Ludo Martens Marxist studies, Revue Nr. 39, 1997.

1. 1
The path of the global revolution in the 21st century
On the occasion of the eightieth anniversary of the October Revolution
Ludo Martens
Marxist studies, Revue Nr. 39, 1997. i
Eighty years ago, on October 25, 1917, Lenin and the Bolshevik Party launched the
popular insurrection in Petrograd.
This is how the Soviet socialist revolution started, which upset the whole world and
which opened a new chapter in the history of humanity.
The powerful breath of the October Revolution inspired an ascending development of
the proletarian revolutionary movement until the death of Stalin in 1953.
Since then, revisionism, initiated by Khrushchev, has betrayed the October
Revolution and denied all its essential principles. Thirty-five years of revisionism have
led to the re-establishment of capitalism in its wildest forms in the Soviet Union and in
the socialist countries of eastern Europe and to the momentary decline of the world
proletarian revolution.
The twentieth century will have been the century of the general repetition of the world
socialist revolution.
On the threshold of the year 2000, both positive and negative experience allows all
anti-capitalist forces to have a better understanding of the historical correctness of
the principles of the October Revolution.
Indeed, during the first half of the twentieth century, loyalty to Marxist-Leninist
principles brought victories to revolutionary forces around the world; during the
second half of this century, their progressive liquidation by revisionism caused
scathing defeats at the world level.
The Communists are convinced that the twenty-first century will be the century of the
triumph of the principles of the October Revolution and of Marxism-Leninism on the
five continents.
The two great problems which our world knew from the beginning of the century - the
problem of the liberation of work by the socialist revolution and that of the national
liberation by the anti-imperialist and democratic revolution as a preparatory phase for
the socialist revolution - will arise also in the next century. But they will arise with
much stronger intensity and with incomparable breadth, since workers in the most
remote corners of the earth will be drawn into a single revolutionary torrent.
And at the beginning of the twenty-first century, the working class will have an
infinitely richer experience than that which the proletariat, still embryonic at world
level, had in 1900.
Today, in 1997, to commemorate the October Revolution means to defend the
integral doctrine of Leninism in the fight against the revisionism imposed by
Khrushchev.

2. 2
Khrushchev was the representative of a petty-bourgeois line existing within the
Bolshevik Party since the October Revolution. This line expressed the interests of the
bourgeoisie, the petty bourgeoisie and the bureaucratized elements within the Soviet
apparatus. This line has been represented in the history of the Bolshevik Party by
Kamenev and Zinoviev, by Trotsky, by Bukharin and Rykov. In the time of Lenin and
Stalin, this petty-bourgeois line was systematically criticized and combated, and
socialism went from victory to victory. After Stalin's death, the Menshevik line
managed to take power with Khrushchev.
Khrushchev imposed on the Communist Party of the Soviet Union the ideas of
Kautsky and the Mensheviks whom Lenin had fought so fiercely.
Lenin's analysis of kautskism is of topical relevance, since it applies word by word to
modern revisionism. "With the help of obvious sophisms, (Kautsky) empties Marxism
of its living, revolutionary soul; we accept everything in Marxism, except the
revolutionary means of struggle, their propaganda and their preparation, the
education of the masses precisely in this meaning- The working class cannot achieve
its objectives of world revolution without supporting an implacable struggle against
this denial, this baseness, this low complacency towards opportunism, this incredible
debasement of Marxism on the theoretical level. "1
The negation of all the fundamental principles of Leninism, the rehabilitation of the
ideas of the Mensheviks, was done under the fallacious slogan: "We must criticize
the deviations of Stalin and return to Lenin."
However, Stalin fully applied the principles of Leninism and for this reason he
attracted the fiercest hatred of all the reactionaries. History has proven beyond any
doubt that the attacks on Stalin, from Khrushchev to Gorbachev, targeted all the
essential principles advanced by Lenin. It is easy to verify that Khrushchev, in
attacking Stalin, made a return, not to Lenin, but to Kautsky.
Without the work of Stalin, the October Revolution would have been a glorious
episode, certainly, but local and short-lived, without much impact on world history. It
was Stalin who materialized the principles developed by Lenin and who transformed
the October Revolution into a material force capable of influencing the destiny of the
world.
When Stalin started to lead the Bolshevik Party in late 1922, the country was in ruins
and there was no guarantee that the experiment would be successful. If during the
1920s the lines of Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev or Bukharin had triumphed at the head
of the Party, they would have led to the fall of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The
principles of the October Revolution could not have been materialized in the Soviet
Union and they would not have known the international and lasting influence that
Stalin gave them.
Thirty-five years of political practice, from Khrushchev to Brezhnev and Gorbachev,
proved that these revisionists in no way "corrected the errors of Stalin" or "creatively
developed Leninism by adapting it to new international conditions", as they
proclaimed it demagogically.
In all the basic documents of the CPSU from the XXth Congress of 1956, we find a
revised and falsified 'Leninism'.
Without the systematic criticism of all these revisionist theses, it is impossible to
restore the integral doctrine of authentic Leninism.

3. 3
And it is necessary to re-study all the important works of Lenin, in order to be able to
refute the fallacies of Khrushchev, Brezhnev and Gorbachev.
Indeed, we can see that since the so-called 'return to Lenin' proclaimed by
Khrushchev, in many Communist Parties the works of Lenin are less and less read,
assimilated and applied.
In several Marxist-Leninist parties which have stood up against revisionism, we have
observed a development in the same direction. If the first generation of cadres
acquired a fairly systematic knowledge of Leninism, the next generation made little
effort to master all of Lenin's doctrine and to apply it in today's practical struggle. This
weakness is also felt within the Party of Labor of Belgium.
It is therefore important, today, to systematize the essential theses as formulated by
Lenin on the state, democracy, parliamentarism, imperialism, the proletarian
revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is what we will do in this report.
And that seems to us the best way to demonstrate the burning topicality of the
principles of the October Revolution.
By the end of Brezhnev's reign and during that of Gorbachev, most of the Communist
Party apparatus had already adopted the political positions of the big international
bourgeoisie.
A large sector of "shadow capitalism" had developed with the support of the
revisionist forces; this "illegal" capitalist sector has forged alliances with the upper
bureaucracy which increasingly treated the means of production as its private
property. Revisionism finished its work of destroying the economic, political,
ideological and moral foundations of socialism. The new big bourgeoisie had become
a class for itself, aware of its leading role in society and ready to establish its open
dictatorship. At the twenty-eighth congress, Gorbachev publicly proclaimed the
complete restoration of capitalism in the USSR.
In the final battle to remove the last vestiges of socialist rule in the Soviet Union, we
saw a united front at work at the global level of all anti-communist forces.
The October Revolution marked the first half of our century and we saw all genuinely
revolutionary and socialist forces rally around its flag. The 1989-1990
counterrevolution, the culmination of the degeneration initiated in 1956, was, in turn,
a milestone in world history.
It is at the time of major events of historical and international significance that the
various political forces show their true nature. During the 1989-1990
counterrevolution, revisionism, social democracy, Trotskyism, anarchism and
environmentalism revealed their bourgeois and anti-communist character. All these
ideological currents have united in a united counter-revolutionary front to achieve and
support the integral restoration of savage capitalism in Eastern Europe and the
Soviet Union. All this, of course, in the name of freedom, democracy and human
rights and in the name of "socialism with a human face" and "democratic socialism".
All these ideologies stem from petty-bourgeois, bourgeois or reactionary "socialism"
denounced in their time by Marx and by Lenin.
The reestablishment of full capitalism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe in the
years 1989-1990 was immediately followed by a reactionary wave sweeping the
whole world, by a dramatic increase in imperialist aggression and barbarism.

4. 4
Today, the true nature of capitalism and imperialism is visible to the naked eye. The
masses of the people are subjected to the barbaric violence of fascism, reactionary
nationalism, tribalism, religious fundamentalism, imperialist aggression and state
terrorism. The harsh realities prove that the theses on capitalism and imperialism
developed by Lenin have not only remained valid, but seem even more relevant in
the current situation than they were at the beginning of the century.
The violence suffered by workers and oppressed people today is a dramatic
confirmation that the only way out of capitalist and imperialist barbarism is the path
traced by the great October Revolution.
First chapter
The state and the revolution
I. The class nature of the bourgeois state
The State of Capital
In developing their conception of scientific socialism, Marx and Engels addressed two
fundamental questions : that of the ownership of the means of production and that of
the character of the state. In Marx's time, the reformers agreed that the means of
production should ultimately be the property of the community. But for them, the
community was represented by the state. The state issue has been the most
controversial issue since Marx. The bourgeois state can take different forms, from the
monarchy to the republic, from the reactionary and police state to the democratic
state.
According to Marx and Lenin, the democratic republic is the most progressive form of
state in bourgeois rule. However, such a republic is fundamentally characterized by
the omnipotence of capital, of wealth.
Lenin, quoting Engels, says: "In the democratic republic ... 'wealth exercises its
power indirectly, but all the more surely'. (...) first, by 'direct bribery of officials' and
secondly, by 'the alliance of the government and the Stock Exchange'. "2 Then Lenin
concludes:" The omnipotence of 'wealth' is safer in a democratic republic, because it
does not depend on the faults of the political envelope of capitalism. The democratic
republic is the best possible political form of capitalism; as well Capital, after having
seized it, asserts its power so solidly, so surely, that it cannot be shaken by any
change of people, institutions or parties in the bourgeois democratic republic. "3
Marx and Lenin assert that the state is never "above the fray", that it is never above
the classes.
On the contrary, as long as society is divided into social classes whose interests are
fundamentally opposed, every state is an instrument by which one class dominates
and oppresses other classes. It is an instrument which legalizes the omnipotence of a
class, in this case the bourgeoisie, and which prohibits and removes certain means of
struggle from the classes dominated by this bourgeoisie.
Lenin: "According to Marx, the state is an organization of class domination, an
organization of oppression of one class by another; it is the creation of an 'order'
which legalizes and consolidates this oppression by moderating the class conflict. In
the opinion of petty-bourgeois politicians, order is precisely the conciliation of classes,
not the oppression of one class by another; to moderate the conflict is to reconcile,

