Children's disease of leftism Now we need to consider situations in which the doctor acts as a "Child". Basically, such a belittling of one's position occurs if the doctor is not sure that he can use products or recommend drugs. Almost always doc

The childhood disease of "leftism" in communism is the work of V. I. Lenin, written in 1920.

In what sense should one speak of the international significance of the Russian revolution?

After the Russian revolution, it seemed that the revolution in the West would be very different, but now it is clear that the international lies in its worldwide expansion. However, even after the revolution, Russia remained backward in the Soviet sense, but was able to sow revolutionary influence in the West. This was also foreseen by Kautsky, being a Marxist in 1902. He wrote that Russia had taken over the revolutionary baton from Europe, and the cause of the revolution now lay with the Slavs. In addition to autocracy, Russian revolutionaries must fight international capital.

One of the main conditions for the success of the Bolsheviks

The Bolsheviks would not have retained power if it were not for party discipline and the ability to lead the people. The strength of the bourgeoisie lies in the influence of international capital and the strong ties of small-scale commodity production, which capitalism is strengthening more and more firmly. Party discipline is reinforced by the self-consciousness of communists, their ability to integrate into the working masses, and the correct leadership of the Communist Party. Also, the reason for the victory of the Bolsheviks can be considered reliance on the experience of the labor movement of the nineteenth century, connections with foreign comrades-in-arms, and their own experience of the struggle (1903-1917).

The main stages in the history of Bolshevism

• 1. The years of the revolution (1905-1907) - the first Russian revolution, the "dress rehearsal" of the 1917 revolution.
• 2. The years of reaction (1907-1910) - a time of decline, a tendency towards idealism, the classes received a good lesson, learned how to retreat correctly, the patriarchal life in Russia collapsed, splits in the revolutionary movement.
• 3. Years of rise (1910-1914) - at first the rise was slow, then it accelerated after the Lena events of 1912. Bolshevism pushed back the Mensheviks and won the workers' curia in the Duma.
• 4. The First World Imperialist War (1914-1917) - parliamentarism rendered an invaluable service to the Bolsheviks. The renegades of the West criticize the pacifism of the Bolsheviks, which caused the victory of the former.
• 5. Revolution (1917) - tsarism fell, the Mensheviks and slanderers of the Second International showed their essence.

During these stages, the Bolsheviks did not boycott the government and parliament, but only pointed to their overthrow.

In the struggle with what enemies Bolshevism grew, grew stronger and hardened

• In the fight against opportunism, which has grown into social chauvinism.
• In the struggle against petty-bourgeois revolutionism, which looks like anarchism. Petty bourgeois often go bankrupt, so they become revolutionary without discipline and a clear ideology. The instability and futility of such a movement turns into a kind of fashion. The reasons for the defeat of anarchism are the struggle of Bolshevism with it and its magnificent flowering at the end of the nineteenth century, which showed its failure. Bolshevism also showed itself in the fight against the Social Revolutionaries. The Socialist-Revolutionaries did not understand and did not recognize Marxism, recognized only individual terror, supported opportunism on the agrarian question and on the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The Bolsheviks achieved what the Social Democracy dreamed of, being revolutionary, having established Soviet power. Sometimes I had to compromise and fight the revolutionary bourgeoisie. We are talking about the attitude towards the parliament in 1908 and the Brest-Litovsk peace. It came to the exclusion of the most "leftist" elements from the party. When the tsar announced elections to the Duma, it used to be necessary to boycott them if the matter was close to an uprising. In 1918, things came to an ideological split, when "comrades" like Radek and Bukharin sabotaged the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, not understanding the necessity of such a compromise. What can not be said about the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, who made compromises with Germany and France, against their own people. These things need to be distinguished.

"Left" communism in Germany. Leaders-party-class-mass

The German communists imagine themselves not so much as leftists as oppositionists. This is also a manifestation of such a "disease". They are confused about the question of who should be the bearer of the dictatorship of the proletariat: the class or the party? They reject collaboration with any other parties, dividing their own into a "party of leaders" and a "party of the class." They come to incredible confusion about the fact that society is divided into classes. They call off the interests of this or that class, choosing their own "leaders". The reason for all this is legalism, open elections, meetings, and so on. The reason for the differences between the leaders and the masses is the separation of the labor aristocracy and the creation of opportunist parties. The denial of party discipline played into the hands of the enemies of the people. To destroy the classes is not only to kill the big proprietors, but also the petty producers. That can only be achieved with long-term work. It is many times easier to defeat the big bourgeoisie than the multitude of petty proprietors. To protect themselves, the bourgeoisie will send provocateurs to the proletarian parties. The Bolshevik Party is no exception.

Should revolutionaries work in reactionary trade unions?

The German Left gives an unequivocal negative answer. In 1920 there were 611,000 members in the Bolshevik Party, but this is not good, since there may be opportunists among them. The Party relies in governing the country on the trade unions, without which contact with the masses is impossible. Various kinds of inspections are needed to monitor the mood of the working people. Not to mention the Soviets. Capitalism left many vestiges of proletarian society as a legacy, and this also affected the trade unions. They get rid of them through their growth and development. At one time they played a big role in the initial stages of the development of capitalism, becoming a form of class association of workers. With the advent of the proletarian party, some trade unions became reactionary. Therefore, trade unions are needed that would make the government of the country more harmonious, becoming a kind of "school of communism". The reactionary nature of the trade unions is inevitable after the coming of the proletariat to power. But this does not mean that you need to strive for their ideal. The proletariat will come to power when it acquires significant support among the masses. In the West, the opportunists have entrenched themselves in the trade unions even more strongly than in Russia. Dealing with them is difficult, but necessary. In the name of the entire working class, the "Lefts" call on the Communists not to participate in the reactionary trade unions. Partly because their leaders are themselves agents of the bourgeoisie. The participation of communists in reactionary trade unions is necessary to influence the masses, because the number of trade union members is growing every year, in view of the growth of class consciousness. The leaders of such trade unions will squeeze the communists out of there by any means, so we must be prepared for anything. The introduction of agents of the bourgeoisie into true trade unions in the West is much more difficult than in Russia. In general, the Second International must condemn the talk about the non-participation of the Communists in the reactionary trade unions.

Should we participate in bourgeois parliaments?

The German Communists regard this method as an obsolete form of struggle. This is true to use in propaganda, but not in practice. In the same way, it was possible to declare capitalism an obsolete system many years ago, but continue to fight against it. Parliamentarism can be outlived only after the advent of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Moreover, the German left insisted on its own contrary to Luxembourg and Liebknecht. And the inability to admit one's mistake is a great shortcoming for the proletarian party. The German communists accuse the people of going to the polls. But if this is so, then parliamentarism has not outlived itself politically. And there is no need to put forward your own opinion as valid. And one should not confuse methods outdated for the Party and outdated for the masses. Another thing is that we should not stop telling the backward sections of the population the truth about the elections for the purpose of agitation. Until the proletariat comes to power, it is necessary to work in the sphere of parliamentarism. The Bolsheviks participated in the elections to the Constituent Assembly, while having more rights to say that parliamentarism had outlived itself, because Russia was ready to break the bourgeois apparatus. The participation of communists in parliament is necessary in order to prove that it is worthy of nothing but dispersal. The Dutch left believed that when capitalism was broken, then parliamentarianism lost its significance, compared to the action of the masses. Parliament will become the center of the counter-revolution, and the workers will no longer participate in the elections. First, any action of the masses is always above parliamentarism. Secondly, participation is necessary for advocacy. It takes a long time to prepare for the dispersal of parliament. Thus, the dispersal of the Constituent Assembly was facilitated by the presence of Bolsheviks in it. The easiest way to discredit any political idea is to bring it to the point of absurdity. This is what the Dutch left does. It is possible to boycott elections only in conditions of a mass strike movement. In the West, such methods are unsuitable. It is impossible to build tactics on the mood of the population alone, it must be built in accordance with the specifics of this or that country on a global scale. It is impossible to show one's revolutionary spirit only by criticizing parliamentarism; it is much more difficult to create a revolutionary faction in parliament. The easiest way to make a revolution is when you do not start anew, but bring it to the end under the following circumstances: to use unrest, war, discontent of the people, squabbles in the camp of the bourgeoisie, the labor movement. It is much more difficult to repeat all this in the West, since people are more saturated with bourgeois propaganda. Party leaders need to be forged both in the underground and in the parliamentary arena. Leaders who do not want to participate in the elections should be replaced by more creative comrades.

No compromises?

The German Blanquists insist that they are ready to go to their goal, do not stop at anything, and make no compromises. Not stopping even where historical development promises. And they dream of building communism overnight. The denial of compromise is characteristic of young, inexperienced revolutionaries. One must understand the difference between forced compromises and treacherous compromises. This can be very difficult to do. Also, the German left denies any collaboration with other parties. But the Bolsheviks collaborated with the bourgeois parties before and after the revolution. Without this, making a revolution is a vague prospect. As well as without exploiting the cracks between bourgeois ties. It must be understood that Marxism is not a dogma, but a guide to action, and political activity is not a pure Nevsky Prospekt. For example, the old editorial board of Iskra collaborated with the liberal Struve. In 1907, an electoral alliance was concluded with the Socialist-Revolutionaries. During the war, the Bolsheviks collaborated with the Kautskyites and the Mensheviks. After the revolution, compromises had to be made with the kulaks. It is also necessary to maneuver with the semi-proletarians, who surround the “pure” proletariat, in order to increase its self-awareness. Such compromises are needed to make it easier to defeat enemies. There are many elements in society that vacillate between bourgeois and proletarian qualities. Such people must be won over to the working people, fighting those who turn to the bourgeoisie. Thus, the Bolsheviks managed to lure the workers from the Menshevik Party.

