CPN (Revolutionary Maoist) Chair Mohan Baidya: On The October Revolution, Leninism and The Tasks Of Today

This article by Mohan Baidya ‘Kiran’, General Secretary of the Communist Party of Nepal (Revolutionary Maoist), was written on the 100th anniversary of the October Revolution in Russia. It was first published in ‘Maoist Outlook’, a publication of CPN (Revolutionary Maoist). The present English language translation of this article was recently published on the website ‘The Next Front’. It is presented here with some minor spelling and grammar corrections.

The October Revolution, which was accomplished in Russia under the leadership of Lenin on October 25,
1917, deserves a special significance. It was a great proletarian socialist revolution. It had initiated new
world revolution and was a harbinger of the new era in the history of mankind. It had opened up the door of new chapter to push forward the process of proletarian revolution in several countries of the world.

This year marks the completion of hundred years of the October Revolution. This year, the centenary of
October Revolution is being observed in many countries of the world. Various groups in Nepal are also
observing it in different ways. It deserves worldwide historical importance.

There is a close relation between the October Revolution and Leninism. The October Revolution is the
foundation stone of Leninism and Leninism gave rise to October Revolution. October Revolution and
Leninism are the products and manifestations of the historical process of proletarian revolution. This
article will attempt to shed light on the significance of October Revolution and Leninism.

Marx, Engels and Marxism

Under the theoretical guidance of Marxism, the Great October Revolution was accomplished by the
Communist Party of Russia led by Lenin. Marxism is the doctrine of the international proletarian
revolution. Mainly Marx and also Engels had played important role in the development of Marxism.

Lenin had assimilated Marxism well. Marxism has developed with the totality of philosophy, political
economy and scientific socialism. Marxist philosophy is the philosophy of dialectical and historical
materialism. It stands against all sorts of idealism and metaphysics. The Marxist political economy is
based on labour theory of value and the theory of surplus value. It regards the relation between people as
the base, not the relation between things. The scientific socialism developed by Marxism is the sum total
of class struggle, the dictatorship of the proletariat and the doctrine of establishing communism. It
opposes all sorts of reactions and utopian socialism in the sphere of state power.

Lenin, in his various works, has deeply studied, analyzed and synthesized the theoretical propositions of
Marxism. In some of his writings, he has formulated the characteristics of Marxism in a very simple, brief and consolidated manner. In this context, the meaningful articles like, “Three sources and three
component parts of Marxism” and “Karl Marx and his teachings” are most readable.

Shedding light on the importance of Marxism, Lenin says, “The Marxist doctrine is omnipotent because it is true. It is comprehensive and harmonious, and provides men with an integral world outlook
irreconcilable with any form of superstition, reaction, or defense of bourgeois oppression. It is the
legitimate successor to the best that man produced in the nineteenth century, as represented by
German philosophy, English political economy and French socialism.”1

Here, three sources of Marxism: the German philosophy, English political economy and French socialism have been mentioned. Right on the basis of these three sources, three component parts of Marxism have developed, they are: philosophy, political economy and scientific socialism. On the one hand, Lenin, assimilated these three sources and component parts of Marxism, and on the other, developed Marxism as well. The development of Marxism took place in the midst of intense class struggle and revolution. Of such struggles and revolutions, the October Socialist Revolution was the historical climax.

Great October Revolution

The great October Socialist Revolution accomplished in Russia was a far-reaching event in the world
history. It was a historical announcement of an end to the capitalist era and the beginning of the socialist
one. It had brought the old bourgeois parliamentarian era to an end and had initiated the new era of the
dictatorship of the proletariat. It had conveyed a new message and encouragement to the world, not the
Russia only. It was a forward-looking qualitative leap in the history of mankind.

The great October Revolution is the continuity and inheritor of the historic Paris Commune. In the context of Paris Commune, Marx had said, “If the Commune should be destroyed, the struggle would only be postponed. The principles of the Commune are eternal and indestructible; they will present themselves again and again until the working class is liberated.‖2 As Marx had said the principles of the Paris Commune were really eternal and indestructible.

Shedding light on the objective of Paris Commune, Lenin in the article headed “In memory of the
Commune”, had said, “The cause of the Commune is the cause of the social revolution, the cause of the
complete political and economic emancipation of the toilers. It is the cause of the proletariat of the whole
world. And in this sense it is immortal.”3 Here, Lenin has said that the cause of Commune i.e. the
theoretical objective is immortal. Those immortal principles and objectives appeared again in the Russian October Revolution.