5. 5
and not to withdraw certain means and methods of fighting the oppressed classes
struggling to overthrow the oppressors. "4
The improvement of the military and bureaucratic machine
The state is the army and the bureaucracy
Marx and Lenin explain that the two key institutions of the bourgeois state are, on the
one hand, the forces of repression and, on the other, the bureaucracy, and mainly its
upper echelon, which is closely linked to the big bourgeoisie and lead the same
lifestyle.
Lenin: "The two most characteristic institutions of this state machine are: the
bureaucracy and the permanent army. Many times, in their works, Marx and Engels
speak of the thousand links which link these institutions to the bourgeoisie." 5 And
Lenin quotes Marx in The 18th Brumaire: "This executive power, with its immense
bureaucratic and military organization ... its army of civil servants of half a million men
and its other army of five hundred thousand soldiers, a terrible parasitic body. was
formed ... at the decline of feudalism which he helped overthrow. "6
In the Marxist conception, the central core of the state machine is made up of the
armed forces and the forces of repression.
"The army is traditionally the instrument which serves to perpetuate the old regime,
the strongest bulwark of bourgeois discipline, of the domination of capital, and the
school of servile submission and subordination of workers to capital . "7
"In all bourgeois republics, even the most democratic, the police are (with the
permanent army) the main instrument of the oppression of the masses ... The police
beat the 'little people' ... is full of thoughtfulness for the capitalists who secure their
indulgence by simply paying them bribes ... Cut off from the people, constituting a
professional caste made up of men 'trained' to crack down on the poor, relatively well
paid men and enjoying the privileges of 'power' (not to mention 'legal income'), the
police remain infallibly, in all democratic republics where the bourgeoisie reigns, the
instrument ... of the latter. "8
A constantly reinforced and perfected repression machine
The bourgeois state machine was created by the exploiting classes to serve their
domination and it was strengthened and perfected during the various crises and
revolutions experienced by the capitalist countries.
Lenin: "The development, improvement, consolidation of this bureaucratic and
military apparatus continues through the multitude of bourgeois revolutions." 9 "The
more we proceed to the 'redistributions' of the bureaucratic apparatus between the
various bourgeois and petty parties. bourgeois ... and more evident to the oppressed
classes, proletariat at the head, their irreducible hostility to bourgeois society as a
whole. Hence the need for all bourgeois parties, even the most democratic, including
the "revolutionary democrats", to accentuate the repression against the revolutionary
proletariat, to strengthen the repressive apparatus, that is to say precisely the state
machine. This course of events obliges the revolution to 'concentrate all the forces of
destruction' against the power he is tasked not with improving the state machine, but
with demolishing and destroying it. "10
Since the First World War and the access of the social democratic parties to
bourgeois governments, the bureaucracy of the Socialist Parties has received a large

6. 6
part of the bureaucratic apparatus. And these parties have effectively supported the
successive reinforcements of the anti-popular repression apparatus.
The so-called 'revolutionary democrats' of the Socialist Party have often become
champions of bourgeois repression. The former supporter of the "dictatorship of the
proletariat", Paul-Henri Spaak, has become one of the spiritual fathers of NATO, of
which he has become secretary general. André Cools, who participated in the
leadership of the revolutionary strike of 1960-61, shortly after supported all the
repressive measures that the bourgeoisie took following this strike. Vandenbroucke,
former Trotskyist leader who became social democratic minister, supported Belgian
participation in the war of aggression against Iraq, he supported the widening of
NATO's field of action, he was in solidarity with his friend Tobback in its policy of
strengthening the gendarmerie.
Marx: "We must break the bourgeois state"
Lenin then formulates the essential thesis of the Marxist doctrine on the state: the old
state machine must be destroyed.
Lenin: "All political revolutions have only perfected this machine instead of breaking it.
(...) This deduction is the main, the essential, in the Marxist doctrine of the State." 11
"The essential is to know if the old state machine (linked to the bourgeoisie by
thousands of ties and all permeated with ... conservatism) will be maintained or if it
will be destroyed and replaced by a new one. The revolution must not succeed that
the new class commands and governs using the old state machine, but this, that after
having broken it, it commands and governs with the aid of a new machine: it is this
fundamental idea of Marxism that Kautsky eschews. "12
Lenin draws a categorical political conclusion in relation to the revisionists. He states:
"(Kautsky writes this :) 'Never and never ... the victory of the proletariat over hostile
government ... can only lead to the destruction of state power; it can only result a
certain shift ... of the balance of power within state power ... The aim of our political
struggle therefore remains, as in the past, the conquest of state power by acquiring
the majority in parliament and the transformation of the latter into master of
government. "This is the purest and flattest opportunism; it is in fact renouncing the
revolution while recognizing it in words ... As for us, we Let us break with these
renegades of socialism and fight for the destruction of the whole old state machine,
so that the armed proletariat becomes itself the government ... The con-scientist
proletariat will be entirely with us in the struggle, not for a 'shift in the balance of
power', but for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, for ur the destruction of bourgeois
parliamentarism, ... for a republic of Soviets of workers 'and soldiers' deputies, for the
revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. "13
It is obvious that these conclusions of Lenin apply fully, word for word, to all those
who have followed Khrushchev's policy and who continue to follow it.
Revisionism and the bourgeois state
Since Khrushchev, the revisionists have rejected the Marxist position on the state
and the revolution.
Their conception of the state is identical to that of Kautsky and Vandervelde: the
state would be a "neutral" instrument, above the classes, which the working class
could seize thanks to a parliamentary majority.

7. 7
Khrushchev declares: "The conquest of a solid parliamentary majority ... would
create ... conditions tending to ensure radical social transformations. Admittedly,
serious resistance ... of the enormous military and police apparatus ... is inevitable
The transition to socialism will take place through an acute, revolutionary class
struggle. "14 There is no question of breaking the bourgeois state apparatus and
replacing it with a revolutionary apparatus stemming from the struggle of the
proletariat. The essentials in Marx's doctrine on the State are evaded by the
nebulous phrase: "Radical social transformations through the class struggle".
The manual book The International Revolutionary Movement of the Working Class,
edited by Boris Ponomarev in 1964, then republished in 1967, perfectly expresses
the continuity of revisionist ideas under Khrushchev and Brezhnev. It deals with the
construction of socialism, the class struggle under capitalism, the struggle against
imperialism in the dominated countries and the struggle for peace. In these four
areas, under an apparently "Leninist" verbiage, he exposes a coherent and complete
revisionist and counter-revolutionary program.
The chapter which deals with the "workers movement in the advanced capitalist
countries" does not say a single word on the state as an instrument of the
dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Write 502 pages on the "socialist revolution" without
any development on the nature of the current state, it must be done!
Nothing is said about the function of the bourgeois army as the nucleus of the
dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, erected to combat militarily the forces which threaten
the bourgeois economic and political order. We only learn that "a broad anti-
monopoly front (is) capable of restraining the bourgeoisie, preventing it from carrying
out its policy of rude violence against the workers." 15
The rare allusions to the state always make it appear as a neutral instrument that one
can "wrest" from the control of monopolies. "During the (anti-fascist) resistance, the
working class fought for authentically democratic constitutions which provided for the
participation of workers in the management of the state, and the limitation of the
power of monopolies, of progressive transformations in the economy and politics .
"16 There is no question of breaking the fascist state and replacing it with a new state,
built during the process of the overthrow of fascism by the armed popular struggle.
Further on, we read: "The revolutionaries ... see in the peaceful path of transition to
socialism the expression of the fierce struggle of the great popular masses to
conquer ever new economic and political rights, to gradually oust the monopolies of
the leadership of society and ultimately bring the working classes to power. "17 Here
we find the image of the state as" the direction of society ", whose monopolies we
can" progressively oust the monopolies "and replace them with" the power of the
working classes ".
II. Bourgeois democracy
How does the question of democracy arise
In the name of democracy, the most abominable crimes ...
At the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the class significance of discourses on
"democracy" in general, "above the classes", appeared with obvious clarity.
The counter-revolution in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union was carried out under
the slogan: "freedom and democracy". The fall in industrial production by 50%: 'in the
name of democracy'. The reign of 4,000 mafia organizations: 'in the name of

8. 8
democracy'. Theft of all pensioners' savings by means of 3,000% inflation: 'in the
name of democracy'. Reactionary civil wars in Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia,
Chechnya, Tajikistan: 'in the name of democracy'. A surplus of 1,700,000 people died
in three years: 'in the name of democracy'.
After the collapse of the USSR, the World Anti-Communist League, which brings
together the main fascist and far-right organizations in the world, changed its name to
"World League for Freedom and Democracy"! That says it all.
In Russia, the restorer of savage capitalism, Yeltsin, was able to destroy the Russian
Parliament under the fire of his tanks, he was able to establish a regime based on the
mafia and on the imperialist powers, he was able to rig the elections thoroughly : the
entire bourgeois press keeps repeating that "democracy is progressing" in Russia.
In Africa, in 1990, the "wind of democracy" began to blow at the initiative of
Mitterrand at the time of the summit of La Baule. Since then, the situation of the
masses has seriously deteriorated and imperialist interventions have followed one
another. At the Chaillot summit in November 1991, Habyarimana affirmed that "the
consolidation of pluralist democracy has accelerated in Rwanda since the La Baule
summit." And two years later, under this flag, Habyarimana had completed
preparations for the genocide ...
Democracy for which class?
Dealing with democracy, all reformists "forget" the most basic principle of Marxism,
that of class analysis. In a society based on private ownership of the means of
production, the bourgeoisie and the working class constitute two classes with
diametrically opposed interests. What type of democracy can there be in such a
context?
Lenin: "It is natural for a liberal to speak of 'democracy' in general. A Marxist will
never fail to ask: 'For what class?'" 18 "As long as there are distinct classes, we
cannot speak of ' pure democracy, but only class democracy. "19
"Democracy for a tiny minority, democracy for the rich, such is the democratism of
capitalist society." 20
Where is "democracy" when, in the name of the right to own the means of production,
a handful of exploiters decide to close "their" factory and to throw thousands of
workers into the streets?
Where is "democracy" when, to protect the "private property" of the boss, the
gendarmerie intervenes with violence to break the fight of the dismissed workers to
maintain their jobs?
To protect the interests of the big bourgeoisie, our "democracy" is ready at any time
to launch the forces of repression against workers, young people, immigrants.
"Democracy" can at any time, to protect the established bourgeois order, arrest trade
unionists and anti-capitalists, ban parties and newspapers, decree the emergency
regime.
The press and parliament, instruments of democracy?
Freedom of press
"Freedom of the press" is one of the best examples of what bourgeois democracy
really means.

