Thursday, March 30, 2017


The Manifesto of Communist Party by Marx and Engels should be the General Basis for the Unity of Communists.
(This article is published in ‘CLASSSTRUGGLE’ organ of CPI(ML) Central Committee.)
[We are publishing here the Forword written by Comrade Viswam to the book series titled
“The Ideological,oraganisational and Movement Orientation and Attitudes of Indian
Communist Movement” being published by Tarimela Nagireddy Memorial Trust, AP.

Much time has lapsed in examining the ideological and political differences that are at the
root of the divisions in the Communist Movement. There is need to understand the reasons
and basis of differences even after five decades. Today, at a time when the urges for the unity
of Communist Movement and unity of left forces are being expressed, it is necessary to discuss
what are the “ideological, political and movement orientations and stand points of the
Communist party of India”? The hostile atmosphere that continued till now is not without a
reason. This hostile atmosphere is the result of clash of ideological and political issues in

As long as the debate on the political and ideological issues is confined to scholarly
dissertations without going into practice, time will pass away without any squabbles.
The correctness or incorrectness of any policy will be clear when it is put into practice.
Everyone must review the results of past fifty years of one’s practice of their respective
policies. There is need to collectively review by the all.

We must examine our practice as well as our policies in accordance with the tasks set by
the Communist Manifesto for the Communists. The Communist Manifesto had mentioned
various types of Socialism. It had pointed out the limitations of those theories. The Communist
Manifesto had declared: The struggles that begin with the aim that the fruits of labour must
reach the toiling people – the struggles for democracy, liberty and emancipation from
exploitation; for the enjoyment of fruits of labour by the toiling people equally, must continue
as the struggles for the building of a new social and cultural system free from social disparities
and oppressions, as a struggle between two social systems, i.e., that builds an exploitation
free society by abolishing the exploiting society. Finally, the Manifesto had declared the
establishment of a political system where one can do what he or she can do and eat what
they can, i.e., the establishment of a society of highest human values as the ultimate aim of
the Communists. The Communist Manifesto has said that, in the course of building the
Communist Society, the class struggle continues in varying degrees in all its earlier stages.
The Communist Manifesto had declared that there can be no progress and no victories without
waging an undaunting and relentless clash and struggle against all the atrocious features,
trends and practices of private property.

The Paris Commune (1871), the Bolshevik Revolution (1917), the New Democratic
Revolution in China (1949) and the revolutionary movements in various other countries had
only proved this.

It is a historic truth that every exploiting society had been building its own State to carry
on its exploitation, oppression and violence. The Proletarian Party, i.e., the Communist Party
must not forget the question, how to deal with the State in the period before reaching its
ultimate goal and how to overcome the obstacles created by it for the advance of revolutionary movement.

The task of building an exploitation–free new society in place of old exploiting system is
most crucial and difficult one too. The exploiting classes would not simply and on their own
leave the field saying, ‘you build the Proletarian State and the new society’. The Communist
Manifesto said that the exploiting classes had built up the State only to protect the exploiting
system and suppress the defiance, revolts and revolutionary struggles against the system. It
taught that, by revolting, the people lose nothing, but their chains of enslavement. The
Manifesto has made it clear that the Communists must not conceal but openly declare their
aims and objectives and make the people conscious. It is the responsibility of Communists to
develop the forms of organization and struggle necessary for organizing the people.
The Communist Manifesto stands as the guide for the oppressed and toiling people of all
the Continents and Countries. We cannot forget the work done by the Indian Communists in
the light of this Manifesto. They had mobilized the toilers. They had established the Communist
Party. Though there remained many more tasks to be performed by the Communist Party,
what they had done is not less important.

The Communist Party had done a lot of work in the struggle against the British colonialism
and imperialism. It mobilized the working class, the rural toiling people who constituted the
main strength of this struggle and made them to stand as the back bone of national movement.
It had built up militant struggles against the feudal, zamindari and autocratic forces.
It had set for itself the tasks of liberating the country from the imperialist forces and
emancipating the oppressed people, who were living as slaves and semi-slaves under the
yoke of feudalism.

It had consciously worked among the masses of people to arose them against the social
discriminations and inequalities prevailing in our social system.. It had built up the peasant,
agricultural labour and rural poor organizations on the basis of land question, and on the
problems of tenancy, share cropping and wages. Starting with the municipal and press workers
up to the industrial workers, it had organized the struggles of urban working class for better
working conditions, definite working hours and proper wages. In one word, it had moulded
the working class and peasants into the forces of patriotism and class struggle. It had built up
the movements of women, students and youth, and new cultural and literary movements of
writers and artists in support of these movements. It had developed thousands of sacrificing
cadre. It had moved the people in lakhs for the armed resistance and armed revolts and
provided the leadership for them. It was none but the Communist Party which had taken the
objective of defeating feudalism and imperialism and building the State of toiling people to
every nook and corner of our country.

From the Marxist-Leninist viewpoint, the Communist Party had formulated orientations on
the problems of various classes and sections of people in India. It has studied the problems,
formulated the demands and solutions to the problems of language, religion, caste, adivasis,
education & culture, adivasi culture and self-rule, forest rights, drought & famines, artisans,small traders and coastal people.

All those who continue to remain today as Communists are the inheritors of the values
and style of functioning in the political movement established and earned by the Communist
Party. When we own this heritage, we only mean that we must shoulder the responsibility for
the good as well as bad in it. We must rectify. While learning from the theory of class struggle,
we must apply it for the present time. Acting with the consciousness of working class, we
must take good things and get rid of the bad things. This is the responsibility and task of
those who remain as Communists today!

By the Indian Communist Movement, which had taken birth in 1925, we do not mean just
some Communist leaders and cadres alone. The Communist Movement means the movement
built up by the patriots, democrats, toilers – workers, rural peasants, agricultural labour, urban
and rural toiling people, who are working in various unorganized professions, trades and walks,
middle class women, youth, students, writers and artists and the agitations and struggles
organized by their organizations, above all the movement built by many comrades, who
voluntarily sacrificed their lives, to realize the aims.

This was one stage. This was most excellent stage in the communist movement. But why it
is now in divided state? Why it suffered the setback? True. But the communist ideals have not
died. They are alive. The communists, communist revolutionaries who continue to hold high
the flag of these ideals are not small in number. The communist ideals are continuing like the
embers beneath the ash and like rice powder boiling in water. The communists review the
history basing on the strength of these ideals; Learn the lessons; and they move ahead.
The defeat of Fascism and the victory of democratic and peace loving forces in the Second
World War brought many changes in the world arena. Soviet Russia emerging as victor,
rebuilding the country destroyed by the war, the idea that it was moving on the victorious path
of socialist construction; the proletarian parties seizing power in the East European countries;
the Chinese Democratic Revolution being on the brink of victory; the peasants struggles in
countries like India being in an upsurge and the progress achieved by the Communist Party in
various fields have had two kinds of influences on the leadership and cadre of our Party. The
subjective thinking had gained an upper hand as dialectical materialist approach was lacking.
The central leadership had led the working class and peasant movements with two kinds of
guidance. The political and ideological differences in leadership alone were a cause for this.
There was a struggle at the level of Central leadership on two or three understandings.

One: The impact of differences on the question of assessing the class character of the
leadership of Indian bourgeoisie.
Two: The impact of differences on the ideological issues that arose in the International
Communist Movement.

We cannot ignore the fact that these two were the root causes for the split in the Communist
Party. A cordial discussion on these will show a way for the unity. They will show a way to
correct the inadequacies, incorrect things and the mistakes committed in our understandings
and move ahead.

Is it semi-feudal, semi-colonial system? Or dependent capitalist system? Or neo colonial
system? What is a correct one in these three? There is one more crucial thing along with this
question. What is the stage of our revolution? The differences on this question- in what Stage
we are now in the whole course of social development and its various stages – slave, semi –
slave, feudal, semi-feudal, capitalist and socialist systems? Our communist movement is
plagued by the differences and confusions on this question.

Does not the question, the character of the big bourgeoisie; the process of change of
power into its hands; its subservient relations with imperialism: the feudal landlords and the
imperialists mutually helping each other to exist or not? –does not these questions remain as
a point of controversy. Are not there serious differences in the assessments?

Who is the national bourgeoisie? Is it industrial, big trading class? Is it an upper middle
class, having private property and private income? Have not continuing non-clarities on this
question disturbed the unity in the communist party?

Had not the feature of our Party leadership of getting mesmerized by the philosophical
thinking and leading skill of the bourgeois leadership in the national movement blunted the
orientation and edge of class struggle? Had it not reduced the leading role of our Party as
one of the leadership of national movement? Had not the down-trodden people, rural toiling
people, urban working class, who were a support and foundation stones for the Party, carried
away by the hopes created by the reforms of the governments because of this? Had not the
theories different from Marxism chased us because we left the dialectical principles to winds
in conducting the class struggles? Had not our mass base and hold weakened? Who are on
our side in the class struggle of toiling masses? Who are on the side of exploiting class? Are
we adopting the decisions on these questions on the basis of class? Are not our energies
falling prey to the non-class approach on this question?

Our opponents say that we, claiming to be the Communists, physically are unable to remain in
one organization because we are affected by the feelings of prestige, individual egos and
careerist ambitions. They are even carrying on a big propaganda against us on these lines.
Even the communist sympathizers and well-wishers of revolutionary movement think in this
manner with manifestation of disgust and disappointment. Does not this feature show inability
to go into the philosophical, ideological, political and organizational reasons?