The main principles of Paris Commune were: first, to destroy the bureaucratic and armed machinery of
the state, second, to abolish the parliamentary system and third, to initiate proletarian democracy i.e. the
dictatorship of the proletariat. The great October Socialist Revolution fulfilled these tasks by establishing
Soviet power in Russia. Just for example, on the occasion of the fourth anniversary of October
Revolution, Lenin says, “The Soviet system provides the maximum of democracy for the workers and
peasants; at the same time, it marks a break with bourgeois democracy and the rise of a new, epoch making type of democracy, namely, proletarian democracy, or the dictatorship of the proletariat.”4

In fact, Lenin had laid special emphasis on the revolutionary theory to make revolution. Not only this, he
had cast that theory into policy and programme. Also, he had laid emphasis on the need to develop policy
and programme along with theory.

The Russian revolution, as a whole, was accomplished in two historical stages. The first one was the
bourgeois democratic stage. It had completed through the period from 1905 to February revolution of
1917. The second stage of Russian revolution was that of socialist revolution accomplished in October
1917. Different strategies were taken up for two different stages of revolution. Shedding light on the
strategic plan of October Revolution, Stalin says, “The Bolshevik strategy … … planned the main blow
along the line of liquidating the power of the bourgeoisie by the combined forces of the proletariat and the poor peasants, along the line of organizing the dictatorship of the proletariat in the shape of a Soviet
Republic. Rupture with imperialism and withdrawal from the war; liberation of the oppressed nationalities of the former Russian Empire; expropriation of the landlords and capitalists; preparation of the conditions for organizing socialist economy—such were the elements of the Bolsheviks‘ strategic plan in that period.”5 In Russian revolution, not only were the political policy, programme and strategy developed but in order to implement them in practice the military path and strategic plan also were chalked out. The military path of Russian revolution was that of the armed people’s insurrection. Lenin had paid special attention on both of the theoretical and practical aspects while sorting out military line, policy and plan. In this context, the article “Marxism and insurrection” worked by Lenin is very much noteworthy. On the one hand, firmly pursuing the Marxist concept of taking insurrection as an art, the objective and subjective conditions have been correctly analysed, and on the other, a general military plan has also been sketched in it. In this article, Lenin confidently says, “Only to illustrate the fact that at the present moment it is impossible to remain loyal to Marxism, to remain loyal to the revolution unless insurrection is treated as an art.“6

Basing upon Marxism, the series of ideas developed by Lenin is Leninism. What is Leninism? Stalin says,
“Leninism is Marxism of the era of imperialism and the proletarian revolution. To be more exact,
Leninism is the theory and tactics of the proletarian revolution in general, the theory and tactics of the
dictatorship of the proletariat in particular.”7 Leninism has been correctly defined here.

Lenin gave rise to Leninism in the course of defending, applying and developing Marxism amidst
revolution. Revisionism emerged at the time of Lenin and it distorted and perverted Marxism. He
defended Marxism by waging firm theoretical struggle against revisionism. He did not constrain only in
the defense of Marxism, he applied it in Russian land. On account of the situation developed and changed in the course of defending and applying Marxism, he enriched Marxism. In this context, he waged strong ideological struggle against dogmatism and empiricism.

Marxism has three components parts, they are: philosophy, political economy and scientific socialism.
Lenin developed all of three component parts of Marxism. Thus, Leninism became the Marxism of the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution.

After Lenin, Mao developed Marxism-Leninism and thus Marxism-Leninism-Maoism became the
guiding principle of the world proletariat. The significance of Marxism-Leninism does not diminish
though Maoism has been developed now. Leninism does not exist without Marxism and Maoism does not exist without Marxism-Leninism.

In the development of Marxism, the contribution that Lenin made in philosophy, political economy and
scientific socialism is worth remembering. Therefore, it is necessary to briefly shed light on the
contribution made by Lenin in these three fields.

Lenin’s contribution to the field of philosophy is very much important. Lenin assimilated the Marxist
philosophy and developed it. In this field, he carried out ruthless ideological struggle against all sorts of
idealism, metaphysics and the mechanical materialism as well. He paid necessary attention on the
developments taking place in natural and the social sciences.

Marxist philosophy is dialectical materialist philosophy. It places matter at the first and consciousness at
the second position. It accepts independent existence of matter out of man’s mind. The dialectical
materialism believes that this world is knowable and so it is changeable. It believes that the matter and
motion present in it are eternal, the relation between them is inseparable and one transforms into another. The essence of Marxist philosophy is to comprehend and mainly to change the world. This is the world outlook of the proletariat.

Lenin waged firm struggle against the attack upon dialectical materialism carried out from different
angles and the thinking that distorts it. In the philosophical front he opposed revisionism.