"Left" communism in England

In England at that time there was no Communist Party, but there were its sprouts. An obstacle to the creation of the party was the disagreement over participation in the elections. The great mistake of the British Left is the hope of making a revolution at the expense of the discontent of the masses alone. For this, it is necessary to educate competent class politicians. But their advantage is an understanding of the role of the Soviets in the management of the proletarian state. But they did not understand that it was impossible to destroy parliamentarism without using parliamentary methods, using the experience of the Russian revolution. The British renegades learned a lot from the Marxists and, having gone over to the camp of the bourgeoisie, they called on the liberals and conservatives to unite in the fight against the communists. Many "leftists" in England also insisted that the Communists should not take part in the elections and should not make any compromises. It's all exactly what to go one to five. The revolution can win only when both the top and bottom of society do not want to live in the old way. For this it is necessary that the bourgeoisie go through a political crisis. To do this, you need to be able to lead the masses, convince them that you are right, help them become disillusioned with the current government. For the development of the communist movement in England, it would not be bad to create a party and a faction in Parliament. It was difficult for the English Left to reach out to the masses, as they had discredited themselves by their friendship with renegades. At the same time, they blame the English proletariat, saying that in Russia the proletariat is better, since it followed the Bolsheviks.

Some Conclusions

The revolution of 1905 gave a huge leap to the strike movement in Russia. The revolutions of 1917 led the proletariat to victory. But the struggle does not end there, there is a struggle against opportunism of all stripes on a worldwide scale. The West should fight better than Russia, but it turns out the other way around. The fight against opportunism in each country must be conducted in its own way, in accordance with its specifics. For the struggle it is necessary to involve the vanguard of the workers in it, to build up political experience. Winning the trust of the masses is impossible without admitting one's own mistakes. The creation of the Communist Party must begin with circles that yield fruitful results. To win, it is necessary that the enemies become confused and weakened in the struggle with each other. Differences in the camp of the bourgeoisie are important for the practical action of the masses. A communist must combine devotion to ideals and the ability to compromise. The revolutionary class must have the ability to master all forms of social activity and be ready for any changes in society. The greater the means of struggle the slave class has, the more chances it has of winning. Many people think that only illegal methods are revolutionary, but this is not so because you need to master legal ones and at the right time determine a revolutionary turn in society. For this it is necessary to conduct preparatory work in society, in all spheres of public life. This is especially true for the lower strata of the population. It is necessary to use clumsy anti-communist propaganda for self-popularization. If communism is blocked from one outlet in the world, then it will find another, the most unexpected one. The White Terror does not suppress communism, but hardens it. The leaders of the Second International were unable to cut through the changes in the working-class movement and fill it with the necessary content.

Source: Lenin V.I. Children's disease of "leftism" in communism // Lenin V.I., Complete works, fifth edition, vol. 41.

“In the first months after the conquest of political power in Russia by the proletariat (October 25-November 7, 1917), it might have seemed that the vast differences between backward Russia and the advanced Western European countries would make the revolution of the proletariat in these latter very little like ours. We now have before us a very respectable international experience, which speaks with complete certainty that some of the main features of our revolution have not local, not national-special, not only Russian, but international significance. And I am speaking here of international significance not in the broad sense of the word: not some, but all the main and many secondary features of our revolution have international significance in the sense of its impact on all countries. No, in the narrowest sense of the word, i.e., understanding by international significance the international significance or the historical inevitability of a repetition on an international scale of what we had, one has to recognize such a significance for some of the main features of our revolution.

Of course, it would be the greatest mistake to exaggerate this truth, to extend it beyond some of the main features of our revolution. In the same way, it would be a mistake to lose sight of the fact that after the victory of the proletarian revolution, at least in one of the advanced countries, there will in all probability come a sharp turning point, namely: soon after that, Russia will become not exemplary, but again backward (in the “Soviet” and in the socialist sense) country.

But at the present historical moment, the situation is precisely such that the Russian model shows everyone countries something, and very significant, from their inevitable and near future. The advanced workers in all countries understood this a long time ago, and even more often they did not so much understand it, but seized it with the instinct of the revolutionary class, sensed it. Hence the international “meaning” (in the narrow sense of the word) of Soviet power, as well as the foundations of Bolshevik theory and tactics” (pp. 3-4)

“Probably, almost everyone now sees that the Bolsheviks would not have lasted in power not only for 2 ½ years, but even 2 ½ months without the strictest, truly iron discipline in our party, without the most complete and selfless support of it by the entire mass of the working class, that is, everything that is thoughtful, honest, self-sacrificing, influential, capable of leading or captivating the backward strata in it. The dictatorship of the proletariat is the most selfless and most merciless war of the new class against more powerful enemy, against the bourgeoisie, whose resistance tenfold its overthrow (at least in one country) and whose power lies not only in the strength of international capital, in the strength and stability of the international ties of the bourgeoisie, but also in force of habit in force small production. For small-scale production still remains in the world, unfortunately, very, very much, and small-scale production gives birth capitalism and the bourgeoisie constantly, daily, hourly, spontaneously and on a massive scale. For all these reasons, the dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary, and victory over the bourgeoisie is impossible without a long, stubborn, desperate war not to the stomach, but to the death - a war that requires endurance, discipline, firmness, inflexibility and unity of will ”(p. 5 - 6)

“And above all, the question is: what keeps the discipline of the revolutionary party of the proletariat? how is it checked? what is supported? First, the consciousness of the proletarian vanguard and its devotion to the revolution, its endurance, self-sacrifice, heroism. Secondly, by his ability to contact, to draw closer, to a certain extent, if you like, to merge with the broadest mass of working people, primarily the proletarian, but also with non-proletarian the working masses. Thirdly, the correctness of the political leadership exercised by this vanguard, the correctness of its political strategy and tactics, provided that the broadest masses own experience convinced of this correctness. Without these conditions, discipline in a revolutionary party that is really capable of being the party of an advanced class that has the power to overthrow the bourgeoisie and transform the whole of society is impossible. Without these conditions, attempts to create discipline will inevitably turn into empty words, into a phrase, into antics. And these conditions, on the other hand, cannot arise immediately. They are developed only by long work, hard experience; their development is facilitated by a correct revolutionary theory, which, in turn, is not a dogma, but finally takes shape only in close connection with the practice of a really mass and really revolutionary movement ”(pp. 6-7)

“Marxism, as the only correct revolutionary theory, Russia is truly suffered a half-century history of unheard of suffering and sacrifice, unprecedented revolutionary heroism, incredible energy and selflessness of search, learning, testing in practice, disappointment, verification, comparison of European experience. Thanks to the emigration forced by tsarism, revolutionary Russia in the second half of the 19th century possessed such a wealth of international ties, such excellent knowledge of the world forms and theories of the revolutionary movement, as no other country in the world ”(p. 8)

“On the other hand, Bolshevism, which arose on this granite theoretical basis, went through a fifteen-year (1903-1917) practical history, which, in terms of richness of experience, has no equal in the world. For in no other country during these 15 years has even approximately so much been experienced in terms of revolutionary experience, the speed and variety of changes in various forms of movement, legal and illegal, peaceful and stormy, underground and open, circle and mass, parliamentary and terrorist. In no country has such a wealth of forms, shades, methods of struggle been concentrated on such a short period of time. all classes of modern society, moreover, the struggle, which, due to the backwardness of the country and the severity of the oppression of tsarism, matured especially quickly, especially eagerly and successfully assimilated for itself the corresponding “last word” of American and European political experience” (p. 8)

“To be more precise: in the struggle of the press organs, parties, factions, groups, those ideological and political trends that are really class-based are crystallized; classes are forging for themselves the proper ideological and political weapons for the coming battles” (p. 9)

“The change of parliamentary and non-parliamentary forms of struggle, the tactics of boycotting parliamentarism with the tactics of participating in parliamentarism, legal forms of struggle and illegal ones, as well as their relationships and connections - all this is distinguished by an amazing richness of content. Each month of this period was equal, in the sense of teaching the basics of political science - and the masses and leaders, and classes and parties - a year of "peaceful" "constitutional" development. Without the “dress rehearsal” of 1905, the victory of the October Revolution of 1917 would have been impossible” (pp. 9-10)

"The years of reaction (1907-1910). Tsarism won. All revolutionary and opposition parties have been smashed. Decline, demoralization, splits, disunity, defection, pornography in place of politics. Strengthening the craving for philosophical idealism; mysticism as a vestment of counter-revolutionary sentiments. But at the same time, it is precisely the great defeat that gives the revolutionary parties and the revolutionary class a real and most useful lesson, a lesson in historical dialectics, a lesson in understanding, skill and art in waging a political struggle. Friends are known in adversity. Broken armies learn well” (p. 10)

“Revolutionary parties must complete their studies. They learned to attack. Now we have to understand that this science needs to be supplemented with a science of how to retreat more correctly. One has to understand - and the revolutionary class learns to understand from its own bitter experience - that it is impossible to win without learning the correct offensive and the correct retreat. Of all the defeated opposition and revolutionary parties, the Bolsheviks retreated in the greatest order, with the least damage to their "army", with the greatest preservation of its core, with the least (in terms of depth and incurability) splits, with the least demoralization, with the greatest ability to resume work most widely, right and strong. And the Bolsheviks achieved this only because they mercilessly exposed and drove the revolutionaries out of the phrases that did not want to understand that we must retreat, that we must be able to retreat, that we must definitely learn how to work legally in the most reactionary parliaments, in the most reactionary professional, cooperative, insurance and similar organizations” (p. 10 — 11)

“And if Bolshevism managed to win in 1917-1920, then one of the main reasons for this victory is that Bolshevism, since the end of 1914, has mercilessly exposed the vileness, abomination and meanness of social chauvinism and “Kautskyism” (which corresponds to Longuetism in France, the views of the leaders of the Independent Labor Party and the Fabians in England, Turati in Italy, etc.), while the masses later became more and more convinced by their own experience of the correctness of the views of the Bolsheviks” (pp. 11-12)

“The Bolsheviks began their victorious struggle against the parliamentary (actually) bourgeois republic and against the Mensheviks very cautiously and did not prepare at all simply - contrary to the views that are now often found in Europe and America. We Not called at the beginning of this period to overthrow the government, but explained the impossibility of overthrowing it without preliminary changes in the composition and mood of the Soviets. We did not proclaim a boycott of the bourgeois parliament, the Constituent Assembly, but said - from the April (1917) Conference of our Party10 we said officially on behalf of the Party that a bourgeois republic with a Constituent Assembly is better than the same republic without a Constituent Assembly, and a "workers' and peasants", Soviet, republic is better than any bourgeois-democratic, parliamentary, republic. Without such careful, thorough, prudent and lengthy preparations, we could not have won a victory in October 1917, nor could we have kept this victory ”(p. 13)

IN THE FIGHT WITH WHAT ENEMIES INSIDE THE LABOR MOVEMENT DID BOLSHEVISM GROW UP, STRENGTHEN AND TIGHTEN?