The communist parties are not discussing the differences on the above mentioned issues
in their organizations on the basis of ideology and class struggle. The discussions are being
concentrating on the issues that are either not important or actually non-issues.
The confusions created by the opportunist theoreticians and opportunist intellectuals are
showing their influences on the real and genuine communists and Marxist-Leninists. They are
sowing the seeds of frustrations among the communist well-wishers. Therefore, let us take
up all the above questions for extensive discussion. All the communists have a historic
responsibility and task before them to discuss, without setting the practice aside, the problems
of revolutionary movement in a dispassionate manner and without being affected by affection
or prejudice.

Therefore, there is a need for the communists, who own the heritage of Indian Communist
Movement, to make an attempt to recollect and examine the work done by the leaders of our
organisations, the struggles led by them, the attitudes they had taken on various social, political
and cultural issues, the divergences persisted among them, the transformation of divergence
in their orientations into serious differences, inability to remain in one organization due loss
of confidence created by the change from or going back from the adopted attitudes and such
other problems
It is only as a part of this effort, the Comrades have taken up the task of examining the
work carried on by the Communist Party since 1940s and the positions taken by it on various
issues. Their effort is commendable. They have collected and examined a lot of material from
the literature, Party organs, Prajashakti, Vishalandhra and Janashakti. They have selected
the articles, speeches, statements, etc. from many documents published nationally and
internationally, divided subject–wise and prepared for publication as separate books. I hope,
all these will help those with Marxist Leninist orientation and those who adopted Marxism- Leninism-Mao’s Thought as their ideological outlook to carry on the examination and research
on the said questions.
26 January 2017

