To say that all Lenin did was develop a doctrine of combat and added nothing to
the science of society is a complete deviance of Marxism-Leninism and reveals
nothing but the mediocre mind of a revisionist. It further reveals a complete
genuine lack of understanding of dialectical materialism as well as historical
materialism. The very essence of Marxism is in fact dialectical materialism
which Lenin himself called "the living soul of Marxism, its fundamental
theoretical root". To the genuine Marxist-Leninist and dialectical thinker,
the importance of dialectical materialism is most obvious because it is needed
in the study of nature and society, in the theoretical struggle, in the
practical leadership of the proletariat and its constructive work. This means
that it is a "science of society" that all Marxist-Leninists attribute to the
mastery of Lenin and only those that refute Lenin's contribution to the
"science of society" are repugnant
revisionists.
The class struggle in all of its forms, brutal "combat" and peaceful
"parlimentarianism" are quantative aspects of the dialectical process of
societal develoment and it is class struggle that is the motor force of change
that brings about the "leap" into a new "quality" of the lower stage or phase
of communism known as socialism which turns "quality into quantity" that brings
forth the "leap" of a new "quality" that is communism. Only revisionist
dialectics based on eclecticism and sophistry will deny and attempt to "negate"
genuine dialectical materialism that demands the complete investigation of the
"unity of opposites" so that the "WHOLE" of the phenomenon is considered and
not left out in an "arbitrary play of ideas" by the revisionist attempting to
reinvent historical materialism and dialectical materialism by arbitrarily
isolating certain features and phases of the contradiction.
The class struggle is all a part of the "quantity" that comprises the "science
of society" which all genuine dialectical thinkers who are genuine
Marxist-Leninists recognize and accept that this "quantity" alone is
responsible for the "leap" into the new "quality" of society known as
socialism and will continue this class struggle until the new "quality" of
society known as communism has established itself. This new "quality" -
Communism - can only be established through the bitter and ruthless struggle of
revolution whereby the bourgeoisie is completely eliminated as a class from
society so the dialectics of "combat" is a "quantity" found in the "science of
society" that Lenin mastered!
So what is the "science of society" if it is not the dialectics of the class
struggle? I'm sure one will get no intelligible answer from the sophists.
Lenin defined Marxism as the revolutionary theory and tactics of the
revolutionary class struggle of the proletariat and that the task of the
proletariat is "to take a conscious part in the historical process of the
TRANSFORMATION of society that is going on under our eyes." (Marx, Herr Vogt,
1860, my emphasis)
Because of the position it occupies in production and society the proletariat
must act as the leader and organizer of all the oppressed and exploited in the
struggle for communism. In 1846 Marx wrote:
"We do not regard communism as a STATE OF AFFAIRS that has to be brought about;
nor as an ideal to which reality must conform. By communism we mean an ACTUAL
movement that will sweep away the present state of affairs. The conditions for
that movement arise out of already existing premises." (Marx's emphasis)
By these postulates Marx meant: the growth of the working-class, both in
numbers and in class consciousness; large-scale industry and socialized
production developed by capitalism. But private property in the means of
production - which is the very foundation of capitalism - hampers and fetter
the further development of the productive forces. The proletariat alone can
break those fetters; after it has established its dictatorship the proletariat
must smash the machinery of the bourgeois state; it must defind its own state
power in civil war and crush the opposition of the bourgeoisie; it must take
over large-scale industry and transform the means of production on socialist
lines, and, on the ruins of capitalism and using the material left over from
capitalism, give the widest possible development to socialist production with
all possible speed. The proletariat assumes the leadership of the
non-proletarian sections of society that are oppressed and
exploited by by capitalism. Under the guidance of the industrial proletariat,
and with the help of its dictatorship, a complete transformation of production
takes place and the small producers are turned into members of socialist
society. The proletariat thereby creates a new material basis for human
relationships. By means of the class struggle, and with the help of its
dictatorship, it abolishes classes and achieves a classless society. Such is
the historical mission of the proletariat throughout the whole world.
The destruction of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is more than just
"combat" but is in fact a "science of society" that must transform capitalist
society into socialist society which can only be accomplished by establishing
the dictatorship of the proletariat as it attempts to use the infrastructure
and means of production to develop socialism. This must be a transitory phase
in which the proletariat uses it power and authority - its dictatorship - over
the remaining elements of capitalist society to accomplish this transformation
as it must incorporate into this transformation remaining elements of the
bourgeoisie until the transformation is complete through training workers and
the eradication of bourgeois ideological influence. Only then can it be
possible to attain classless society or communism. To accomplish the "quality"
of communism it most certainly implies that one must develop and improve the
"science of society" as we know that
Lenin did.
You understand nothing about dialectical materialism obviously.
A Few words should be said in conclusion as to how to study the works of
Lenin. It should be borne in mind that Lenin was a leader of the proletariat.
A study of his literary works must be closely combined with a study of his
activities and of the conditions in which he worked. Only in this way will the
works of Lenin be properly understood and appreciated. This study, however,
must be linked with the present-day struggle of the proletariat. However, I
will reserve this part for another post since I was digressed into a defense of
Lenin and dialectical materialism. In this defense I have very extensively
used V. Adoratsky to refute the notion that Marxism is dead as far as it
relates to the "ancient writings" of great Marxists and that they somehow have
no relativity in our contemporary capitalist society and that these "ancient
writings" also somehow pose a contradiction in the continuance of the class
struggle which would require an "either
or" choice between responsibility to the working-class and the relevance of
these "ancient writings".
Fraternally
Mark Scott
_______________________________________________
Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list
Marxist-Leninist-List@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