First and foremost, in the struggle against opportunism, which in 1914 definitively developed into social-chauvinism, definitively went over to the side of the bourgeoisie against the proletariat. This was, naturally, the main enemy of Bolshevism within the workers' movement. This enemy remains the main one on an international scale. It is to this enemy that Bolshevism has paid and continues to pay the most attention. This side of the Bolsheviks' activity is now fairly well known abroad.

Something else must be said about the other enemy of Bolshevism within the working-class movement. They still know too little abroad that Bolshevism has grown, matured and tempered in the long struggle against petty-bourgeois revolutionism, which looks like anarchism or borrows something from it, which deviates in everything essential from the conditions and requirements of a sustained proletarian class struggle. Theoretically, it is quite established for Marxists - and the experience of all European revolutions and revolutionary movements is fully confirmed - that the small proprietor, the small proprietor (a social type that in many European countries has a very wide, mass representation), experiencing under capitalism constantly oppression and very often incredibly a sharp and rapid deterioration of life and ruin, easily passes to extreme revolutionary, but is not able to show restraint, organization, discipline, stamina. The petty bourgeois, “enraged” by the horrors of capitalism, is a social phenomenon that, like anarchism, is characteristic of all capitalist countries. The instability of such revolutionism, its futility, its ability to quickly turn into humility, apathy, fantasy, even into a "mad" passion for one or another bourgeois "fashionable" trend - all this is well known. But the theoretical, abstract recognition of these truths does not in the least rid the revolutionary parties of the old mistakes, which always appear on an unexpected occasion, in a slightly new form, in a garb or environment never seen before, in an original, more or less original, setting. 14 - 15)

“Anarchism has often been a kind of punishment for the opportunistic sins of the labor movement. Both ugliness mutually supplemented each other. And if in Russia, despite the more petty-bourgeois composition of its population in comparison with European countries, anarchism enjoyed a relatively insignificant influence during both revolutions (1905 and 1917) and during the preparation for them, then this, undoubtedly, should be partly credited to Bolshevism. who has always waged the most merciless and implacable struggle against opportunism” (p. 15)

“Bolshevism, when it arose in 1903, adopted the tradition of a merciless struggle against petty-bourgeois, semi-anarchist (or capable of flirting with anarchism) revolutionism, a tradition that revolutionary Social Democracy has always had and was especially strengthened in our country in 1900-1903, when the foundations of a mass party were laid. revolutionary proletariat in Russia. Bolshevism accepted and continued the struggle against the party that most of all expressed the tendencies of petty-bourgeois revolutionism, namely the party of "Socialist-Revolutionaries", on three main points. Firstly, this party, which rejected Marxism, stubbornly refused (or rather, perhaps it would be better to say: could not) understand the need for a strictly objective account of class forces and their relationships before any political action. Secondly, this party saw its special "revolutionary" or "leftist" nature in its recognition of individual terror, assassination attempts, which we Marxists resolutely rejected. Of course, we rejected individual terror only for reasons of expediency, and people who would be able "on principle" to condemn the terror of the great French revolution, or in general terror on the part of the victorious revolutionary party, besieged by the bourgeoisie of the whole world, such people were still Plekhanov in 1900-1903, when Plekhanov was a Marxist and a revolutionary, he was ridiculed and spit upon. Thirdly, the “socialists-revolutionaries” saw the “leftist” in giggling over the small relatively opportunistic sins of German social democracy along with the imitation of the extreme opportunists of the same party in the matter, for example, agrarian or in the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat. History, to say in passing, has now given, on a large, world-historical scale, confirmation of the opinion we have always defended, namely, that revolutionary German Social Democracy (note that even in 1900-1903 Plekhanov demanded the expulsion of Bernstein from the party, and the Bolsheviks, always continuing this tradition, in 1913 exposed all the meanness, meanness and betrayal of Leghin) - that the revolutionary German Social Democracy closest was with the kind of party that the revolutionary proletariat needs so that it can win” (pp. 15-16)

“In two cases, the struggle of Bolshevism against the deviations “to the left” of its own party took on especially large dimensions: in 1908 because of the question of participation in the most reactionary “parliament” and in legal workers’ societies furnished with the most reactionary laws, and in 1918 (Brest peace) from -for the question of the admissibility of this or that "compromise".

In 1908 the "Left" Bolsheviks were expelled from our party for their stubborn unwillingness to understand the necessity of participating in the most reactionary "parliament". The "Lefts" - of which there were many excellent revolutionaries who subsequently were (and continue to be) members of the Communist Party with honor - relied especially on the successful experience with the boycott in 1905. When the tsar in August 1905 announced the convocation of a deliberative "parliament", the Bolsheviks declared a boycott of it - against all opposition parties and against the Mensheviks - and the October Revolution of 1905 really swept it away. Then the boycott turned out to be right, not because it was right not to participate in reactionary parliaments at all, but because the objective situation was correctly taken into account, leading to the rapid transformation of mass strikes into a political one, then into a revolutionary strike and then into an uprising. Moreover, the struggle then went on over whether to leave the convocation of the first representative institution in the hands of the tsar, or to try to wrest this convocation from the hands of the old power. Since there was not and could not be confidence in the existence of a similar objective situation, as well as in the same direction and pace of its development, the boycott ceased to be correct. The Bolshevik boycott of the "parliament" in 1905 enriched the revolutionary proletariat with extremely valuable political experience, showing that when legal and illegal, parliamentary and extra-parliamentary forms of struggle are combined, it is sometimes useful and even obligatory to be able to renounce parliamentary ones. But the blind, imitative, uncritical transfer of this experience to other conditions in other environment is the greatest mistake” (p. 17-18)

“To politics and parties, what applies - mutatis mutandis - applies to individuals. Smart is not the one who does not make mistakes. Such people do not exist and cannot exist. Clever is the one who makes mistakes that are not very significant and who knows how to easily and quickly correct them ”(p. 18, note)

“In 1918, things did not come to a split. The "Left" Communists then formed only a special group or "fraction" within our Party, and not for long. In the same 1918, the most prominent representatives of "left communism", for example, comrades. Radek and Bukharin openly admitted their mistake. It seemed to them that the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was an unacceptable compromise with the imperialists in principle and harmful to the party of the revolutionary proletariat. It was indeed a compromise with the imperialists, but just like that, and in the kind of situation that was required.» (p. 19)

“The conclusion is clear: to deny compromises “on principle”, to deny any permissibility of compromises in general, of any kind, is childish, which is difficult even to take seriously. A politician who wants to be useful to the revolutionary proletariat must be able to single out specific cases of precisely such compromises, which are inadmissible, in which opportunism and betrayal, and direct the entire force of criticism, the entire spearhead of merciless exposure and irreconcilable war against those specific compromises, not allowing highly experienced "businesslike" socialists and parliamentary Jesuits to dodge and evade responsibility by reasoning about "compromises in general". Gentlemen, the English "leaders" of the trade unions, as well as the Fabian society and the "independent" workers' party, dodge responsibility in this way. for their betrayal, for what they have done such a compromise that really means the worst opportunism, treason and betrayal” (p. 20)

“There are compromises and compromises. One must be able to analyze the situation and the specific conditions of each compromise or each variety of compromise. We must learn to distinguish between the person who gave the bandits money and weapons in order to reduce the evil brought by the bandits and facilitate the capture and execution of the bandits, from the person who gives the bandits money and weapons in order to participate in the division of the bandit booty. In politics, this is by no means always as easy as in a childishly simple example. But anyone who wants to invent for the workers a recipe that would provide ready-made solutions for all occasions, or that would promise that there would be no difficulties and no confusing situations in the policy of the revolutionary proletariat, he would be simply a charlatan" (p. 20 - 21)

“There is already one posing of the question: “the dictatorship of the party or class dictatorship? dictatorship (party) of leaders or dictatorship (party) of the masses? - testifies to the most incredible and hopeless confusion of thought. People are trying come up with something very special, and in their zeal, sophistication becomes ridiculous. Everyone knows that the masses are divided into classes; - that it is possible to oppose the masses and classes only by opposing the vast majority in general, not divided according to their position in the social system of production, to categories occupying a special position in the social system of production; - that classes are usually and in most cases, at least in modern civilized countries, led by political parties; - that political parties, as a general rule, are governed by more or less stable groups of the most authoritative, influential, experienced, elected to the most responsible positions, called leaders. All this is the alphabet ”(p. 24)

“On the other hand, the simply ill-conceived, incoherent use of “fashionable”, in our time, catchphrases about the “mass” and about “leaders” is noticeable. People heard a lot and firmly learned by heart the attacks on the "leaders", their opposition to the "masses", but they failed to think what was what, to clarify the matter for themselves.