Thursday, March 2, 2017


Struggle between Two Lines -“RED FLAG” Article on Criticism of Confucius
(from ‘CLASSSTRUGGLE’ - monthly organ of CPI(ML) CC)
( We are reproducing here an article from the journal “Red Flag” (Organ of CPC) by Chin Chihpai on the historical experience of the Chinese Communist Party’s struggle against opportunist lines in connection with the criticism of Confucius, basing on some of Chairman Mao’s related works. - Editor)
Confucius typified the ideology of the decadent slave owing class, the first reactionary class overthrown in China’s history. His ideas, which stood for retrogression and restoration, served the political needs of all dying and degenerating reactionary classes. The ring leaders of past opportunist lines in our Party, including Liu-Shao-chi and Lin Piao, used the doctrines of Confucius and Mencius as an ideological weapon to oppose Marxism-Leninism and Chairman Mao’s revolutionary line.
As early as the 1919 May 4 movement, Chairman Mao sharply criticised the Confucian shop in his revolutionary struggles against imperialism and feudalism. From that time on, for half a century, Chairman Mao has always linked his fight against opportunist lines in the Party with repeated criticism of Confucius and those who revere Confucius. Such criticism has become part of the criticism of erroneous lines. A serious study of Chairman Mao’s works and statements criticizing Confucius is of great significance in under standing and deepening the present movement to criticize Lin Piao and Confucius.
Period of New Democratic Revolution
The struggle between Chairman Mao’s revolutionary line and Chen Tu-hsiu’s right opportunist line during the first revolutionary civil war period (1925-1927) was the first serious struggle in our Party between the two lines. Although Chen-Tu-hsiu for a time took a radical bourgeoisie democratic stand and shouted the revolutionary slogan “down with the Confucian shop”, he completely rejected this slogan and went seeking the aid of the dead souls of the Confucian shop when he adopted right opportunism. The worker-peasant revolutionary movement was surging throughout the country at that time, especially the peasant movement which rose like a mighty storm, like a hurricane, a very swift and violent force. At that point so crucial to the progress of the revolution, Chen Tu-hsiu brazenly used the doctrines of Confucius and Mencius to oppose the revolution and Chairman Mao’s proletarian revolutionary line, clamouring that “we must keep to an eclectic middle of the road line for a considerable period of time”.
This was a right opportunist line advocating “ all alliance and no struggle”, which meant offering leadership of the revolution to the Kuomintang reactionaries and defending the dictatorship of the landlord and capitalist classes. In chorus with the counter-revolutionary clamours of the landlords and capitalists, Chen Tuhsiu attacked the peasant movement as “being too left” and “ going too far” and vilified it as “terrible” so as to put down this sweeping, vigorous movement. The reactionary class nature of Chen Tu-hsiu’s line had to be exposed fully, and the counter-revolutionary doctrines of Confucius and Mencius which it used to deceive and intimidate the people had to be criticized in order to carry the revolution forward.
“Report on an investigation of the peasant movement in Hunan”, which Chairman Mao wrote in March 1927, was a battle cry for criticism of Chen Tu-hsiu and the doctrines of Confucius and Mencius. It exposed and criticised: Chen Tu-hsiu’s right-opportunism, sharply denounced the counter-revolutionary slander of the peasant movement as “going too far” penetratingly expounded the revolutionary dialectics that “proper limits have to be exceeded in order to right a wrong”, and sharply criticized the doctrine of the mean. Chen Tu-hsiu and company used the doctrine of the mean, which protected the interests of the reactionary declining classes, to vilify the peasant movement for “going too far” and forbid the peasants from smashing the old man-killing order of the feudal landlord class. In sharp opposition, Chairman Mao pointed out that “a revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous.” “A rural revolution is a revolution by which the peasantry overthrows the power of the feudal landlord class. Without using the greatest force, the peasants cannot possibly over throw the deep rooted authority of the landlords which has lasted for thousands of years.” Therefore, “proper limits have to be exceeded in order to right a wrong, or else the wrong cannot be righted”. These brilliant concepts of Chairman Mao’s have become sharp weapons that always encourage revolutionary people to dare to struggle and dare to win.
In this article Chairman Mao cited fourteen great achievements of the peasant movement in refuting the slanders against it by the reactionaries and opportunists, and warmly praised the poor peasants as “vanguards of the revolution” and described the peasant movement as “fine”. Many of the fourteen great achievements countered the doctrines of Confucius and Mencius. Powerful proof of this is that the peasants tossed aside the Confucian-Mercian concepts of the “three cardinal guides and five constant virtues”, overthrowing the political power of the landlords, the clan authority of the ancestral temples and clan elders, the religious authority of the town and village gods, and the masculine authority of husbands.“These four authorities - political, clan, religious and masculine-are the embodiment of the whole feudal-patriarchal system and ideology, and are the four thick ropes binding the Chinese people, particularly the peasants”. Here, Chairman Mao very clearly made the point that the struggle against Confucius was an important part of the revolutionary struggle. Subsequent struggles in China’s revolution proved to the hilt that every move forward by the revolution and by the people demanded struggle against the doctrines of Confucius and Mencius and other ideology of the reactionary, moribund classes. The use of Marxism- Leninism to criticize the doctrines of Confucius and Mencius has been a militant and protracted task on the political and ideological front in the Chinese revolution.
After Chen Tu-hsiu’s right capitulationist line was rectified, three “left” opportunist lines appeared in our Party and that of Wang Ming dominated for the longest time and most damaged the Party. Like Chen Tu-hsiu, the “left” opportunists were all worshippers of Confucius. They enshrined the idealism and metaphysics of the doctrines of Confucius and Mencius and kowtowed to. Then they opposed integrating the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism with the practice of the Chinese revolution, and vilified and opposed Marxism-Leninism by spreading mystical notions of “prophecy” such as disciples of Confucius and Mencius advocated. Their various lines of “all struggle and no alliance” were based on subjective idealism.
In order to eliminate these opportunist lines ideologically, Chairman Mao wrote “Oppose Book Worship”, “On practice”, “On contradiction” and other brilliant works, in which he summed up the historical experience of the struggles against “left” and right opportunist lines, and criticized the idealist and metaphysical doctrines of Confucius and Mencius which they advocated, thereby inheriting, defending and developing Marxist dialectical and historical materialism.
Chairman Mao points out in “Oppose Book Worship”. “When we say Marxism is correct, it is certainly not because Marx was a ‘Prophet’ but because his theory has been proved correct in our practice and in our struggle. We need Marxism in our struggle. In our acceptance of his theory no such formalistic or mystical notion as that of ‘prophecy’ ever enters our minds”. Confucius proclaimed himself ‘the prophet’. And his worshippers down through the ages praised Confucius and his like as ‘Prophet’s. Their purpose was to use a priori idealism to oppose the revolutionary practice of the masses and oppose progressive ideas that accorded with social development.
Chairman Mao sharply criticized the thoroughly erroneous idealist viewpoint of the “left” opportunists who regarded Marxism as ‘prophecy’, and he pointed out that revolutionary theory comes from revolutionary practice and must be tested by it, that the mystical notion of ‘prophecy’ is utterly incompatible with Marxism. The subtitle of “On practice” is ‘on the relation between knowledge and practice, between knowing and doing”. This shows clearly that the spearhead of criticism is directed at the a priori idealist notion held by Wang Ming and Confucius, a notion that is contemptuous of practice and regards man’s knowledge and ability as innate.
In a profound explanation of the dialectical materialist theory of knowledge, as embodied in the formula “practice - theory-practice”, Chairman Mao states explicitly: “Our conclusion is the concrete, historical unity of the subjective and the objective, of theory and practice, of knowing and doing, and we are opposed to all erroneous ideologies, whether ‘left’ or right, which depart from concrete history”.
Chairman Mao in “On contra-diction” directly criticizes Wang Ming’s metaphysics, and exposes the reactionary nature of the metaphysical concept “heaven changeth not, likewise the Tao changeth not” advocated by Tung Chung-shu, chieftain of the worshippers of Confucius of the western Han dynasty (206 B.C.-24 A.D). This reactionary philosophy attempted to prove that the social system of oppression and exploitation dates from hoary antiquity and would remain for ever unchanged. Aimed at countering social change and people’s revolution, this type of metaphysical notion served the decadent feudal ruling classes for a long time. The opportunists picked up this worn-out ideological weapon of the doctrines of Confucius and Mencius because they intended to maintain the Kuomintang’s reactionary rule, sabotage the people’s revolution and block historical advance.
During the war of resistance against Japan, Wang Ming jumped from the ultra-left to the extreme right advocating “everything through the united front” and “everything must be submitted to the united front” In essence, Wang Ming returned to Chen Tu-hsiu’s right opportunist line of “all alliance and no struggle” and handed leadership of the anti-Japanese war over to the Kuomintang.
In advocating this erroneous line, Wang Ming fell back on the doctrines of Confucius and Mencius. He claimed that antagonistic classes, parties and armies should “hold each other in esteem”, “respect and love each other” and “show courtesy and deference to each other” under the banner of “benevolence and love”. In fact, he was calling on the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese people to cast themselves at the feet of Chaingkai-shek, giving him a free hand to suck the life-blood of the people and sell out China by surrendering.
Wang Ming’s right opportunist line did serious damage to the interests of the Communist Party and people of China. Chairman Mao wrote “On New Democracy”, “The Orientation of the Youth movement”, “Introducing the Communist”, “Oppose stereotyped Party Writing” and “Talks at the Yenan Forum on Literature and Art” to sum up the experience of the struggles between the two lines from the time of the May 4 movement and pointed out that opposition to stereotype party writing was a continuation of opposition to the old sort of stereotype writing.
Chairman Mao personally led the Yenan movement to rectify the style of work, thus further correcting Wang Ming’s line ideologically and politically and criticizing the doctrines of Confucius and Mencius.
The sinister line runs through the world outlook of all reactionary exploiting classes and opportunists is the theory of “human nature” of the exploiting classes. These people always use this kind of hypocrisy to deceive the people, blur the differences between classes, benumb revolutionary will and sabotage revolutionary struggles.
Wang Ming was such a person. He tried to cover up the essence of his capitulationist line with the banner of “benevolence and love”. In “Talks at the Yenan forum on literature and art”, Chairman Mao makes the profound point: “As for the so-called love of humanity, there has been no such all-inclusive love since humanity was divided into classes. All the ruling classes of the past were fond of advocating it, and so were many so-called sages and wise men, but nobody has ever really practiced it, because it is impossible in class society.”
The main representative of the “sages and wise men” whom Chairman Mao is criticizing in this work is Confucius who chanted “the benevolent man loves others”. This is a powerful exposure of the ideological essence of Wang Ming’s capitulationist line and a sharp criticism of the reactionary and hypocritical features of the doctrines of Confucius and Mencius.
Exposing the class nature of the worship of Confucius by the reactionaries at home and abroad and the ringleaders of opportunist lines, Chairman Mao makes the point in his work “On New Democracy” : “China also has a semi-feudal culture which reflects her semi-feudal politics and economy, and whose exponents include all those who advocate the worship of Confucius, the study of the Confucian canon, the old ethical code and the old ideas in opposition to the new culture and new ideas. Imperialist culture and semi-feudal culture are devoted brothers and have formed a reactionary cultural alliance against China’s new culture.
This kind of reactionary culture serves the imperialists and the feudal class and must be swept away.” Imperialism and the feudal landlord class, which colluded politically for their common, reactionary goal of exploiting and oppressing the Chinese people, inevitably formed a reactionary alliance in the field of culture. The doctrines of Confucius and Mencius, as the restorationist and retrogressive ideology of the declining slave-owner class, have always in Chinese history attracted reactionary and decadent class forces.
After the imperialists invaded China, these doctrines served the imperialist forces of aggression and were a spiritual bulwark against the people and the revolution. The traitors in modern and contemporary Chinese history, ranging from Tseng Kuo-fan and Li Hung-chang to Chiang Kai-shek and Wang Ching-wei, without exception, played the dual tactics of lauding Confucius and spreading his canons as well as worshipping everything foreign and betraying the nation.
Similarly, the ringleaders of the opportunist lines, as agents of the landlord and capitalist classes within the Party, without exception lauded Confucius and worshipped everything foreign. Some of them became enemy collaborators and traitors.
In the period of the war of liberation, China was confronted with a decisive battle between two futures and destinies. The Kuomintang reactionaries and their hack writers once again unfurled the sinister Confucian ensign in an effort to maintain their bloody rule. The renegade, hidden traitor and scab Liu Shao-chi became their agent in our Party. Liu Shao-chi had long been a fanatic worshipper of Confucius.
As early as 1925, he was arrested by the reactionaries and turned traitor. Upon release from enemy prison, he brought home a volume of “the four books”, a present given by a reactionary warlord, and sneaked back into the revolutionary ranks. He first put out in 1939 his sinister book on “Self-cultivation” which lauded the doctrines of Confucius and Mencius. In the period of the liberation war, he dished up the reactionary programme of a “new stage of peace and democracy” to oppose the People’s Liberation War, and followed this up by preaching that “it is necessary to show forbearance like Confucius” in an attempt to prevent our Party from leading the people in winning nation-wide victory. Whether to carry the revolution through to the end or abandon it halfway was a cardinal issue concerning China’s future and destiny.
Chairman Mao wrote the article “Carry the revolution through to the end” severely criticizing the so- called forbearance of Confucius and Mencius. He made the penetrating point : “the Chinese people will never take pity on snake-like scoundrels, and they honestly believe that no one is their true friend who guilefully says that pity should be shown these scoundrels and says that anything else would be out of keeping with China’s traditions, fall short of greatness, etc.,” “If the revolution is to be carried through to the end, we must use the revolutionary method to wipe out all the forces of reaction resolutely, thoroughly, wholly and completely.”
Under the guidance of Chairman Mao’s revolutionary line, the Chinese people swept aside all obstacles with a mighty force. The hour had come for the downfall of the Chiang family dynasty and the birth of a new China of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
At this key juncture of the revolution, the reactionary forces not reconciled to defeat, continued their desperate struggle. They came out with what Confucius and Mencius called “benevolence, righteousness and morality” in viciously attacking the revolutionary political power as “not benevolent”.
Chairman Mao wrote “On the People’s Democratic Dictatorship” and other articles to give incisive criticism of the preachings of Confucius and Mencius on “rule by benevolence”, and sharply, refuted the attacks mounted by the reactionaries and Liu Shao-chi and company on the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Giving tit for tat. Chairman Mao wrote “you are not benevolent exclamation’ quite so. We definitely do not apply a policy of benevolence to the reactionary classes”. The state apparatus has always been an instrument of violence for class oppression; it is never “benevolent”. Supra-classes “rule by benevolence” simply does not exist.
There is only dictatorship by which one class oppresses another. “All the experience the Chinese people have accumulated through several decades teaches us to enforce the People’s Democratic Dictatorship”. If the revolutionary people do not master this method of ruling over the Counter-revolutionary classes, they will not be able to maintain their state power, domestic and foreign reaction will overthrow that power and restore its own rule over China, and disaster will befall the revolutionary people”.
Chairman Mao profoundly expounded the essence of the Marxist theory of the state, and formulated the great programme for the establishment and consolidation of the dictatorship of the proletariat in China.
The criticism of the “rule by benevolence” is at the same time a declaration of the bankruptcy of the plots of the domestic and foreign reactionaries and the opportunists within the Party to obstruct the advance of the Chinese revolution by using the doctrines of Confucius and Mencius.
Period of Socialist Revolution
With the founding of the People’s Republic, of China our country entered the period of socialist revolution and the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie became the principal one at time. There were repeated and vigorous struggles by Chairman Mao’s proletarian revolutionary line against the revisionist lines of Liu Shao-chi and Lin piao and others.
The focus was on whether to take the socialist rood or the capitalist road that is, on whether to consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat and propel the revolution forward or restore capitalism and turn history backward. The essence of the doctrines of Confucius and Mencius was restoration and retrogression and under the conditions of socialism, the opportunist ring leaders are without exception wadded to these doctrines so as to restore capitalism, and the specter of the reactionary doctrines of Confucius and Mencius in turn took possession of the counter-revolutionary revisionists. Hence, the struggles between the two classes and the two lines in this period are closely connected with the struggle between opposing and worshipping Confucius.
