclature which later was to conduct a “silent counterrevolution” turning the Soviet Union into an imperialist country, not crucially different from the USA.
These are the most distinct components of Maoism:
1) Guerrilla warfare/People’s War: The armed branch of the party must not be distinct from the masses. To conduct a successful revolution the needs and demands of the masses must be the most important issues.
2) New democracy: In backward countries socialism cannot be introduced before the country has gone through a period in which the material conditions are improved. This cannot be done by the bourgeoisie, as its progressive character is long since replaced by a regressive character.
3) Contradictions as the most important feature of society: Society is dominated of a wide range of contradictions. As these are different of nature, they must also be handled in different ways. The most important divide is the divide between contradictions among the masses and contradictions between the masses and their enemies. Also the socialist institutions are plagued with contradictions, and these contradictions must not be suppressed as they were during Stalin.
4) Cultural revolution: Bourgeois ideology is not wiped out by the revolution; the class-struggle continues, and even intensifies, during socialism. Therefore an instant struggle against these ideologies and their social roots must be conducted.
5) Theory of three worlds: During the cold war two imperialist states formed the “first world”; the USA and the Soviet Union. The second world consisted of the other imperialist states in their spheres of influence. The third world consisted of the non-imperialist countries. Both the first and the second world exploit the third world, but the first world is the most aggressive part. The workers in the first and second world are “bought up” by imperialism, preventing socialist revolution. The people of the third world, on the other hand, have not even a short-sighted interest in the prevailing circumstances. Hence revolution is most likely to appear in third world countries, which again will weaken imperialism opening up for revolutions in other countries too.
Maoism as a theory has grown its strongest roots among revolutionaries in the third world, and some of these movements, e.g. the CPN(M) in Nepal and the CPP of the Philippines, are advancing in their guerrilla warfare during the beginning of the 21st century. Western Maoism grew from the 1960s, and some of the movements have had some success in establishing themselves as the main communist parties in their countries.
Transcribed by Mathias Bismo
(Courtsey:http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/m/a.htm)
A theory and practice which claims to be an advancement of Marxism, developed as a critique of the Soviet Union. While Mao Zedong (1893-1976) valued Stalin as a “great Marxist-Leninist”, he explained Stalin committed some crucial errors:
1) He did not understand dialectics and ended up in metaphysics. He hence sometimes did not understand the demands of the masses. He did not distinguish between the different kinds of contradictions.2) During the 30’s the regime of Stalin sentenced many innocents to death.3) He did not conduct democratic centralism within the party good enough.4) He did not handle the connections with foreign Communist parties well enough, espeically his handling of the 1927 events in China.
The result of these errors according to Maoism was that the Soviet Union was governed by a bureaucratic nomenclature which later was to conduct a “silent counterrevolution” turning the Soviet Union into an imperialist country, not crucially different from the USA.
These are the most distinct components of Maoism:
1) Guerrilla warfare/People’s War: The armed branch of the party must not be distinct from the masses. To conduct a successful revolution the needs and demands of the masses must be the most important issues.
2) New democracy: In backward countries socialism cannot be introduced before the country has gone through a period in which the material conditions are improved. This cannot be done by the bourgeoisie, as its progressive character is long since replaced by a regressive character.
3) Contradictions as the most important feature of society: Society is dominated of a wide range of contradictions. As these are different of nature, they must also be handled in different ways. The most important divide is the divide between contradictions among the masses and contradictions between the masses and their enemies. Also the socialist institutions are plagued with contradictions, and these contradictions must not be suppressed as they were during Stalin.
4) Cultural revolution: Bourgeois ideology is not wiped out by the revolution; the class-struggle continues, and even intensifies, during socialism. Therefore an instant struggle against these ideologies and their social roots must be conducted.