The divergence between the "leaders" and the "masses" was especially clear at the end of the imperialist war and after it, in all countries. The main reason for this phenomenon was explained many times by Marx and Engels in 1852-1892 using the example of England. Britain's monopoly position distinguished the "working aristocracy", semi-philistine, opportunist, from the "masses". The leaders of this labor aristocracy constantly went over to the side of the bourgeoisie, were - directly or indirectly - supported by it. Marx earned himself the honorable hatred of these bastards for openly branding them as traitors. The latest (twentieth century) imperialism has created a monopoly-privileged position for several advanced countries, and on this basis everywhere in the Second International a type of traitorous leaders, opportunists, social-chauvinists, defending the interests of their guild, their stratum of the labor aristocracy, has been outlined. The opportunist parties became isolated from the "masses", that is, from the broadest sections of the working people, from the majority of them, from the worst paid workers. The victory of the revolutionary proletariat is impossible without a struggle against this evil, without the exposure, disgrace and expulsion of the opportunist, social-treacherous leaders; such a policy was pursued by the Third International.

Agree on this to the point of opposition at all The dictatorship of the masses to the dictatorship of the leaders is ridiculous absurdity and stupidity. It is especially amusing that, in fact, instead of the old leaders who hold universal views on simple things, they actually put forward (under the guise of the slogan: "Down with the leaders") new leaders, who speak supernatural nonsense and confusion. Such are Laufenberg, Wolfheim, Horner, Karl Schroeder, Friedrich Wendel, Karl Erler in Germany. The latter's attempts to "deepen" the question and to declare that political parties are generally useless and "bourgeois" are already such Herculean pillars of absurdity that one can only shrug their shoulders. It’s already true: from a small mistake you can always make a monstrously big one, if you insist on the mistake, if you substantiate it in depth, if you “bring it to the end” ”(p. 25 - 26)

“To deny party membership from the point of view of communism means to make a leap from the eve of the collapse of capitalism (in Germany) not to a lower or middle, but to a higher phase of communism. We in Russia are experiencing (the third year after the overthrow of the bourgeoisie) the first steps of the transition from capitalism to socialism, or to the lower stage of communism. Classes remain and will remain for years everywhere after conquest of power by the proletariat. Perhaps in England, where there are no peasants (but still there are small proprietors!), this period will be shorter. To abolish classes means not only to drive out the landlords and capitalists—we did this relatively easily—it also means to destroy small commodity producers, and their can't be driven away they cannot be suppressed, with them gotta enjoy they can (and must) be remade, re-educated only by very long, slow, careful organizational work. They surround the proletariat on all sides with petty-bourgeois elements, saturate it with it, corrupt it with it, and constantly cause relapses within the proletariat of petty-bourgeois spinelessness, fragmentation, individualism, transitions from enthusiasm to despondency. The strictest centralization and discipline within the political party of the proletariat is needed in order to resist this, in order to organizational the role of the proletariat (and this is its home role) to carry out correctly, successfully, victoriously. The dictatorship of the proletariat is a stubborn struggle, bloody and bloodless, violent and peaceful, military and economic, pedagogical and administrative, against the forces and traditions of the old society. The force of habit of millions and tens of millions is the most terrible force. Without a party that is iron-clad and tempered in the struggle, without a party that enjoys the confidence of everything honest in the given class, without a party that knows how to follow the mood of the masses and influence it, it is impossible to wage such a struggle successfully” (p. 27)

“Whoever weakens the iron discipline of the party of the proletariat in any way (especially during its dictatorship), actually helps the bourgeoisie against the proletariat” (p. 28)

"Attacks on the 'dictatorship of the leaders' in our party have always been: the first time I remember such attacks was in 1895, when there was still no formal party, but the central group in St. Petersburg began to take shape and had to take over the leadership of the district groups. At the 9th Congress of our Party (4. 1920) there was a small opposition, which also spoke against the "dictatorship of leaders", "oligarchy", etc. There is nothing surprising, therefore, nothing new, nothing terrible in the "childhood illness" of "left communism" among the Germans No. This disease passes safely, and the body after it becomes even stronger. On the other hand, the rapid change of legal and illegal work, connected with the need to especially "hide", especially to conspire precisely the main headquarters, namely the leaders, sometimes led us to deeply dangerous phenomena. The worst thing was that in 1912 a provocateur, Malinovsky, entered the Bolshevik Central Committee. He failed dozens and dozens of the best and most devoted comrades, bringing them to hard labor and hastening the death of many of them. If he did not cause even greater harm, it is because we had the correct ratio of legal and illegal work. In order to win our confidence, Malinovsky, as a member of the Party Central Committee and a deputy in the Duma, had to help us put up legal daily newspapers, which, even under tsarism, knew how to fight against the opportunism of the Mensheviks, to preach the foundations of Bolshevism in a properly covered form. Sending dozens and dozens of the best figures of Bolshevism to hard labor and death with one hand, Malinovsky had to help with the other hand to educate tens and tens of thousands of new Bolsheviks through the legal press. This fact does not prevent those German (as well as British and American, French and Italian) comrades who are faced with the task of learning how to conduct revolutionary work in the reactionary trade unions from thinking carefully. In many countries, including the most advanced ones, the bourgeoisie is now undoubtedly sending and will continue to send provocateurs to the Communist Parties. One of the means of combating this danger is a skillful combination of illegal and legal work” (p. 28-29)

“We are afraid of an excessive expansion of the party, because careerists and rogues inevitably strive to cling to the government party, who deserve only to be shot” (p. 30)

“Capitalism inevitably leaves as a legacy to socialism, on the one hand, the old, centuries-old, professional and handicraft distinctions between workers, on the other hand, trade unions, which only very slowly, over years and years, can develop and will develop into broader, less guild , production unions (covering entire industries, and not just workshops, crafts and professions) and then, through these production unions, proceed to the destruction of the division of labor between people, to education, training and training comprehensively developed and comprehensive trained people, people who are able to do everything. This is where communism is heading, must go and will come but only after many years. Today, trying to practically anticipate this future result of a fully developed, fully consolidated and established, fully developed and mature communism, is the same as teaching a four-year-old child higher mathematics” (p. 33)

“We can (and must) start building socialism not from fantastic and not from human material specially created by us, but from that which is left to us as a legacy of capitalism. It is very “difficult”, there are no words, but any other approach to the problem is so not serious that it is not worth talking about it” (p. 33)

“Trade unions were a gigantic progress of the working class at the beginning of the development of capitalism, as a transition from the scattered and helpless workers to firstfruits class association. When it started to grow higher a form of class association of the proletarians - revolutionary party of the proletariat(which will not deserve its name until it learns to bind the leaders with the class and with the masses into one whole, into something inseparable), then the trade unions inevitably began to discover some reactionary traits, a certain guild narrowness, a certain inclination towards apoliticalism, a certain inertia, etc. But nowhere else in the world did the development of the proletariat proceed and could not proceed except through the trade unions, through their interaction with the party of the working class.” (p. 33 - 34)

« Some the "reactionary" nature of the trade unions, in this sense, inevitable under the dictatorship of the proletariat. Failure to understand this is a complete misunderstanding of the basic conditions transition from capitalism to socialism. Afraid this"reactionary", trying get by without it, jumping over it is the greatest stupidity, for it means being afraid of the role of the proletarian vanguard, which consists in teaching, enlightening, educating, drawing into a new life the most backward sections and masses of the working class and peasantry. On the other hand, to postpone the implementation of the dictatorship of the proletariat until there is not a single professionalist narrow worker left, not a single worker who does not have craft and trade unionist prejudices, would be an even deeper mistake. The art of politics (and the communist's correct understanding of his tasks) lies precisely in correctly taking into account the conditions and the moment when the vanguard of the proletariat can successfully seize power, when it can, in doing so, and after that, obtain sufficient support from sufficiently broad sections of the working class and non-proletarian working masses, when he will then be able to maintain, strengthen, expand his rule, educating, teaching, attracting more and more broad masses of working people ”(p. 34)

“In our country the Mensheviks had (some of them in a very few trade unions and still have) support in the trade unions precisely because of the narrowness of the shop, professional egoism and opportunism. In the West, the Mensheviks there are much more firmly “settled” in the trade unions, a much stronger layer has emerged there professionalist, narrow, selfish, callous, mercenary, petty-bourgeois, imperialist-minded and bribed by imperialism, imperialism corrupted "labor aristocracy", than ours. This is undeniable. The struggle against the Gompers, Messrs. Jouhault, Hendersons, Merheims, Legiens and Co. in Western Europe is much more difficult than the struggle against our Mensheviks, who represent completely homogeneous social and political, type. This struggle must be waged mercilessly and must be carried out, as we have done it, to complete disgrace and the expulsion from the trade unions of all incorrigible leaders of opportunism and social-chauvinism. One cannot win political power (and one should not try to take political power) until this struggle is brought to famous degree, and in different countries and under different conditions this "known degree" not the same and only thoughtful, experienced and knowledgeable political leaders of the proletariat in each individual country can take it into account correctly” (p. 35)

“But we are fighting the ‘labor aristocracy’ in the name of the working masses and in order to win them over to our side; We are fighting the opportunist and social-chauvinist leaders in order to win over the working class to our side. It would be foolish to forget this most elementary and self-evident truth. And it is precisely this stupidity that the “left” German communists are doing, who from reactionary and counter-revolutionary tops trade unions are concluding to ... exit from the trade unions!! to refuse to work in them!! to the creation of new fictitious, forms of labor organization! This is such unforgivable stupidity, which is tantamount to the greatest service rendered by the communists to the bourgeoisie ”(p. 35 - 36)

“Not to work within the reactionary trade unions means leaving the underdeveloped or backward working masses under the influence of reactionary leaders, agents of the bourgeoisie, labor aristocrats or “bourgeoisized workers” (cf. Engels in 1858 in a letter to Marx on the English workers)” (p. .36)

“In order to be able to help the “masses” and win the sympathy, sympathy, support of the “masses”, one must not be afraid of difficulties, not be afraid of chicanery, trips, insults, persecution by the “leaders” (who, being opportunists and social-chauvinists, in most cases connected directly or indirectly with the bourgeoisie and with the police) and necessarily work where there is a mass. One must be able to make all sorts of sacrifices, to overcome the greatest obstacles, in order to systematically, stubbornly, persistently, patiently propagate and agitate precisely in those institutions, societies, unions, even the most reactionary ones, where there is only a proletarian or semi-proletarian mass. And trade unions and workers' cooperatives (the latter sometimes, at least) are precisely such organizations where there is a mass ”(p. 36 - 37)