In the field of philosophy, first of all Lenin opposed neo-Kantianism, agnosticism, idealism, dualism and
metaphysics found in the revisionists including Bernstein. He strongly attacked upon the non-Marxist
thinking of Bernstein and his disciples.

Following the failure of revolution in 1905, idealism raised its head forcefully in the form of neoKantianism and neo-positivism in the philosophical field. Negatively presenting the inventions made in the then natural science, the idealists started shouting that matter has disappeared, materialism has
become non-existent and matter and motion have separated from one another. They distorted the
invention of electron in physical science. In this situation, Lenin wrote a very important article entitled:
“Materialism and empirio-criticism.” In the situation when the atom was considered to be indivisible, the
invention of electron created a serious doubt on the concept of atom based on physics. Right in this
situation, Lenin said, “And while yesterday the profundity of this knowledge did not go beyond the atom,
and today does not go beyond the electron and ether, dialectical materialism insists on the temporary,
relative, approximate character of all these milestones in the knowledge of nature gained by the
progressing science of man. The electron is as inexhaustible as the atom, nature is infinite.”8 In this
course, Lenin vividly deliberated the dialectical materialist theory of knowledge. He provided a new
height to the issues including the source of knowledge and its objectivity, relativity and the absoluteness
of truth, and the criterion of truth. In this way, Lenin also developed the concept of partisanship between
idealism and materialism in the philosophical front and exposed all kinds of dualism and neutralism.

Lenin made a vivid study of the materialist dialectics also. Here, his famous work the ―Philosophical
Notebook‖ is most remarkable. On the one hand, he made an in-depth review of Hegelian logics and
dialectics and on the other developed in a new way the main concept of dialectics and the law of
opposites. He said, ―In brief, dialectics can be defined as the doctrine of the unity of opposites. This
embodies the essence of dialectics, but it requires explanations and development.‖9

Also, in his famous work ―Philosophical Notebook‖ he has also reviewed the history of philosophy. It is a profound, scientific and meaningful matter that studies different streams and trends in the history of

Political economy

Lenin has made an important contribution to the field of political economy. In his works like ‗what the
friends of the people are‘ and ‗economic romanticism‘ Lenin has defended the trends that distort the
Marxist view on political economy. In his work entitled: ‗Development of capitalism in Russia‘ Lenin
says capitalism has developed in Russia, on the one hand, and he says that a vast population has been
trapped in the feudal ownership, on the other.

Lenin‘s far-reaching contribution to the field of political economy is the analysis of imperialism. By
analyzing the process of development of capitalism into imperialism, he said that the imperialism is
monopoly capitalism. He said that imperialism is not only the highest stage of capitalism but also it is a
decaying and moribund capitalism. Elucidating imperialism, Lenin says, ―Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun; in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed.‖10

In the course of analyzing imperialism, Lenin has laid special emphasis on three aspects. They are: first,
the relation between imperialism and war. Lenin has presented imperialism as a source of war and says
war is unavoidable so long as imperialism exists. He has laid emphasis that the proletariat should wage
civil war against the imperialist war. Second, the relation between imperialism and opportunism. Lenin
has said that the emergence and development of imperialism cause to emerge labour aristocracy, elite
class labours with bourgeois colour and revisionism in the party of the proletariat. He has termed such
aristocrat labours as the real agents of the bourgeoisie. Third, the relation between imperialism and
proletarian revolution. Synthesizing imperialism, he has concluded that imperialism is the eve of the
socialist revolution.

In addition, he also developed the political economy of socialism. Following the October Revolution, in
the field of economy he laid special emphasis on the tasks like: public accounting of producer‘s
production, distribution and control, growth in labour productivity, organization of competition and the
socialization of production in practice.

As a result of imperialist war and war against external intervention, the economic condition of Russia had become shabby. In that situation, Lenin followed new Economic Policy after war communism. He
creatively practiced state capitalism too under the dictatorship of the proletariat. It was aimed at preparing base for building socialist economy by strengthening peasant economy. Right in this course, he put forward a plan of cooperative. All this policy, work and plan helped strengthen the foundation of socialist economy.

Scientific Socialism

Lenin has very much enriched and developed the scope of scientific socialism. He has very correctly and
profoundly deliberated the issues that show importance of theory in revolution, connect theory with the
goal, programme and policy of revolution and decide and implement them through party.

Lenin has laid special emphasis on the fact that the party of the proletariat must objectively discuss the
relation between the given society and the world by firmly following the dialectical materialist outlook
while determining the goal, programme and policy of revolution.