9. 9
Everyone is "free" to publish a daily newspaper. But, of course, you must have at
least one hundred million FB.
"Freedom of the press" under capitalism is essentially the freedom to glorify, justify,
embellish and defend capitalism, and the freedom to denigrate, slander, blacken,
dirty the anti-capitalist struggles.
February 2, 1997 took place in Belgium, in Clabecq, one of the most memorable
workers' demonstrations of the last half century. She proudly proclaimed herself a
demonstration of the working class against the employers, for radical demands. The
bourgeois press, impressed by the immense success, attacked the demonstration
first "by gentleness". The demonstration was "of perfect calm and dignity, marred by
no incident, ... the awakening of the citizens." (Le Soir) "The colors of the citizen
burst", headlined Vers l'Avenir and "The citizen burst widens" affirmed La Libre
Belgique. The Last Hour announced "the awakening of citizenship". Clearly: the
bourgeois press denies that the exploited classes have mobilized against their
exploiters. The counter-revolutionary concept of "citizenship" is used to insinuate a
solidarity of all the citizens, bosses, bankers and high executives concerned as much
about employment as the threatened workers do.
A week later, in front of the increasingly crude maneuvers to liquidate the Forges de
Clabecq in sections, workers strike a few well-deserved punches to the president of
the curatorship. And immediately, the "free" press broke loose. For this press,
violence is not capitalism which is about to put 2,000 workers on the street, to plunge
2,000 families in despair, to push people to suicide, to make others sink into the
drugs and petty crime. Violence is the desperate worker who raised his fist against
his exploiter. L'Echo, the stock exchange newspaper, writes: "With regard to
management and engineers, this has always been terror", "It is the complete
opposite of democracy: totalitarianism", "These are practices which, behind speeches
of the extreme left, in fact belong to the extreme right. " Le Soir accuses D'Orazio, the
main worker leader of Clabecq, of having "confiscated and diverted" the will of the
50,000 people present at the demonstration! "Roberto D'Orazio, the 'red pope' of the
Forges, is skidding. He has confiscated the enormous surge of civic solidarity for the
sole benefit of his hard-liners."
Let us read Lenin's comments on this subject: "'Freedom of the press' is also one of
the main slogans of 'pure democracy' ... The workers know ... that this freedom is a
deception as long as the best printing works and large stocks of paper are
monopolized by the capitalists, as long as the power of capital remains on the
press ... The capitalists qualify as freedom of the press the freedom to use their
wealth to manufacture and falsify what we calls public opinion. "21
"Universal suffrage is the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie"
And what about the relationship between democracy and elections? The bourgeoisie
asserts that free elections are the essence of the democratic process. What is the
Leninist position on this subject?
Even in a democratic republic, the state is essentially a machine intended to oppress
the working classes and its main function is to maintain the dictatorship of capital.
The bourgeoisie organizes certain forms of democracy with the explicit aim of
reconciling the masses with the dictatorship of capital, to make them accept the
inevitability or the merits of the domination of capital.

10. 10
The elections, under the bourgeois regime, are a gigantic operation of manipulation
of opinion which aims to give the illusion that government policy, which is directly
dictated by big capital, emanates from the will of the people. Every year, the facts
prove this claim. Felipe Gonzalez won his first elections in Spain by promising that
Spain would remain outside of NATO. Once he had gathered votes thanks to these
demagogic promises, he entered NATO! The Belgian social democrats campaigned
on the promise of "saving" the public sector. When they came to government, they
passed a privatization program that went beyond even the most adventurous plans of
the Liberals! Through manipulation and propaganda, the bourgeoisie manages to
pass off each new government as the emanation of the popular will, expressed
during the elections! Then this government implements the policy that the big
bourgeoisie deems most appropriate to follow.
Lenin rightly says: "Universal suffrage is the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie." Indeed,
under the domination of the bourgeoisie, when practically all the media are in the
hands of big capital, when the whole state machine is controlled by the big
bourgeoisie and the bourgeois parties, when the state and the monopolies finance
the campaigns of the bourgeois parties using hundreds of millions of francs, the
elections are effectively an operation to consolidate the dictatorship of the
bourgeoisie.
The social democrats and the revisionists, to embellish bourgeois democracy, affirm
that universal suffrage "is a great conquest of the workers' movement." The advent of
universal suffrage in Belgium makes it possible to refute this fable. First, the
leadership of the Belgian Workers' Party had put forward this demand to evade the
need for the socialist revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat. He fought for
universal suffrage with the explicit aim of pushing workers into the path of reformism
and class collaboration. In addition, universal suffrage was only granted when the
Workers' Party had given all the guarantees that it would defend the established
order and that it would be a loyal manager of bourgeois society. Yes, as Lenin says:
in capitalist society, universal suffrage is the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.
This is how Lenin expressed himself about it. "Even in the most democratic of
republics ... the state is nothing more than a machine of oppression of one class by
another. The bourgeoisie is obliged to be hypocritical and to give the name of 'power
of the whole people' or of democracy in general, or of pure democracy, to the
bourgeois democratic republic, which is in fact the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, the
dictatorship of the exploiters over the working masses ...
"The democratic republic, the constituent assembly, universal suffrage, etc., is the
dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. To liberate the work of the capitalist yoke, there is no
other way than to replace this dictatorship by dictatorship of the proletariat. Only the
dictatorship of the proletariat is capable of liberating humanity from the capitalist yoke,
of the lie, of the falsehood and of the hypocrisy of bourgeois democracy, democracy
for the rich, and of establishing democracy for the poor . "22
Does democracy defend minorities?
The bourgeoisie claims that its "democratic" system ensures the defense of
minorities. In fact, it strives to place the "minorities" under the control of one or the
other bourgeois party so that it breaks the spirit of struggle of this minority and
"integrates" it into the established order. .

11. 11
Lenin writes: "Bourgeois democracy only grants defense of the minority to another
bourgeois party; while the proletariat, in any serious, deep, fundamental question,
receives martial law as 'protection of the minority' or the massacres. The more
democracy is developed, the closer it is, in the event of a deep and dangerous
political divergence for the bourgeoisie, to massacre or civil war. "23
In the United States, some bourgeois politicians specialize in "protecting the black
minority", but the police specialize in deadly raids in the poorest black neighborhoods.
The one in Los Angeles has a long history of racist violence and that is how one night
she beat up a single man, Rodney King. A witness videotaped the scene. The police
were nevertheless acquitted. A violent revolt by the majority of poor people in Los
Angeles ensued, a revolt which was put down by the American army and by the
police.
Bourgeois democracy against workers
Democracy excludes the poor
In capitalist society, "democracy" is tailor-made for the wealthy, while a thousand
obstacles, restrictions and difficulties prevent the poor from using the few rights that
are nominally granted to them.
Lenin perfectly described the type of "democracy" that workers can enjoy under the
reign of capital. "Bourgeois democracy ... always remains ... a narrow, truncated,
false, hypocritical democracy, a paradise for the rich, a trap and a lure for the
exploited, for the poor." 24 "In a capitalist regime, democracy is shrunk, compressed,
truncated, mutilated by the atmosphere created by wage slavery, the need and the
misery of the masses. "25" If we look more closely at the mechanism of capitalist
democracy, we will see everywhere ... restriction on restriction on democratism.
These restrictions, eliminations, exclusions, obstacles for the poor seem small, ... but,
taken together, these restrictions exclude, eliminate the poor from politics, from active
participation in democracy. "26
Laws and jurists at the service of capital
Under "democracy", the bourgeoisie has passed hundreds of laws and decrees that
protect capitalist exploitation and arbitrariness, hundreds of laws and regulations that
hurt, overwhelm, discriminate and rob workers.
But it is not enough for the bourgeoisie that the laws be made by it and for it. Under
"democracy", those with money can hire lawyers and specialists to legally "bypass"
laws and regulations that limit the arbitrariness of the capitalists.
In addition, under bourgeois "democracy", the police and legal apparatus is linked by
a thousand links to the big bourgeoisie and it "helps" the rich to "fix" their problems,
while it mercilessly applies the laws against the poor.
Lenin writes: "When in capitalist countries, jurists, bourgeois to the end of their nails ...
take centuries or decades to draw up regulations ... to write ... hundreds of volumes
of laws and commentaries which overwhelm the worker, keep the poor feet and
hands tied, erect a thousand baffles and obstacles to the simple worker ... then the
bourgeois liberals and Mr. Kautsky see there no one 'arbitrary'! There reign 'order'
and 'legality There, everything has been meditated and codified to better "pressurize"
the poor. There thousands of lawyers and bourgeois officials ... know how to interpret
the laws so that it is impossible for the worker and the average peasant to to break
the barbed wire barrier erected by these laws. It’s not the bourgeoisie’s

