The following is the fifth in a series of articles under the title “Hold High the Bright Red Banner of Marxism-Leninism and Proletarian Internationalism”. The first four parts appeared in PCDN, Volume 7 Numbers 221, 222, 223 and 224, dated, September 15, 16, 17 and 19, respectively.
* * *
We have made some initial comments as well as have presented Lenin’s theory of proletarian revolution, Lenin’s approach to the question of proletarian revolution and Lenin’s view on the victory of socialism in one country. Now, we will take up the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat. We have already quoted from Stalin where he points out that “Leninism is Marxism of the era of imperialism and the proletarian revolution. To be more exact, Leninism is the theory and tactics of the proletarian revolution in general, the theory and tactics of the dictatorship of the proletariat in particular.” But the theoreticians of “three worlds”, while recognizing “Lenin’s outstanding contributions to the theory of the proletarian revolution and dictatorship of the proletariat” fail to recognize Leninism as:
1. “... Marxism of the era of imperialism and the proletarian revolution”,
2. “... the theory and tactics of the proletarian revolution in general”, and
3. “... the theory and tactics of the dictatorship of the proletariat in particular.”
The theoreticians of “three worlds” state: “Lenin developed the Marxist thesis on the dictatorship of the proletariat in both theory and practice, pointing out that after the proletariat seizes political power, acute and complicated class struggle still exists as does the danger of capitalist restoration, and that it remains necessary to strengthen the dictatorship of the proletariat. But Lenin died too early to see with his own eyes the completion of the socialist transformation of the ownership of the means of production and it was impossible for him to answer the question clearly and definitely.” Thus Leninism is not “the theory and tactics of the dictatorship of the proletariat in particular” as “Lenin died too early to see with his own eyes the completion of the socialist transformation of the ownership of the means of production and it was impossible for him to answer the question clearly and definitely.” Thus Leninism is dismissed as “Lenin’s outstanding contributions to the theory of the proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat...”
In order to dismiss Leninism completely, the theoreticians of “three worlds” counterpose Mao Tsetung to Leninism under the hoax that he “created the great systematic theory of continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat.” Here is the full quote from the theoreticians of “three worlds”: “in the same field, Chairman Mao’s outstanding contributions are that he summed up the historical experience of the dictatorship of the proletariat since Lenin, inherited, defended and developed the teachings of Marx and Lenin, revealed the law of development of socialist society, created the great systematic theory of continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat, and clearly charted the true road to consolidating the dictatorship of the proletariat, preventing capitalist restoration and building socialism for the countries in which the proletarian revolution has triumphed.” The theoreticians of “three worlds” conclude: “It is the most important achievement of Marxism in our time.
“Chairman Mao’s outstanding contributions are that he summed up the historical experience of the dictatorship of the proletariat since Lenin...” What happened to Stalin? Why did Chairman Mao not sum up “the historical experience of the dictatorship of the proletariat since” Stalin? Because, according to the theoreticians of “three worlds”, Stalin “was a great Marxist-Leninist. He inherited the cause of Lenin and led the Soviet people in achieving socialist industrialization and agricultural collectivization and winning victory in the anti-fascist war. In practice, he waged resolute struggles against various counter-revolutionary bourgeois representatives who had wormed their way into the Party. Yet, theoretically he did not acknowledge that after collectivization of agriculture, the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie and between the socialist road and the capitalist road continued in the Soviet Union. For a long time, he did not look at socialist society from the materialist dialectical viewpoint of the unity of opposites, but saw it as an integrated whole where there is only identity, but no contradictions.” Thus the historical experience of the dictatorship of the proletariat under the leadership of Stalin is not only out of bounds to the international proletariat, but it is “negative” because Stalin “did not look at socialist society from the materialist dialectical viewpoint of the unity of opposites...” Furthermore, the theoreticians of “three worlds” allege that “Under the influence of this idea” of Stalin, “there prevailed in the international communist movement for a long time the viewpoint which refused to recognize that class struggle continues between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie after the completion of socialist transformation of the ownership of the means of production, that such class struggle will manifest itself in the form of the struggle between two different lines within the Party, and that the danger of a capitalist restoration remains.” Thus, Stalin was