Marxism and Revisionism

#PUBLICATION NOTE

This edition of Marxism and Revisionism has been prepared and revised for digital publication by the Institute of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism under the Central Committee of the Communist Party in Switzerland on the basis of the edition published in the Collected Works of Lenin, Fourth English Edition, Volume 15, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1964.

#INTRODUCTION NOTE

This is an article written by Comrade Nikolaj Lenin in Geneva, Switzerland not later than the 16th of April, 1908. It was first published in 1908 in the symposium Karl Marx: 1818-83.

#Workers and oppressed people of the world, unite!

#MARXISM AND REVISIONISM

#Nikolaj Lenin

#Before the 16th of April, 1908

#★

There is a well-known saying that, if geometrical axioms affected human interests, attempts would certainly be made to refute them. Theories of natural history which conflicted with the old prejudices of theology provoked, and still provoke, the most rabid opposition. No wonder, therefore, that the Marxian doctrine, which directly serves to enlighten and organize the advanced class in modern society, indicates the tasks facing this class, and demonstrates the inevitable replacement (by virtue of economic development) of the present system by a new order — no wonder that this doctrine has had to fight for every step forward in the course of its life.

Needless to say, this applies to bourgeois science and philosophy, officially taught by official professors in order to befuddle the rising generation of the propertied classes and to «coach» it against internal and foreign enemies. This science will not even hear of Marxism, declaring that it has been refuted and annihilated. Marx is attacked with equal zest by young scholars who are making a career by refuting Socialism, and by decrepit elders who are preserving the tradition of all kinds of outdated «systems». The progress of Marxism, the fact that its ideas are spreading and taking firm hold among the working class, inevitably increase the frequency and intensity of these bourgeois attacks on Marxism, which becomes stronger, more hardened, and more vigorous every time it is «annihilated» by official science.

But, even among doctrines connected with the struggle of the working class, and current mainly among the proletariat, Marxism by no means consolidated its position all at once. In the first half-century of its existence (from the 1840s on) Marxism was engaged in combating theories fundamentally hostile to it. In the early 1840s, Marx and Engels settled accounts with the radical Young Hegelians, whose standpoint was that of philosophical idealism. At the end of the 1840s, the struggle began in the field of economic doctrine, against Proudhonism. The 1850s saw the completion of this struggle in criticism of the political parties and doctrines which manifested themselves in the stormy year of 1848. In the 1860s, the struggle shifted from the field of general theory to one closer to the direct labour movement: the ejection of Bakuninism from the International. In the early 1870s, the stage in Germany was occupied for a short while by the Proudhonite Mühlberger, and, in the late 1870s, by the positivist Dühring. But the influence of both on the proletariat was already absolutely insignificant. Marxism was already gaining an unquestionable victory over all other ideologies in the labour movement.

By the 1890s, this victory was in the main completed. Even in the Latin countries, where the traditions of Proudhonism held their ground longest of all, the workers' parties in effect built their programmes and their tactics on Marxist foundations. The revived international organization of the labour movement — in the shape of periodical international congresses — from the outset, and almost without a struggle, adopted the Marxist standpoint in all essentials. But, after Marxism had ousted all the more or less integral doctrines hostile to it, the tendencies expressed in those doctrines began to seek other channels. The forms and causes of the struggle changed, but the struggle continued. And the second half-century of the existence of Marxism began (in the 1890s) with the struggle of a trend hostile to Marxism within Marxism itself.

Bernstein, a one-time orthodox Marxist, gave his name to this trend by coming forward with the most noise and with the most purposeful expression of amendments to Marx, revision of Marx, revisionism. Even in Russia, where — owing to the economic backwardness of the country and the preponderance of a peasant population weighed down by the relics of serfdom — non-Marxist Socialism has naturally held its ground longest of all, it is plainly passing into revisionism before our very eyes. Both in the agrarian question (the programme of the municipalization of all land) and in general questions of programme and tactics, our Social-Populists are more and more substituting «amendments» to Marx for the moribund and obsolescent remnants of their old system, which in its own way was integral and fundamentally hostile to Marxism.