12. 12
“arbitrariness,” it’s not the dictatorship of greedy and messy exploiters, drenched in
the blood of the people. 'pure democracy', which is becoming purer day by day. "2 7
Bourgeois democracy and antipopular terror
In Turkey as in Colombia and Peru, elections are held, parliaments are elected,
democracy reigns. But the army and the "self-defense" bands organized by the
government terrorize the population, massacre tens of thousands of trade unionists,
peasants, revolutionaries.
Lenin already noted: "There is no state, even the most democratic, which does not
have in its Constitution biases or restrictions allowing the bourgeoisie to launch the
troop against the workers, to proclaim martial law, etc. , 'in the event of a breach of
order', but, in fact, in the event that the exploited class 'violates' its state of
enslavement and if it had the will to not act as a slave. "28
Aspiration for popular democracy and revolution
Workers want a democracy that serves them
At the present time, when the workers have reached a certain level of education, the
big bourgeoisie is obliged to invoke democracy to justify its reign. It shapes a
'democratic majority' by using propaganda, intoxication, brainwashing but also
intimidation and pressure.
Nevertheless, a real desire for authentic democracy lives in the working masses.
Now, "in the most democratic bourgeois state, the oppressed masses constantly
come up against the glaring contradiction between the nominal equality proclaimed
by the" democracy "of the capitalists, and the thousands of real restrictions and
subterfuges which make proletarians salaried slaves. "29
How to use this contradiction between "nominal", formal and false democracy and the
deep desire of workers for a democracy "for them"?
Realizing the democratic aspirations of the proletarians and the workers is the exact
opposite of the "democratic" mystification organized by the tyrants who are the big
entrepreneurs and their politicians. In this sense, the struggle to realize the
democratic aspirations of the workers is an essential aspect of the struggle for the
socialist revolution.
Lenin: "Realized ... as fully and as methodically as it is possible to conceive,
democracy, from bourgeois, becomes proletarian." 30 The democratic aspirations of
the workers, expressed in the framework of a bourgeois democracy, but pursued and
carried out radically, to the end, become proletarian democracy by the overthrow of
the bourgeois system. To say it again with the words of Lenin: "Developing
democracy to the end ... is one of the essential tasks of the struggle for social
revolution." 31
There is a breaking point here, quantity is transformed into quality, democratic rights
conquered within the framework of the bourgeois system are transformed into
proletarian democracy through the socialist revolution.
The social democrats and the revisionists have been claiming the opposite for eighty
years. The systematic enlargement of "democracy" within the bourgeois framework
will bring us ever closer to socialism and will ultimately transform peacefully into
socialism. For them, the difference between bourgeois democracy and proletarian

13. 13
democracy is a difference in quantity, one can transform peacefully into the other
without going through the qualitative break that is the socialist revolution.
Lenin denounced these people in these terms: "Kautskists of all nations ... flatten out
before the bourgeoisie, accommodate bourgeois parliamentarism, conceal the
bourgeois character of current democracy and are content to demand that it be
extended, to be carried out to the end. "32
However, in the historical epoch where monopolies and imperialism reign, bourgeois
democracy is deteriorating more and more: it is the reaction that triumphs down the
line, the democratic rights of workers are more and more reduced ... And today these
attacks are the fact of this same social democracy, which claimed that "the
continuous extension" of bourgeois democracy was going to lead to socialism!
Lenin's words on this subject deserve further reflection. "The political superstructure
which covers the new economy, monopoly capitalism ... it is the turning point from
democracy to political reaction." 33 "Politically, imperialism tends, in general, to
violence and reaction. "34
Do not the essential facts of recent history vividly confirm these theses? The barbaric
war against Iraq, the embargo which "peacefully" kills a million Iraqi babies, children
and old men (with the active participation of the Social Democrats and the political
support of the revisionist Gorbachev!); the genocide in Rwanda which killed a million
democratic Tutsis and Hutus (with the active participation of the French army of the
social democrat Mitterrand!); anti-union laws in England; the scandals of corruption of
the social-Christian and social-democratic parties which burst in Italy and in
Belgium ...
So, of course, Lenin denounced opportunists like Khrushchev, Marchais, Carillo,
Berlinguer! "The march forward, starting from this capitalist democracy, ... does not
lead simply, directly and smoothly 'to an increasingly perfect democracy', as the petty
bourgeois opportunists claim. No. The march forward ... takes place through the
dictatorship of the proletariat. "35
Democracy under socialism
So how does the question of democracy under socialism arise? Socialism is by no
means "true democracy for all", as claimed by the Kautskists and the Khrushchevites.
For the capitalists who fully enjoyed bourgeois democracy, socialism essentially
means the end of democracy, the end of the freedom to operate, the end of the
freedom to accumulate fortunes by legal and illegal means, the end of the freedom to
buy the media and "fabricate" public opinion, the end of the freedom to organize
education for their benefit, etc.
For workers, socialism does not mean the enlargement of the old bourgeois
democracy, but the creation of new forms of democracy that allow workers to
participate effectively in political and economic decisions.
Lenin declared: "The dictatorship of the proletariat ... cannot be limited to a simple
enlargement of democracy. At the same time as a considerable enlargement of
democracy, which for the first time became democracy for the poor, democracy for
the people and not for the wealthy, the dictatorship of the proletariat brings a series
of restrictions on freedom for the oppressors, the exploiters, the capitalists. These we
must subdue in order to liberate humanity from wage slavery; their resistance by

14. 14
force; and it is obvious that, where there is repression, there is violence, there is no
freedom, there is no democracy. "36
The revisionists and bourgeois democracy
Khrushchev and the revisionists who deny the class character of the state also refuse
to recognize that any form of democracy has a class character. They used Kautsky's
sentences on "pure democracy" and "authentic democracy" or even on "true
democracy".
Ponomarev's book states: "The concept of authentic democracy as a power of the
people in the interest of the people has been exposed in the programs of the
communist parties of Italy, France, England, Belgium, Finland , from the USA. "37
The revisionists deny the class character of democracy and they use bombastic
phrases: "to leave the narrow framework of bourgeois democracy", "to transform
gradually" and "to enrich" democracy. Thus, they want to put across the reformist
thesis that an enlargement of "democracy" (under the dictatorship of the
bourgeoisie!) Leads directly to socialism.
Ponomarev: "Leaving the narrow framework of bourgeois democratic forms,
enriching democracy with new content, gradually transforming it into a means for the
people to exercise ever more real power and to limit and then liquidate the power of
monopolies, workers will lay the foundations for a true democracy evolving towards
socialism. "38
This buzzing and empty verbiage is taken directly from the social democrats Kautsky
and Vandervelde. It is used to mask essential questions. First that of the State: is it
an instrument of the dictatorship of capital or is it a neutral institution where the
"people" can exercise a growing "real power" and "limit" then "liquidate" the power of
the capital? Then the question of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and the
"democratic" forms that this dictatorship can take. It also masks the question of the
socialist revolution and finally that of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which alone
can really ensure democracy for the workers.
The same verbiage was used by Thorez to evade the problems of the socialist
revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat. Ponomarev quotes Thorez: "Maurice
Thorez said: 'There is no longer in our time a long historical gap between democratic
transformations and socialist transformations ... Democracy, continuous creation, will
end in socialism." 39 Thanks to the thesis of "continuous creation", Thorez makes
disappear the rupture which constitutes the socialist revolution, rupture which
separates two worlds, that of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and that of the
dictatorship of the proletariat.
III. The "parliamentary passage"
The notions that we have just studied, that of the neutral state, "above the classes",
and that of "pure democracy", are at the base of the reformist strategy of the
transition to socialism by the acquisition of 'a parliamentary majority.
Lenin bitterly mocked the social democratic nonsense proffered by Kautsky and
Vandervelde in this regard.
The true nature of parliament
Parliament, a screen before the forces of repression

15. 15
Lenin clearly showed the class nature of bourgeois parliamentarism: it is an organ of
the hostile class, it is a machine for repressing workers, it is an organ of decoration
where real decisions are not taken, it is a screen for the police who engage in
espionage, repression and, if necessary, massacres.
Lenin writes: "The workers know and feel ... that the bourgeois parliament is for them
a foreign organism, an instrument of oppression of the proletarians by the
bourgeoisie, the organism of a hostile class, of a minority of exploiters . "40
The bourgeois parliament is an integral part of the apparatus of the bourgeois state; if
its forces of repression and its anti-popular bureaucracy are the nucleus, parliament
is above all a screen which hides the true centers of bourgeois power, a wind
machine which sows 'democratic' illusions. If the real centers of capitalist power
decide to suppress popular movements, parliament is instructed to 'democratically'
justify the repression.
Lenin: "The bourgeois parliament, (under the conditions) where the capitalists'
property and their power are maintained, is a machine intended to suppress the
millions of workers by a handful of exploiters ... Today the world history has placed
on the agenda the destruction of this entire regime, the transition from capitalism to
socialism, being content with bourgeois parliamentarism, ... adorning it with the name
of 'democracy' in general, blurring its bourgeois character, to forget that universal
suffrage, as long as capitalist property is maintained, is one of the instruments of the
bourgeois state, it is shamefully betraying the proletariat. "41
These words of Lenin fully apply to Khrushchev's followers who "are content with
bourgeois parliamentarism, blur its bourgeois character and shamefully betray the
proletariat."
Capital controls and oversees parliament
The idea of a parliamentary transition to socialism is all the more ridiculous since
parliament is not at all the center of power in capitalist society.
Everyone knows that the major political, economic and military decisions are made in
close circles of the big bourgeoisie, in the leading circles of the World Bank, the IMF,
the OECD, the specialized research departments of the United States. gendarmerie
and army majors, NATO, business federations ... Their decisions are then submitted
by the government to the parliament which bows and says "Yes".
In Belgium, in recent years, the budget allocated to secondary education has been
greatly reduced and access to university limited. Who formulated and who made
these decisions? Are these the masses of students, teachers and workers
concerned? Of course not, they had nothing to say. Are they parliamentarians? Not
at all. It was the study departments of employers and specialists in the upper
bureaucracy of the state who developed anti-people plans. Then the headquarters of
the bourgeois parties submitted these plans to parliament and ordered "their"
parliamentarians to acquiesce!
Lenin said in this connection: "The bourgeois parliament ... in a bourgeois democracy,
never resolves major questions; these are decided by the Stock Exchange, by the
banks." 42 "The real 'state' task is done behind the scenes; it is carried out by
departments, chancelleries, staffs. In parliaments, we only chat, for the sole purpose
of fooling the 'good people'. "43" In capitalist society, ... the most important
questions ... are decided by a tiny handful of capitalists who not only deceive the