A faithful lackey of the landlord and capitalist classes, Liu Shao-chi had at an early date begun his activities against socialist revolution in new China. By blatantly preaching “exploitation has its merits” and clamouring for “consolidating the new democratic order” and “ensuring the protection of private property”, he wanted in fact to give up socialism for capitalism.
In conformity with this reactionary political line, Liu Shao-chi and his agents in art and literature brought out the reactionary film “the life of Wu sun” which encouraged the worship of Confucius and opposed the people’s revolution. Wu Hsun, who is eulogized in the film, was a diehard defender of feudalism and an utterly despicable worshipper of Confucius.In lauding Wu Hsun, Lu Shao-chi and company were praising Confucius and preaching the doctrines of Confucius and Mencius.
Chairman Mao personally led the criticism of “the life of Wu Hsun” as a struggle in ideological and political line and penetratingly exposed the ugly features of Liu Shao-chi and other worshippers of Confucius. Chairman Mao pointed out: “In the view of many writers, history has developed not by the replacement of the old by the new, but by the exertion of every effort to preserve the old from extinction, not by class struggle to overthrow the reactionary feudal rulers who had to be overthrown, but by the negation of the class struggle of the oppressed and their submission to these rulers, in the manner of Wu Hsun.” Chairman Mao’s statement dealt a mortal blow to the revisionists and all worshippers of Confucius, and hit hard at the doctrines of Confucius and Mencius.
A high tide of socialist transformation in China began in the second half of 1955. Several hundred million peasants joyously took the broad road of co-operation. Liu Shao-chi and company came out again with the threadbare doctrine of the mean to slander the co-operative movement as “too fast” and “too sweeping”, and slashed back the co-operatives right and left.
Chairman Mao at once published “On the Question of Agricultural Co-operation” and other articles, and edited the book “The Socialist Upsurge in China’s Countryside” to counter attack their disruptive activities.
In an introductory note to one article in the book, Chairman Mao criticized Liu Shao-chi for having gone on a pilgrimage to Chufu to worship Confucius and restore the ancients.
Chairman Mao noted: “a socialist co-operative has been started by the people living in the birth place of Confucius. The people there remained impoverished for two thousand years or more, but their economic and cultural life began to change in three years of co-operation. This demonstrates that our socialism today is without precedent.
Socialism is infinitely superior to the Confucian ‘classics’. To those who are interested in visiting the temple of Confucius and the groves there, my advice is that they might do well to take a look at this co- operative on their way.” This profound class analysis makes the clear point that the doctrines of Confucius and Mencius are worthless to the working people and that only socialism can save China and benefit the people. Under the leadership of the party, the Chinese people achieved socialist transformation of the ownership of the means of production in a fairly short time.
Under the guidance of the Party’s general line of “going all out, aiming high and achieving greater, faster, better and more economical results in building socialism” the Chinese people showed daring in thinking, dared to speak out and act and launched the great leap forward in 1958.
When the Chinese people made their first tractor by relying on their own resources, Chairman Mao warm-heartedly wrote the inscription: “the lowly are most intelligent; the elite are most ignorant.” This scientific thesis criticized the reactionary view of history which the disciples of Confucius and Mencius had insisted upon for 2,000 years, namely, “the highest are the wise and the lowest are the stupid,” and greatly inspired the several hundred million revolutionary people throughout the country.
China’s rapid advances in socialist revolution and construction struck fear and hatred in the hearts of the bourgeoisie and its agents in the Party – Liu Shao-chi, Lin Piao, PengTeh-huai and their like.
At the eighth plenary session of the eighth central committee of the Party in 1959, PengTeh-huai came out and viciously attacked: the Party’s general line, opposed the great leap forward and the people’s commune as well as the revolutionary mass movement. His aim was to usurp Party leadership, seize power and subvert the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Chairman Mao led the whole Party in smashing Pang Teh-huai’s right opportunist line in good time and, in the coarse of the struggle, exposed PengTeh-huai’s reactionary world out look to its very root. Peng The-huai had never been a Marxist.
In the war of resistance against Japanese aggression, he preached “liberty, equality, fraternity” and the doctrines of Confucius and Mencius such as “do not do unto others what you do not want others to do unto you” Chairman Mao pinpointed these as anti- Marxist bourgeois views intended to hoodwink the people. Preaching “do not do unto others what you do not want others to do unto you” before the victory of the revolution was be practice class conciliation and oppose the overthrow of the enemy by war and political means. It meant to liquidate the revolution.
Preaching “do not do unto others what you do not want others to do unto you” after the victory of the revolution meant to make bitter complaints on behalf of the over thrown landlords, rich peasants, counter revolutionaries, bad elements and rightists, liquidate the dictatorship of the proletariat and restore capitalism. Herein was the essence of PengTeh-huai’s right opportunism.
Chairman Mao’s criticism of this reactionary view is very important to us in upholding the Marxist theory of classes and classes struggle and the dictatorship of the proletariat As long as classes and class struggle still exist, it can only be “do unto others what you do not want others to do unto you” and firmly grasp the dictatorship of the proletariat, resolutely attack the enemy and protect the interests of the proletariat and the people.
After PengTeh-huai’s right opportunist line was smashed, Liu Shao-chi joined in the anti-China, anti- Communist and counter-revolutionary trend crated by imperialists, revisionists and reactionaries abroad, and stirred up an evil storm for counter-revolutionary restoration. He had his sinister book on “self- cultivation” issued for the third time in 1962.
Imbued with the poison of the doctrines of Confucius and Mencius, the book made no reference whatever to the dictatorship of the proletariat and the struggle between bourgeois restoration and proletarian counter -restoration. It advertised “self-cultivation” behind closed doors, isolated from the three great revolutionary movements of class struggle, the struggle for production and scientific experiment, and called on communists to learn from Confucius and Mencius such doctrines as “loyalty and forbearance” “return good for evil” “make concessions to achieve one’s purpose” and “swallow humiliation and bear a heavy load.” Furthermore, Liu Shao - chi supported the holding of a meeting to eulogize Confucius. What he wanted was to achieve “peaceful evolution” through the doctrines of Confucius and Mencius, push his counter-revolutionary revisionist line, subvert the dictatorship of the proletariat and restore capitalism.
Countering the restorationist conspiracy of Liu Shao-chi and company, Chairman Mao at the tenth plenary session of the Party’s eighth central committee issued the great call “never forget classes and class struggle” and set forth more comprehensively the Party’s basic line for the whole historical period of socialism.
In 1963, Chairman Mao wrote his well-known treatise “Where Do Correct Ideas come from?”. It criticized the idealist theory of knowledge based on the doctrines of Confucius and Mencius which Liu Shao-chi peddled, and repudiated his preaching of “self-cultivation” directed against the proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat.
The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution initiated and led by Chairman Mao is an overall settling of accounts with Liu Shao-chi’s counter-revolutionary revisionist line as well as a profound movement to criticize Confucius. In the programmatic document of the great proletarian cultural revolution -the circular of the central committee of the Chinese Communist Party (May 16, 1966) – Chairman Mao wrote a paragraph to refute the absurdity preached by Liu Shao-chi and company that “everyone is equal before the truth” and criticize the doctrines of Confucius and Mencius on the so-called relation- ship of “benevolence, righteous- ness and morality”.
Chairman Mao pointed out very clearly: “Those representatives of the bourgeoisie who have sneaked into the party, the government, the army and various spheres of culture are a bunch of counter- revolutionary revisionists” : “they are faithful lackeys of the bourgeoisie and imperialists, they cling to the bourgeois ideology of oppression and exploitation of the proletariat and to the capitalist system, and they oppose Marxist-Leninist ideology and the socialist system.
They are a bunch of counter revolutionaries opposing the Communist Party and the people. Their struggle against us is one of life and death, and there is no question of equality. Therefore, our struggle against them, too, can be nothing but a life-and-death struggle, and our relationship with them can in no way be one of equality. On the contrary, it is a relationship in which one class oppresses another, that is, the dictatorship of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie. There can be no other type of relationship, such as a so-called, relationship of equality or of peaceful coexistence between exploiting and exploited classes, or of kindness or magnanimity.”
This indicated the correct orientation for this great revolution, i.e., the criticism of revisionism, of the doctrines of Confucius and Mencius and of the ideology of all reactionary, moribund classes. It expounded the nature of this great revolution, namely, a great political revolution for consolidating the dictatorship of the proletariat end preventing a capitalist restoration.
After smashing the bourgeois headquarters which had Liu Shao-chi as its ringleader, our Party followed up by smashing the bourgeois headquarters of which Lin Piao was the ringleader. Lin Piao was an out-and-out disciple of Confucius. He made a hodge-podge of the doctrines of Confucius and Mencius, which were meant to maintain and restore slavery, and revisionist absurdities to form the ideological basis for his counter-revolutionary revisionist line. He took over the Confucian programme to restore slavery of “restraining oneself and returning to the rites” as the most important of all things. To realize his dream of “returning to the rites”, namely, restoring capitalism and subverting the dictatorship of the proletariat, he rushed out a political programme that insisted on having a chairman of the state and a theoretical programme based on the idealist “theory of innate genius.”
Seeing through the plot of Lin Piao and his cohorts to usurp power and restore capitalism, Chairman Mao gave instructions on several occasions on not having a Chairman of the state. Countering the anti - Party theoretical programme preached by Lin Piao and chen Po-ta,
Chairman Mao in particular criticized the “theory of innate genius” and made the penetrating point : on the questions of whether history is made by heroes or slaves, whether knowledge (talent also belongs to this category) is inborn or acquired, whether idealist a briorism or the materialist theory of reflection should be applied, we can take only the Marxist-Leninist stand and must not associate ourselves with Chen Po- ta’srumours and sophistry.
Chairman Mao’s penetrating criticism of a priori idealism unmasked the renegade and traitor Lin Piao, who proclaimed himself a “genius” “endowed by heaven”, “the noblest of men”, a “superman” and “heavenly horse”, as no more than a dolt acting against the trend of history.
On the one hand, Lin Piao invoked the dead soul of Confucius and praised the doctrines of Confucius and Mencius to the skies; on the other hand, he wildly slandered Chin Shin huang (first emperor of the Chin dynasty, 221B.C.-207 BC.) as “cruel and tyrannical” and vilified the legalist school as the “school of punishment”. This was his way to oppose the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Chairman Mao had earlier sharply criticized this reactionary view of Lin Piao’s. At the second meeting of the Party’s 8th national congress in 1958, when Lin Piao maliciously attacked Chin Shin huang for “burning books and burying Confucian scholars alive”, Chairman Mao refuted him then and there. Chairman Mao fully approved Chin Shin huang’s revolutionary action in resolutely suppressing reactionary Confucian scholars, expounded the progressive role of revolutionary violence and exposed the reactionary essence of Lin Piao’s attacks on Chin Shin huang as attacks on revolutionary violence and the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Important Historical Experience
It is not fortuitous that all the ringleaders of past opportunists line in China revered Confucius and lauded the doctrines of Confucius and Mencius. These persons were representatives of the exploiting classes who had sneaked into the Communist Party. The decadent and moribund nature of exploiting classes leads to inevitable opposition to revolution and progress and advocacy of restoration and retrogression. Confucius was their venerable master who beat the drums for restoration and retrogression. The Confucian ideology, which was inherited and developed by reactionaries of subsequent generations, became a perfect guideline to defend reactionary rule. It suits the political needs of all decadent and moribund reactionaries. Therefore, it is naturally used by the ring leaders of opportunist lines in the Party as an ideological weapon to oppose the proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Confucius had a reactionary political line for the restoration of the slave-owning system as well as a corresponding reactionary ideological line that is idealism and metaphysics. In order to justify the right of the reactionary slave-owning class to oppress and exploit the slaves and to defend the outrages of the decadent slave-owning aristocrats, Confucius spread the idealist view of a “mandate from heaven” and the priori concept that some are “born with knowledge”.
Opportunist lines in the party “are all characterized by the breach between the subjective and the objective by the separation of knowledge from practice”. They all follow the reactionary ideological line of “from subjective to objective”, and one of the sources of this reactionary ideological line is the a priori idealism of Confucius.
Since the reactionary political line and ideological line of Confucius were advocated and enforced by all reactionary ruling classes, the reactionary ideological system of Confucius became the dominant ideology of declining feudal and semi-feudal, semi-colonial society in China.
Chairman Mao says: “In those days, the ruling classes indoctrinated students with Confucian teachings and compelled the people; to venerate all the trapping of Confucianism as religious dogma.” He goes on to point out that for the people of the whole country to be free from the shackles of the doctrines of Confucius and Mencius would need “a very great effort – a huge job work on the road of revolutionary remoulding”.
The struggles of the past decades prove the complete correctness of this thesis of Chairman Mao’s. The doctrines of Confucius and Mencius still influence various spheres of society. Therefore, those who carry out opportunist lines in China as a matter of course use the doctrines of Confucius and Mencius and their traditional influence to paddle their wares. This is the historical reason why the ring leaders of all opportunist lines in China have venerated Confucius.
Pinpointing this specific feature of the opportunist lines within the Chinese Communist Party by tracing back their class and ideological roots, Chairman Mao always combines criticism of opportunist lines with criticism of the doctrines of Confucius and Mencius, and adheres to Marxism, to the proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is an important historical experience of our Party in waging two-line struggles.
During the period of the new democratic revolution, the fundamental task of the Communist Party and the revolutionary people of China was the seizure of state power. The ring leaders of opportunist lines preached the doctrines of Confucius and Mencius precisely to maintain the reactionary rule of imperialism, feudalism and bureaucratic-capitalism in China, therefore, the struggle between the two lines and the struggle between opposing and worshipping Confucius in that period centred mainly on the fundamental question of whether or not to make revolution and carry it through to the end, how to arrive at a correct under-standing of the law of the new democratic revolution with the proletarian seizure of state power, the struggle between the two lines and the struggle between opposing and worshipping Confucius focused on the fundamental question of whether or not to consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat and continue the revolution under this dictatorship, and whether to take the socialist or the capitalist road.
In the two-line struggles in various historical periods, through criticism of Confucius and by tracing the relation between the opportunist lines and the doctrines of Confucius and Mencius, Chairman Mao penetratingly exposed their common reactionary essence. With the socialist revolution going over deeper, the struggle to criticize revisionism and the doctrines of Confucius and Mencius is bound to reach in all fields and the various spheres of ideology and culture, and touch people’s world outlook.
Criticism such as this will steadily eliminate the traditional influence of the doctrines of Confucius and Mencius and all other ideologies of declining reactionary classes. This is of great importance to opposing and preventing revisionism, consolidating the dictatorship of the proletariat and preventing the restoration of capitalism.
The struggle to criticize Lin Piao and Confucius, which is at present developing vigorously all over China, is a political and ideological struggle in the superstructure through which Marxism triumphs over revisionism and the proletariat over the bourgeoisie.
In order to deepen the struggle and win new victories, we must conscientiously study the historical experience of Chairman Mao’s leading the entire Party in penetratingly criticizing Confucius in the various struggles between the two lines, study works by Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin and Chairman Mao’s works, and study Chairman Mao’s instructions and the documents of the Party Central Committee on the criticism of Lin Piao and Confucius master our ideological weapon. We must, at the same time, apply the Marxist viewpoint in studying and summing up the history of the two-line struggle between the Confucian and legalist schools and the history of class struggle as a whole, and draw upon the historical experience of class struggle in promoting the growth of the struggle to criticize Lin Piao and Confucius in a deep-going, popular and sustained way.