Pre-Marxist Socialism has been defeated. It is continuing the struggle, no longer on its own independent ground, but on the general ground of Marxism, as revisionism. Let us, then, examine the ideological content of revisionism.

In the sphere of philosophy, revisionism followed in the wake of bourgeois professorial «science». The professors went «back to Kant» ­— and revisionism dragged along after the Neo-Kantians. The professors repeated the platitudes that priests have uttered a thousand times against philosophical materialism — and the revisionists, smiling indulgently, mumbled (word for word alter the latest Handbuch [textbook]) that materialism had been «refuted» long ago. The professors treated Hegel as a «dead dog»,¹ and, while themselves preaching idealism, only an idealism a thousand times more petty and banal than Hegel's, contemptuously shrugged their shoulders at dialectics — and the revisionists floundered after them into the swamp of philosophical vulgarization of science, replacing «artful» (and revolutionary) dialectics by «simple» (and tranquil) «evolution». The professors earned their official salaries by adjusting both their idealist and their «critical» systems to the dominant mediaeval «philosophy» (that is, to theology) — and the revisionists drew close to them, trying to make religion a «private affair», not in relation to the modern State, but in relation to the political party of the advanced class.

What such «amendments» to Marx really meant in class terms need not be stated: it is self-evident. We shall simply note that the only Marxist in the international Social-Democratic movement to criticize the incredible platitudes of the revisionists from the standpoint of consistent dialectical materialism was Plehanov. This must be stressed all the more emphatically since profoundly mistaken attempts are being made at the present time to smuggle in old and reactionary philosophical rubbish disguised as a criticism of Plehanov's tactical opportunism.²

Passing to political economy, it must be noted first of all that, in this sphere, the «amendments» of the revisionists were much more comprehensive and circumstantial; attempts were made to influence the public by «new data on economic development». It was said that concentration and the ousting of small-scale production by large-scale production do not occur in agriculture at all, while they proceed very slowly in commerce and industry. It was said that crises had now become rarer and weaker, and that cartels and trusts would probably enable capital to eliminate them altogether. It was said that the «theory of collapse» to which capitalism is heading was unsound, owing to the tendency of class antagonisms to become milder and less acute. It was said, finally, that it would not be amiss to correct Marx's theory of value, too, in accordance with Böhm-Bawerk.³

The fight against the revisionists on these questions resulted in as fruitful a revival of the theoretical thought in international Socialism as did Engels's controversy with Dühring 20 years earlier. The arguments of the revisionists were analysed with the help of facts and figures. It was proved that the revisionists were systematically painting a rose-coloured picture of modern small-scale production. The technical and commercial superiority of large-scale production over small-scale production, not only in industry, but also in agriculture, is proved by irrefutable facts. But commodity production is far less developed in agriculture, and modern statisticians and economists are, as a rule, not very skilful in picking out the special branches (sometimes even the operations) in agriculture, which indicate that agriculture is being progressively drawn into the process of exchange in world economy. Small-scale production maintains itself on the ruins of natural economy by constant worsening of diet, by chronic starvation, by lengthening of the workday, by deterioration in the quality and the care of cattle, in a word, by the very methods whereby handicraft production maintained itself against capitalist manufacture. Every advance in science and technology inevitably and relentlessly undermines the foundations of small-scale production in capitalist society; and it is the task of Socialist political economy to investigate this process in all its forms, often complicated and intricate, and to demonstrate to the small producers the impossibility of their holding their own under capitalism, the hopelessness of peasant farming under capitalism, and the necessity for the peasants to adopt the standpoint of the proletariat. On this question, the revisionists sinned, in the scientific sense, by superficial generalizations based on facts selected one-sidedly and without reference to the system of capitalism as a whole. From the political point of view, they sinned by the fact that they inevitably, whether they wanted to or not, invited or urged the peasants to adopt the attitude of small proprietors (that is, the attitude of the bourgeoisie) instead of urging them to adopt the point of view of the revolutionary proletariat.