16. 16
masses, but often also deceive parliament. There is no parliament in the world that
has ever said something serious about war and peace! In capitalist society, the main
questions concerning the economic life of workers ... are decided by the capitalist as
by a lord, as by God! "44
The meaning of bourgeois elections
Choose "your" bourgeois party
Bourgeois parliamentarism is indeed an instrument at the service of the dictatorship
of the bourgeoisie. But what then is the real meaning of elections under the
bourgeois regime?
The bourgeois and petty-bourgeois parties have gigantic means, they benefit from
the support or the sympathy of the big capitalists who own the media. Under these
conditions, the elections essentially allow the masses to choose which bourgeois or
petty-bourgeois element will go to parliament to defend there 'on behalf of the people'
the bourgeois order. Whether the parliamentary majority is made up of liberals, social
democrats, nationalists, social Christians, environmentalists or fascists, all defend the
basic principles of the capitalist system and the interests of the big bourgeoisie. Lenin
aptly said: "Periodically decide ... which member of the ruling class will trample on the
feet, crush the people in Parliament, such is the true essence of bourgeois
parliamentarism." 45
An indirect reflection of the maturity of workers
On the other hand, elections can also indicate to what extent workers are starting to
turn away from the capitalist system.
Lenin, quoting Engels: "Universal suffrage is 'the index by which to measure working-
class maturity. It cannot be anything more, it will never be anything more in the
present state'." 46
Even if the majority of the population elects revolutionaries, this vote only proves the
revolutionary feelings of the masses. It indicates that the minds are ripe for the
revolution. But it will still have to be done and defeated the enemy by revolutionary
means. Lenin: "Universal suffrage attests to the degree of maturity of the various
classes in understanding their respective tasks. It shows how the various classes are
prepared to carry out their tasks. The very solution of these tasks is given not by
vote , but through all forms of class struggle, up to and including the civil war. "47
Communist participation in elections
Why then do the Communists participate in the elections?
They never do this to sow illusions about an alleged parliamentary passage to
socialism. They take part in it to prove to the workers that one day, it will be
necessary to dissolve this parliament which is only an instrument of the bourgeois
dictatorship and that it will have to be replaced by revolutionary organs of the working
masses.
Lenin: "Participation in parliamentary elections and in parliamentary struggles is
compulsory for the party of the revolutionary proletariat precisely in order to educate
the backward strata of its class, precisely in order to awaken and enlighten the
uncultivated, oppressed and ignorant village mass. As long as you do not have the
strength to dissolve the bourgeois parliament and all the other reactionary institutions,

17. 17
you are bound to work in these institutions precisely because there are still workers
there brutalized by the praetrail and the atmosphere suffocating provincial holes. "48
How can the majority really decide?
What is the will of the majority of the people? How can this will be expressed?
Can vital questions, those which decide on the life or death of the capitalist system,
be decided by a minority against majority vote in parliament? Can the question of the
dictatorship of the bourgeoisie or the dictatorship of the workers be resolved by a
majority vote in parliament?
Lenin said: "The ... petty-bourgeois socialists ... still dream of establishing socialism
by persuasion. The majority of the people will be persuaded, and then the minority
will submit, the majority will vote, and socialism will be established No, the world is
not made in such a happy way: the exploiters, the raptors, the capitalist class cannot
be convinced The socialist revolution confirms what everyone has seen: the
relentless resistance of the exploiters The more the pressure of the oppressed
classes increases, the more they are ready to overthrow all oppression, all
exploitation ... and the more furious becomes the resistance of the exploiters. "49"
The petty-bourgeois democrats ... who replaced the class struggle their reveries on
the understanding of classes, represented the socialist transformation, ... not as the
overthrow of the domination of the exploiting class, but as a peaceful submission of
the minority to the majori you are aware of your tasks. This petty-bourgeois utopia,
indissolubly linked to the notion of a state placed above the class, has resulted
practically in treason. "50
Thus, to establish socialism, it is necessary to overthrow the domination of the
bourgeois class and it is necessary to break the inevitable resistance, the ferocious
and relentless resistance of the exploiters. These questions are decided by the
bitterest class struggle, and not by a simple vote in parliament.
Even in the very rare cases where a majority of parliament decides for the transition
to socialism or for substantial anti-capitalist measures, voting in itself does not solve
the problem of the effective realization of these measures. The victory of the anti-
capitalist forces can only be ensured by the class struggle, by the conquest of the
majority in revolutionary action and the overthrow by force of the ruling class.
Lenin: "The proletariat cannot defeat without winning the majority of the population by
its side. But to limit or subordinate this conquest to obtaining the majority of the votes
in the elections, under the domination of the bourgeoisie, is to demonstrate "an
incurable neediness of mind, or it is simply to deceive the workers. To win the
majority of the population by its side, the proletariat must first overthrow the
bourgeoisie and seize state power; it must secondly establish the power of the
Soviets, after having completely demolished the old state apparatus, thus
undermining in one fell swoop the domination, the prestige, the influence of the
bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeois conciliators on the non-proletarian working masses.
third, to complete the destruction of the influence of the bourgeoisie and petty-
bourgeois conciliators on the majority of the non-proletarian working masses, by
satisfying by revolutionary means the our economic needs at the expense of the
exploiters. "51
The revisionists and bourgeois parliamentarism
All of Lenin's positions on bourgeois parliamentarism were liquidated by Khrushchev.

18. 18
Praise of bourgeois parliamentarism
In Boris Ponomarev's book, we read: "The communist parties of capitalist countries
have always indicated that it was possible to use the parliamentary system ... after
the coming to power of the working classes. Thus, the French Communist Party , in
the theses of its XIVth Congress (1956) indicated: 'Our people are attached to the
parliamentary institutions conquered by the struggles of the past, restored with
national independence in the battles of 1944. It is therefore probable that it will
endeavor to take advantage of these institutions for the overhaul of the social system.
"" 52 "The Communists are studying ... the possibilities of using the ... bourgeois ...
institutions. So are we ... highlight the limited and inconsistent nature of bourgeois
democracy. The Communists do so without offending the feelings of the masses
attached to traditional democratic institutions which, in fact, are the result of the
struggle of several generations working class rations. "53
Let us comment on two of Ponomarev's statements. It is wrong to present
parliamentary institutions as "the result of the struggles of the working class" to imply
that they can therefore embody the will of the workers. The parliament was created
by the big bourgeoisie to serve its domination over society. Then, the struggles of the
working class at the end of the last century were distorted and diverted by reformist
leaders. These struggles were oriented towards support for the bourgeois political
system and the reformist leaders were completely integrated into it, notably through
their participation in the bourgeois parliament. Universal suffrage (excluding women,
of course) was granted for the express purpose of breaking the revolutionary
movement of workers, and reformist leaders used it to fight the revolution.
When the Khrushchevites affirm that we must not "offend the feelings of the masses
attached to parliament", they clearly mark their total break with Leninism.
In 1917-1918 Lenin pointed out that the petty bourgeoisie often followed the big
bourgeoisie because of its attachment to parliamentarism and bourgeois nationalism.
He called parliamentarism "the deepest prejudice of the petty bourgeoisie." 54
The petty bourgeois was "attached" to the Constituent Assembly, elected a few
weeks after the October Revolution, in November 1917, by universal suffrage. This
Assembly had given a counter-revolutionary majority. In the weeks following the
elections, the revolutionary movement deepened in the countryside. The Assembly
refused to endorse the socialist program of the October Revolution and the
Bolsheviks had to dissolve this counter-revolutionary Assembly. Part of the petty
bourgeois then supported the bourgeoisie in the civil war against the Bolsheviks
because of its stupid parliamentary prejudices. It is impossible to make the socialist
revolution, to pass to a qualitatively higher stage of democracy, in the power of the
Soviets, without "offending" the prejudices of a part of the petty bourgeois who
believes in the eternal value of bourgeois democracy. They need to experience the
advantages of socialist power to rally to it.
A "return" to Lenin to kill Lenin
Let us now see how Khrushchev "broke outdated notions", as he says, about
parliamentarism.55
At the XXth Congress, in 1956, he affirmed this: "The question arises of the
possibility of also using the parliamentary way to pass to socialism ... Lenin indicated
to us another way, that of the creation of the Republic of Soviets , the only right path

