Leninism and Modern Revisionism

7/28/2019 Leninism and Modern Revisionism

1/28

LENINISM

AND

MODERN REVISIONISM

FOREIGN LANGUAGES PRESS

P E K I N G


2/28

From Marx to Mao

M

L

Digital Reprints2006


3/28

LENINISM

AND

MODERN REVISIONISM

Hongqi Editorial, No. 1, 1963

FOREIGN LANGUAGES PRESS

PEKING 1963


4/28

Printed in the Peoples Republic of China


5/28

1

Leninism, the fundamental revolutionary principles ofMarxism expounded by the great Lenin, which representsa new stage in the development of Marxism, is being as-sailed, distorted and adulterated by the modern revision-ists more viciously than ever before.

The essential thing about Leninism is the fact that ithas carried the teachings of Marx and Engels further,

providing a scientific analysis of capitalisms sharpeningcontradictions in its development to the stage of impe-rialism, and further enriching Marxist theory andtactics on proletarian revolution and proletarian dictator-ship. The Great October Revolution achieved victoryunder the direct leadership of Lenin. Carrying on thecause of the October Revolution, the Chinese people andthe people of many other countries have also won a series

of victories. These are victories for Marxism, victoriesfor Leninism.Lenin once said that this doctrine [of Marx] had to

fight at every step in its course.1 Similarly, Leninismdeveloped in the course of struggle against the revision-ism of the Second International. Every new confirma-tion and victory of Leninism has unavoidably been ac-companied by one battle after another against politicalstupidity, vulgarity, opportunism, etc. 2

1 V. I. Lenin, Marxism and Revisionism, Selected Works, intwo volumes, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1950,Vol. 1, Part 1, p. 87.

2 V. I. Lenin, Letter to Inessa Armand, Against Revisionism,Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1959, p. 351.


6/28

2

The old-line revisionists of the Second Internationaloften used what they called new data on economicdevelopment to confuse the masses and cut the revolu-

tionary soul out of Marxism, while falsely displayingthe colours of Marxism. History is repeating itselfunder different circumstances, in different forms. Themodern revisionists, displaying the false colours ofLeninism and talking glibly about being faithful toLenin, are actually repeating the same process of usingcertain new data on historical development to confuse

people, undermine the revolutionary teachings of Lenin-

ism and assail the essentials of Leninism, i.e., Leninsteachings on imperialism and his theory and tactics on

proletarian revolution and proletarian dictatorship.Like the revisionism-opportunism of the Second Inter-

national, modern revisionism is trying hard to cover upthe contradictions of capitalism and imperialism and todeny that imperialism is moribund, decaying capitalismwhose days are numbered. It has gone so far as to

describe modern imperialism as peaceful and demo-cratic supra-imperialism. The modern revisionists rep-resented by the Tito group of Yugoslavia have goneout of their way to make the imperialist monopoly-capitalist state machine look attractive. They describethe so-called policy of nationalization, state-monopolycapitalism and state economic intervention in the impe-rialist countries and capitalist countries in general insuch terms as the growth of socialist factors, therealization of planned economy, the beginning of the

process of socialist transformation and so on. Theyprate about gradual change, the integration of revolu-tion and reform, entering deeply into the socialist era,


7/28

3

and so on. But they never have a single word to sayabout the need, in the transition from capitalism to so-cialism, to make a revolution that will smash the bour-

geois state machine and to replace bourgeois dictatorshipwith proletarian dictatorship. It is well known that thefundamental Marxist standpoint which Lenin took great

pains to expound was precisely that of the revolutionto smash the bourgeois state machine and the replace-ment of bourgeois dictatorship by proletarian dictator-ship. For without such a revolution, all talk about so-cialist transformation will be meaningless, and state-

monopoly capitalism will remain capitalism and nothingelse. Lenin well said that the existence and growthof monopoly capitalism, including state-monopoly capital-ism, can only demonstrate the maturing of the material

prerequisites for socialism and the impending approachand inevitability of the socialist revolution, but cannotat all serve as an argument in favour of tolerating therepudiation of such a revolution and the efforts to make

capitalism look more attractive, an occupation in whichall the reformists are engaged.1

Herein lies a fundamental difference in the appraisalof our epoch. When Marxist-Leninists say that the maincontent of our epoch is the transition from capitalismto socialism which was begun by the Great October So-cialist Revolution in Russia,2 they base themselves onthe viewpoint of proletarian revolution and proletarian

1 V. I. Lenin, The State and Revolution, Selected Works, intwo volumes, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, Part 1, p. 270.