5) Theory of three worlds: During the cold war two imperialist states formed the “first world”; the USA and the Soviet Union. The second world consisted of the other imperialist states in their spheres of influence. The third world consisted of the non-imperialist countries. Both the first and the second world exploit the third world, but the first world is the most aggressive part. The workers in the first and second world are “bought up” by imperialism, preventing socialist revolution. The people of the third world, on the other hand, have not even a short-sighted interest in the prevailing circumstances. Hence revolution is most likely to appear in third world countries, which again will weaken imperialism opening up for revolutions in other countries too.
Maoism as a theory has grown its strongest roots among revolutionaries in the third world, and some of these movements, e.g. the CPN(M) in Nepal and the CPP of the Philippines, are advancing in their guerrilla warfare during the beginning of the 21st century. Western Maoism grew from the 1960s, and some of the movements have had some success in establishing themselves as the main communist parties in their countries.
Transcribed by Mathias Bismo
(Courtsey:http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/m/a.htm)
Thursday, December 4, 2008
THE DEFINITION OF LENINISM
J. V. Stalin
THE DEFINITION OF LENINISM
The pamphlet The Foundations of Leninism contains a definition of Leninism which seems to have received general recognition. It runs as follows:
“Leninism is Marxism of the era of imperialism and the proletarian revolution. To be more exact, Leninism is the theory and tactics of the proletarian revolution in general, the theory and tactics of the dictatorship of the proletariat in particular.”1
Is this definition correct?
I think it is correct. It is correct, firstly, because it correctly indicates the historical roots of Leninism, characterising it as Marxism of the era of imperialism, as against certain critics of Lenin who wrongly think that Leninism originated after the imperialist war. It is correct, secondly, because it correctly notes the international character of Leninism, as against Social-Democracy, which considers that Leninism is applicable only to Russian national conditions. It is correct, thirdly, because it correctly notes the organic connection between Leninism and the teachings of Marx, characterising Leninism as Marxism of the era of imperialism, as against certain critics of Leninism who consider it not a further development of Marxism, but merely the restoration of Marxism and its application to Russian conditions.
All that, one would think, needs no special comment. Nevertheless, it appears that there are people in our party who consider it necessary to define Leninism somewhat differently. Zinoviev, for example, thinks that:
“Leninism is Marxism of the era of imperialist wars and of the world revolution which began directly in a country where the peasantry predominates.”
What can be the meaning of the words underlined by Zinoviev? What does introducing the backwardness of Russia, its peasant character, into the definition of Leninism mean?
It means transforming Leninism from an international proletarian doctrine into a product of specifically Russian conditions.
It means playing into the hands of Bauer and Kautsky, who deny that Leninism is suitable for other countries, for countries in which capitalism is more developed.
It goes without saying that the peasant question is of very great importance for Russia, that our country is a peasant country. But what significance can this fact have in characterising the foundations of Leninism? Was Leninism elaborated only on Russian soil, for Russia alone, and not on the soil of imperialism, and for the imperialist countries generally? Do such works of Lenin as Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism,2 The State and Revolution,3 The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky,4 “Left-Wing” Communism, an Infantile Disorder,5 etc., apply only to Russia, and not to all imperialist countries in general? Is not Leninism the generalisation of the experience of the revolutionary movement of all countries? Are not the fundamentals of the theory and tactics of Leninism suitable, are they not obligatory, for the proletarian parties of all countries? Was not Lenin right when he said that “Bolshevism can serve as a model of tactics for all”? (See Vol. XXIII, p. 386.)* Was not Lenin right when he spoke about the “international significance** of Soviet power and of the fundamentals of Bolshevik theory and tactics”? (See Vol. XXV, pp. 171-72.) Are not, for example, the following words of Lenin correct?
“In Russia, the dictatorship of the proletariat must inevitably differ in certain specific features from that in the advanced countries, owing to the very great backwardness and petty-bourgeois character of our country. But the basic forces—and the basic forms of social economy—are the same in Russia as in any capitalist country, so that these specific features can relate only to what is not most important”** (see Vol. XXIV, p. 508).