Thursday, February 16, 2017


On the nature of "Trotskyism"of Marxist philosophy
Published on January 27, 2017 from sascha 313

Stalin said: It is said that Comrade Lenin had proposed in this "Testament" the party, one should consider in terms of Stalin's "rudeness", whether they should not replace Stalin as general secretary by another comrade. That is true. Yes, comrades, I am crudely against those who grossly and treacherously break
down the party. I have not concealed this, and did not conceal it;it is possible that a certain leniency against the cleavages is necessary. But I can not get it done. (Stalin's speech on October 23, 1927. In: art, Bd.10 .., P.151 Read value Highly

On the nature of "Trotskyism"

1. Trotskyism - an ideology for the petty bourgeoisie, Enemy of the Soviet Union, anti-Communist and Stalin hasser Leo Trotsky.

One of the most dangerous directions of opportunism and revisionism in the
world revolutionary movement is "Trotskyism". Today he is very widespread in
the world. There are dozens of leftist groups in this country alone; No less is
there in the republics of the former USSR, especially in Ukraine. And although
their numbers are small, they are already causing considerable damage in the
communist and workers' movement.

Trotskyism on the rise ...
A major role in the dissemination of "Trotskyism" was played by the fall of the
USSR and the destruction of Soviet socialism, which the Trotskyists had always
fought. As principal opponents of Marxism-Leninism from the outset, they had
no more hurried to explain than here that these events fully confirmed the
correctness of their views, namely that Soviet socialism was not viable, and
that its downfall was supposed to be lawful . It is by no means surprising that
the Trotskyists on this point are in full agreement with the ideologues of the
bourgeoisie, the Liberals, who are open enemies of the working class. But this
is not the first case in the history of the communist movement, where the
Trotskyists so openly show their true bourgeois face.

Confidence in Marxism was subdued Under the pressure of liberal propaganda, and under the influence of opportunism, which had long hoped for the fall of Soviet Socialism, the disintegration and the wobble began in the revolutionary world movement.

Confidence in the only correct revolutionary theory - Marxism-Leninism - was undermined. The consequence of this was that communist and workers' parties fell apart or passed over to social-democratic positions. A considerable part of the left, especially from the bourgeois classes of the urban population and the intelligentsia, joined the Trotskyists after having convinced themselves of their "revolutionary spirit."

The bourgeoisie, on the other hand, could only support this process satisfactorily, as a matter of course, financially, since it was an excellent example of the invaluable service the Trotskyists afforded to it, by distracting the workers from the dangerous, but the only correct way of the struggle.

Who are the Trotskyists today?
At the moment the Trotskyist movement in the world is represented by a number of political alliances, which also operate internationally.They are generously sponsored by the bourgeoisie. The largest of these are the following four associations, of which the three former are jointly participating in the organization of the "European Left".

• The (reunified) Fourth International [1] - the largest sections are located in France (New anti- capitalist party), Sweden (Socialist Party), Italy (Association of "critical left"), Denmark (red- green coalition), Portugal (Left (Sri Lanka),
Philippines (Mindanao's Revolutionary Workers Party) and Brazil ("Socialism and Freedom"). The leaders are Alain Kriwin, Olivia Besancon, EricTussen, Alan Thornett, Franziska Lousa and others.

• The International Socialist Tendency (МSТ) - an international association that adheres to the views Tony Cliff about the Soviet Union. The largest sections are in Great Britain (Socialist Labor Party), Greece (Socialist Labor Party) and
Ireland (Socialist Worker Party). The leaders are Alex Kallinikos, Chris Harman and others.

• The Committee for Workers International (KAI) - the largest sections are
located in the UK (Socialist Party), Ireland (Socialist Party) and Germany (organization "Socialist Alternative"). The leaders are Ted Grant(until 1991), Peter Taaf.

• The International Marxist Tendency (IMT) - has a large section in Pakistan in the Pakistan People's Party. In all countries where there are sections of the IMT, they adhere to the tactics of the under-migration of left-wing and progressive mass parties to neutralize, destroy, or lead to positions of "Trotskyism". The leaders are Ted Grant, Alan Woods.