2 Declaration of the Meeting of Representatives of the Com-munist and Workers Parties of the Socialist Countries, held inMoscow, November 14 to 16, 1957.


8/28

4

dictatorship, and on the fundamental experience of theGreat October Socialist Revolution. But the modernrevisionists, shunning this viewpoint like the plague, dis-

tort the experience of the October Revolution and avoidreferring to the road of the October Revolution as thecommon road leading to the emancipation of mankind.As a matter of fact, they regard our epoch as one ofcapitalism peacefully growing into socialism.

Marxism-Leninism has always attached importance tothe struggle for democracy. In countries where the bour-geois-democratic revolution has not yet been accom-

plished, the proletariat must mobilize the masses, makeevery effort to lead the bourgeois-democratic revolutionand fight for its victory. In countries where bourgeoisdemocracy exists, the proletariat should utilize the demo-cratic rights already won to fight for more democraticrights in order to educate, arouse and organize the massesto fight the bourgeois system of exploitation and violence.After the seizure of power, the proletariat should solidify

and strengthen the dictatorship of the proletariat andat the same time give effect to widespread democracyunder highly centralized guidance. In other words, itmust enforce dictatorship over the enemy and practise

peoples democracy within the ranks of the people in orderto ensure the successful building of socialism and com-munism. Democracy invariably has a class character.Marxist-Leninists have always treated the problem ofdemocracy in its historical context and have never talkedabout democracy in the abstract or democracy ingeneral.

Lenin emphasized that under the conditions of capital-ism, the proletariat can retain its independence only ifit makes its struggle for democracy serve its over-all


9/28

5

objective of proletarian dictatorship.1 He went on to pointout that the replacement of bourgeois dictatorship by pro-letarian dictatorship means an extension of democracy

which is of world-wide historic significance; it means achange from bogus democracy to genuine democracy; andit means depriving the exploiting few of democraticrights and enabling the working people, the overwhelmingmajority, to enjoy democracy. To think that the dictator-ship of the proletariat implies the rejection of democracyis a degenerate liberal and false assertion which losessight of the class struggle.2 Like the old-line revisionists,

the modern revisionists use every kind of pretext to ob-literate the class character of democracy and the differ-ence between bourgeois and proletarian democracy. Inchampioning democracy in general or democracy ofthe whole people, they are actually making a fetish of

bourgeois democracy, i.e., of bourgeois dictatorship. Pro-ceeding from this viewpoint, they do their utmost toconfound revolution with reform and to limit and con-

fine all their work to the scope permitted by bourgeoisdictatorship. Lenin long ago repudiated this ex-tremely wrong point of view. He said: It would bevery absurd to think that the most profound revolutionin human history one which for the first time trans-fere power from the exploiting minority to the ex-

ploited majority could be performed within the oldframework of bourgeois, parliamentary democracy, with-out drastic changes, without the creation of new forms

1 Cf. V. I. Lenin, The Socialist Revolution and the Right ofNations to Self-Determination, Selected Works, InternationalPublishers, New York, 1943, Vol. V, p. 273.

2 Cf. V. I. Lenin, The Proletarian Revolution and the RenegadeKautsky, Selected Works, in two volumes, Moscow, Vol. II, Part2, pp. 40, 48-57.


10/28

6

of democracy, new institutions employing the newconditions for its application, etc.1 This prop-osition of Lenins has proved correct in relation to the

October Revolution and also completely correct in re-lation to the victories subsequently won by a number ofother countries in their socialist revolution. Yetwhat the modern revisionists persist in is preciselythe absurd theory which Lenin had refuted. Underthe conditions of socialism, the modern revisionists,again on the pretext of democracy in general, deny theclass character of democracy and strive to achieve step

by step their objective of eliminating the dictatorshipof the proletariat in order to facilitate the gradual res-toration of capitalism in a certain form.

On the question of the fight for world peace and peace-ful coexistence, too, the modern revisionists have vul-garized Leninism in the extreme and have completelyadulterated it.