But if all that is true, does it not follow that Zinoviev’s definition of Leninism cannot be regarded as correct?
How can this nationally restricted definition of Leninism be reconciled with internationalism?
THE MAIN THING IN LENINISM
In the pamphlet The Foundations of Leninism, it stated:
“Some think that the fundamental thing in Leninism is the peasant question, that the point of departure of Leninism is the question of the peasantry, of its role, its relative importance. This is absolutely wrong. The fundamental question of Leninism, its point of departure, is not the peasant question, but the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat, of the conditions under which it can be achieved, of the conditions under which it can be consolidated. The peasant question, as the question of the ally of the proletariat in its struggle for power, is a derivative question.”9
Is this thesis correct?
I think it is correct. This thesis follows entirely from the definition of Leninism. Indeed, if Leninism is the theory and tactics of the proletarian revolution, and the basic content of the proletarian revolution is the dictatorship of the proletariat, then it is clear that the main thing in Leninism is the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the elaboration of this question, the substantiation and concretisation of this question.
Nevertheless, Zinoviev evidently does not agree with this thesis. In his article “In Memory of Lenin,” he says:
“As I have already said, the question of the role of the peasantry is the fundamental question** of Bolshevism, of Leninism.”
As you see, Zinoviev’s thesis follows entirely from his wrong definition of Leninism. It is therefore as wrong as his definition of Leninism is wrong.
Is Lenin’s thesis that the dictatorship of the proletariat is the “root content of the proletarian revolution” correct? (See Vol. XXIII, p. 337.) It is unquestionably correct. Is the thesis that Leninism is the theory and tactics of the proletarian revolution correct? I think it is correct. But what follows from this? From this it follows that the fundamental question of Leninism, its point of departure, its foundation, is the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Is it not true that the question of imperialism, the question of the spasmodic character of the development of imperialism, the question of the victory of socialism in one country, the question of the proletarian state, the question of the Soviet form of this state, the question of the role of the Party in the system of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the question of the paths of building socialism—that all these questions were elaborated precisely by Lenin? Is it not true that it is precisely these questions that constitute the basis, the foundation of the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat? Is it not true that without the elaboration of these fundamental questions, the elaboration of the peasant question from the standpoint of the dictatorship of the proletariat would be inconceivable?
It goes without saying that Lenin was an expert on the peasant question. It goes without saying that the peasant question as the question of the ally of the proletariat is of the greatest significance for the proletariat and forms a constituent part of the fundamental question of the dictatorship of the proletariat. But is it not clear that if Leninism had not been faced with the fundamental question of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the derivative question of the ally of the proletariat, the question of the peasantry, would not have arisen either? Is it not clear that if Leninism had not been faced with the practical question of the conquest of power by the proletariat, the question of an alliance with the peasantry would not have arisen either?
Lenin would not have been the great ideological leader of the proletariat that he unquestionably is—he would have been a simple “peasant philosopher,” as foreign literary philistines often depict him—had he elaborated the peasant question, not on the basis of the theory and tactics of the dictatorship of the proletariat, but independently of this basis, apart from this basis.
One or the other:
Either the peasant question is the main thing in Leninism, and in that case Leninism is not suitable, not obligatory, for capitalistically developed countries, for those which are not peasant countries.
Or the main thing in Leninism is the dictatorship of the proletariat, and in that case Leninism is the international doctrine of the proletarians of all lands, suitable and obligatory for all countries without exception, including the capitalistically developed countries. Here one must choose.
(Source: J. V. Stalin, Concerning Questions of Leninism, Works, Vol. 8, January-November, 1926, pp. 13-96)
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism
The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
Published: Prosveshcheniye No 3., March 1913. Signed: V. I.. Published according to the Prosveshcheniye text. Source: Lenin’s Collected Works, Progress Publishers, 1977, Moscow, Volume 19, pages 21-28. Translated: The Late George Hanna Original Transcription: Lee Joon Koo and Marc Luzietti Re-Marked up by: K. Goins (2008) Public Domain: Lenin Internet Archive (1996). Source : “Marxists Internet Archive”.