They have excellently adapted methods of provocation and the destruction of
workers' parties and communist organizations. After Trotskyists had penetrated
these organizations and established themselves in them, they were able to
neutralize any revolutionary movement. They hindered the strengthening and
effective action of the revolutionary forces. Therefore, in any country, it is
extremely important for a revolutionary movement to learn what "Trotskyism"
is and how to fight it.

The Trotskyists in Russia In today's Russia, the struggle against Trotskyism has acquired a special importance, since this country is not only the historical origin of this kind of opportunism, but also the country which has suffered the most from Trotskyist activity, and a great one of its conscience Part of the blame for the fall of the Soviet Union.

The Trotskyists, as before, were unable to lead the workers' movement. For
from their class instinct the workers understand how rotten this whole ideology
is, and they try to keep away from it. But the Trotskyists find their adherents
relatively easily among people with a petty bourgeois consciousness who lack a
serious Marxist education.

Why is "Trotskyism" so attractive to them?1. The Trotskyists call themselves the true Communists, as Bolsheviks, as internationalists, as Marxist-Leninists. They attribute to Trotsky the role of leader of the October Revolution, as the founder and leader of the Red Army, as the author of the concept of socialist construction in the USSR, as a true supporter of Marx, Engels and Lenin and as a fighter against Stalinism, allegedly a variant Of opportunism.

The Trotskyists point Trotsky as zealous fighters against the danger of bureaucratism in the USSR, as the most consistent and irreconcilable opponents
of capitalism, opportunism, revisionism, nationalism, and chauvinism. The
politically uneducated sections of the population perceive these attributes as an expression of the essence of Trotskyism, but they are unable to penetrate deeper into their real being, which is very far from these beautiful explanations.

2. The Trotskyists speculate on the appearances of revolutionary impatience, which is characteristic of a significant part of the leftist activists and
participants in a revolutionary movement. They stand out as the most "left" radical revolutionaries. They promise to the popular masses an "immediate" fall of capitalism in all countries.

3. Trotskyism, unlike other opportunist currents, has a very complicated and contradictory history, in the nuances of which sometimes even historians, ie specialists, can not grasp. Trotsky, at the same time, was also a fighter against tsarist despotism, and, for example, a man who sought ways of exploiting
self-government and capitalism developing in the Russian Empire. He was an
active participant in the October Revolution, but at the same time he delayed his progress. Trotsky belonged to the leading body of the Communist Party, at the head of which was Lenin, and at the same time acted against him, split the party's
unity, and formed factions.At times when the fate of the young Soviet republic depended on the thread, he initiated endless party debates, etc. No one of the convinced opportunists came so close to the positions of Marxism-Leninism, and no one fell so furiously over him, That the Trotskyist maneuvers on the part of the consequent Leninists did not produce any evolutions. This dichotomy is also found today on the platforms of modern Trotskyism - sharp capitalism criticism
and praise to the address of the few remaining socialist countries and the active revolutionary organizations in the world, as well as vicious abuse to the address of the Communists when there is something in their actions , Which differs
from the pseudo revolutionary positions of the Trotskyists.

4. Trotskyism has long been under the wing of the world bourgeoisie, and it is using vast resources for the propaganda and dissemination of Trotskyist ideas
and versions of Soviet history. They practically form the basis of modern anti-communism, which, like Trotsky, likes to borrow all anti-Leninist, anti-Stalinist, and anti- Soviet concepts.

All this serves the penetration of false notions about Trotskyism into left and
revolutionary organizations, and into the consciousness of certain categories of
citizens who hold the forms for the content.

2. The struggle of the Bolsheviks against Trotsky before the October Revolution
Word phrases and sound phrases. Until the October Revolution, the influence of Trotskyism was in the Russian and international labor movement so slight that VI Lenin : Trotskyism for the ideology of a person, Trotsky or a small little group of his most immediate peers, held: "In Russia is it a zero." [2] . After Lenin's assessment Trotsky brought in the pre-revolutionary period"only his personal variations and nothing more" [3] expressed . His whole theoretical and political position was eclectic and plagiatus.With him "there was and is never its own physiognomy ', there are only trains, assemblages of the liberals to the Marxists and back, fragments of words and sounding phrases that he had there and ripped out there" [4].

In biographical works, Trotsky dates the birth of his "original" theories, which
formed the basis of Trotskyism, in the period of the revolution of 1905- 1907. But even earlier he actively participated in the struggle against the
Bolshevik Party.

... a swaying tube in the wind
Until joining the Marxists (end of the nineties of the nineteenth century),
Trotsky was under the influence of the liberal popular movement, took over
some ideas from the anarchists, and later added his theoretical luggage with
concepts of Lassalle, Sorrel, Lagardes and others anti-marxists. After becoming
a Social Democrat, he shared views on economic and legal Marxism. During
the emigration, when he worked with the "Iskra", was a disciple of Axelrod and
sought the proximity to other future leaders of the Mensheviks. At the 2nd
Party Congress of the SDAPR, he joined forces with them against Lenin and the
consistent staff of the "Iskra". He joined the center of the Menshevik Party,
which was created for the struggle against the Bolsheviks. He remained in
Menshevik positions until the year 1917, although in private matters he often
distanced himself from the Mensheviks by representing himself as a Social
Democrat outside the faction.

The nonsensical "theory of the permanent revolution"
The heart of Trotskyism became the "theory of the permanent revolution,"
which Trotsky regarded as a major contribution to Marxism. Thus the
dictatorship of the proletariat can also be established in the democratic stage
of the revolution. And since it proves to be the power of a minority, only the
victory of the proletariat in the more developed countries, which had already
passed the stage of the democratic upheaval, can consolidate it. For this
reason, the aim of a "workers' government", which had come prematurely in
power in a backward country, "was to" revolutionize "the revolution in the
more developed countries, also by means of military interference in its internal
affairs. "Down with the limits," "War is the mother of revolution", "dictatorship
of the proletariat - today and in any country" - such and other sharp slogans of
the Trotskyists were and are being used as a true leftist revolutionary wing To
present the fighters for socialism, and to disprove opponents of Trotskyism as
handlers of the bourgeoisie.

... a caricature of a revolution It is precisely in this way that Trotsky tried to illuminate Lenin's theory of revolution, which proceeds from the necessity of the gradual realization of its tasks and the consequent inclusion of new and ever wider sections of the population in the struggle against capital, in the eyes of the working class. Not only once, Lenin condemned the "theory of the permanent revolution" as an adventurous and apt to repel wide masses of the party of the working class. He described it as an "absurd-left" -a relation to Marxism, like the caricature to the original. And Trotsky accused Lenin of striving to impose on the revolution the theory of the "self-restraint" of the proletariat.

Intrigues and pharisaic talk
Until October, the Bolsheviks led a sharp political-ideological struggle against
Trotskyism, which proved to be one of the varieties of Menshevism. Especially
in the context of this struggle characterized VI Lenin Trotsky as a hypocritical
Januschka [5] (similar to the Saltykov-Schtschedrin Chen title character
Januschka Golo Low), as Tuschinski defector [6] , as dirty intriguers of his
sectarian acts with pharisaical chatter about party unity Covered.

The Trotsky "alliance with the Mensheviks, by hiding behind particularly sonorous words" , VI Lenin [7] wrote. Trotsky changed his tactics ; After Menshevism had lost its influence, and Trotsky's attempts to found an own opportunistic party had been resolved, he and other Menshevik actors were to join the Bolsheviks in order to continue the struggle against Bolshevism under their banner. When, in 1917, he belonged to the super-social- democratic organization, had wandered for a long time between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks, and had not participated in the Sixth Party Congress of the SDAPR, he was admitted to the Bolshevik Party with this congress. Trotsky did not make any statements with which he would have confessed the falsity of his long-standing struggle against Lenin.However, he later admitted that Lenin had been right in the dispute with the Mensheviks (including himself, Trotsky), when the organizational structure of the party was concerned. Trotsky, however, remained the core of Trotskyism, the "theory of the permanent revolution," as opposed to Marxism-Leninism. In addition, he maintained that Lenin had carried out an "ideational retrofit" in years 1914- 1917 and had moved to defiant positions, and that he had accepted this "theory" which had supposedly become the basis of the Bolshevik strategy in 1917.

Trotsky brags: "Lenin will find death!"Vladimir Ilyich Lenin and the party have convincingly demonstrated the mendacity of these inventions. 1917 Lenin said in one of his lectures: "Trotskyism without the Tsar, but a workers 'government' is wrong. There is the small bourgeoisie, you can not abolish it. But it consists of two parts. Your poorest part follows the working class. "[8].

Trotsky constantly emphasized that in his struggle against the party he
directed the main attacks against Lenin. "There will be a great fight, and Lenin
will find death in it," wrote Trotsky boastfully in 1910 to a like-minded man. He
called upon the Mensheviks to destroy the "foundations of Leninism." In 1913
he wrote that the whole building of Bolshevism was "built on lies and
deceit". And he declared in May 1917: "The Bolsheviks enlarge ... a recognition
of Bolshevism, you can not ask of us." [9].

Why is Trotskyism so dangerous?
As we have seen, an active struggle of the Bolshevik Party against Trotskyism
took place in the pre-revolutionary period. After the Great October Revolution,
he tightened even more. Of all the opportunist tendencies which arose during
the period of transition from capitalism to socialism against the Bolsheviks,
Trotskyism was the greatest danger.