Ever since the first socialist state made its appearance

in the world, all Marxist-Leninists, from Lenin onward,have considered it a major task for socialist countries towork for peaceful coexistence between countries with dif-ferent social systems and to oppose the imperialist policiesof aggression and war. The Communist Party of Chinaheaded by Comrade Mao Tse-tung has always held thatdisputes between nations should be settled by peacefulmeans and not by force. This view of the Chinese Com-munist Party is not only constantly reiterated in ourstatements but is firmly expressed in our policies andactions. All the world knows that the Peoples Republic

1 V. I. Lenin, Theses on Bourgeois Democracy and ProletarianDictatorship Presented to the First Congress of the CommunistInternational, AgainstRevisionism, Moscow, p. 494.


11/28

7

of China was an initiator of the Five Principles of Peace-ful Coexistence and has steadfastly put them into

practice. All the attempts of the imperialists, re-

actionaries and modern revisionists to try to obliteratethese facts are vain.Of course, the policy of peace pursued by the socialist

countries has not eliminated the various contradictions ob-jectively existing in the world, namely, the contradictionbetween the socialist and the imperialist countries, thecontradiction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariatin the capitalist countries, the contradiction between

imperialism and the oppressed nations, the contradictionsbetween the imperialist powers and the contradictionsbetween the various monopoly groups inside each impe-rialist country. Marxist-Leninists take the view that,whether in the past, present or future, there can be noignoring or covering up of these contradictions, as such polit-ical philistines as the modern revisionists are trying to do,if world peace is to be secured and peaceful coexistence

between the socialist countries and countries with dif-ferent social systems is to be achieved. Marxist-Leninists,including the Chinese Communists, have always heldthat peaceful coexistence between the socialist countriesand countries with different social systems can be at-tained, and the world war which the imperialists areseeking to kindle can be prevented, provided the socialistcountries persist in their policy of peace, and provided the

peoples revolutionary forces in various countries and allthe peace-loving countries and people of the world unitein resolute and effective struggle against the imperialistforces of aggression and war, manacle the imperialistsin various ways and narrow down their sphere of opera-tion. At the same time, Marxist-Leninists have con-


12/28

8

sistently held that the strivings for peaceful coexistencebetween the socialist countries and countries with dif-ferent social systems on the one hand, and the class

struggle within the capitalist countries and the revolu-tionary anti-imperialist struggles of the oppressed na-tions on the other, are not in the samew category but aretwo different kinds of problem, and the former cannotreplace or negate the latter. The struggle waged bythe oppressed people in the capitalist countries and thestruggle of the oppressed nations are helpful to thestrivings for world peace and for peaceful coexistence

between countries with different social systems. Theattempt of the modern revisionists to restrict, weaken andeven negate the revolutionary struggles of the oppressed

peoples and oppressed nations by hypocritical appeals forpeace and peaceful coexistence fits in entirely withthe wishes of the imperialists and the reactionaries ofvarious countries and is most damaging to the strugglefor peace and for peaceful coexistence between countries

with different social systems.Just as the old-line revisionists attacked Marxism underthe pretext of opposing dogmatism, so also the modernrevisionists use the same pretext to attack Leninism. Asfar back as the beginning of the 20th century, Lenin wrotethat the reformists and revisionists in the working-classmovement in various countries all belong to the samefamily, all extol each other, learn from each other, andtogether come out against dogmatic Marxism.1 Hasnot the picture Lenin drew sixty years ago re-appeared today in new historical conditions? The onlydifference is that the modern revisionists are more un-

1 V. I. Lenin, What Is to Be Done? Selected Works, in twovolumes, Moscow, Vol. I, Part 1, p. 208.


13/28

9

scrupulous in their attacks on Marxism-Leninism. Forexample, some persons indulging in sheer fabricationsay that the dogmatists want to demonstrate the

superiority of socialism and communism over capitalismby means of war. What is this if not an extremelyabsurd slander levelled at Marxist-Leninists and a con-temptible attempt to curry favour with imperialism andthe reactionaries of various countries?

