"The entry of the socialist country into trade relations with capitalist countries is a most important factor ensuring our existence in such a complex and absolutely exceptional situation.
I have had occasion to observe a certain Spargo, an American social-chauvinist close to our Right Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, one of the leaders of the Second International and member of the American Socialist Party, a kind of American Alexinsky, and author of a number of anti-Bolshevik books, who has reproached us—and has quoted the fact as evidence of the complete collapse of communism—for speaking of transactions with capitalist powers. He has written that he cannot imagine better proof of the complete collapse of communism and the break down of its programme. I think that anybody who has given thought to the matter will say the reverse. No better proof of the Russian Soviet Republic’s material and moral victory over the capitalists of the whole world can be found than the fact that the powers that took up arms against us because of our terror and our entire system have been compelled, against their will, to enter into trade relations with us in the knowledge that by so doing they are strengthening us. This might have been advanced as proof of the collapse of communism only if we had promised, with the forces of Russia alone, to transform the whole world, or had dreamed of doing so. However, we have never harboured such crazy ideas and have always said that our revolution will be victorious when it is supported by the workers of all lands. In fact, they went half-way in their support, for they weakened the hand raised against us, yet in doing so they were helping us."
- Lenin, Our Foreign and Domestic Position and Party Tasks", 11/21/20
"The fundamental law of revolution, which has been confirmed by all revolutions, and particularly by all three Russian revolutions in the twentieth century, is as follow: it is not enough for revolution that the exploited and oppressed masses should understand the impossibility of living in the old way and demand changes; it is essential for revolution that the exploiters should not be able to live and rule in the old way. Only when the 'lower classes' do not want the old way, and when the 'upper classes' cannot carry on in the old way, -only then can revolution triumph. This truth may be expressed in other words:revolution is impossible without a nation-wide crisis (affecting both the exploited and the exploiters) .10 It follows that for revolution it is essential, first, that a majority of the workers (or at least a majority of the class conscious, thinking, politically active workers) should fully understand that revolution is necessary and be ready to sacrifice their lives for it; secondly, that the ruling classes should be passing through a governmental crisis, which draws even the most backward masses into politics ... weakens the government and makes it possible for the revolutionaries to overthrow it rapidly"
- V.I. Lenin "left wing communism" (see Vol. XXV, p, 222)
"Human knowledge is not (or does not follow) a straight line, but a curve, which endlessly approximates a series of circles, a spiral. Any fragment, segment, section of this curve can be transformed (transformed one-sidedly) into an independent, complete, straight line, which then (if one does not see the wood for the trees) leads into the quagmire, into clerical obscurantism (where it is anchored by the class interests of the ruling classes)."
- Lenin, Summary of Dialectics (1914)
....................................
“Many people are under the false impression that the development, the shaping of the human being consists in young people occupying themselves with their Komsomol duties...[that] these Komsomol duties consist mainly of mastering the ABC of politics, studying Marxism, in a word, social problems.
It seems to me that such a narrow view of problems concerning the formation of human beings is a wrong one. I recall the way we developed as Marxists in days gone by. We not only studied specifically Marxist books...while we studied the basic principles of Marxism we also covered a course of general education, beginning with the Russian classics – fiction writers, historians, critics – in a word, the whole range of knowledge to be found in books. While working in a plant, we at the same time got an all around education in literature, science, etc.
I think that if, let us say, the fulfillment of Komsomol duties in our schools were to hinder the study of mathematics...if the study of mathematics or the natural sciences were to be replaced by that of the rudiments of political knowledge, then we should be doing the wrong thing. In that case, the education of a Komsomol member who has read a few books on the rudiments of political knowledge would only be superficial. In conversation he would have something to say on every subject, superficially he would appear to be educated, he would have an outward gloss, but you would not call him a developed and educated person. When you meet such a comrade he makes a very good impression at first. But just spend a few hours in conversation with him and you will see that his political knowledge has no basis, that he lacks the knowledge of the natural sciences possessed by any secondary school graduate. That is why, I think, the Komsomol organization should help not only to give the younger generation the rudiments of political knowledge but also see to it that their political knowledge is based on those brances of general education and knowledge that are considered the necessary attributes of every more or less developed person. This development, this knowledge, should not be ignored.