not a great disciple of Lenin and Stalin did not defend Leninism, which is “theory and tactics of the dictatorship of the proletariat in particular,” and this entire period of the historical experience of the dictatorship of the proletariat should be denied and studied as “negative” experience. The theoreticians of “three worlds” state right after the paragraph quoted above that “The bitter lesson of the usurpation of the leadership of the Soviet Communist Party and state and the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union by the Khrushchev renegade clique placed a serious task before Marxist-Leninists, the task of conscientiously summing up the historical experience of the dictatorship of the proletariat and reconsidering the related questions.” Thus, the task of the genuine Marxist-Leninist parties was not to defend Leninism and oppose the Khrushchov renegade clique and to defend the life and work of Stalin. On the contrary, according to the theoreticians of “three worlds”, the “task before Marxist-Leninists” was “summing up the historical experience of the dictatorship of the proletariat and reconsidering the related qbestions.” So, they have gone through the period of reconsidering the related questions“ and have come to the erroneous conclusion that the problem with the International Communist Movement was not the treachery of Khrushchov after the death of Stalin, but that it was the “fault” of Stalin, because for a long time, “he did not look at socialist society from the materialist dialectical viewpoint of the unity of opposites”, etc. So, as a result of “reconsidering the related questions”, they have come up with the concoction after the death of Mao Tsetung that Chairman Mao “revealed the law of development of socialist society”, etc. This “reconsidering of related questions” has led them to attack Leninism and to do so by using the old Khrushchovite trick of seemingly defending Leninism by attacking Stalin and then covering up their ow revisionist and opportunist positions by creating maximum confusion on various important ideological and political questions, for example, Lenin’s theory of proletarian revolution, Lenin’s approach to the question of proletarian revolution and` Lenin’s view on the victory of socialism in one country and the final victory of socialism. It is a conscious and deliberate attack on the theory of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism organized with the ulterior motive of revising Marxism-Leninism and justifying capitulation to and collaboration with imperialism, social-imperialism and all reaction and capitalist restoration in China.
The Soviet Union was the first socialist state of the dictatorship of the proletariat and Lenin and Stalin were its great leaders. After the death of Lenin, Stalin continued the work of Lenin of consolidating the dictatorship of the proletariat and transformation of the economic base by socializing industry and collectivizing agriculture and carrying on the vigorous mechanization of agriculture and establishing a vigorous industrial base for socialist economy. He also carried out struggle against those who attempted to change the course of socialist revolution and socialist construction in the Soviet Union and vigorously defended Marxism-Leninism, and vanquished those enemies of the proletariat and people, the agents of foreign imperialist powers and reactionaries. He also led the revolutionizing of the cultural superstructure and right to his death defended Marxism-Leninism, the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat, socialism and provided tremendous support to the revolutionary struggles of the proletariat and the national liberation movement everywhere. He led the mighty socialist camp on the basis of fraternal cooperation between socialist states by adhering to Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism. He opposed Tito’s blatant interference in the internal affairs of Albania and Tito’s attempt to seize control of the Communist Party of Albania and to annex Albania. The international communist movement, under his leadership, vigorously expelled renegade Tito from its ranks. Defence of Marxism-Leninism was his merit. It is this that the theoreticians of “three worlds” are attacking. Later on we will deal with the struggle of Stalin against the Bukharin-Zinoviev-Trotskyite counter-revolutionary lines on the question of the victory of socialism in one country, the peasant question, the role of the Party in the state systern of the dictatorship of the proletariat and we will show that the theroeticians of “three worlds” are in the company of these renegades. Furthermore, the theoreticians of “three worlds” are restorationists. This is why it is extremely crucial for them to cause maximum ideological and political confusion in order to cover up their tracks. This is why they are distorting the aims and content of the struggle of the genuine Marxist-Leninist parties against Titoite revisionism, Khrushchovite revisionism and opportunism of all hues. This is why they are distorting the aims and content of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. This is why they are interfering everywhere in the affairs of the Marxist-Leninist parties in various countries. Their unsolicited confession that they have been “reconsidering related questions” clearly exposes them and explains clearly that the visit of Tito to China was part and parcel of their “reconsidering”