Moreover, the modern revisionists give voice to pureinventions such as that the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists, whom they label dogmatists, reject certain

necessary compromises. We would like to tell thesemodern revisionists that no serious-minded Marxist-Leninist rejects all compromises indiscriminately. In thecourse of our protracted revolutionary struggle, we Chi-nese Communists reached compromises on many oc-casions with our enemies, internal and external. Forexample, we came to a compromise with the reactionaryChiang Kai-shek clique. We came to a compromise, too,

with the U.S. imperialists, in the struggle to aid Koreaand resist U.S. aggression. For Marxist-Leninists, thequestion is what kind of compromise to arrive at,thenature of the compromise, and how to bring about acompromise. Lenin had rightly said that to reject com-

promises on principle, to reject the admissibility ofcompromises in general, no matter of what kind, is child-ishness, which it is difficult even to take seriously.1

Just as Lenin also told us, a political leader who de-sires to be useful to the revolutionary proletariat mustknow how to distinguish compromises that are per mis-sible and in the interests of the peoples cause from those

1 V. I. Lenin, Left-Wing Communism, an Infantile Disorder,Selected Works, in two volumes, Moscow, Vol. II, Part 2, p. 359.


14/28

10

compromises that are impermissible and are an expres-sion of treachery. It is precisely in accordance withLenins teachings that we Chinese Communists dis

tinguish between different kinds of compromise, favour-ing compromises which are in the interests of the peoplescause and of world peace, and opposing compromisesthat are in the nature of treachery. It is perfectly clearthat only those guilty now of adventurism, now ofcapitulationism, are the ones whose ideology is Trotsky-ism, or Trotskyism in a new guise.

In April 1946, Comrade Mao Tse-tung wrote in his

article Some Points in Appraisal of the Present Inter-national Situation that it was possible for the socialistcountries to reach agreement with the imperialist coun-tries through peaceful negotiation and make necessarycompromise on some issues, including certain importantones. Comrade Mao Tse-tung holds that such com-

promise . . . can be the outcome only of resolute, effectivestruggles by all the democratic forces of the world against

the reactionary forces of the United States, Britain andFrance. He adds, Such compromise does not re-quire the people in the countries of the capitalist worldto follow suit and make compromises at home. The peo-

ple in those countries will continue to wage differentstruggles in accordance with their different conditions.1

This analysis advanced by Comrade Mao Tse-tung isscientific; it is a Marxist and Leninist analysis. The

policy of us Chinese Communists in relation to inter-national affairs has all along been formulated accordingto this proposition of Comrade Mao Tse-tungs.

1 Mao Tse-tung, Selected Works, Foreign Languages Press,Peking, 1961, Vol. IV, p. 87.


15/28

11

However, the imperialists, the reactionaries of variouscountries and the modern revisionists always attempt todo us harm through every kind of slander. We should

be aware that there has never been a revolutionary partyin history which was not vilified by the enemy and hisagents. The great Bolsheviks were subjected to countlessenemy calumnies. They fulminated against the Bol-sheviks who were consistently described as sectarians,dogmatists, Blanquists, anarchists, etc.1 All revolu-tionary Marxist-Leninists the world over are now beingsubjected to attacks by the modern revisionists, and it is

a matter for deep regret that Comrade Togliatti shouldhave joined in such attacks.The modern revisionists have made many charges

against the Chinese Communist Party. Why? Is it notbecause we resolutely defend the purity of Marxism-Leninism? Is it not because we categorically refuse to

bargain over principles and categorically refuse to makeconcessions as regards theory? Is it not because we stand

firm against both modern revisionism and dogmatism,against both Right and Left opportunism, against bothcapitulationism and adventurism, against both unprin-cipled accommodation and sectarianism which alienatesone from the masses, and against both great-power chau-vinism and the various kinds of reactionary nationalism?

Some people go to great lengths to attack, at everyavailable opportunity and with shameless misrepresenta-tion, the thesis of the Chinese Communist Party that im-

perialism and all reactionaries are paper tigers. This

1 V. I. Lenin, Tactics of the Russian Social-DemocraticLabour Party During the Election Campaign, Collected Works,Russian 4th ed., State Publishing House of Political Literature,Moscow, Vol. XII, p. 123.