I once made the statement at the Lobachevsky Military Academy that to study Marxism does not mean to read through Marx, Engels and Lenin; you may be able to repeat their ideas word for word, but that will not necessarily signify that you have really learned Marxism. To learn Marxism means to know after mastering the Marxist method how to approach all the other problems connected with your work. If, let us say, the sphere of your future work is agriculture, will it be of advantage to be able to employ the Marxist method? O course it will. But to employ the Marxist method, you have to study agriculture, too, you have to be an agricultural expert. Otherwise nothing will come of your attempt to apply Marxism in agriculture. This should not be forgotten if you wish to apply Marxism in practice, if you wish to be men of action, and not text-mongers of Marxism...[T]o be able to adopt the correct, Marxist line, you also need to be a first-rate expert in your particular sphere of activity.”
- M.I. Kalinin; From A Speech At The Seventh Congress Of The All-union Leninist Young Communist League; March 11, 1926
..............................
"We stand for active ideological struggle because it is the weapon for ensuring unity within the Party and the revolutionary organizations in the interest of our fight. Every Communist and revolutionary should take up this weapon.
But liberalism rejects ideological struggle and stands for unprincipled peace, thus giving rise to a decadent, Philistine attitude and bringing about political degeneration in certain units and individuals in the Party and the revolutionary organizations.
Liberalism manifests itself in various ways.
To let things slide for the sake of peace and friendship when a person has clearly gone wrong, and refrain from principled argument because he is an old acquaintance, a fellow townsman, a schoolmate, a close friend, a loved one, an old colleague or old subordinate. Or to touch on the matter lightly instead of going into it thoroughly, so as to keep on good terms. The result is that both the organization and the individual are harmed. This is one type of liberalism.
To indulge in irresponsible criticism in private instead of actively putting forward one's suggestions to the organization. To say nothing to people to their faces but to gossip behind their backs, or to say nothing at a meeting but to gossip afterwards. To show no regard at all for the principles of collective life but to follow one's own inclination. This is a second type.
To let things drift if they do not affect one personally; to say as little as possible while knowing perfectly well what is wrong, to be worldly wise and play safe and seek only to avoid blame. This is a third type.
Not to obey orders but to give pride of place to one's own opinions. To demand special consideration from the organization but to reject its discipline. This is a fourth type.
To indulge in personal attacks, pick quarrels, vent personal spite or seek revenge instead of entering into an argument and struggling against incorrect views for the sake of unity or progress or getting the work done properly. This is a fifth type.
To hear incorrect views without rebutting them and even to hear counter-revolutionary remarks without reporting them, but instead to take them calmly as if nothing had happened. This is a sixth type.
To be among the masses and fail to conduct propaganda and agitation or speak at meetings or conduct investigations and inquiries among them, and instead to be indifferent to them and show no concern for their well-being, forgetting that one is a Communist and behaving as if one were an ordinary non-Communist. This is a seventh type.
To see someone harming the interests of the masses and yet not feel indignant, or dissuade or stop him or reason with him, but to allow him to continue. This is an eighth type.
To work half-heartedly without a definite plan or direction; to work perfunctorily and muddle along--"So long as one remains a monk, one goes on tolling the bell." This is a ninth type.
To regard oneself as having rendered great service to the revolution, to pride oneself on being a veteran, to disdain minor assignments while being quite unequal to major tasks, to be slipshod in work and slack in study. This is a tenth type.
To be aware of one's own mistakes and yet make no attempt to correct them, taking a liberal attitude towards oneself. This is an eleventh type.
We could name more. But these eleven are the principal types."
Mao, "Combat Liberalism"
"Concrete analysis of concrete conditions, Lenin said, is the "most essential thing in Marxism, the living soul of Marxism". Lacking an analytical approach, many of our comrades do not want to go deeply into complex matters, to analize them and study them over and over again, but like to draw simple conclusions which are either absolutely affirmative or absolutely negative ... From now on we should remedy this state of affairs."