"Millions of workers in England, France, Germany first they are moving from complete disorganization to the elementary, lowest, simplest, most accessible (for those who are still thoroughly saturated with bourgeois-democratic prejudices) form of organization, namely, to the trade unions, while the revolutionary, but unreasonable, Left Communists stand nearby, shouting “the masses ", "weight"! - And refuse to work inside the unions!! refuse under the pretext of their "reactionary"!! invent a brand new, clean, innocent of bourgeois-democratic prejudices, unsinned by guild and narrowly professional sins, a "workers' union", which supposedly will (will be!) Broad and participation in which requires only (only!) "recognition of the Soviet system and dictatorship" ( see quote above)!!” (p. 37)

“For the whole task of communists is to be able to convince retarded, be able to work among them, not fence off from them with invented childish “Left” slogans” (p. 38)

“There is no doubt that the 'leaders' of opportunism will resort to all sorts of tricks of bourgeois diplomacy, to the help of bourgeois governments, priests, the police, and the courts, in order to prevent communists from joining the trade unions, to force them out in every possible way, to make their work within the trade unions as unpleasant as possible, to insult, poison, persecute them. One must be able to resist all this, to make any and all sacrifices, even - if necessary - to resort to all sorts of tricks, cunning, illegal methods, silence, concealment of the truth, if only to penetrate into the trade unions, to remain in them, to lead them into whatever no matter what, communist work” (p. 38)

“The Third International must break with the tactics of the Second and must not bypass painful questions, not gloss over them, but put them squarely. They told the “independents” (Independent Social-Democratic Party of Germany) to their faces, the whole truth must be told to the faces of the “left” communists” (p. 39)

“Capitalism many decades ago could, and with every right, be declared “historically obsolete,” but this in no way eliminates the need for a very long and very stubborn struggle on the ground capitalism. "Historically obsolete" parliamentarism in the sense world historical, i.e. era bourgeois parliamentarism is over, era dictatorship of the proletariat started. This is undeniable. But the world-historical scale considers decades. 10-20 years earlier or later, this is indifferent from the point of view of the world-historical scale, it is - from the point of view of world history - a trifle that cannot even be approximately taken into account. But precisely for this reason, in the matter of practical politics, referring to a world-historical scale is the most flagrant theoretical inaccuracy” (p. 40)

“The attitude of a political party to its mistakes is one of the most important and surest criteria for the seriousness of the party and its performance in practice her duties to her class and to workers the masses. Openly admitting a mistake, revealing its causes, analyzing the situation that gave rise to it, carefully discussing the means to correct the mistake - this is the sign of a serious party, this is the fulfillment of its duties, this is education and training class, and then masses"(p. 40 - 41)

“It is clear that the ‘Lefts’ in Germany have adopted your wish, their ideological and political attitude for objective reality. This is the most dangerous mistake for revolutionaries” (p. 41)

“You must not descend to the level of the masses, to the level of the backward strata of the class. This is undeniable. You have to tell them the bitter truth. You are obliged to call their bourgeois-democratic and parliamentary prejudices prejudices. But at the same time, you must soberly follow up valid the state of consciousness and readiness of precisely the entire class (and not just its communist vanguard), namely the entire working masses(and not just its advanced people)" (p. 42)

“If not only “millions” and “legions”, but just a fairly significant minority the industrial workers follow the Catholic priests, the rural workers follow the landlords and kulaks (Grossbauern), then from here with certainty it follows that parliamentarism in Germany not yet outdated politically, that participation in parliamentary elections and in the struggle on the parliamentary platform Necessarily for the party of the revolutionary proletariat exactly in order to educate the backward layers your class, precisely for the purpose of awakening and enlightening the undeveloped, downtrodden, dark village masses. As long as you are unable to disperse the bourgeois parliament and any reactionary institutions of a different type, you obliged work inside them exactly because there are still workers there who have been fooled by priests and rural outbacks, otherwise you run the risk of becoming just talkers” (p. 42)

“We Bolsheviks participated in the most counter-revolutionary parliaments, and experience has shown that such participation was not only useful, but also necessary for the party of the revolutionary proletariat just after the 1st bourgeois revolution in Russia (1905) to prepare the 2nd bourgeois ( II. 1917) and then the socialist (X. 1917) revolution. Secondly, this phrase is strikingly illogical. From the fact that the parliament becomes the organ and the "center" (in fact, it has never been and cannot be the "center", but this is in passing) of the counter-revolution, and the workers create the instruments of their power in the form of Soviets, it follows from this that the workers need to prepare - to prepare ideologically, politically, technically - for the struggle of the Soviets against Parliament, for the dispersal of Parliament by the Soviets. But it does not at all follow from this that such dispersal is made difficult or not facilitated by the presence of the Soviet opposition. inside counterrevolutionary parliament. During our victorious struggle against Denikin and Kolchak, we never noticed that the existence of a Soviet, proletarian opposition among them was indifferent to our victories. We know perfectly well that our dispersal of the Constituent Assembly on January 5, 1918 was not difficult, but facilitated by the fact that within the dispersed counter-revolutionary Constituent Assembly there was both a consistent, Bolshevik, and an inconsistent, Left-SR, Soviet opposition. The authors of the thesis are completely confused and have forgotten the experience of a number, if not all, of revolutions, which testifies to how especially useful during revolutions compound mass action from outside the reactionary parliament with an opposition sympathizing with the revolution (or even better: directly supporting the revolution) inside this parliament” (p. 45)

“The surest way to discredit a new political (and not only political) idea and damage it is to bring it to the point of absurdity in the name of protecting it” (p. 46)

“Of course, anyone who would say in the old way and in general that refusal to participate in bourgeois parliaments is unacceptable under any circumstances would be wrong. I cannot attempt here to formulate the conditions under which a boycott is useful, because the purpose of this article is much more modest: to take into account the Russian experience in connection with certain topical issues of international communist tactics. Russian experience has given us one successful and correct (1905), another erroneous (1906) application of the boycott by the Bolsheviks. Analyzing the first case, we see that we succeeded prevent the convening by the reactionary power of the reactionary parliament in a situation when the extra-parliamentary (in particular, strike) revolutionary action of the masses was growing with exceptional speed, when not a single layer of the proletariat and peasantry could provide any support to the reactionary power, when the revolutionary proletariat provided itself with a strike struggle to influence the broad, backward masses and agrarian movement. It is quite obvious that to modern European conditions this experience is not applicable” (p. 46)

“Of course, without a revolutionary mood among the masses, without conditions conducive to the growth of such a mood, revolutionary tactics cannot be translated into action, but we in Russia, through too long, hard, bloody experience, have become convinced of the truth that it is impossible to build revolutionary tactics on revolutionary mood alone. Tactics must be based on sober, strictly objective accounting all class forces of a given state (and the states surrounding it, and all states, on a world scale), as well as on the basis of the experience of revolutionary movements” (p. 47)

The German "Lefts" complain about the bad "leaders" of their party and fall into despair, agreeing to the ridiculous "denial" of the "leaders". But in conditions when it is often necessary to hide "leaders" in the underground, production good, reliable, experienced, authoritative "leaders" is a particularly difficult task, and successfully overcome these difficulties it is forbidden without combining legal and illegal work, without testing the "leaders", by the way, and in the parliamentary arena. Criticism - and the sharpest, merciless, uncompromising criticism - should be directed not against parliamentarism or parliamentary activity, but against those leaders who do not know how - and even more so those who do not want- to use the parliamentary elections and the parliamentary platform in a revolutionary, communist way. Only such criticism - combined, of course, with the expulsion of unfit leaders and replacing them with suitable ones - will be useful and fruitful revolutionary work, educating both the "leaders" so that they are worthy of the working class and the working masses - and the masses, so that they learn to understand correctly in a political situation and understand the often very complex and intricate tasks that follow from this situation ”(p. 50)

“Of course, in politics, where it is sometimes a question of extremely complex—national and international—interrelations between classes and parties, there will be many cases that will be much more difficult than the question of a legitimate “compromise” during a strike, or the treacherous “compromise” of a strikebreaker, a traitor. a leader, etc. To invent such a recipe or such a general rule ("no compromises"!), Which would be suitable for all cases, is absurd. You need to have your own head on your shoulders in order to be able to figure it out in each individual case. That, by the way, is the significance of the Party organization and the Party leaders who deserve this title, so that by long, persistent, varied, all-round work of all thinking representatives of a given class, they develop the necessary knowledge, the necessary experience, the necessary - in addition to knowledge and experience - political flair, for the quick and correct solution of complex political issues” (p. 52-53)

“In every class, even in the conditions of the most enlightened country, even in the most advanced and the circumstances of the moment brought to a position of an exceptionally high rise of all spiritual forces, there is always - and as long as classes exist, until it is fully strengthened, consolidated, has not developed on its own own basis of a classless society, inevitably will- representatives of the class Not thinking and non-thinking. Capitalism would not be mass-oppressive capitalism if it were not so” (pp. 52-53, note)

“It cannot be that the German Left does not know that the entire history of Bolshevism, both before and after the October Revolution, full cases of manoeuvring, conciliation, compromises with others, including bourgeois parties!” (p. 54)

“It is possible to defeat a more powerful enemy only with the greatest exertion of forces and with obligatory, the most careful, caring, cautious, skillful exploitation of any, even the slightest, "crack" between enemies, any opposition of interests between the bourgeoisie of different countries, between different groups or types of bourgeoisie within individual countries - and of any, even the slightest, possibility get yourself a mass ally, even if it is temporary, shaky, fragile, unreliable, conditional. Whoever did not understand this did not understand a grain of Marxism and scientific, modern, socialism at all. Who didn't prove practically, over a fairly considerable period of time and in quite a variety of political situations, he has not yet learned his ability to apply this truth in practice to help the revolutionary class in its struggle for the liberation of all working people from the exploiters. And what has been said applies equally to the period before And after the conquest of political power by the proletariat” (p. 55)