This article was published in 1913 in Prosveshcheniye No. 3, dedicated to the Thirtieth Anniversary of Marx’s death.
Prosveshcheniye (Enlightenment) was a Bolshevik social, political and literary monthly published legally in St. Petersburg from December 1911 onwards. Its inauguration was proposed by Lenin to replace the Bolshevik journal Mysl (Thought), a Moscow publication banned by the tsarist government. Lenin directed the work of the journal from abroad and wrote the following articles for it: “Fundamental Problems of the Election Campaign”, “Results of the Election”, “Critical Remarks on the National Question”, “The Right of Nations to Self-Determination”, and others.
The journal was suppressed by the tsarist government in June 1914, on the eve of the First World War. Publication was resumed in the autumn of 1917 but only one double number appeared; this number contained two articles by Lenin: “Can the Bolsheviks Retain State Power?” and “A Review of the Party Programme”.
Throughout the civilised world the teachings of Marx evoke the utmost hostility and hatred of all bourgeois science (both official and liberal), which regards Marxism as a kind of “pernicious sect”. And no other attitude is to be expected, for there can be no “impartial” social science in a society based on class struggle. In one way or another, all official and liberal science defends wage-slavery, whereas Marxism has declared relentless war on that slavery. To expect science to be impartial in a wage-slave society is as foolishly naïve as to expect impartiality from manufacturers on the question of whether workers’ wages ought not to be increased by decreasing the profits of capital.But this is not all. The history of philosophy and the history of social science show with perfect clarity that there is nothing resembling “sectarianism” in Marxism, in the sense of its being a hidebound, petrified doctrine, a doctrine which arose away from the high road of the development of world civilisation. On the contrary, the genius of Marx consists precisely in his having furnished answers to questions already raised by the foremost minds of mankind. His doctrine emerged as the direct and immediate continuation of the teachings of the greatest representatives of philosophy, political economy and socialism.The Marxist doctrine is omnipotent because it is true. It is comprehensive and harmonious, and provides men with an integral world outlook irreconcilable with any form of superstition, reaction, or defence of bourgeois oppression. It is the legitimate successor to the best that man produced in the nineteenth century, as represented by German philosophy, English political economy and French socialism.It is these three sources of Marxism, which are also its component parts that we shall outline in brief.
I
The philosophy of Marxism is materialism. Throughout the modern history of Europe, and especially at the end of the eighteenth century in France, where a resolute struggle was conducted against every kind of medieval rubbish, against serfdom in institutions and ideas, materialism has proved to be the only philosophy that is consistent, true to all the teachings of natural science and hostile to superstition, cant and so forth. The enemies of democracy have, therefore, always exerted all their efforts to “refute”, under mine and defame materialism, and have advocated various forms of philosophical idealism, which always, in one way or another, amounts to the defence or support of religion.Marx and Engels defended philosophical materialism in the most determined manner and repeatedly explained how profoundly erroneous is every deviation from this basis. Their views are most clearly and fully expounded in the works of Engels, Ludwig Feuerbach and Anti-Dühring, which, like the Communist Manifesto, are handbooks for every class-conscious worker.But Marx did not stop at eighteenth-century materialism: he developed philosophy to a higher level, he enriched it with the achievements of German classical philosophy, especially of Hegel’s system, which in its turn had led to the materialism of Feuerbach. The main achievement was dialectics, i.e., the doctrine of development in its fullest, deepest and most comprehensive form, the doctrine of the relativity of the human knowledge that provides us with a reflection of eternally developing matter. The latest discoveries of natural science—radium, electrons, the transmutation of elements—have been a remarkable confirmation of Marx’s dialectical materialism despite the teachings of the bourgeois philosophers with their “new” reversions to old and decadent idealism.Marx deepened and developed philosophical materialism to the full, and extended the cognition of nature to include the cognition of human society. His historical materialism was a great achievement in scientific thinking. The chaos and arbitrariness that had previously reigned in views on history and politics were replaced by a strikingly integral and harmonious scientific theory, which shows how, in consequence of the growth of productive forces, out of one system of social life another and higher system develops—how capitalism, for instance, grows out of feudalism.Just as man’s knowledge reflects nature (i.e., developing matter), which exists independently of him, so man’s social knowledge (i.e., his various views and doctrines—philosophical, religious, political and so forth) reflects the economic system of society. Political institutions are a superstructure on the economic foundation. We see, for example, that the various political forms of the modern European states serve to strengthen the domination of the bourgeoisie over the proletariat.Marx’s philosophy is a consummate philosophical materialism which has provided mankind, and especially the working class, with powerful instruments of knowledge.