- Mao, "Our Study and the Current Situation", 1944
"To criticize the people's shortcomings is necessary,...but in doing so we must truly take the stand of the people and speak out of whole-hearted eagerness to protect and educate them. To treat comrades like enemies is to go voer to the stand of the enemy."
- Mao, 'Talks at the Tenan Forum on Literature and Art' (May 1942)
"Everyone engaged in practical work must investigate conditions at the lower levels. Such investigation is especially necessary for those who know theory but do not know the actual conditions, for otherwise they will not be able to link theory with practice. Although my assertion, "No investigation no right to speak", has been ridiculed as "narrow empiricism", to this day I do not regret having made it; far from regretting it, I still insist that without investigation there cannot possibly be any right to speak. There are many people who "the moment they alight from the official carriage" make a hullabaloo, spout opinions, criticize this and condemn that; but, in fact, ten out of ten of them will meet with failure. For such views or criticisms, which are not based on thorough investigation, are nothing but ignorant twaddle. Countless times our Party suffered at the hands of these "imperial envoys", who rushed here, there and everywhere. Stalin rightly says "theory becomes purposeless if it is not connected with revolutionary practice". And he rightly adds that "practice gropes in the dark if its path is not illumined by revolutionary theory". Nobody should be labeled a "narrow empiricist" except the "practical man" who gropes in the dark and lacks perspective and foresight."
- Mao, "Preface & Postscript to Rural Surveys" (March, April 1941), Selected Works, Vol. III, p. 13.
Unless you have investigated a problem, you will be deprived of the right to speak on it. Isn't that too harsh? Not in the least. When you have not probed into a problem, into the present facts and its past history, and know nothing of its essentials, whatever you say about it will undoubtedly be nonsense. Talking nonsense solves no problems, as everyone knows, so why is it unjust to deprive you of the right to speak? Quite a few comrades always keep their eyes shut and talk nonsense, and for a Communist that is disgraceful. How can a Communist keep his eyes shut and talk nonsense?
It won't do!
It won't do!
You must investigate!
You must not talk nonsense!"
- Mao, May 1930
...............................
"Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics holds that nature is not a state of rest and immobility, stagnation and immutability, but a state of continuous movement and change, of continuous renewal and development, where something is always arising and developing, and something always disintegrating and dying away.
The dialectical method therefore requires that phenomena should be considered not only from the standpoint of their interconnection and interdependence, but also from the standpoint of their movement, their change, their development, their coming into being and going out of being.
The dialectical method regards as important primarily not that which at the given moment seems to be durable and yet is already beginning to die away, but that which is arising and developing, even though at the given moment it may appear to be not durable, for the dialectical method considers invincible only that which is arising and developing."
"Contrary to idealism, which regards the world as the embodiment of an "absolute idea," a "universal spirit," "consciousness," Marx's philosophical materialism holds that the world is by its very nature material, that the multifold phenomena of the world constitute different forms of matter in motion, that interconnection and interdependence of phenomena as established by the dialectical method, are a law of the development of moving matter, and that the world develops in accordance with the laws of movement of matter and stands in no need of a "universal spirit."
Contrary to idealism, which asserts that only our consciousness really exists, and that the material world, being, nature, exists only in our consciousness' in our sensations, ideas and perceptions, the Marxist philosophical materialism holds that matter, nature, being, is an objective reality existing outside and independent of our consciousness; that matter is primary, since it is the source of sensations, ideas, consciousness, and that consciousness is secondary, derivative, since it is a reflection of matter, a reflection of being; that thought is a product of matter"
- Stalin, Dialectical and Historical Materialism, 1938
“In it’s struggle for the abolition of classes the Soviet state both strengthens itself as a state and prepares its own extinction. And until the decisive goal is reached (the complete abolition of classes and of the remains of class distinctions), it preserves itself as a state.