“Before the fall of tsarism, Russian revolutionary social democrats repeatedly used the services of bourgeois liberals, that is, they entered into a mass of practical compromises with them, and in 1901-1902, even before the rise of Bolshevism, the old edition of Iskra (this edition included: Plekhanov , Axelrod, Zasulich, Martov, Potresov and I) entered into (albeit not for long) a formal political alliance with Struve, the political leader of bourgeois liberalism, being able at the same time to wage, without stopping, the most merciless ideological and political struggle against bourgeois liberalism and against the slightest manifestation of his influence from within the labor movement. The Bolsheviks always continued the same policy. Since 1905, they have systematically defended the alliance of the working class with the peasantry against the liberal bourgeoisie and tsarism, while at the same time never refusing to support the bourgeoisie against tsarism (for example, in the second stage of elections or in re-ballots) and without ceasing the most irreconcilable ideological and political struggle against the bourgeois-revolutionary peasant party - the "Socialist-Revolutionaries", exposing them as petty-bourgeois democrats who falsely identify themselves as socialists" (p. 56)

“Petty-bourgeois democrats (including the Mensheviks) inevitably vacillate between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, between bourgeois democracy and the Soviet system, between reformism and revolutionism, between love of workers and fear of the proletarian dictatorship, etc. The correct tactics of the Communists must consist in use these hesitation, by no means in ignoring them; use requires concessions to those elements, then and insofar as which, when and insofar as they turn towards the proletariat - along with the struggle against those who turn towards the bourgeoisie. As a result of the application of correct tactics, Menshevism has been disintegrating more and more in our country, isolating the stubbornly opportunist leaders and transferring the best workers, the best elements from the petty-bourgeois democracy, to our camp. This is a lengthy process, and a hasty “decision”: “no compromises, no maneuvering” can only damage the cause of strengthening the influence of the revolutionary proletariat and increasing its strength” (p. 59)

“To tie one's hands in advance, to speak openly to the enemy, who is now better armed than we are, whether we will fight with him and when, is stupidity, not revolutionary. To accept a battle when it is obviously beneficial to the enemy, and not to us, is a crime, and such politicians of the revolutionary class are useless, who are unable to do “maneuvering, conciliation, compromises” in order to evade a deliberately disadvantageous battle ”(pp. 61 - 62 )

“But the author, apparently, does not take into account the fact that politics is a science and an art that does not fall from the sky, is not given for free, and that the proletariat, if it wants to defeat the bourgeoisie, must work out for itself their own proletarian, “class politicians”, and such that they are no worse than bourgeois politicians” (p. 65)

“Science requires, firstly, taking into account the experience of other countries, especially if other, also capitalist, countries are experiencing or have recently experienced very similar experiences; secondly, accounting all forces, groups, parties, classes, masses operating within a given country, by no means determining policy on the basis of only the desires and views, the degree of consciousness and readiness for the struggle of only one group or party ”(p. 65)

"Lloyd George argued that a coalition of liberals with conservatives and close, for otherwise the Workers' Party, which Lloyd George "prefers to call" socialist, and which strives for "collective ownership" of the means of production, may win. “In France it was called communism,” the leader of the English bourgeoisie popularly explained to his listeners, members of the parliamentary liberal party, who probably did not know this until now, “in Germany it was called socialism; in Russia it is called Bolshevism.” For liberals, this is fundamentally unacceptable, explained Lloyd George, because liberals are fundamentally for private property. “Civilization is in danger,” the speaker declared, and therefore liberals and conservatives must unite ... ”(p. 66)

“The basic law of the revolution, confirmed by all revolutions and in particular by all three Russian revolutions in the 20th century, is this: it is not enough for a revolution that the exploited and oppressed masses realize the impossibility of living in the old way and demand a change; revolution requires that the exploiters cannot live and govern in the old way. Only when "lower classes" do not want old and when the "tops" can't do it the old way only then can the revolution win. Otherwise, this truth is expressed in words: a revolution is impossible without a nationwide (both the exploited and the exploiters affecting) crisis. This means that for a revolution it is necessary, firstly, to ensure that the majority of the workers (or at any rate the majority of class-conscious, thinking, politically active workers) fully understand the need for a revolution and be ready to go to death for its sake; secondly, that the ruling classes should experience a government crisis that draws even the most backward masses into politics (a sign of any real revolution: the rapid tenfold increase or even a hundredfold increase in the number of representatives of the working and oppressed mass, hitherto apathetic, capable of political struggle), weakens the government and makes it possible for the revolutionaries to quickly overthrow him” (p. 69-70)

“If we are not a revolutionary group, but a party of revolutionary class, if we want to carry masses(and without this we risk remaining just talkers), we must, firstly, help Henderson or Snowden beat Lloyd George and Churchill (or rather, even: force the first to beat the second, because the first afraid of their victory!)] secondly, to help the majority of the working class to see from their own experience that we are right, that is, that the Hendersons and Snowdens are completely worthless, that they are petty-bourgeois and treacherous in nature, that they are bound to go bankrupt; thirdly, to bring closer the moment when on the ground disillusionment with the majority of the workers by the Hendersons, it will be possible with serious chances of success to immediately overthrow the Henderson government, which will rush around even more confused, even if the smartest and most solid, not petty-bourgeois, but big-bourgeois, Lloyd George shows complete confusion and weakens himself (and the entire bourgeoisie) more and more and more, yesterday with my "frictions" with Churchill, today with my "frictions" with Asquith" (p. 70-71)

“I will be more specific. The British Communists must, in my opinion, unite all their four (all very weak, some very, very weak) parties and groups into one communist party on the basis of the principles of the Third International and mandatory participation in parliament. The Communist Party offers the Hendersons and Snowdens a "compromise", an electoral agreement: we march together against the alliance of Lloyd George and the Conservatives, we divide the parliamentary seats according to the number of votes cast by the workers for the Labor Party or for the Communists (not in elections, but by special vote), we keep complete freedom agitation, propaganda, political activity. Without this last condition, of course, it is impossible to go for a bloc, because this would be a betrayal: the British Communists must absolutely defend and uphold the complete freedom to expose the Hendersons and Snowdens, as they defended it. (Fifteen years, 1903-1917) and defended the Russian Bolsheviks in relation to the Russian Hendersons and Snowdens, that is, the Mensheviks ”(p. 71)

“It is very often difficult for English Communists now even to approach the masses, even to force themselves to be heard. If I come forward as a communist and declare that I invite them to vote for Henderson against Lloyd George, they will probably listen to me. And I will be able to explain popularly not only why the Soviets are better than parliament and the dictatorship of the proletariat is better than the dictatorship of Churchill (disguised as a bourgeois "democracy"), but also that I would like to support Henderson with my vote in the same way that a rope supports a hanged man; - that the approach of the Hendersons to their own government will also prove my case, will also attract the masses to my side, will also hasten the political death of the Hendersons and Snowdens, as it was with their like-minded people in Russia and Germany ”(p. 73)

Under the influence of a number of completely unique historical conditions, backward Russia was the first to show the world not only the spasmodic growth of independent activity of the oppressed masses during the revolution (this happened in all great revolutions), but also the importance of the proletariat, infinitely higher than its share in the population, the combination economic and political strike, with the transformation of the latter into an armed uprising, the birth of a new form of mass struggle and mass organization of the classes oppressed by capitalism - the Soviets" (p. 75)

“The February and October revolutions of 1917 brought the Soviets to all-round development on a national scale, then to their victory in the proletarian, socialist revolution. And less than two years later, the international character of the Soviets was revealed, the extension of this form of struggle and organization to the world working-class movement, the historical calling of the Soviets to be the gravedigger, heir, successor of bourgeois parliamentarism, bourgeois democracy in general” (p. 75)

“The history of the working-class movement now shows that in all countries it will have to (and it has already begun) to go through the struggle of nascent, growing communism, marching towards victory, first of all and mainly with their(for each country) "Menshevism", i.e., opportunism and social-chauvinism; secondly - in the form of, so to speak, an addition - with “left” communism ”(p. 75)

“But, while carrying out everywhere a uniform, in fact, preparatory school for victory over the bourgeoisie, the working-class movement of each country accomplishes this development. in my own way. Moreover, the large, advanced capitalist countries are following this road. much more quickly than Bolshevism, which received fifteen years from history to prepare it, as an organized political trend, for victory. The Third International in such a short period of time as one year has already won a decisive victory, defeated the Second, yellow, social-chauvinist International, which only a few months ago was incomparably stronger than the Third, seemed solid and powerful, enjoyed all-round - direct and indirect, material (ministerial seats, passports, press) and the ideological help of the world bourgeoisie” (p. 76)

“The whole point now is that the Communists of each country should quite consciously take into account both the basic fundamental tasks of the struggle against opportunism and “Left” doctrinairism, and specific features which this struggle takes and must inevitably take in each individual country, according to the original features of its economy, politics, culture, its national composition (Ireland, etc.), its colonies, its religious divisions, etc., etc. ." (p. 76)

“As long as there are national and state differences between peoples and countries - and these differences will persist for a very, very long time even after the dictatorship of the proletariat is implemented on a world scale - the unity of the international tactics of the communist working-class movement of all countries requires not the elimination of diversity, not the destruction of national differences (this - an absurd dream for the present moment), and such an application major principles of communism (Soviet power and the dictatorship of the proletariat), which would correctly modified these principles in particular, correctly adapted, applied them to national and nation-state differences. Explore, study, find, guess, grasp the nationally special, nationally specific in specific each country's approach to resolving unified international task, to victory over opportunism and left-wing doctrinairism within the working-class movement, to the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, to the establishment of the Soviet Republic and the proletarian dictatorship - this is the main task of the historical moment that all advanced (and not only advanced) countries are experiencing" (p. 77)