19. 19
in the historical conditions of the time ... But since then, essential changes have
occurred in the historical situation ... The forces of socialism and democracy have
grown considerably worldwide, while the capitalism is much weaker ... The ideas of
socialism really take hold of the minds of all working humanity. Besides, under
present conditions, the working class of several capitalist countries has the possibility
of uniting under its leadership the vast majority of the people and ensuring the
passage of the main means of production into the hands of the people. Right-wing
political parties ... are increasingly bankrupt. Therefore the working class ière ... is
able to inflict defeat on the reactionary forces, to conquer a solid majority in
parliament and to transform it from an organ of bourgeois democracy into an
instrument of real popular will. In this case, this traditional establishment ... can
become an organism of true democracy, of democracy for the workers. "56
Glorifying the strength of socialism to undermine it
To justify his rallying to Kautskism and bourgeois parliamentarism, Khrushchev
invoked "essential changes in the historical situation". This renegade claimed that the
creation of a Republic of Soviets was "the only fair way under the historical conditions
of 1917", but that this was no longer the case in 1956! And why? Because the
socialist countries would have become very strong, because world capitalism would
have been seriously weakened, because "all working humanity" would aspire to
socialism. These three arguments are false.
The socialist camp had indeed become strong under Stalin. It was a reason for
capitalism to strive with the last energy against its historic adversary. Lenin rightly
pointed out that the strengthening of the Soviet Union made redoubled hatred of all
reactionary forces.
But if the Soviet Union effectively strengthened continuously under Stalin, from 1953,
opportunism undermined the Party and the State from the inside. By decreeing in
1956 "the definitive victory of socialism in the USSR" and the end of the dictatorship
of the proletariat, Khrushchev opened the doors to all the bourgeois currents which
were soon to weaken and politically undermine the socialist state.
The argument "capitalism has become weak" does not at all correspond to reality.
Capitalism would have become so weak and confused that it could no longer launch
its armed forces and fascist formations in a civil war to subdue the workers. The
renegades present the situation in a false light, they move away completely from the
materialistic and objective analysis of realities, they present the big bourgeoisie as a
class almost without means of defense, forced to resign themselves before the
'irresistible' march of socialism ! These lies and illusions serve to "justify" a reformist
line.
The argument "the ideas of socialism take hold of all workers" also expresses
Khrushchev's transition to bourgeois reformism. It should be remembered that
bourgeois and petty-bourgeois "socialisms" were already denounced by Marx and
Engels in 1848 in Le Manifeste. Now, Khrushchev's assertion that all workers
become socialists, is based on the acceptance of bourgeois socialism and petty-
bourgeois socialism as true socialist doctrines! This is frankly confessed by
Ponomarev: "It is not excluded that in many countries, especially where there are old
traditions of parliamentarism and bourgeois democracy, strong social democratic
parties and parties that rely mainly on on the middle strata, the transition to socialism
takes place with the participation in a ruling coalition of several parties with

20. 20
ideological differences, but united by a common objective, the construction of
socialism. "57 The Khrushchevites therefore say explicitly that we can realize
socialism, that is to say the dictatorship of the proletariat in Marx's terminology, with
bourgeois parties like the Social Democratic Party and with parties of the middle
classes!
The revisionists used the great force that socialism acquired under Stalin to make
believe that the cause of communism will now advance without having to wage bitter
and violent battles against capitalism and imperialism.
This spirit of tranquility and passivity towards the class enemy has grown as the
bureaucracy has moved further and further from the working masses, has acquired
privileges and has been enriched by illegal means. . New capitalist forces were able
to develop freely until Gorbachev's open counterrevolution in 1990. By fooling the
Soviet and world proletariat with their weakening "theory" of capitalism and their
assertion that "all become socialists" , Khrushchev and Brezhnev paved the way for
the resumption of savage capitalism and the total loss of socialist gains.
"A stupidity and a deception"
Khrushchev says that the "conquest of a solid majority in parliament" is capable of
"transforming this organ of bourgeois democracy into an instrument of genuine
popular will."
However, no parliament will ever prevent the bourgeoisie from massacring workers
when they want to end private ownership of the means of production. Only the
military force of the oppressed classes can prevent it.
Lenin says: "The very fact of admitting the idea of a peaceful subjugation of the
capitalists to the will of the majority of the exploited, and of a peaceful, reformist
evolution towards socialism, is not only a sign of extreme petty-bourgeois stupidity
also means clearly deceiving the workers, ... hiding the truth. This truth is that the
bourgeoisie, even the most democratic, no longer stops before any lie, nor before
any crime, before the massacre of millions of workers and peasants to save private
property in the means of production. "58
Chapter two
Imperialism is the eve of the socialist revolution
I. The nature of imperialism
Capitalism and monopoly capitalism
In 1916, Lenin analyzed the development of capitalism since the death of Marx and
Engels.
"Liberal" capitalism has been transformed, by the law of competition and the
concentration of capital that follows, into monopoly capitalism. Banking and industrial
monopolies have merged. To make maximum profits, they began to export capital.
The great imperialist powers shared the whole globe.
Since the beginning of the century, the movement of concentration of capital has
continuously progressed as well as the development of the productive forces thanks
to technological innovations.
However, monopoly capitalism also has a tendency to slow down technological
development and in particular because of (temporary) monopolies in certain

21. 21
branches. The limitation of the intellectual and scientific development of the popular
masses and their exclusion from economic decisions also hampers the development
of the productive forces.
State monopoly capitalism and maximum exploitation
Lenin underlines that the domination of the big monopolies, which "merge" with the
bourgeois state apparatus, sharpens all the economic, political and social
contradictions of capitalism.
This tendency was already manifest before 1914, but it was very strongly
accentuated during the first imperialist war.
Lenin showed that during the era of imperialism, the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie
necessarily took on a more ferocious character: "Monopoly capitalism turns into state
monopoly capitalism ... Private ownership of the means of production being
maintained, this increasing monopolization and stateization of production necessarily
leads to a more intense exploitation of the working masses, a more pressing
oppression, resistance to exploiters becoming more difficult. Monopolization and
stateization reinforce the reaction and the military despotism, in at the same time that
they inevitably lead to an unprecedented increase in the profit of the big capitalists at
the expense of all the other strata. "59" The monstrous oppression of the working
masses by the state, which merges ever more closely with all capitalist
groupings. ..powerful, asserts itself more and more. "60
Lenin noted these trends during the First World War. They increased during the
interwar period and led, among other things, to fascization and fascism. Today, these
trends are expressed with even greater force worldwide.
Domestic and foreign policy reaction
The more overwhelming oppression and military despotism are no accident or a
temporary phenomenon. The transformation of the economic base of capitalism has
consequences for its political and ideological superstructure. The economic
monopoly corresponds to the political monopoly of a big bourgeoisie which imposes
its will by the most reactionary methods.
Lenin: "The political superstructure which covers the new economy, monopoly
capitalism ... it is the turning point from democracy to political reaction ... In foreign
policy as in domestic policy, imperialism tends to infringe democracy, to build the
reaction. "61
In internal politics: "The political reaction on the whole line is the characteristic of
imperialism. Venality, corruption in gigantic proportions." 62 "(At the imperialist stage)
the yoke exercised by a handful of monopolists on the rest of the population
becomes a hundred times heavier, more tangible, more intolerable. "63
At the time of sharing the whole world, violence and war are the rule in the foreign
policy of imperialism. "'Peaceful' capitalism has been replaced by non-peaceful,
belligerent and catastrophic imperialism." 64
Monopoly capitalism and fascization
This is how Lenin describes fascization as the fundamental tendency of monopoly
capitalism and imperialism.

22. 22
Creeping fascization and its culmination, open fascism, are not phenomena foreign to
bourgeois democracy; on the contrary, they are expressions of the inevitable
degeneration of bourgeois "democracy" in the age of imperialism.
Under monopoly capitalism and imperialism, the general tendency is towards the
restriction and elimination of the democratic rights of the popular masses, to the
exclusion of the popular masses from the solution of essential political and economic
problems.
Monopoly capitalism imposes its dictatorship as well by the method of fascization and
fascism as by the method of demagogy and the manipulation of the masses. The
different bourgeois parties use these two methods with varying intensity. If the fascist
and right-wing parties favor fascization, they nonetheless resort to social
demagoguery. If the social democratic and reformist parties impose the policy of big
capital especially by social demagogy, they sometimes play a decisive role in the
fascization of the bourgeois regime.
Lenin underlines that monopoly capitalism is characterized by reaction across the
board, by reaction in domestic and foreign policy; he draws the conclusion that
imperialism is the eve of the socialist revolution. Kautskism and revisionism claim to
combat reaction and fascism by aligning themselves behind the "democratic"
bourgeoisie and accepting its leadership. This position is reactionary because it sows
the illusion of a return to the "democratic" past of pre-monopoly capitalism.
To defeat the proletariat and the working masses, the bourgeoisie alternately uses
fascism and "democratic" demagogy. In Chile, the fascist dictatorship of Pinochet
was replaced by bourgeois "democracy" where Christian democracy and social
democracy play the main role ... under the watchful eye of the ex-dictator Pinochet,
still at the head of the army!
In 1945, German fascism was replaced, in the western part of Germany, by
bourgeois "democracy" which kept former Nazis at the head of the army, the police,
the intelligence services, the industry and state administration. At the same time, the
"largest democracy in the world", the United States, opened its doors to 10,000
German, Ukrainian, Croatian, Hungarian Nazis ... 65
The socialist revolution must eliminate the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie not only in
its fascist form, but also in its "democratic" form.
II. Imperialism, war and revolution
Imperialism is war
The monopolies and the imperialist powers share the world not out of 'wickedness' or
because they have chosen a 'bad' policy: they do it out of necessity.
To survive in the ruthless competitive struggle, the monopolies must make maximum
profits and to do so, one must be present in the juiciest markets. Lenin: "If the
capitalists share the world, ... it is because the degree of concentration already
reached obliges them to embark on this path in order to make profits; and they share
it 'in proportion to capital', 'according to the strengths of each' ... Now, the forces
change with economic and political development. "66" It is inconceivable, in a
capitalist regime, that the sharing of areas of influence, interests, colonies, etc. , is
based on something other than the strength of those who share in the sharing, the
economic, financial, military strength, etc. However, the respective strengths of these