“The completer the democracy, the nearer the moment when it will become unnecessary. The more democratic the state (which is made up of armed workers and is ‘already not a state in the strict sense of the word’), the more rapidly does every form of the state begin to decay.”
Stalin, speech at the Sixteenth Congress
................................
"The great basic thought,” Engels writes, “that the world is not to be comprehended as a complex of ready-made things, but as a complex of processes, in which the things apparently stable no less than their mind images in our heads, the concepts, go through an uninterrupted change of coming into being and passing away... this great fundamental thought has, especially since the time of Hegel, so thoroughly permeated ordinary consciousness that in this generality it is now scarcely ever contradicted. But to acknowledge this fundamental thought in words and to apply it in reality in detail to each domain of investigation are two different things.... For dialectical philosophy nothing is final, absolute, sacred. It reveals the transitory character of everything and in everything; nothing can endure before it except the uninterrupted process of becoming and of passing away, of endless ascendancy from the lower to the higher. And dialectical philosophy itself is nothing more than the mere reflection of this process in the thinking brain.”
...................................
"At the risk of seeming ridiculous, let me say that the true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love. It is impossible to think of a genuine revolutionary lacking this quality. Perhaps it is one of the great dramas of the leader that he or she must combine a passionate spirit with a cold intelligence and make painful decisions without flinching. Our vanguard revolutionaries must idealise this love of the people, of the most sacred causes, and make it one and indivisible. They cannot descend, with small doses of daily affection, to the level where ordinary people put their love into practice.
The leaders of the revolution have children just beginning to talk, who are not learning to call their fathers by name; wives, from whom they have to be separated as part of the general sacrifice of their lives to bring the revolution to its fulfilment; the circle of their friends is limited strictly to the number of fellow revolutionists. There is no life outside of the revolution.
In these circumstances one must have a great deal of humanity and a strong sense of justice and truth in order not to fall into extreme dogmatism and cold scholasticism, into isolation from the masses. We must strive every day so that this love of living humanity will be transformed into actual deeds, into acts that serve as examples, as a moving force."
- Che
...........................
“Bourgeois sociologists and revisionists go out of their way to refute the Leninist conception of scientific ideology by placing ideology in direct opposition to science and denying the very possibility of a scientific ideology.
[The] general tendency to interpret ideology as a distorted consciousness, an interpretation which prevails in bourgeois literature and is repeated by various authors in a variety of ways. This trend goes back to the 1920s, and particularly to the work of Karl Mannheim, who demanded that the methods of "the criticism of ideology" should be applied to Marxist theory itself. Mannheim's work exercised a great influence on the approach that was taken to the problem of the theory of ideology in bourgeois philosophy and laid down the basic lines of criticism of Marxism as an ideology.
Revisionist literature, following this kind of interpretation of ideology, tries to "save" Marxism by declaring that it is not an ideology at all. "Marxism is not an ideology. Marxism is a philosophy and a science," writes Ernst Fischer. Such a contrasting of ideology, philosophy and science, and also the allegation that making Marxism into an ideology entails the distortion of its intellectual nature clearly contradicts the Leninist interpretation of this problem.
So the different interpretations of ideology are not merely academic. They reflect the class and social position of the various theoreticians and their relationship to the revolutionary movement, to Marxist-Leninist theory. Their understanding of the concept of ideology directly or indirectly reflects their acknowledgement, denial or distortion of Marxism-Leninism. Here, in brief, we have the ideological-theoretical setting of the problem. In our view the problem of the nature of scientific ideology can be correctly stated and solved by opposing it to illusory ideology. Although both the one and the other are ideologies, the mechanisms of their formation, distribution and influence on social life, not to mention their theoretical content, are of distinctly different quality.
The most profound analysis of the essence and specific features of the ideological process in a society torn by class antagonisms was provided by the founders of Marxism, who thus gave us the basis for a theory of ideology. Their analysis fully retains its theoretical significance today. Marx and Engels regarded ideology as illusory consciousness, but their views of ideology differ fundamentally from the interpretation of ideology that is current in contemporary bourgeois literature. What is more, the bourgeois theoreticians ignore the fact that the Marxist concept of ideology was developed in the works of Lenin and has since been interpreted in a wider sense. It has been shown that it is possible to take a scientific or unscientific approach within the framework of the phenomenon of ideology itself. In this essay we shall try to examine the extension of the concept of ideology and the objective grounds for a scientific ideology as a substantiation of Lenin's conception.”