16/28

12

thesis is derived from Lenins scientific proposition thatimperialism is moribund and decaying capitalism, fromthe many years of Chinas revolutionary experience and

from the whole of the revolutionary experience in history.This thesis is in full accord with Lenins description ofimperialism as a colossus with feet of clay, as a bug-

bear, as an enemy who appears so strong and ascapitalist beasts . . . absolutely incapable of doingus any harm. These people constantly boast of actingin accord with Lenins principles. But in fact they in-variably deviate from them and from the essence of

Leninism, that is, from Lenins teachings on imperialism,on proletarian revolution and proletarian dictatorship. Onthe question of how to appraise the nature of imperialismDdo they not clearly reveal themselves as far removedfrom Leninism? In the final analysis, those who wildlyattack the thesis that imperialism and all reactionariesare paper tigers are merely chiming in with imperialism,assiduously spreading the idea among peoples who want

revolution that the imperialist forces of aggression mustnot be resisted, that the imperialist system cannot beoverthrown, and that revolution of any kind is un-desirable and hopeless.

For many years U.S. imperialism and its partners havebeen using nuclear blackmail against the people of theworld: whoever defies our domination will be destroyed.All the demagogic propaganda which the modernrevisionists represented by the Tito group have beenconducting among the masses on the subject of nuclearweapons is entirely in tune with U.S. imperialisms nu-clear blackmail. All genuine Marxist-Leninists, includingthe Chinese Communists, consistently and resolutely op-

pose the imperialist policy of nuclear war and stand firmly


17/28

13

for the banning and scrapping of nuclear weapons. TheGovernment of the Peoples Republic of China has re-

peatedly proposed that a zone free of atomic weapons be

established in the Asian and Pacific region embracing allthe countries there, including the United States. Allgenuine Marxist-Leninists, including the Chinese Com-munists, always maintain that the people of all countriesmust grasp their destiny in their own hands and not becowed by the U.S. imperialist policy of nuclear black-mail. At the same time, they maintain that the socialistcountries should rely on the just strength of the people

and their own just policies and should not engage innuclear gambles at all in the international arena. Themodern revisionists are obviously well aware of thesecorrect views of the Marxist-Leninists. However, theydeliberately lie to deceive the masses, alleging that thedogmatists hope to push mankind to the brink ofnuclear war. The modern revisionists often talk aboutmorality. But where is their morality when they

tell such lies? Have they not completely lost hold ofeven the ordinary morality of human conduct?To distort and attack the theses and the standpoint

of the genuine Marxist-Leninists, the modern revisionistshave spread a series of deliberate lies for the purpose of

preventing the oppressed peoples and oppressed nationsfrom rising in revolution and fighting for their emancipa-tion. In the eyes of the modern revisionists, any revolu-tion and any action supporting revolution runs counterto the logic of survival, now that nuclear weaponsand similar military techniques exist. In fact, whatthey call the logic of survival is the logic of slaves,a logic that would paralyse the revolutionary will of the

people of all countries, bind them up hand and foot and


18/28

14

make them the submissive slaves of imperialism and ofthe reactionaries of various countries. The Marxist-Leninists are firmly against this slave logic and maintain

that the people should emancipate themselves and builda happy, new life as their own masters. This is a law ofsocial development which no one can go against.

The modern revisionists believe that, under the presenthistorical conditions, it will be good enough just tomuddle along. So what point is there in differentiatingclasses, differentiating the proletariat from the bour-geoisie, imperialism from the oppressed nations, capital-

ism from socialism, just wars from unjust wars, andrevolution from counter-revolution? To them, all thesedifferentiations have lost their significance for the pres-ent epoch and are dogmatic. In short, they haveactually thrown to the winds all the teachings of Marxism,all the teachings of Leninism. At the same time, theyinsist that whoever does not agree with their viewpointand practice and does not speak and act in response to

their baton is violating Marxism-Leninism, denyingthe creativeness of Marxism-Leninism, attacking thepolicy of peaceful coexistence, and is a pseudo-revolu-tionary, a Left adventurist, a dogmatist, a sec-tarian, a nationalist and so on and so forth.

Lenin denounced the revisionist-opportunists of theSecond International, saying that this non-class orsupra-class presentation, which supposedly embraces theentire people, is an outright travesty of the very founda-tion of socialism, namely, its theory of class struggle. 1

This is still more flagrantly expressed in the preachings

1 V. I. Lenin, Theses on Bourgeois Democracy and ProletarianDictatorship Presented to the First Congress of the CommunistInternational, AgainstRevisionism , Moscow, p. 487.