II
Having recognised that the economic system is the foundation on which the political superstructure is erected, Marx devoted his greatest attention to the study of this economic system. Marx’s principal work, Capital, is devoted to a study of the economic system of modern, i.e., capitalist, society.Classical political economy, before Marx, evolved in England, the most developed of the capitalist countries. Adam Smith and David Ricardo, by their investigations of the economic system, laid the foundations of the labour theory of value. Marx continued their work; he provided a proof of the theory and developed it consistently. He showed that the value of every commodity is determined by the quantity of socially necessary labour time spent on its production.Where the bourgeois economists saw a relation between things (the exchange of one commodity for another) Marx revealed a relation between people. The exchange of commodities expresses the connection between individual producers through the market. Money signifies that the connection is becoming closer and closer, inseparably uniting the entire economic life of the individual producers into one whole. Capital signifies a further development of this connection: man’s labour-power becomes a commodity. The wage-worker sells his labour-power to the owner of land, factories and instruments of labour. The worker spends one part of the day covering the cost of maintaining himself and his family (wages), while the other part of the day he works without remuneration, creating for the capitalist surplus-value, the source of profit, the source of the wealth of the capitalist class.The doctrine of surplus-value is the corner-stone of Marx’s economic theory.Capital, created by the labour of the worker, crushes the worker, ruining small proprietors and creating an army of unemployed. In industry, the victory of large-scale production is immediately apparent, but the same phenomenon is also to be observed in agriculture, where the superiority of large-scale capitalist agriculture is enhanced, the use of machinery increases and the peasant economy, trapped by money-capital, declines and falls into ruin under the burden of its backward technique. The decline of small-scale production assumes different forms in agriculture, but the decline itself is an indisputable fact.By destroying small-scale production, capital leads to an increase in productivity of labour and to the creation of a monopoly position for the associations of big capitalists. Production itself becomes more and more social—hundreds of thousands and millions of workers become bound together in a regular economic organism—but the product of this collective labour is appropriated by a handful of capitalists. Anarchy of production, crises, the furious chase after markets and the insecurity of existence of the mass of the population are intensified.By increasing the dependence of the workers on capital, the capitalist system creates the great power of united labour.Marx traced the development of capitalism from embryonic commodity economy, from simple exchange, to its highest forms, to large-scale production.And the experience of all capitalist countries, old and new, year by year demonstrates clearly the truth of this Marxian doctrine to increasing numbers of workers.Capitalism has triumphed all over the world, but this triumph is only the prelude to the triumph of labour over capital.