V.Z. Kelle, from the book “Philosophy in the USSR: Problems of Dialectical Materialism” (linked)
............................
“In a socialist country, a genuinely Marxist ruling party must devote itself to developing the productive forces and, with this as the foundation, gradually raise the people’s living standards. This means building a civilization with a high material standard. We ignored the development of the productive forces for a long time in the past, and so we are paying special attention to the building of a high standard of material civilization. At the same time, we are building a socialist civilization with high cultural and ideological standards, which essentially means that our people should be imbued with the communist ideals and become persons of moral integrity with general education and self-discipling. Internationalism and patriotism both belong to this realm.”
- Deng Xiaoping, Build A Socialist Civilization With Both High Material And Cultural And Ideological Standards; April 29th, 1983
“...[W]e have formulated correct ideological, political and organizational lines and a series of principles and policies. What is the ideological line? To adhere to Marxism and to integrate it with Chinese realities -- in other words, to seek truth from facts, as advocated by Comrade Mao Zedong, and to uphold his basic ideas. It is crucial for us to adhere to Marxism and socialism. It is because the Chinese people embraced Marxism and kept to the road leading...to socialism that their revolution was victorious.
What is socialism and what is Marxism? … Marxism attaches utmost importance to developing the productive forces. We have said that socialism is the primary stage of communism and that at the advanced stage the principle of from each according to his ability and to each according to his needs will be applied. This calls for highly developed productive forces and an overwhelming abundance of material wealth. Therefore, the fundamental task for the socialist stage is to develop the productive forces. The superiority of the socialist system is demonstrated, in the final analysis, by faster and greater development of those forces than under the capitalist system. As they develop, the people's material and cultural life will constantly improve. One of our shortcomings after the founding of the People's Republic was that we didn't pay enough attention to developing the productive forces. Socialism means eliminating poverty. Pauperism is not socialism, still less communism.”
- Deng Xiaoping, Build Socialism With Chinese Characteristics; June 30th, 1984
.......................
On Revisionism:
"There are no merits to revisionism. Revisionism is fundamentally changing key aspects of Marxism to serve bourgeois, non-revolutionary tendencies, i.e. the Khrushchevite line of "State of the whole people" when the state as we know it is a product of the class struggle so the state cannot be "of the whole people", it must be in service and control of a particular class. In other words, it pretends to develop Marxism further while denying the basic principles of it. Revisionism therefore serves as an attack on the communist movement and should be combated at every turn."
"Modern revisionism seeks to discredit the great doctrine of Marxism-Leninism by declaring that it is ‘outdated’ and has lost its relevance for social development. Today the revisionists seek to destroy the revolutionary spirit of Marxism and to undermine the faith of the working class and of all working people in socialism. They oppose the historical necessity of a proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat in the transition from capitalism to socialism, deny the directing role of the Marxist-Leninist party, reject the principles of proletarian internationalism, call for the abandonment of the basic Leninist principles of party building, primarily democratic centralism, and seek to transform the Communist Party from a revolutionary combat organization into some sort of discussion club."
(Programmnye dokumenty bor’by za mir, demokratiiu i sotsializm, Moscow, 1961, p. 15)
"Since marxism is intended to be a "living science" then it needs to be further developed. The argument of anti-revisionists, though, is that this further development can only take place in the crucible of class struggle and revolution and, through this, the creative application of universals to particular contexts. Revisionism, however, is when people attempt to revise universal (meaning applicable everywhere, proved by the history of class struggle) foundations, rather than further developing marxism. Also, I would argue that the further development of marxism can only be proven through world historical revolutions.