“The proletarian vanguard has been ideologically conquered. This is the main thing. Without this, it is impossible to take the first step towards victory. But this is still quite far from victory. It is impossible to win with one avant-garde” (p. 77)

“If the first historical task (to win over the conscious vanguard of the proletariat to the side of Soviet power and the dictatorship of the working class) could not be solved without a complete, ideological and political victory over opportunism and social-chauvinism, then the second task, which is now becoming a regular one and which consists in the ability to bring masses to a new position capable of ensuring the victory of the vanguard in the revolution, this next task cannot be accomplished without the liquidation of the left doctrinairism, without the complete overcoming of its mistakes, without getting rid of them ”(pp. 78 - 79)

“As long as it was a question (and as far as it is still being discussed) of drawing the vanguard of the proletariat to the side of communism, so long and so far propaganda comes to the fore; even circles that have all the weaknesses of circleism are useful here and produce fruitful results. When it comes to the practical action of the masses, to the stationing - if I may say so - of millions of armies, to the deployment of all the class forces of a given society for the last and decisive battle, there is nothing to be done with mere propaganda skills, with mere repetition of the truths of "pure" communism. Here it is necessary to count not up to thousands, as in essence the propagandist, a member of a small group, does not yet lead the masses; here it is necessary to count in millions and tens of millions. Here we must ask ourselves not only whether we have convinced the vanguard of the revolutionary class, but also whether the historically active forces are deployed all classes, necessarily all without exception the classes of a given society, in such a way that a decisive battle is already fully ripe - in such a way that (1) all the class forces hostile to us are sufficiently confused, sufficiently quarreled with each other, sufficiently weakened themselves by the struggle that they beyond their strength; so that (2) all the vacillating, shaky, unstable, intermediate elements, i.e., the petty bourgeoisie, the petty-bourgeois democrats, in contrast to the bourgeoisie, sufficiently expose themselves before the people, sufficiently disgrace themselves by their practical bankruptcy; so that (3) in the proletariat a mass mood begins and begins to rise powerfully in favor of supporting the most resolute, selflessly courageous, revolutionary actions against the bourgeoisie” (p. 79)

“History in general, the history of revolutions in particular, is always richer in content, more diverse, more versatile, more lively, “smarter” than the best parties, the most conscious vanguards of the most advanced classes, imagine” (p. 80)

“Two very important practical conclusions follow from this: first, that the revolutionary class, in order to carry out its task, must be able to master everyone without the slightest exception, forms or sides of social activity (completing after the conquest of political power, sometimes with great risk and great danger, what he did not complete before this conquest); second, that the revolutionary class must be ready for the most rapid and unexpected change from one form to another” (p. 81)

“It is not difficult to be a revolutionary when the revolution has already broken out and flared up, when everyone and everyone joins the revolution, out of a simple hobby, out of fashion, even sometimes out of the interests of a personal career. "Liberation" from such would-be revolutionaries costs the proletariat later, after its victory, the hardest labors, torment, one might say, martyrdom. It is much more difficult - and much more valuable - to be able to be a revolutionary when Not yet conditions for a direct, open, really mass, really revolutionary struggle, to be able to defend the interests of the revolution (propaganda, agitation, organizational) in non-revolutionary institutions, and often directly reactionary ones, in a non-revolutionary situation, among the masses, unable to immediately understand the need for a revolutionary method of action. To be able to find, grope, correctly determine a specific path or a special turn of events, leading masses to a real, decisive, last, great revolutionary struggle - this is the main task of modern communism in Western Europe and America ”(p. 82)

“Communists in Western Europe and America must learn to create a new, unusual, neo-opportunist, non-careerist parliamentarism: for the Communist Party to issue its slogans, for real proletarians, with the help of the unorganized and downtrodden poor peasants, to scatter and distribute leaflets, go round and round the apartments of workers, the huts of rural proletarians and provincial (in Europe, fortunately, in many times fewer rural backwaters than we have, and in England there are very few of them) peasants, climbed into the most simple people's taverns, rubbed themselves into the most simple people's unions, societies, random meetings, spoke with the people not in a learned way (and not very in a parliamentary way). ), they did not chase a bit for a “place” in parliament, but everywhere they woke up the thought, drew in the masses, caught the bourgeoisie at their word, used the apparatus they had created, the elections they called, the appeals they made to the whole people, acquainting the people with Bolshevism like never before. it was not possible to acquaint (under the rule of the bourgeoisie) outside the situation of elections (not counting, of course, the moment of big strikes, when same the apparatus of national agitation worked even more intensively for us) ”(p. 84)

“When the Russian Cadets and Kerensky launched a furious baiting against the Bolsheviks—especially from April 1917, and even more so in June and July 1917—they “overdid it.” Millions of copies of bourgeois newspapers, screaming in every way against the Bolsheviks, helped to draw the masses into an assessment of Bolshevism, and yet, apart from newspapers, all public life, thanks to the “zeal” of the bourgeoisie, was saturated with disputes about Bolshevism. Now, on an international scale, the millionaires of all countries are behaving in such a way that we should be grateful to them from the bottom of our hearts. They poison Bolshevism with the same zeal with which Kerensky and Co. poisoned it; they also "oversalt" at the same time and in the same way help us like Kerensky" (p. 86)

“Communists must know that the future in any case belongs to them, and therefore we can (and must) combine the greatest passion in the great revolutionary struggle with the most cold-blooded and sober consideration of the frenzied rushings of the bourgeoisie” (p. 87)

“We must try so that the same mistake is not repeated with the communists, only on the other hand, or, rather, so that it is corrected as soon as possible and eliminated faster, more painlessly for the body. the same error only on the other hand, done by the "left" communists. Left doctrinairism is also a mistake, not only right doctrinaireism. Of course, the mistake of left doctrinairism in communism is, at the present moment, a thousand times less dangerous and less significant than the mistake of right doctrinaireism (i.e., social-chauvinism and Kautskyism), but that is only because Left communism is young, just emerging. This is the only reason why the disease, under certain conditions, can be easily cured, and it is necessary to set about curing it with maximum energy” (p. 88)

“Still, a split is better than confusion that hinders both the ideological, theoretical, revolutionary growth, the maturation of the party and its friendly, really organized, practical work that really prepares for the dictatorship of the proletariat” (p. 93)

“In Russia, the special happiness of the Bolsheviks was that they had 15 years for a systematic and carried out struggle both against the Mensheviks (i.e., opportunists and “Centrists”) and against the “Lefts” long before the direct mass struggle for dictatorship proletariat" (p. 94)

“For this, it was enough to say (if you want to be parliamentary polite): as long as the majority of urban workers follow the Independents, we Communists cannot prevent these workers from living out their last petty-bourgeois democratic (i.e., also “bourgeois-capitalist”) illusions. on the experience of "their" government. This is enough to justify a compromise, which is really necessary and which should consist in giving up for a certain time attempts to forcibly overthrow the government, in which the majority of urban workers trust” (p. 96)

“These gentlemen absolutely do not know how to think and reason like revolutionaries. These are whining petty-bourgeois democrats, who are a thousand times more dangerous for the proletariat if they declare themselves supporters of Soviet power and the dictatorship of the proletariat, because in fact, in every difficult and dangerous minute, they will inevitably commit treason ... being in the "sincere" conviction that they are helping proletariat! After all, even the Hungarian Social Democrats, who had baptized themselves as communists, wanted to “help” the proletariat when, out of cowardice and spinelessness, they considered the position of Soviet power in Hungary hopeless and whimpered before the agents of the Entente capitalists and Entente executioners” (p. 97)

“Inside the Soviet engineers, inside the Soviet teachers, inside the privileged, that is, the most qualified and best placed, workers in Soviet factories we see a constant revival of decisively all those negative features that are characteristic of bourgeois parliamentarism, and only by repeated, tireless, long, stubborn struggle of proletarian organization and discipline, we win - gradually - this is evil ”(p. 101 - 102)

prod. V. I. Lenin, dedicated to the theoretical. substantiation of the strategy and tactics of the international. communist movement. Written in April - May 1920, the work was published in June, before the opening of the II Congress of the Comintern, and had a historical. importance for the formation of the communist. parties of all countries, to familiarize them with the richest political. Russian experience. communists, to develop international. communist tactics.

Lenin called the tactful line of that part of the members of the young communist parties of the West, who, having not enough political experience, underestimated work with the masses, did not understand the importance of the party of the proletariat in the political struggle, and rejected all compromise , denied the international significance of Bolshevism.

Lenin's work summarizes the experience of the Communist. parties both during the period of the struggle for the dictatorship of the proletariat and in the first years after the revolution. Lenin showed that the richest experience of Russian. Marxists has not only national, but also international. meaning: "... the Russian model shows all countries something, and very significant, from their inevitable and near future" (PSS, vol. 41, p. 4).

Lenin revealed the reactionary nature of sectarian tactics, showed that "left communism is a manifestation of 'petty-bourgeois revolutionism'", which must be resolutely fought against, without stopping the fight against the main enemy within the labor movement - right opportunism. Such a struggle is an important part of political experience the Bolshevik Party.

Analyzing this historical experience, Lenin showed what features of tactics the Bolshevik Party was able to rally the masses around itself in the struggle for the victory of the socialist. revolution. One of the main Lenin saw the conditions for the success of the Bolsheviks in a conscious, firm, revolutionary. discipline, without which the party cannot unite the span. vanguard, to carry away the masses of working people.