III
When feudalism was overthrown and “free” capitalist society appeared in the world, it at once became apparent that this freedom meant a new system of oppression and exploitation of the working people. Various socialist doctrines immediately emerged as a reflection of and protest against this oppression. Early socialism, however, was utopian socialism. It criticised capitalist society, it condemned and damned it, it dreamed of its destruction, it had visions of a better order and endeavoured to convince the rich of the immorality of exploitation.But utopian socialism could not indicate the real solution. It could not explain the real nature of wage-slavery under capitalism, it could not reveal the laws of capitalist development, or show what social force is capable of becoming the creator of a new society.Meanwhile, the stormy revolutions which everywhere in Europe, and especially in France, accompanied the fall of feudalism, of serfdom, more and more clearly revealed the struggle of classes as the basis and the driving force of all development.Not a single victory of political freedom over the feudal class was won except against desperate resistance. Not a single capitalist country evolved on a more or less free and democratic basis except by a life-and-death struggle between the various classes of capitalist society.The genius of Marx lies in his having been the first to deduce from this the lesson world history teaches and to apply that lesson consistently. The deduction he made is the doctrine of the class struggle.People always have been the foolish victims of deception and self-deception in politics, and they always will be until they have learnt to seek out the interests of some class or other behind all moral, religious, political and social phrases, declarations and promises. Champions of reforms and improvements will always be fooled by the defenders of the old order until they realise that every old institution, how ever barbarous and rotten it may appear to be, is kept going by the forces of certain ruling classes. And there is only one way of smashing the resistance of those classes, and that is to find, in the very society which surrounds us, the forces which can—and, owing to their social position, must—constitute the power capable of sweeping away the old and creating the new, and to enlighten and organise those forces for the struggle.Marx’s philosophical materialism alone has shown the proletariat the way out of the spiritual slavery in which all oppressed classes have hitherto languished. Marx’s economic theory alone has explained the true position of the proletariat in the general system of capitalism.Independent organisations of the proletariat are multi plying all over the world, from America to Japan and from Sweden to South Africa. The proletariat is becoming enlightened and educated by waging its class struggle; it is ridding itself of the prejudices of bourgeois society; it is rallying its ranks ever more closely and is learning to gauge the measure of its successes; it is steeling its forces and is growing irresistibly.
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
Published: Prosveshcheniye No 3., March 1913. Signed: V. I.. Published according to the Prosveshcheniye text. Source: Lenin’s Collected Works, Progress Publishers, 1977, Moscow, Volume 19, pages 21-28. Translated: The Late George Hanna Original Transcription: Lee Joon Koo and Marc Luzietti Re-Marked up by: K. Goins (2008) Public Domain: Lenin Internet Archive (1996). Source : “Marxists Internet Archive”.
This article was published in 1913 in Prosveshcheniye No. 3, dedicated to the Thirtieth Anniversary of Marx’s death.
Prosveshcheniye (Enlightenment) was a Bolshevik social, political and literary monthly published legally in St. Petersburg from December 1911 onwards. Its inauguration was proposed by Lenin to replace the Bolshevik journal Mysl (Thought), a Moscow publication banned by the tsarist government. Lenin directed the work of the journal from abroad and wrote the following articles for it: “Fundamental Problems of the Election Campaign”, “Results of the Election”, “Critical Remarks on the National Question”, “The Right of Nations to Self-Determination”, and others.
The journal was suppressed by the tsarist government in June 1914, on the eve of the First World War. Publication was resumed in the autumn of 1917 but only one double number appeared; this number contained two articles by Lenin: “Can the Bolsheviks Retain State Power?” and “A Review of the Party Programme”.
Throughout the civilised world the teachings of Marx evoke the utmost hostility and hatred of all bourgeois science (both official and liberal), which regards Marxism as a kind of “pernicious sect”. And no other attitude is to be expected, for there can be no “impartial” social science in a society based on class struggle. In one way or another, all official and liberal science defends wage-slavery, whereas Marxism has declared relentless war on that slavery. To expect science to be impartial in a wage-slave society is as foolishly naïve as to expect impartiality from manufacturers on the question of whether workers’ wages ought not to be increased by decreasing the profits of capital.But this is not all. The history of philosophy and the history of social science show with perfect clarity that there is nothing resembling “sectarianism” in Marxism, in the sense of its being a hidebound, petrified doctrine, a doctrine which arose away from the high road of the development of world civilisation. On the contrary, the genius of Marx consists precisely in his having furnished answers to questions already raised by the foremost minds of mankind. His doctrine emerged as the direct and immediate continuation of the teachings of the greatest representatives of philosophy, political economy and socialism.The Marxist doctrine is omnipotent because it is true. It is comprehensive and harmonious, and provides men with an integral world outlook irreconcilable with any form of superstition, reaction, or defence of bourgeois oppression. It is the legitimate successor to the best that man produced in the nineteenth century, as represented by German philosophy, English political economy and French socialism.It is these three sources of Marxism, which are also its component parts that we shall outline in brief.