23. 23
sharing participants vary unequally, because there can be no in a capitalist system of
uniform development ... of countries. "67
Therefore, as long as imperialism dominates most of the world, colonial wars, wars
between imperialist powers and world wars are inevitable. "Capitalism has become
reactionary. It has developed the productive forces to the point that humanity has
only to go to socialism, or else to endure for years and even decades, the armed
struggle of the ' great powers for the artificial maintenance of capitalism by means of
colonies, monopolies, privileges and national oppressions of all kinds. "68
Imperialism and the World War
The First World War was a consequence of an inevitable repartition between different
imperialist powers.
By the end of the nineteenth century, the world was divided between the colonial
powers, England being the world hegemonic power and France, Belgium, Holland
and Portugal having a "fair share" of the colonies.
German imperialism, which had experienced rapid development only from 1900, had
almost no colonies and demanded a repartition. Two imperialist blocs, the first
comprising England, France, Russia, Belgium and the second consisting of Germany,
the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Turkey, engaged in the First World War. On both
sides, it was criminal since it aimed to destroy the socialist workers' movement in
each country and to conquer new colonies.
From the first days of the First World War, Lenin showed that other world wars would
follow, if the European working class could not bring capitalism and imperialism to an
end by revolution. "Imperialism puts the fate of European civilization at stake: other
wars will soon follow it, unless there is a series of victorious revolutions. The fable of
the 'last war' is a hollow dream and harmful; it is a petty-bourgeois 'myth'. "69
The Second World War was also caused by the need for a re-distribution of the world
between the imperialist powers.
German imperialism, which had lost all of its colonies after 1918, and Japanese
imperialism demanded a new division of the world which corresponded to their
economic and military power.
England and France first tried to push German expansionism against the only
socialist country in the world, the Soviet Union. But ultimately, the world war began
as a war between the imperialist powers for control of Europe, the Balkans and the
Middle East; it then took on its true dimension when the Nazis attacked the Soviet
Union in order to destroy socialism and reduce the country to the state of a German
colony.
After World War II, the United States became the only imperialist superpower, and a
third of humanity took the path of socialism.
In 1952, Stalin stressed that Britain and France would sooner or later try to break
away from American control and that Germany and Japan would rise and try to break
American domination. The danger of war between the imperialist powers remains
intact, said Stalin. Reading his theses, we understand that revisionist ideas had
already developed within the CPSU and that Stalin was forced to react to them. "The
war against the USSR, the country of socialism, is more dangerous for capitalism
than the war between capitalist countries .... The war against the USSR must

24. 24
necessarily raise the question of the very existence of capitalism" "It is said that
Lenin's thesis that imperialism inevitably begets wars, since powerful popular forces
have now sprung up to defend peace against a new world war, must be considered
as obsolete. This is not true. ... does not aim to overthrow capitalism and establish
socialism, it is limited to democratic aims of struggle for the maintenance of peace.
(...) This is not enough to suppress the inevitable wars in general between countries
imperialists ... Despite all the successes of the peace movement, imperialism
remains standing. Consequently, the inevitability of wars also remains intact. To
suppress the inevitable wars, it is necessary to destroy re imperialism. "70
Today, the economic war for the conquest of world markets and for the control of raw
materials is raging between American imperialism, European imperialism under
German domination and Japanese imperialism. Russia, a country totally ravaged by
the restoration of capitalism and which fell under the control of American and German
imperialism, has become a factor of great international instability.
All the imperialist powers are feverishly preparing for external military intervention
and aggression. The flammable material of a third world war accumulates.
Only the revolution will save humanity
Imperialism is the eve of the socialist revolution. The productive forces are ripe for
socialism, the gigantic productive forces can only remain locked in private property at
the cost of oppression, terror and war.
Only the socialist revolution will allow humanity to escape the barbarism of
imperialism and survive in dignity.
"It is impossible to suppress wars, without suppressing classes and without
establishing socialism. (...) We fully recognize the legitimacy, the progressive
character and the necessity of civil wars, that is to say wars of the oppressed class
against the class that oppresses it ... wage workers against the bourgeoisie. "71
As long as imperialism remains, the working class will be drawn into reactionary,
criminal wars. Either the working class is preparing for civil war for socialism and
peace, or it will have to endure other more barbaric world wars than previous ones.
Lenin: "If not during the present war, it will be in the period which follows: ... the flag
of the civil war of the proletariat will become the rallying point not only for hundreds of
thousands of conscious workers, but also of millions of semi-proletarians and petty
bourgeois today fooled by chauvinism, and that the horrors of war, instead of
terrifying and stupefying them only, will enlighten, instruct, awaken, organize, soak
and prepare for war against the bourgeoisie of 'their own' country and 'foreign'
countries. "72
III. Reformism and revisionism against Leninism
Reformism, war and imperialist "peace"
During the first imperialist war, social democracy definitely went over to the side of
the monopoly bourgeoisie and imperialism.
It justified the criminal war waged by its own bourgeoisie. Its "left" wing dangled the
prospect of a "lasting" peace ... after the current war and without the revolutionary
overthrow of the bourgeoisie.
Bourgeois pacifism

25. 25
Social democratic pacifism basically defends the imperialist order. It spreads among
the working masses the illusion of lasting peace without going through the socialist
revolution. Lenin denounces the 'Marxist' Kautsky in these terms: "All the oppressive
classes need, to safeguard their domination, two social functions: that of the
executioner and that of the priest. The executioner must suppress the protest and the
revolt of the oppressed. priest must console the oppressed, trace their prospects ...
for a softening of misfortunes and sacrifices with the maintenance of class
domination and, thereby, make them accept this domination, divert them from
revolutionary action, seek to destroy their revolutionary state of mind and to destroy
their revolutionary energy. Kautsky made Marxism the most repugnant and stupid
counter-revolutionary theory. "73
The imperialist war reveals the acute antagonisms of monopoly capitalism, and these
antagonisms prove precisely that capitalism is a criminal, barbaric and inhuman
system which must be brought to an end at all costs by the socialist revolution. The
reformists throw a veil on these antagonisms, paint imperialism in pink, maintain the
illusion that imperialism is compatible with democracy and peace, and that, therefore,
the socialist revolution is not necessary to liberate the workers. Lenin: "Kautsky
detaches the politics of imperialism from its economy ... The result is that monopolies
in the economy are compatible with political behavior which would exclude monopoly,
violence and conquest ... This amounts to blurring , to dull, the most fundamental
contradictions of the current phase of capitalism, instead of revealing its depth. "74"
The objective social significance ... of Kautsky's "theory" is ... to comfort the masses ,
in an eminently reactionary spirit, by the hope of a permanent peace in a capitalist
regime, by diverting their attention from acute antagonisms. "75
"Peace" to prepare for other wars
Reformers have become the best-performing agents of the bourgeoisie because they
strive to prevent workers and workers from drawing from the bloody horrors of the
imperialist war, the courage and determination to overthrow this criminal system and
build a socialist future.
If the reformists succeed in paralyzing the working class, the latter will inevitably have
to endure other world wars, even more barbaric and genocidal.
Lenin foresaw, immediately after the First World War, the outbreak of a second world
war, in the event that the workers failed to overthrow the bourgeoisie in the main
imperialist centers. "The reformist attitude towards capitalism spawned yesterday
(and will inevitably spawn tomorrow) the imperialist massacre of millions of men and
all kinds of endless crises." 76 Analyzing the opposition between England, reinforced
exit from the war, and all the other imperialist powers, then the antagonism between
the United States and Japan, Lenin concluded in 1919: "All the powers are preparing
a new imperialist war ... A new and furious war is in preparation. "77
The bleating on the "peace" of social democracy is aimed at paralyzing revolutionary
struggles and leading workers to new imperialist wars. "If the revolution of the
proletariat does not overthrow the current ruling classes, there can be no peace other
than a more or less short armistice between imperialist powers, that peace
accompanied by a strengthening of the reaction to the interior, a strengthening of
national oppression and the enslavement of weak nations, the accumulation of
explosive materials, paving the way for new wars. Because of the politics