Lenin taught that communists can become a party in the true sense of the word only if they are closely connected with the masses and enjoy their support. There is only one way to do this - to convince the masses that the party correctly expresses and defends their interests, to convince not by words, but by deeds, by its policy and initiative. Lenin showed that communists should work in any mass org-tions, in any, even reactionary, trade unions, for it is precisely the trade unions that should become the school where the proletariat prepares for the implementation of its dictatorship, learns to manage the economy of the country, learns communism. “For the whole task of communists is to be able to convince the backward, to be able to work among them, and not to fence themselves off from them with invented childish “left” slogans” (ibid., p. 38). The proletariat must be represented in the bourgeoisie. parliament by deputies of their party, which should combine the illegal struggle with legal activities. The party of the proletariat, Lenin pointed out, cannot do without compromises. Taking advantage of the contradictions between the various groups of the bourgeoisie, it must seek (and be able to find) suitable forms for compromises facilitating its struggle, always reserving the freedom to criticize its time. ally.

Lenin stressed that in the fight against opportunism and left-wing doctrinairism, communists must master all forms of politicism. struggle, to learn to be as flexible as possible in one's tactics, to build it not only on revolutionary mood, but also "... on a sober, strictly objective account of all the class forces of a given state (and the states surrounding it, and all states, on a world scale), as well as on the basis of the experience of revolutionary movements" (ibid., p. 47) . Lenin wrote that the communist the party becomes invincible when it does not gloss over the mistakes and shortcomings of its work, but knows how to correct them in time.

In the work of Lenin, a deep analysis of the main stages of the history of Bolshevism, revealed historical. the role of Marxism in Russian. revolutionary movement, it is shown why it was in Russia that Marxism received its further development.

"D. b. "l." to k. " Lenin wrote that a correct revolutionary theory "...is not a dogma, but finally takes shape only in close connection with the practice of a truly mass and truly revolutionary movement" (ibid., p. 7). Criticizing dogmatism as the ideological basis of sectarianism, Lenin saw the most important task of communists in "... being able to apply the general and basic principles of communism to that peculiarity of relations between classes and parties, to that originality in objective development towards communism, which is characteristic of each individual country and which one must be able to study, find, guess” (ibid., p. 74).

Considering the most important propositions of Marxist theory, Lenin further developed the doctrine of revolution and gave an in-depth interpretation of the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Lenin defined the meaning of the communist party as the "highest form of class association of the proletarians" in the struggle against the exploiters, showed those "transmission belts" (trade unions, Soviets, etc.), with the help of which it exercises its leading role. Summarizing the historical revolutionary experience. struggle, Lenin formulated DOS. the law of the revolution: “...for a revolution it is not enough that the exploited and oppressed masses realize the impossibility of living in the old way and demand a change; for a revolution it is necessary that the exploiters cannot live and govern in the old way” (ibid., p. 69).

Lenin's work is an example of the use of the laws and categories of materialistic. dialectics in the analysis of the historically established conditions and forms of the class struggle. Criticizing the epistemological roots of opportunism and sectarianism, Lenin specifically dwelled on the connection between form and content. Lenin opposed the dogmatism of the left sectarians with the dialectic. approach, specific analysis of political. situations. "... Any truth, if it is made "excessive" (as Dietzgenots said), if it is exaggerated, if it is extended beyond the limits of its actual applicability, it can be brought to the point of absurdity, and even inevitably, under the indicated conditions, it turns into absurdity" (ibid., p. 46) Using a number of examples, Lenin revealed the significance of materialist dialectics for determining the concrete forms and methods of the political struggle of the party of the proletariat.

The book of Lenin and in modern. conditions is the ideological weapon of the world communist. movement, gives an answer to many. the most important issues of today.

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

"CHILD ILLNESS OF "LEVIS" IN COMMUNISM"

outstanding work of V. I. Lenin, dedicated to the theoretical. substantiation of the strategy and tactics of the international. communist movement. Written in April - May 1920, the work was published in June - before the opening of the II Congress of the Comintern, and was of great importance for the formation of the communist. parties of all countries, to familiarize them with the richest political. experience of Russian communists, to develop international. communist tactics. "Children's disease of" leftism "" Lenin called the tactful. the line of that part of the members of the young communists. parties of the West, to-paradise, not having enough political. experience, underestimated the work with the masses, did not understand the importance of the party of the proletariat in the political. struggle, rejected all compromises, denied the international. meaning of Bolshevism. Not taking into account the objective conditions of the class struggle, the "left" communists refused to use its various forms, refused to work in the reactionary. trade unions and bourgeois parliament; they did not understand the essence of the dictatorship of the proletariat, they undermined the unity of the proletarian parties, they misunderstood the correlation of people. masses, classes, parties and political. leaders, leaders. Lenin's work summarized the experience of the strategy and tactics of the Communist Party both in the period of the struggle for the dictatorship of the proletariat, and in the conditions of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the socialist. construction. Lenin showed that the richest experience of Russian Marxists has not only national, but also international significance: "... the Russian model shows in all countries something, and very significant, from their inevitable and near future" (Soch., 4 ed., vol. 31, pp. 5–6). Lenin revealed the reactionary nature of sectarian tactics, showed that "left communism is a manifestation of 'petty-bourgeois revolutionism'", which must be resolutely fought, without stopping the fight against the main. the enemy within the workers' movement, right-wing opportunism. In this struggle, the communist parties must use the political. Bolshevik experience. Analyzing this historical experience, Lenin showed what features of tactics the Bolshevik Party was able to rally around itself the broad working masses in the struggle for the victory of the socialist. revolution. One of the main Lenin saw the conditions for the success of the Bolsheviks in a conscious, firm, revolutionary. discipline, without which the party cannot unite the proletarian vanguard and win over the masses of the working people. Lenin taught that communists can become a party in the true sense of the word only if they are closely connected with the masses and enjoy their support. You can proclaim yourself an avant-garde as much as you like and still not become one. After all, the Party cannot force the masses to follow it. There is only one way to do this - to convince the masses that the party correctly expresses and defends their interests, to convince not by words, but by deeds, by its policy and initiative. Lenin showed that communists should work in any mass org-tions, in any, even reactionary, trade unions, for it is precisely the trade unions that should become the school where the proletariat prepares for the implementation of its dictatorship, learns to manage the economy of the country, learns communism. “For the whole task of communists is to be able to convince the backward, to be able to work among them, and not to fence themselves off from them with invented childish “Left” slogans” (Soch., 4th ed., vol. 31, p. 36). Lenin showed that the proletariat must be represented in the bourgeoisie. parliament by the deputies of their party, which must combine the illegal struggle with legal activities. The party of the proletariat, Lenin pointed out, cannot do without compromises. Taking advantage of any and all contradictions between various groups of the bourgeoisie, it must seek (and be able to find) suitable forms for compromises facilitating its struggle, always reserving the freedom to criticize its temporary ally. Lenin stressed that in the fight against opportunism and left-wing doctrinairism, communists must master all forms of politicism. struggle, to learn to be as flexible as possible in one's tactics, to build it not only on revolutionary mood, but also "on a sober, strictly objective account of all the class forces of a given state (and the states surrounding it, and all states, on a world scale), as well as on the basis of the experience of revolutionary movements" (ibid., p. 45) . Lenin wrote that the communist the party becomes invincible when it does not gloss over the mistakes and shortcomings of its work, but knows how to correct them in time. In the work of Lenin, a deep analysis of the main stages of the history of Bolshevism, revealed historical. the role of Marxism in Russian. revolutionary movement, it is shown why it was in Russia that Marxist theory received its further development. "Children's disease of "leftism" in communism" is an example of creativity. approach to Marxist theory; Lenin wrote that the correct revolution. theory "is not a dogma, but is finally formed only in close connection with the practice of a truly mass and truly revolutionary movement" (ibid., p. 9). Criticizing dogmatism as the ideological basis of sectarianism, Lenin saw the most important task of communists in "being able to apply the general and basic principles of communism to that particular image of relations between classes and parties, to that originality in the objective development of communism, which is characteristic of each individual country and which one must be able to study, find, guess" (ibid., p. 69–70). Considering the most important propositions of Marxist theory, Lenin further developed the doctrine of revolution and gave an in-depth interpretation of the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Lenin defined the meaning of the communist party as the "highest form of class association of the proletarians" in the struggle against the exploiters, showed those "transmission belts" (trade unions, Soviets, etc.), with the help of which it exercises its leading role. Summarizing the historical revolutionary experience. struggle, Lenin formulated DOS. the law of the revolution: "... for a revolution it is not enough that the exploited and oppressed masses realize the impossibility of living in the old way and demand a change; for a revolution it is necessary that the exploiters cannot live and govern in the old way" (ibid., p. 65). Lenin's work is an example of the use of the laws and categories of dialectics in the analysis of historical conditions and forms of the class struggle. Based on the dialectic correlation of the individual and the general, Lenin put forward the demand for the use of international. Marxist tactics, taking into account the peculiarities of a given country, finding specific forms and ways of transferring power into the hands of the proletariat. He criticized epistemological the roots of opportunism and sectarianism, and in this regard he specifically dwelled on the problem of form and content, showed the dialectic. relationship between these categories. Lenin opposed the dogmatism of the left sectarians with the dialectic. approach, specific analysis of political. situations. "... Any truth, if it is made "excessive" (as Dietzgen the father said), if it is exaggerated, if it is extended beyond the limits of its actual applicability, can be brought to the point of absurdity, and even inevitably, under the indicated conditions, it turns into absurd" (ibid., p. 44). Using a number of examples, Lenin revealed the significance of dialectics for determining the concrete forms and methods of the political struggle of the party of the proletariat. Already in July-November 1920 the book was translated into German, French. and English. languages; in the USSR, she went out. ed. 133 times, in 50 languages, with a total circulation of 4698 thousand copies. (data as of April 1, 1958); included in the 31st volume of the 4th ed. Op. V. I. Lenin. The ingenious book of Lenin and in present. time is a powerful ideological weapon of the world communist. movement. It provides answers to many of the most important questions of our time, teaches how to win influence among the broad masses, teaches how to ensure the victory of the working class over the bourgeoisie, capitalism. Lit.: Fortieth Anniversary of an Outstanding Work of Creative Marxism, Zhurn. "Questions of the history of the CPSU", 1960, No 3, p. 9–31. N. Kolikov. Moscow.