I
The philosophy of Marxism is materialism. Throughout the modern history of Europe, and especially at the end of the eighteenth century in France, where a resolute struggle was conducted against every kind of medieval rubbish, against serfdom in institutions and ideas, materialism has proved to be the only philosophy that is consistent, true to all the teachings of natural science and hostile to superstition, cant and so forth. The enemies of democracy have, therefore, always exerted all their efforts to “refute”, under mine and defame materialism, and have advocated various forms of philosophical idealism, which always, in one way or another, amounts to the defence or support of religion.Marx and Engels defended philosophical materialism in the most determined manner and repeatedly explained how profoundly erroneous is every deviation from this basis. Their views are most clearly and fully expounded in the works of Engels, Ludwig Feuerbach and Anti-Dühring, which, like the Communist Manifesto, are handbooks for every class-conscious worker.But Marx did not stop at eighteenth-century materialism: he developed philosophy to a higher level, he enriched it with the achievements of German classical philosophy, especially of Hegel’s system, which in its turn had led to the materialism of Feuerbach. The main achievement was dialectics, i.e., the doctrine of development in its fullest, deepest and most comprehensive form, the doctrine of the relativity of the human knowledge that provides us with a reflection of eternally developing matter. The latest discoveries of natural science—radium, electrons, the transmutation of elements—have been a remarkable confirmation of Marx’s dialectical materialism despite the teachings of the bourgeois philosophers with their “new” reversions to old and decadent idealism.Marx deepened and developed philosophical materialism to the full, and extended the cognition of nature to include the cognition of human society. His historical materialism was a great achievement in scientific thinking. The chaos and arbitrariness that had previously reigned in views on history and politics were replaced by a strikingly integral and harmonious scientific theory, which shows how, in consequence of the growth of productive forces, out of one system of social life another and higher system develops—how capitalism, for instance, grows out of feudalism.Just as man’s knowledge reflects nature (i.e., developing matter), which exists independently of him, so man’s social knowledge (i.e., his various views and doctrines—philosophical, religious, political and so forth) reflects the economic system of society. Political institutions are a superstructure on the economic foundation. We see, for example, that the various political forms of the modern European states serve to strengthen the domination of the bourgeoisie over the proletariat.Marx’s philosophy is a consummate philosophical materialism which has provided mankind, and especially the working class, with powerful instruments of knowledge.