26. 26
engendered by the whole imperialist era ... inevitably comes a peace based on a new
and even more violent oppression of nations. "78
After the First World War, the reaction inside the imperialist countries as well as the
oppression and the external wars took on an even more violent character.
And today, everyone can realize that the Second World War was followed by a
breathtaking new development of the law enforcement agencies and their control
over the populations in the imperialist countries; the interventions and the external
wars are more barbaric than those which we knew between 1918 and 1939.
Imperialism and the Revolution: Revisionism against Lenin
Lenin showed that at the end of the nineteenth century began a new era, that of
monopoly capitalism, the era of imperialism. The development of the productive
forces requires the transition to socialism. The exacerbation of all the contradictions
of the capitalist world obliges the working class to carry out the socialist revolution to
ensure its survival. Imperialism is the eve of the socialist revolution.
All of Lenin's analysis of the era of imperialism and the political conclusions he drew
from it were rejected by the revisionists Khrushchev, Brezhnev and Gorbachev.
"The era of the automatic collapse of imperialism ..."
The revisionists openly assert that our era is no longer that of imperialism and the
proletarian revolution.
"To apply the contemporary definition of imperialism and proletarian revolutions to
contemporary times which reflects the particularities of a bygone period, where the
forces of imperialism played a dominant role, ... to understand reality, the radical
change in the balance of power. "79
So how do the revisionists define the present day?
They define it as the historical epoch of the automatic collapse of capitalism without
going through the proletarian revolution. Ponomarev writes: "Let us see what are the
new objective factors. (...) These are first of all the radical changes which have
occurred in the relation of class forces in the world and which result from the
transformation of the world system into a decisive factor of the world. social
evolution ... The achievements of the Soviet Union ... exerted an ever increasing
influence on the whole world revolutionary process, facilitating the workers' struggle
in capitalist countries. "80" One after the 'other peoples break resolutely with
capitalism, with imperialism. (...) Capitalism can no longer recover from the blow it
was struck in 1917. We are in the historical epoch ... of the disintegration, decline,
collapse of capitalism, consolidation and complete triumph of socialism on a world
scale. It is not given to capitalism to get out of the deep crisis facing bourgeois
society. "81
We must first observe that the "radical changes in the relationship of class forces in
the world" were exclusively the result of the revolutionary policy applied by Stalin until
his death in 1953. Khrushchev and Brezhnev boasted about the force of the Soviet
Union that Stalin had left them. Now, these revisionists, by attacking all of Stalin's
policy, have started the erosion and destruction of this force! In addition, they extol
the strength of the USSR irrelevant. Stalin never said that the great force that the
Soviet Union had built under his leadership made the proletarian revolution in the
imperialist countries and the anti-imperialist and democratic revolution in the

27. 27
oppressed countries superfluous! However, Khrushchev and Brezhnev take the
pretext of the strength of the USSR to advocate the peaceful transition to socialism in
both imperialist and oppressed countries, capitalism and imperialism collapsing
before peaceful mass movements. .
"The objective laws of capitalism have changed ..."
The revisionists also reject all of Lenin's analysis of the objective laws of monopoly
capitalism, laws which oblige the working class to embark on the path of socialist
revolution.
Ponomarev writes: "The existence of powerful antagonistic tendencies weakens or
modifies the action of certain social and economic laws specific to capitalism. (...)
The competition of the two world systems exerts an ever stronger influence on the
social and economic processes in capitalist society. The politics of the bourgeoisie is
no longer a 'pure' reflection of the objective laws of capitalism. "82" The socialist
system helps to modify certain laws of capitalism and their manifestations. "83
In fact, all the laws of monopoly capitalism that Lenin analyzed and which make the
proletarian revolution necessary are denied: more intense exploitation, monstrous
oppression, political reaction and fascization, militarism, country oppression colonial
and neo-colonial. And of course Lenin's central thesis: imperialism is war.
"Imperialism wants peace"
The revisionists have fallen lower than Kautsky. They assure us that imperialism
wants peace and that it will submit to the will of the people!
After the Second World War, Stalin made it clear to the peoples of the world that
American imperialism was following in the footsteps of Hitlerian imperialism and that
it was feverishly preparing for wars all over the world. Khrushchev took the opposite
view from this Leninist thesis. He declared to the XXth Congress: "The establishment
of lasting friendly relations between the two greatest powers of the world - the Soviet
Union and the United States of America - would have for the consolidation of peace
in the whole world major importance. "84 Ponomarev declares:" The Marxists-
Leninists are convinced that the forces of progress and socialism are able to arrest
the imperialist aggressors, to force imperialism to submit to the will of the people. "
85
In the eyes of the revisionists, imperialism is no longer able to start a world war, to
wage a war against the Soviet Union or another socialist country, or even to
intervene militarily against a revolutionary movement in a third country world! "It
becomes possible to banish world war even before the disappearance of the
capitalist regime which generates it. The strength of the socialist system not only
makes all imperialism's attempts to 'repulse' socialism by military means, to restore
capitalism where it has been liquidated for a long time, but it also obstructs armed
intervention against peoples who are only embarking on the path of revolution.
Previously, a victorious revolution had almost inevitably met with intervention
Counter-revolutionary. Today the situation has radically changed. The imperialists no
longer have the possibility of exporting the counter-revolution without exposing
themselves to serious risks. "86
All this theory was used only to disarm the proletariat of socialist countries, capitalist
countries and neo-colonial countries before imperialism, the deadly enemy of the
international working class!

28. 28
Khrushchev used the most vile blackmail against the Marxist-Leninists who refused
to disarm and renounce the proletarian revolution and the overthrow of imperialism.
He accused the revolutionaries who continued to apply Leninist policy of wanting to
provoke a world nuclear war which would end the existence of humanity!
Lenin said that imperialism could resort to the most extreme forms of barbarism, that
the proletariat had to be ready for any eventuality and prepare for the overthrow of
imperialism. Khrushchev, on the other hand, advocated capitulation, passivity and
despair: "A thermonuclear war would cause such destruction that the progression
towards socialism ... would slow down rather than accelerate." 87
According to Lenin and Stalin, the struggle for peace prepares the struggle for the
triumph of the revolution, in case imperialism dares to start a new war. The
revisionists, on the contrary, are bourgeois pacifists: their so-called "struggle for
peace" will make imperialism soft and reasonable: "Each victory in the struggle for
peace ... cleanses the climate around the world, contributes to the alleviation of the
cold war and anti-communist hysteria. "88 History has shown us exactly the opposite:
the revisionist capitulation degraded the international political climate, pushed the
cold war and anti-communist hysteria to its fills and led to the overthrow of
socialism ...
"The way of October is exceeded"
The revisionists then arrive at the logical conclusion of the above: the path of the
October Revolution is no longer valid. "The coming social revolutions will differ in
many respects from the October revolution ... by their forms, their cadences and in
part by the composition of the participants." 89 The revisionists reject the violent
revolution and advocate reformism: the "peaceful passage" becomes the general line
not only for the imperialist countries, but also for the neo-colonies! 90
We know today that these antileninist conceptions led directly to the dramatic
weakening of the forces of the world revolution and to the restoration of capitalism in
its most barbaric forms in the Soviet Union. The harsh reality before our eyes proves
the complete bankruptcy of all revisionist demagoguery as it proves the relevance of
all the theses advanced by Lenin and defended by Stalin.
Chapter three
Socialist revolution and revolutionary violence
Throughout the world war, Lenin never ceased to denounce the betrayal of the
reformists.
At the time of the foundation of the Third International, the central point of its defense
of revolutionary Marxism against reformism was this: "To gain victory over the
bourgeoisie, the proletariat must come to armed insurrection." "The civil war is on the
agenda all over the world. The motto is: 'Power to the Soviets'." "The Communist
International is the party of the insurrection of the revolutionized world proletariat." 91
If for reformists and revisionists, the word "revolution" has a purely demagogic
meaning, Lenin stressed that this notion necessarily includes revolutionary violence
and aims at the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
I. Revolution is a bitter war
Lenin said against future revisionists: "The great revolutions, even when they started
peacefully, like the great French Revolution, ended in bitter wars, unleashed by the

29. 29
counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie. And it cannot be otherwise, if we consider the
question from the point of view of the class struggle, and not of petty-bourgeois
phraseology on freedom, equality, labor democracy and the will of the majority ... )
There can be no peaceful development towards socialism. "92
We want to systematize in this part four fundamental positions of Lenin with regard to
revolutionary violence.
To better highlight their importance, let us first see how the revisionists dealt with the
issue of violence.
The revisionist Khrushchev has rehabilitated all of Kautsky and Vandervelde's
conceptions of revolutionary violence. This was presented as a struggle against
"dogmatism" and a return to "invigorating Marxism"! The XXth Congress said:
"Historical experience ... teaches us the need for an intransigent struggle to
overcome dogmatism which dries up the life-giving source of Marxism. Dogmatism
obstructs the progress of the communist movement." 93
From the XXth Congress, the defense of the armed insurrection by Lenin, who made
this question the main point of rupture with the reformists, was accused of dogmatic
attitude! Ponomarev writes: "The founders of Marxism were far from making the
armed insurrection an absolute, a dogma, to consider it as the only means of the
socialist revolution." 94
The Soviet revisionists approve of their Chilean disciples, who, a few years later, will
be responsible for the bloody defeat of the Chilean revolution! "The Latin American
communists start from the fact that the revolution is not synonymous with the armed
struggle. (...) 'The thesis of the peaceful way, one reads in the Program of the
Communist Party of Chile, is not not a tactical formula. It is a fundamental demand of
the communist movement '. "95
Systematically instill the idea of the violent revolution
In his most famous and most read work, The State and the Revolution, Lenin points
out precisely this point to treat the Kautsky, Tsérételli and Dan, these predecessors
of Khrushchev and Corvallan, "traitors to the doctrine of Marx and Engels "!
Speaking of Friedrich Engels' Anti-Dühring, Lenin writes: "This work by Engels ...
contains reasoning on the importance of the violent revolution. The historical
appreciation of its role is transformed in Engels into a veritable panegyric of the
violent revolution. Of that, 'nobody remembers'; it is not customary in socialist parties
today to speak of the importance of this idea ... In propaganda and the daily agitation
among the masses, these ideas play no role. (...) Here is Engels 'reasoning:' ... that
violence ... is the birth attendant of any old society which wears one new in its flanks;
let it be the instrument by which the social movement prevails and tears apart frozen
and dead political forms - of that, not a word in Mr. Dühring. ' (...) This panegyric is
not in the least the effect of a 'craze', nor a declamation, nor a polemic joke. The
need to systematically instill in the masses this idea - and precisely this one - the
violent revolution is at the base of all the doctrine of Marx and Engels.The betrayal of
their doctrine ... is expressed with a singular relief in oblivion ... of this propaganda,
this agitation. violent, it is impossible to substitute the proletarian state for the
bourgeois state. "96
Insurrection is an art