The standpoint of revisionism was even worse as regards the theory of crises and the theory of collapse. Only for a very short time could people, and then only the most short-sighted, think of refashioning the foundations of Marx's theory under the influence of a few years of industrial boom and prosperity. Realities very soon made it clear to the revisionists that crises were not a thing of the past: prosperity was followed by a crisis. The forms, the sequence, the picture of particular crises changed, but crises remained an inevitable component of the capitalist system. While uniting production, the cartels and trusts at the same time, and in a way that was obvious to all, aggravated the anarchy of production, the insecurity of existence of the proletariat, and the oppression of capital, thereby intensifying class antagonisms to an unprecedented degree. That capitalism is heading for a breakdown — in the sense both of individual political and economic crises and of the complete collapse of the entire capitalist system — has been made particularly clear, and on a particularly large scale, precisely by the new giant trusts. The recent financial crisis in the United States and the appalling increase of unemployment all over Europe, to say nothing of the impending industrial crisis to which many symptoms are pointing — all this has resulted in the recent «theories» of the revisionists having been forgotten by everybody, including, apparently, many of the revisionists themselves. But the lessons which this instability of the intellectuals had given the working class must not be forgotten.

As to the theory of value, it need only be said that, apart from the vaguest of hints and sighs, in the style of Böhm-Bawerk, the revisionists have contributed absolutely nothing, and have therefore left no traces whatever on the development of scientific thought.

In the sphere of politics, revisionism did really try to revise the foundation of Marxism, namely, the doctrine of the class struggle. Political freedom, democracy, and universal suffrage remove the ground for the class struggle — we were told — and render untrue the old proposition of the Communist Manifesto that the workers have no country. For, they said, since the «will of the majority» prevails in a democracy, one must neither regard the State as a body of class rule, nor reject alliances with the progressive, social-reformist bourgeoisie against the reactionaries.

It cannot be disputed that these arguments of the revisionists amounted to a fairly well-balanced system of views, namely, the old and well-known liberal-bourgeois views. The liberals have always said that bourgeois parliamentarism destroys classes and class divisions, since the right to vote and the right to participate in the government of the country are shared by all citizens without distinction. The whole history of Europe in the second half of the 19th century, and the whole history of the Russian revolution in the early 20th, clearly show how absurd such views are. Economic distinctions are not mitigated, but aggravated and intensified under the freedom of «democratic» capitalism. Parliamentarism does not eliminate, but lays bare the innate character even of the most democratic, bourgeois republics as bodies of class oppression. By helping to enlighten and to organize immeasurably wider masses of the population than those which previously took an active part in political events, parliamentarism does not make for the elimination of crises and political revolutions, but for the maximum intensification of civil war during such revolutions. The events in Paris in the spring of 1871 and the events in Russia in the winter of 1905 showed as clearly as could be how inevitably this intensification comes about. The French bourgeoisie, without a moment's hesitation, made a deal with the enemy of the whole nation, with the foreign army which had ruined its country, in order to crush the proletarian movement. Whoever does not understand the inevitable inner dialectics of parliamentarism and bourgeois democracy — which leads to an even sharper decision of the argument by mass violence than formerly — will never be able, on the basis of this parliamentarism, to conduct propaganda and agitation consistent in principle, really preparing the working-class masses for victorious participation in such «arguments». The experience of alliances, agreements, and blocs with the social-reformist liberals in the West and with the liberal reformists (Cadets) in the Russian revolution, has convincingly shown that these agreements only blunt the consciousness of the masses, that they do not enhance, but weaken the actual significance of their struggle, by linking fighters with elements who are least capable of fighting and most vacillating and treacherous. Millerandism in France — the biggest experiment in applying revisionist political tactics on a wide, a really national scale — has provided a practical appraisal of revisionism that will never be forgotten by the proletariat all over the world.