So, for example, the basis of historical materialism is the concept of class struggle and that modes of production can only be changed through revolution. Revisionism here (and this is usually what is meant by revisionism) is the attempt to argue that this is no longer relevant, that capitalism can be overcome with peaceful elections and the ruling class will give up without a fight, and that there is no reason for a communist movement to pursue revolution. On the other hand, how the universal concept of class struggle is applied to particular circumstances, is always what needs to be discovered so that there is a constant dialectic between the universal and the particular––this is what Mao means by new interpretations and further developments. Not a reinvention of the wheel, but building, you know spokes and tires and new machines upon the wheel (crude extended metaphor, I know).
Also, in line with this dialectical tension between revisionism and development, there is a maoist concept of something called "dogmato-revisionism". That is, when people try to ignore revolutionary developments and cling to some religious understanding of Marx and Engels, treating their works like sacred texts, they're actually being revisionists because they're ignoring the universal foundation of class struggle and what has been gained through class struggle."
William Oiler
....................
"It is to be regretted that our propaganda work suffers in many respects from dogmatism and formalism.
Why does our ideological work suffer from dogmatism and formalism? And why do our propagandists and agitators fail to go deeply into matters, only embellishing the façade, and why do they merely copy and memorize foreign things, instead of working creatively? This offers us food for serious reflection.
Ten years have passed now since our Party was founded. Therefore, the Party members should naturally be educated in the history of our Party. If our functionaries are not educated in the revolutionary history of our country, they will be unable to carry forward our fine revolutionary traditions, nor will they be able to realize which direction to take in their revolutionary activities.
We should study our own things in earnest and be versed in them. Otherwise, we shall be unable to solve creatively in keeping with our actual conditions the new problems that confront us one after another in practice.
As a matter of fact, the form of our government should also be fitted to the specific conditions of our country. Does our people's power have exactly the same form as in other socialist countries? No, it does not. They are alike in that they are based on Marxist-Leninist principles, but their forms are different. No doubt, our platform, too, is in keeping with the realities of our country.
Our functionaries often commit errors due to lack of a clear understanding of these matters.
Some comrades working in the Propaganda Department of the Party tried to copy mechanically from the Soviet Union in all their work. This was also because they had no intention to study our realities and lacked the true Marxist-Leninist spirit of educating the people in our own merits and in the traditions of our revolution. Many comrades swallow Marxism-Leninism whole, instead of digesting and assimilating it. It is therefore self-evident that they are unable to display revolutionary initiative.
...[S]ome comrades might take it simply and form a wrong idea that we need not learn from foreign countries. That would be quite wrong. We must learn from the good experiences of socialist countries.
It is important in our work to grasp revolutionary truth, Marxist-Leninist truth, and apply it correctly to the actual conditions of our country. There can be no set principle that we must follow the Soviet pattern. Some advocate the Soviet way and others the Chinese, but it is not high time to work out our own?
The point is that we should not mechanically copy forms and methods of the Soviet Union, but should learn from its experience in struggle and Marxist-Leninist truth. So, while learning from the experience of the Soviet Union, we must put stress not on the forms but on learning the essence of its experience.
Just copying the forms used by others instead of learning Marxist-Leninist truth brings us no good, only harm.
Both in revolutionary struggle and in construction work, we should firmly adhere to Marxist-Leninist principles, applying them in a creative manner to suit the specific conditions of our country and our national characteristics.
If we mechanically apply foreign experience, disregarding the history of our country and the traditions of our people and without taking account of our own realities and level of preparedness of our people, dogmatic errors will result and much harm will be done to the revolutionary cause. To do so is not fidelity to Marxism-Leninism nor to internationalism; it runs counter to them.
Marxism-Leninism is not a dogma, it is a guide to action and a creative theory. So, Marxism-Leninism can display its indestructible vitality only when it is applied creatively to suit the specific conditions of each country.
I have so far touched upon some problems arising in the ideological work of our Party. I hope you will take account of them, eliminating the shortcomings hitherto revealed and strive to raise our Party's ideological work to a higher level."
Kim Il Sung
....................
.............................
Special thanks to William Oiler for this week's selected Socialist Quotes
No comments:
Post a Comment