19/28

15

and policies of the modern revisionists. They deny thatthe masses of the people are the motive force and thecreators of history. They hold that changes in the inter-

national situation and the destiny of mankind are dictatedby the leading personalities of a few great powers,dictated by their good sense or lack of it, and not deter-mined by the combined strength and united struggle ofthe people throughout the world. Some persons haveeven set their hearts on being in the same boat with theleading personalities of the imperialist countries and re-gard as the greatest honour, but do not want to be

in the same boat with the masses of the world. Is it notstrange that such persons should have appeared in theranks of Marxist-Leninists?

Lenin said: Lack of faith in the masses, fear of their initiative,fear of their independence, trepidation before theirrevolutionary energy instead of thorough and un-stinted support of it this is where the S.-R.s andMenshevik leaders have sinned most.1 And this is pre-

cisely the sin of the modern revisionists.Lenin said: To determine its conduct from case tocase, to adapt itself to the events of the day and to thechops and changes of petty politics, to forget the basicinterests of the proletariat, the main features of the cap-italist system as a whole and of capitalist evolution asa whole; to sacrifice these basic interests for the real orassumed advantages of the moment such is the policyof revisionism.2 Behaving thus, the revisionists always

1 V. I. Lenin, One of the Fundamental Questions of the Revolu-tion, Collected Works, International Publishers, New York, Vol.XXI, Book 1, pp. 167-68.

2 V. I. Lenin, Marxism and Revisionism, Selected Works, intwo volumes, Moscow, Vol. I, Part 1, p. 94.


20/28

16

boast of their wisdom and creativeness and trumpetforth their views as the latest theories. In fact, thelatest theories of the modern revisionists are simply

variations in modern conditions of the fallacies of Bern-stein, Kautsky and other old-line revisionists and simply re-furbished versions of the stock arguments which bour-geois reaction uses to fool the people.

Revisionism is opium to anaesthetize the people;it is beguiling music for the consolation of slaves. Asa political grouping, revisionism constitutes a detachmentof the bourgeoisie within the working-class movement,

an important social prop for the bourgeoisie and for impe-rialism. As a trend of thought, revisionism will neverfail to appear in varying guises at different times so longas capitalism and imperialism exist in the world. InJanuary 1917, when the Second International had be-come bankrupt in practice as well as in theory, Leninmade the prediction: During these decades, . . . newPlekhanovs, new Scheidemanns, new sentimental con-

ciliators like Kautsky will grow up from the depths ofthe united international Social-Democracy.1 Historyhas confirmed Lenins foresight. In fact, shortly afterLenins death a serious struggle between Marxist-Leninists and anti-Marxist-Leninists arose in the inter-national communist movement. That was the struggle

between, on the one hand, the Leninists headed by Stalinand, on the other hand, Trotsky, Bukharin and otherLeft adventurists and Right opportunists. In con-

junction with that struggle was the protracted strugglein the Chinese Communist Party which the Marxist-Leninists led by Comrade Mao Tse-tung waged against

1 V. I. Lenin, A Turn in World Politics, Collected Works, NewYork, 1942, Vol. 19, p. 428.


21/28

17

the Left adventurists and the Right opportunists. Nowanother serious struggle lies before us, the struggle ofthe Marxist-Leninists against the anti-Marxist-Leninists,

i.e., the modern revisionists.The Moscow Declaration of 1957 points out that themain danger at present is revisionism, and that theexistence of bourgeois influence is an internal source ofrevisionism, while surrender to imperialist pressure isits external source. In the capitalist and imperialistcountries, the general cause of the emergence of re-visionism, which was analysed by Lenin, continues to

exist today. Lenin said that the comparatively peacefuland cultured existence of a stratum of privileged workersmade them bourgeois, gave them crumbs from the prof-its of their own national capital, and isolated them fromthe sufferings, miseries and revolutionary sentiments ofthe ruined and impoverished masses.1 This state ofaffairs is still in evidence today and is indeed morestriking than ever.