Is the revolution possible in one country? In answer to this question, Lenin said that it is necessary to
have a profound analysis of imperialism and pick out its weak link. He changed the concept that the
socialist revolution will be simultaneously accomplished in some or many countries propounded by Marx
and Engels and proved it by applying in the land of Russia.

One of the most important questions developed by Lenin in the field of scientific socialism is related with
democratic republic and Soviet republic. Clarifying it Stalin says, ―Before the Second Russian Revolution(February 1917), the Marxists of all countries assumed that the parliamentary democratic republic was the most suitable form of political organization of society in the period of transition from capitalism to Socialism. It is true that in the seventies Marx stated that the most suitable form for the dictatorship of the proletariat was a political organization of the type of the Paris Commune, and not the parliamentary republic. But, unfortunately, Marx did not develop this proposition any further in his writings and it was committed to oblivion. Moreover, Engels‘ authoritative statement in his criticism of the draft of the Erfurt Program in 1891, namely, that ―the democratic republic . . . is . . . the specific form for the dictatorship of the proletariat‖ left no doubt that the Marxists continued to regard the democratic republic as the political form for the dictatorship of the proletariat. Engels‘ proposition later became a guiding principle for all Marxists, including Lenin. However, the Russian Revolution of 1905, and especially the Revolution of February 1917, advanced a new form of political organization of society—the Soviets of Workers‘ and Peasants‘ Deputies. As a result of a study of the experience of the two Russian revolutions, Lenin, on the basis of the theory of Marxism, arrived at the conclusion that the best political form for the dictatorship of the proletariat was not a parliamentary democratic republic, but a republic of Soviets.‖11 In the field of scientific socialism, Stalin‘s remark on the concept developed by Lenin is noteworthy. Let it be remembered, the democratic republic mentioned here should be understood in the sense of bourgeois democratic republic not in the sense of People‘s Republic.

The immediate task before the October Revolution was, on the one hand, to destroy the remnants of the
medieval era i.e. to complete the bourgeois democratic revolution, while on the other, the long-term or the basic task was to push forward the process of building socialism. That revolution took a concrete step
along the direction of eliminating the feudal class distinction, destroying the feudal land ownership,
bringing the national, sexual and religious oppression to an end and pushing forward the process of
building socialism under the leadership and dictatorship of the proletariat.

Lenin developed a concept of building new type of party. The parties of the Second International were the groups limited in electoral and legal struggles. Those parties were unable to make revolution in the new era in which the class struggle and class war had advanced. In that situation, Lenin developed a concept that a new, militant and revolutionary party is urgently necessary to build up in order to lead the intense struggle for attaining state power. Right in this context, he also put forward a concept of democratic centralism as an organizational principle of the party. Also, he said that self-criticism and criticism are necessary to forge the party.

Lenin had paid especial attention to military theory and tactic as well in addition to political principle,
strategy and tactic of scientific socialism. In this context, his works like, ―The armed forces and the
revolution‖, ―Guerrilla warfare‖, ―Bellicose militarism and the anti-militarist tactics of social democracy‖, ―Armaments and capitalism‖ are especially notable. In his article entitled: ―Advice of an onlooker‖, Lenin writes, ―Armed uprising is a special form of political struggle, one subject to special laws to which attentive thought must be given. Karl Marx expressed this truth with remarkable clarity when he wrote that: ‘insurrection is an art quite as much as war‘.‖12 This statement by Lenin on armed insurrection is important. Armed uprising is a form of political struggle and is based on especial laws. Lenin centered attention on them.

In the field of military science, Lenin, on the one hand, assimilated well the Marxist concept that Marx
and Engels regard armed insurrection as an art and, on the other, laid emphasis on the study of and
preparation for the revolutionary army, armaments, development of war art etc. by relating the emergence and development of imperialism to the context of war. Synthesizing the experiences of 1905 revolution and February revolution of 1917, he prepared concrete strategic and tactical plan for October Revolution. Also, he laid emphasis in building small squads of workers and Soviets within the ruling class army. The concept that guerrilla war plays a tactical role in the regular war was also pursued in the October Revolution. The political line of all power to the Soviets and the military line of armed people‘s
insurrection were synchronized well.

Opposition of revisionism

Lenin has not only opposed the reaction but also revisionism to make revolution and Leninism has
developed in the midst of this struggle. The revisionism distorts and misinterprets Marxism. To trail
behind metaphysics and idealism against the dialectical materialism, to favour class collaboration in place of class struggle, to hold peaceful parliamentarian path against the principle of violence are the main characteristics of revisionism.