1. His opportunism was hidden and masked, and the "left" phrases were capable of attracting people who were under the influence of the moods of a
bourgeois "revolt."
2. For a long time, Trotskyism existed as a variant not only of Russian Menshevism but also of international opportunism, and was closely connected with Kautsky's revisionism. This made it possible to receive support from the Western bourgeoisie, supported by foreign patrons, especially centrist representatives from Social Democratic parties in Western Europe.
3. Trotskyism differs (from other opportunistic currents) by its consistent anti- militarism and anti- Bolshevism, which gave it the attention of all the
dissatisfied with the policy of the Bolsheviks and the revision of its dreams.
4. The struggle of the Bolsheviks after the October Revolution The mainstays of the struggle of the Bolshevik Party against Trotskyism in the period after the Great October Revolution 1917 - The party rejected the attempts Trotsky, cancel the period of armed insurrection and replace it with a Soviet Congress.

1918 - Battle VI Lenin against the Group of the "Left" Communists, led by
NI Bukharin that occurred from the imperialist war against the revolutionary
exit the country. The allies and inspirers of this group of "ultra-revolutionaries"
was Trotsky.
1919 - The VIII.Parteitag condemns the methods that have been applied by
Trotsky build the armed forces.
1920 - The IX.Parteitag the RKP (B) rejected the proposal of Trotsky on the
general militarization of labor and the introduction of a "barracks communism"
in the country.
1920-1921 - During the comprehensive discussion in the party about the
unions the attacks of Trotsky, his ally Bukharin and other opportunists were
rejected on the policy of democratization of the mass organizations of the
working people under the conditions of ending the civil war. This was in
accordance with Lenin's proposed and substantiated thesis on the leading role
of the Communist Party in the system of dictatorship of the proletariat and
socialist construction.The ideological unity of the party, whereas Trotsky took
an active part, was preserved.
1922-1923 - The Party condemns the sectarian appearance of the Trotskyists
in various local party organizations, rejects the views of Trotsky and his
followers to a number of political and theoretical questions from (eg his
objection to Lenin's plan for the reorganization of the Workers' and Peasants
Inspection, The strengthening of the leadership of the party by progressive
workers, etc.).
1923 - The Central Committee RKP (B) condemned shortly before
XII.Parteitag the proposals Trotsky, which were directed to the establishment
of a "dictatorship of industry" on agriculture, which would have led to the
breakdown of the alliance between the working class and the peasantry.
1923-1924 - A new all-encompassing discussion in the party, which was
triggered by Trotsky, about the international economic policy and the role
Eibau, ended in defeat of the Trotskyist opposition. Rejection of the Trotskyist
proposals: the "impulse" of the European revolution by means of a military
invasion of the Red Army in Poland and Germany; On the transformation of the
peasantry into a "colony" of socialist industry; About the "interference" of the
Party apparatus, that is, the replacement of the Lenin Guard, who are
supposed to be the Thermidorian rebirth, by younger Communists from the
circle of employees and students who are little acquainted with the traditions of
1924 - During the discussion, which was caused by the appearance
anti leninistische Article Trotsky's "Lessons of October", the party exposed the
ideological basis of Trotskyism, covering the Trotskyist falsification of the
history of the Party and the Great October Socialist Revolution.
1925 - The XIV.Parteitag the All-Union Communist Party (B) condemned the
"new opposition", which appeared with positions which were close to those of
Trotskyism.1926-1927 - Tough Battle of the party against the Trotskyite-
sinowjewskischen opposition bloc.
1927 - The XV.Parteitag the All-Union Communist Party (B) excludes the
leader of the bloc of the party and defines the membership for this block to be
incompatible with membership of the party.
1928-1929 - Final liquidation of illegal Trotskyist groupings that had gone into
the way of anti-Soviet struggle. Trotsky was expelled from the country, and in
1932 he was deprived of Soviet nationality.

What was the nature of the ideas of the Trotskyist opposition?
1. It negated the logical socialist character of the October Revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat that it had produced.
2. It spoke of the absence of sufficient internal conditions for the victory of socialism, and in this connection called for adventurous actions for the
"export" of the revolution into economically advanced countries. Lenin's policy of realizing a maximum of the possibility in his own country for the support of the revolutionary movement in other countries represented the defraudists
defensively as nationally limited. Of the Trotskyists came the invention of an alleged national-conservative course of the Lenin party,
A continuation of the foreign policy course of Russian self-government. This invention is still widely used by all anti-Communists.
3. It exaggerated in every way the role and influence of the capitalist elements in the economy, the danger of petty bourgeois fluctuations, and the degree of the influence of capitalism on the USSR. The economic order of the USSR was declared "state capitalist". The Trotskyists of today also maintain that no
permanent socialist economy can be created anywhere in the world until the proletarian world revolution has triumphed.
4. They proposed that the "victory" of the world revolution be based on the application of methods used by the bourgeoisie to the era of the emergence of the capitalist order. In this context, the party's directives for industrialization, the
collectivization of agriculture, the cultural revolution, the consolidation of the alliance of the working class with the peasantry, and the friendship of the Soviet peoples were rejected or distorted. The main method of socialist construction was the violence, but not so much against the exploiters, but rather against the
workers, especially against the peasantry.

Trotskyism and the downfall of the Soviet Union Civic propaganda compels the Trotskyist to strive to "democratize the Soviet order." Diesel view of the actions of their predecessors also represented today's Trotskyists. But in fact, the Trotskyist opposition in the USSR did not advocate democratization in the sense of the realization of the wider rights of the workers in the administration of the party and the Soviet state, but for the militarization of labor, the "tightening of the screws" The participation of the Soviet people in the control over the activities of the state and party apparatus, and the like. Where such a policy leads, the government has vividly demonstrated one of the most zealous admirers of Trotskyism, Khrushchev, who led the CPSU after Stalin's death. Just in its day was begun with the "right coup" in the economy and in the politics of the Soviet Union, which then ended lawfully during the Gorbachev Perestroika with the complete victory of capitalism in the USSR.

1. In the field of international politics, the Trotskyists pushed the party along the path of sectarianism and adventures. They denied the fact of the post- war stabilization of capitalism; They called for immediate revolutions in other countries; They mocked the tactics of the Unity Front as supposedly "reformist"; They opposed the support of national liberation movements, which they declared to be "bourgeois", and against the unity of all democratic forces in the struggle against the growing wars of war and the dangers of fascism.
2. The Trotskyists were particularly fierce about the Leninist doctrine of the party. They tried to discredit the Party apparatus, weaken the discipline in the Party, and destroy its unity by striving for freedom of factions and groupings. The endless discussions which they forced the parties during the most complicated periods of the country's history diverted the party's powers from the solution of important government tasks, confusing the simple party members, and bringing disintegration and fluctuations into the ranks of the party.

Were there many Trotskyists in the party?During the struggle for the Brest Peace Treaty, about a quarter to a third of party members supported the Trotskyists and "leftist" Communists. In the discussion of trade unions, the Trotskyists and other opportunists succeeded in winning about 20 percent of the Communists to support their platform. In 1923 about 11 per cent of party members voted for the Trotskyists. In the discussion shortly before the XVth Partnerstag it was already less than 0.5 percent. In accordance with the resolutions of the XV th party for the exclusion from the party because of the oppositional activities, only 0.3 percent of the party members were excluded, the majority of the party had seen their mistakes and were later taken back into the party.
5. On what levels of the population did Trotsky lean?
The Trotskyists sought and found support not among the Communists, but
under the partialities, especially the representatives of the bureaucratized
employees, the urban small bourgeoisie, the bourgeois intelligentsia, the non -
proletarian part of the student body, as well as the outdated elements from the
urban and rural differences of the Population. The working class and the
working peasants generally supported the line of Lenin Bolsheviks without
reservation and condemned Trotskyism. The Trotskyists were also critically
criticized by the communist fraternities. Trotsky and his followers condemned
all their leading figures at that time.
6. International activities of Trotskyism In the 1930s, Trotsky was located abroad, he propagated his active capitulationist views and thus contributed to the confusion in the international communist and workers' movement. To the delight of the world's bourgeoisie, a criticism of the USSR came to the fore by cursing the USSR's first-year plan, the policy of industrialization and the collectivization of agriculture. Together with his supporters led an active struggle against the formation of a broad antifascist front in the world, prophesied the inevitability (and even the expedience!) Of a defeat of the USSR in the war against the imperialist aggressors, and thus solidarity itself with Fascism.

During the Civil War in Spain , the Trotskyists were bestrebt in every way,
the fascists whitewash. After the fall of the republican government, they took
an active part in the organization of the military coup to overthrow the national
front government. The comedian help of the Soviet Union against the
Republicans declared it an "imperialist striving of the Soviets to assert
themselves on the Pyrenees peninsula." After the defeat of the revolution, the
Spanish Republicans vowed to avenge Trotsky, who justly regarded themselves
as handlers of fascism. One of these also killed Trotsky in Mexico in 1940.
During World War II the Trotskyists occurred against the anti-Hitler coalition
and against the (anti-fascist) resistance movement, they criticized the bombing
of Germany by the allies. They accused the Soviet Union of the transition to a
position of "support" of the imperialists of England, France and the USA, and
described the war on both sides as an imperialist war.