The tactics used by the imperialists and the re-actionaries in dealing with the masses of the people aredictated by their needs: at times they resort to outrightviolence, at other times they adopt certain measures ofreform; sometimes they make use of crude threats, atother times they make seeming, petty concessions. Thesetwo kinds of methods are used either alternately or to-gether in some intricate combination. Generally speak-ing, the more powerful the proletariat, the more cunningthe policy usually adopted by the bourgeoisie in orderto instil illusions in the working-class movement andevoke an opportunist response. Lenin said: The zigzags

1 V. I. Lenin, The Collapse of the Second International,Selected Works, New York, Vol. V, p. 204.


22/28

18

of bourgeois tactics intensify revisionism within thelabour movement and not infrequently exacerbate thedifferences within the labour movement to the pitch

of a direct split.1

His words should always serve as awarning to the international working-class movement.Today the dark clouds of revisionism hang over the

international working-class movement. The modern re-visionists are openly engaged in splitting activities. Theemergence of modern revisionism is, of course, a badthing. But as its emergence was inevitable as itsexistence is an objective reality, its public appearance

enables people to see, discern and understand the harmit does. Thus the bad thing will be turned to good ac-count. The modern revisionists appear to be jubilant be-cause of the support they are receiving from imperial-ism. But truth will eventually prevail over falsehoodand Marxism-Leninism over modern revisionism. Themodern revisionists may bluster for a time with theirabsurd announcements that Marxism-Leninism is out

of date. However, it is not modern revisionism, butMarxism-Leninism which is in accord with the his-torical development of human society that is certainultimately to triumph and to grow. This has been proved

by history.The situation in which the international working-class

movement finds itself today is much better than in thepast. Now, there stands the mighty socialist camp witha total population of one thousand million. There existsthe powerful world-wide army of Marxist-Leninists, andthe people throughout the world are awakened as never

before. There is the surging movement of national and

1 V. I. Lenin, Differences in the European Labour Movement,Selected Works, New York, Vol. XI, p. 742.


23/28

19

democratic revolution. For imperialism, things are goingfrom bad to worse. As for socialist revolution, to therich experience gained in Europe and Asia has been added

the highly important and brilliant experience of LatinAmerica. These experiences have enriched the treasuryof Marxism-Leninism, and are ideologically arming therevolutionary people of all countries. These experiencesare diametrically opposed to modern revisionism. Theyare objective and historical reality, and vain are all theattempts on the part of the modern revisionists to tamperwith and twist these experiences.

The international ideological struggle between revolu-tionary Marxism and revisionism towards the end of thenineteenth century was the prelude to great revolu-tionary battles waged by the proletariat. Todays inter-national ideological struggle against modern revisionism,waged under the great banner of Leninism, will all themore prove a symbol and a signal for the growth of thegreat proletarian revolutionary movement and all peo-

ples revolutionary movements, on a broader scale. Guidedby Marxism-Leninism, the revolutionary movements ofthe people of various countries form an irresistibletorrent. In 1913, Lenin concluded his article TheHistorical Destiny of the Doctrine of Karl Marx withthe sentence, . . . a still greater triumph awaits Marx-ism, as the doctrine of the proletariat, in the period ofhistory that is now ensuing.1 Similarly, today in our thegreat new epoch of revolution of ours a great newepoch when the socialist countries have won one triumphafter another in construction, when the liberation move-ments are rising in tempestuous waves in Asia, Africa

1 V. I. Lenin, AgainstRevisionism, Moscow, p. 143.


24/28

and Latin America, and when there has emerged a newspirit of awakening within the working class and amongthe oppressed peoples in Europe and America it can

be predicted that a still greater triumph awaits Leninism.Guided by the great Leninist ideology, let us raise aloftthe banner of the unity of the international communistmovement, the banner of the unity of all the countriesin the socialist camp, the banner of the great friendshipand unity between China and the Soviet Union, the ban-ner of the unity of the Communist and Workers Partiesof all countries, the banner of the unity of the people

of all countries, and the revolutionary banner of theMoscow Declaration and the Moscow Statement, in thecommon fight against imperialism and the reactionaries,in defence of world peace and for the progressive andrighteous cause of the liberation of mankind!


25/28


26/28

rstugvwxytu

*

abcdecd(fg)1963h1ij1dkl : ( m ) 3050477

00022

3E541p


27/28


28/28

Leninism and Modern Revisionism

Documents