II
Having recognised that the economic system is the foundation on which the political superstructure is erected, Marx devoted his greatest attention to the study of this economic system. Marx’s principal work, Capital, is devoted to a study of the economic system of modern, i.e., capitalist, society.Classical political economy, before Marx, evolved in England, the most developed of the capitalist countries. Adam Smith and David Ricardo, by their investigations of the economic system, laid the foundations of the labour theory of value. Marx continued their work; he provided a proof of the theory and developed it consistently. He showed that the value of every commodity is determined by the quantity of socially necessary labour time spent on its production.Where the bourgeois economists saw a relation between things (the exchange of one commodity for another) Marx revealed a relation between people. The exchange of commodities expresses the connection between individual producers through the market. Money signifies that the connection is becoming closer and closer, inseparably uniting the entire economic life of the individual producers into one whole. Capital signifies a further development of this connection: man’s labour-power becomes a commodity. The wage-worker sells his labour-power to the owner of land, factories and instruments of labour. The worker spends one part of the day covering the cost of maintaining himself and his family (wages), while the other part of the day he works without remuneration, creating for the capitalist surplus-value, the source of profit, the source of the wealth of the capitalist class.The doctrine of surplus-value is the corner-stone of Marx’s economic theory.Capital, created by the labour of the worker, crushes the worker, ruining small proprietors and creating an army of unemployed. In industry, the victory of large-scale production is immediately apparent, but the same phenomenon is also to be observed in agriculture, where the superiority of large-scale capitalist agriculture is enhanced, the use of machinery increases and the peasant economy, trapped by money-capital, declines and falls into ruin under the burden of its backward technique. The decline of small-scale production assumes different forms in agriculture, but the decline itself is an indisputable fact.By destroying small-scale production, capital leads to an increase in productivity of labour and to the creation of a monopoly position for the associations of big capitalists. Production itself becomes more and more social—hundreds of thousands and millions of workers become bound together in a regular economic organism—but the product of this collective labour is appropriated by a handful of capitalists. Anarchy of production, crises, the furious chase after markets and the insecurity of existence of the mass of the population are intensified.By increasing the dependence of the workers on capital, the capitalist system creates the great power of united labour.Marx traced the development of capitalism from embryonic commodity economy, from simple exchange, to its highest forms, to large-scale production.And the experience of all capitalist countries, old and new, year by year demonstrates clearly the truth of this Marxian doctrine to increasing numbers of workers.Capitalism has triumphed all over the world, but this triumph is only the prelude to the triumph of labour over capital.
III
When feudalism was overthrown and “free” capitalist society appeared in the world, it at once became apparent that this freedom meant a new system of oppression and exploitation of the working people. Various socialist doctrines immediately emerged as a reflection of and protest against this oppression. Early socialism, however, was utopian socialism. It criticised capitalist society, it condemned and damned it, it dreamed of its destruction, it had visions of a better order and endeavoured to convince the rich of the immorality of exploitation.But utopian socialism could not indicate the real solution. It could not explain the real nature of wage-slavery under capitalism, it could not reveal the laws of capitalist development, or show what social force is capable of becoming the creator of a new society.Meanwhile, the stormy revolutions which everywhere in Europe, and especially in France, accompanied the fall of feudalism, of serfdom, more and more clearly revealed the struggle of classes as the basis and the driving force of all development.Not a single victory of political freedom over the feudal class was won except against desperate resistance. Not a single capitalist country evolved on a more or less free and democratic basis except by a life-and-death struggle between the various classes of capitalist society.The genius of Marx lies in his having been the first to deduce from this the lesson world history teaches and to apply that lesson consistently. The deduction he made is the doctrine of the class struggle.People always have been the foolish victims of deception and self-deception in politics, and they always will be until they have learnt to seek out the interests of some class or other behind all moral, religious, political and social phrases, declarations and promises. Champions of reforms and improvements will always be fooled by the defenders of the old order until they realise that every old institution, how ever barbarous and rotten it may appear to be, is kept going by the forces of certain ruling classes. And there is only one way of smashing the resistance of those classes, and that is to find, in the very society which surrounds us, the forces which can—and, owing to their social position, must—constitute the power capable of sweeping away the old and creating the new, and to enlighten and organise those forces for the struggle.Marx’s philosophical materialism alone has shown the proletariat the way out of the spiritual slavery in which all oppressed classes have hitherto languished. Marx’s economic theory alone has explained the true position of the proletariat in the general system of capitalism.Independent organisations of the proletariat are multi plying all over the world, from America to Japan and from Sweden to South Africa. The proletariat is becoming enlightened and educated by waging its class struggle; it is ridding itself of the prejudices of bourgeois society; it is rallying its ranks ever more closely and is learning to gauge the measure of its successes; it is steeling its forces and is growing irresistibly.
Workers of all countries, unite!
“Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workingmen of all countries, unite!”-Karl Marx, Manifesto of the Communist Party
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