During the Nuremberg trials against Nazi main war Trotskyists demanded
the release of Goering, Ribbentrop and others, and demanded to put the
leaders of the countries of the anti-Hitler coalition as the alleged main culprit of
World War II in the dock.
7. Trotskyism as the support of the bourgeoisie
All this is reminiscent of what we now hear of the Russian and Western liberals
- the zealous enemies of the Soviet Union, right?
And that is not at all surprising. World-wide imperialism has for a long time
hitched left-radical ideas and slogans for its aims. They do not pose a threat to
him, but instead they are causing serious damage in the world's revolutionary
movement. The bourgeoisie borrowed generously from the Trotskyists their
anti-Communist and anti-Soviet clichés, in order to demonstrate to the workers
the complete lack of prospect of a struggle for the socialist revolution by
demonstrating the inevitability of the transition of socialism into capitalism by
the fall of the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries .

The Trotskyism - Tool of Imperialism The Trotskyists provided and delivered the imperialists not only the "arguments", but also the experts for bourgeois propaganda. Already in the 40 and 50 years of the last century the well-known ideologues of Trotskyism S.Hooks, J.Cannon, among others, took an exposed position among the bourgeois "Soviet scientists". Such unanimity of Trotskyism and the imperialists is lawful, since their class character is the same. Trotskyism is supported by middle-class populations who, because of their interposition in
society and their political immaturity, have not only no immunity to left-wing
moods, but also no reservations about them. By its very nature, the petty
bourgeoisie is the least able to muster endurance, organization, discipline and
steadfastness, and sometimes seeks the way out in the extreme, "desperate"
revolutionary spirit. "You are a tool of imperialist provocation, your objective
role. And your subjective, psychology 'is the psychology of a mad petty
bourgeois. " [10] Lenin wrote the Trotskyists, and led them clearly and
distinctly the class roots of their ideology in mind.

8. How do you recognize Trotskyism?
A) Civic inclinations
On the XIII.Parteitag the RKP (B), which took place in January 1924 declared
that Trotskyism "is not only an attempt at revision of Bolshevism is, not only is
the direct departure from Leninism, but also is the obvious expression of petty
bourgeois inclinations . There is no doubt that this opposition objectively
reflects the urge of the petty bourgeoisie to the position of a proletarian party
and its policy. " [11].
B) Right-opportunist views behind "left" phrases
Another fundamental peculiarity of Trotskyism also emerged in masking the
right-wing opportunistic content of the theses and explanations by a left-radical
phraseology. "... Fawns, rants and posing as a linker, and it helps the right, so
much to do it ..." [12] - so Reviewed Lenin the essence of Verbaläquilibristen
Trotsky. Lenin emphasized several times that there is a direct connection
between right and "left" opportunism. The left-radical inclination arose in the
workers' movement as a reaction to the failures of social-democracy.And on
the other hand, left-wing extremes always aroused right-opportunist views and
social-reformist moods. Right and left discrepancies make one another. There
are two sides of a medal.Behind the outward contradiction lies the profound
commonality of both currents. Anti-communism, anti-Sovietism, and party
politics are the core of ideology and politics of both varieties of opportunism.

C) Target group: youth and students Increased willingness to take a "ultraline attitude" is shown by the youth groups - especially the student body and the learning youth.They react more intensely to the injustice of today 's capitalism, and are often unaware that, in order to put an end to injustice, it is only necessary to act jointly with the working class, and that the struggle against such experienced, skilful and ruthless opponents Global imperialism, knowledge, unity, and high organization.

The Trotskyists are the most active among student youths, by giving the
politically underdeveloped classes of the student body the idea of their
vanguard role in the modern revolutionary movement. They show their position
on the basis of the supposed disintegration of the working class, their
demoralization, and consequently their inability to lead the struggle
independently under the conditions of modern capitalism. The negative
phenomena within some classes of the working class are emphasized by the
Trotskyists, and the positive are concealed or negated. And while the youthful
mood of the student against the working class, the Trotskyists hinder the
formation of the broad anti capitalist front. They ignore the world 's
revolutionary experience, which vividly demonstrates that the forces of
reaction were only there and there when the workers' class stood at the head
of the struggle for socialism, supported by other sections of the oppressed
population Students, the intelligentsia, among others

D) Principle Lessness, pseudo linkage phrases, eclecticism, adventurism
The characteristic elements of Trotskyism are the lack of political principles, the
empty pseudo link phraseology, eclecticism, ideational shuddering from side to
side, and irresponsible adventurism. For almost a century of its existence,
Trotskyism has proved itself incapable of producing a coherent ideology, even
though it is so poor.The theses, which form the basis, consist of shreds of
utopian and adventurous ideas, torn from the context and often contradicting
one another.
e) Unscrupulous hatred Stalin
The narrative about Trotskyism would be incomplete if one did not mention an
extraordinary trait, which can be seen immediately in Russia and in the former
Soviet republics of every Trotskyist-anti stalinism. In this question the
Trotskyists are a hundred points ahead of the world's bourgeoisie. The
Trotskyists hate all that is connected with JW Stalin - himself, his policy, and
even the one who expresses himself well over Stalin or his time. This is the
enemy for them.

The main feature of Trotskyism
Stalin hate to idiocy ...
The Trotskyists overcame Stalin far more often than all the bourgeois
propagandists and ideologues. He is credited with all the negative phenomena
that have ever existed in the USSR. Stalin put it as the culprit for all the misery
and misery that the Soviet country had to experience from the 1920s to the
1950s. Because they have no way to negate the obvious historical successes of
the Stalinist USSR, the Trotskyists refuse Even to acknowledge the slightest
merits of their leader-with a tenacity which is not infrequent enough to be
complete idiocy.

No bad words about the perestroika By giving themselves as true Marxist-Leninists, the Trotskyists also do not lose bad words about Gorbachev, under whose government Soviet socialism was destroyed. But the one under whose leadership the Soviet Union has done great deeds in all spheres of human activity and has become the greatest power in the world-Stalin, for instance, calls forth the attack of savage wickedness. Can the Trotskyists, therefore, be regarded seriously as Communists, Marxist-Leninists, and are they, at all, sincere fighters for socialism? Of course not!

Neutralization of the revolutionary movement
The Trotskyists are an exclusive division of the bourgeoisie in the world
revolutionary movement whose task is to neutralize the revolutionary
movement, to dismantle it from the inside, and not to allow it to consolidate
and organize all forces of the workers in a fist To free mankind from
exploitation and oppression once and for all.

Rejection of the dictatorship of the proletariat
Why do the Trotskyists hate Stalin and his policies like that? Yes, because the
DICTATURE OF THE PROLETARIAT was most clearly expressed in Stalin's
policy-a policy in which the bourgeoisie did not survive! In the case of the hand
of the bourgeoisie, such as the Trotskyists, there is no more room.

A staunch fighter for socialism and communism will never hate Stalin and
Stalin's policy because it was precisely the policy that leads to communism.
Every true communist understands this. And the one who does not want to understand this is certainly not a communist.

What is the duty of every communist?
At that time Trotskyism was defeated. This is the great merit of VI Lenin and
JW Stalin, the CPSU and the communist parties of the Comintern. Now, after
the fall of the USSR and the socialist countries, Trotskyism has once again
raised its head, and it is trying to revive in other forms and variants, but its
essence remains the same and its goal remains to split the world revolutionary
movement , And to dissuade from the only correct way of struggle for
socialism. It is therefore the duty of every Communist or Communist or Labor
Party to conduct an irreconcilable struggle against Trotskyism, and to expose
its disgraceful and provocative nature to all workers and oppressed, who are
striving for a revolutionary change in existing society.


Sokolski: The essence of Trotskyism Literature:
1. JM Ivanov, AN Shmelev "Leninism and the political and ideological defeat of
Trotskyism". Leningrad,
2. NAWazelski "In conflict with the epoch: the Trotskyism against real
3. "From revolutionary phrases for unreasonable adventurism. The criticism of
foreign policy conceptions of modern Trotskyism "Мoskau, 1986. (Rus.)
4." The struggle of the communists against the ideology of Trotskyism ",
Мoskau, 1973 (Russ.)
Notes and Quotes:
[1] "The 4th International": the title which the international Trotskyist
Association has awarded, which was founded in Paris in 1938 by a small group
of Trotskyists. In 1953 "The Fourth International" was divided into the
"International Secretariat" and the "International Committee"; In 1962, the
"Latin American Office" emerged from the "International Secretariat" and in
1963 the "minority", which later called itself the "Marxist-Revolutionary
Tendency of the Fourth International". Each of these mutually hostile centers
declares that it is only "The Fourth International." MI-Basmanov "The
anti revolutionary essence of modern Trotskyism, Moscow, 1971 (Russian).
[2] VI Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 22, p 7 (Rus.)
[3] Ibid., Bd.19, S.375 (Rus.)
[4] Ibid., Bd.25, S.3 (russ .)
[5] In his novel "Lord Glow Show" ME Saltykov-Shchedrin described a
contradictory person, which is towards affectionate and friendly, but inwardly
greedy and evil to the outside.
[6] In a transcendent sense, contemptuous and ironic description for Russian
nobles who, in 1608-09, surrendered to Tushino against a princely conquest
from Moscow to the enemy conqueror.
[7] Ibid., Bd.19, S.358 (Rus.)
[8] Ibid., Bd.31, p.249 (Rus.)
[9] Lenin's collection, IV, p.303 (Rus.)
[ 10] VI Lenin, works, Bd.36, p.290 (Rus.)
[11] "the CPSU in the resolution and decisions of party congresses,
conferences and the plenum of the Central Committee", Vol.2, S.511 (Rus.)

Visitors">free counters