A natural complement to the economic and political tendencies of revisionism was its attitude to the ultimate aim of the socialist movement. «The movement is everything, the ultimate aim is nothing» — this catchphrase of Bernstein's expresses the substance of revisionism better than many long disquisitions. To determine its conduct from case to case, to adapt itself to the events of the day and to the chopping and changing of petty politics, to forget the primary interests of the proletariat and the fundamental features of the whole capitalist system, of all capitalist evolution, to sacrifice these primary interests for the real or assumed advantages of the moment — such is the policy of revisionism. And it patently follows from the very nature of this policy that it may assume an infinite variety of forms, and that every more or less «new» question, every more or less unexpected and unforeseen turn of events, even though it change the fundamental line of development only to an insignificant degree and only for the briefest period, will always inevitably give rise to one variety of revisionism or another.

The inevitability of revisionism is determined by its class roots in modern society. Revisionism is an international phenomenon. No thinking Socialists who are in the least informed can have the slightest doubt that the relation between the orthodox and the Bernsteinites in Germany, the Guesdeites and the Jauresites (and now particularly the Brousseites) in France, the Social Democratic Federation and the Independent Labour Party in Great Britain, Brouckere and Vandervelde in Belgium, the Integralists and the Reformists in Italy, the Majoritarians and the Minoritarians in Russia, is everywhere essentially similar, notwithstanding the immense variety of national conditions and historical factors in the present state of all these countries. In reality, the «division» within the present international Socialist movement is now proceeding along the same lines in all the various countries of the world, which testifies to a tremendous advance compared with 30 or 40 years ago, when heterogeneous trends in the various countries were struggling within the one international Socialist movement. And that «Left-wing» revisionism, which has taken shape in the Latin countries as «revolutionary syndicalism»,⁴ is also adapting itself to Marxism, «amending» it: Labriola in Italy and Lagardelle in France frequently appeal from Marx who is understood wrongly to Marx who is understood rightly.

We cannot stop here to analyse the ideological content of this revisionism, which as yet is far from having developed to the same extent as opportunist revisionism: it has not yet become international, has not yet stood the test of a single big practical battle with a Socialist Party in any single country. We confine ourselves therefore to that Right-wing revisionism, which was described above. Wherein lies its inevitability in capitalist society? Why is it more profound than the differences of national peculiarities and of degrees of capitalist development? Because, in every capitalist country, side by side with the proletariat, there are always broad strata of the small bourgeoisie, small proprietors. Capitalism arose and is constantly arising out of small-scale production. A number of new «middle strata» are inevitably brought into existence again and again by capitalism (appendages to the factory, work at home, small workshops scattered all over the country to meet the requirements of big industries, such as the bicycle and automobile industries, and so on). These new small producers are just as inevitably being cast again into the ranks of the proletariat. It is quite natural that the small-bourgeois worldview should again and again crop up in the ranks of the broad workers' parties. It is quite natural that this should be so and always will be so, right up to the changes of fortune that will take place in the proletarian revolution. For it would be a profound mistake to think that the «complete» proletarianization of the majority of the population is essential for bringing about such a revolution. What we now frequently experience only in the domain of ideology, namely, disputes over theoretical amendments to Marx; what now crops up in practice only over individual side issues of the labour movement, as tactical differences with the revisionists and splits on this basis — is bound to be experienced by the working class on an incomparably larger scale when the proletarian revolution will sharpen all disputed issues, will focus all differences on points which are of the most immediate importance in determining the conduct of the masses, and will make it necessary in the heat of the fight to distinguish enemies from friends, and to cast out bad allies in order to deal decisive blows at the enemy.

The ideological struggle waged by revolutionary Marxism against revisionism at the end of the 19th century is but the prelude to the great revolutionary battles of the proletariat, which is marching forward to the complete victory of its cause despite all the waverings and weaknesses of the small bourgeoisie.