The revisionism is manifested in different forms: right, ultra-left and centre. The right revisionism is a
reformist stream. It regards the cabinet and parliamentarianism as its ideal. Although, the ultra-lefts talk at times about revolution loudly, but ultimately follow the path of right opportunism. Though, the centrists at times vacillate between rightist and the Marxist trends, but ultimately they embrace right revisionism. Lenin has opposed and refuted all these three forms of revisionism. He carried out strong ideological struggle against various streams and trends including Bernsteinism, cabinetism, economism, legal Marxism, Menshevik reformism, liquidationism and Kautskyism.

According to Lenin, there is a close relation between imperialism and revisionism. He has shed light on
the fact that aristocratic or bourgeois labour parties came into being right with the development of
monopolistic capitalism in England and the revisionist parties were formed in different countries with the development of imperialism. He has explicitly mentioned that imperialism plays a role behind the split of the revolutionary communist party. And, he has laid especial emphasis that the revolutionaries must rupture with and get rid of the revisionists from the party to build a genuine revolutionary communist party.

Revisionism has a peculiar type of characteristic. It is: to go on holding the banner of Marxism even after
abandoning it. On this Lenin says, ‘Wherever Marxism is popular among the workers, this political trend,this ―bourgeois labour party, will swear by the name of Marx. It cannot be prohibited from doing this,just as a trading firm cannot be prohibited from using any particular label, sign or advertisement. It has always been the case in history that after the death of revolutionary leaders who were popular among the oppressed classes, their enemies have attempted to appropriate their names so as to deceive the oppressed classes.‖13 These assertions by Lenin have well been verified today in the context of Nepal and the world as well.

The experience after October Revolution

One hundred years have passed after the great October Revolution to now. This period of hundred years
has moved ahead amid revolution and counter-revolution, gruesome Second World War and several rise
and fall of victory and defeats. The world proletariat has acquired pleasant and tragic experiences in these 100 years. It is necessary to have a short review of the positive and negative experiences achieved in this century.

Seven years period till Lenin was alive after October Revolution is rich with positive events like the culmination of revolution, amazing resistance against the foreign intervention, worldwide influence of October Revolution, organization of Third Communist International and the construction of socialism. It is a period of worldwide influence and sway of October Revolution.

Following the death of Lenin, Stalin emerged as an impressive leader in the political stage of Russia and
the world. Stalin, on the one hand, confronting the internal complexities and inner-struggle and fulfilling
basically the responsibilities handed over by Lenin, propelled ahead the process of socialist construction,
and on the other, shattered Nazism and Fascism by providing political and military leadership to the
Second World War. In spite of some shortcomings, weaknesses and limitations, Stalin era remained very
much commanding in the world history.

After the death of Stalin, modern revisionism emerged victorious and capitalism restored in Russia.
Subsequently, opposing modern revisionism and raising high the banner of Great Proletarian Cultural
Revolution according to the principle of continued revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat,
Mao played very important role in the world politics and the ICM as well. In course of time, also the
socialist countries including China suffered counter-revolution. It led to a serious setback to the world
revolution and the communist movement as well. It created a big noise in the world.

After the death of Mao, many communist parties and organisations of the world pushed revolution and
tasks of the communist movement ahead in keeping with the given situation. The Revolutionary
Internationalist Movement (RIM) was constituted in this course. The process of People‘s war in the
countries including Peru, Philippines, India and Nepal continued advancing. These events created a new
hope and encouragement.

However, the revolution and the communist movement suffered another setback. The people‘s war in
Peru reached almost to extinction. A part of leadership, Prachanda and Baburam, severely betrayed
revolution in Nepal. Bob Avakian from the USA followed the path of deviation other than MarxismLeninism-Maoism. The RIM reached almost to a defunct condition.

At present, the international communist movement is mainly divided into two streams. They are: right revisionist stream and the revolutionary stream. The right revisionists, following the path of class collaborationism, parliamentarianism and cabinetism as opposed to class struggle, dictatorship of the
proletariat and the theory of violence and becoming agents of imperialism, have joined the reactionary
rank and state power. Their utterance of Marxism and Communism is merely to hold an advertisement
and a hoarding board to deceive the people. Contrary to this, the revolutionary stream in the world is also advancing facing many complexities. The process of people‘s war and new democratic revolution is
advancing in many countries including Philippines and India.

After the dissolution of socialism and restoration of capitalism in the countries including Russia, the
apologists of imperialism and reactionaries have been forcefully creating noise that ―Communism is
dead‖ and the bourgeois democracy has been without alternative. However, the fact is not that, the
globalized imperialism has been entangled in serious crisis, the liberalism to which they claimed to be
without alternative has completely failed and the proponents of liberalism have now started favouring
protectionism. The imperialism is getting destroyed in itself.

The synthesis reached by Marx that though the Paris Commune has been destroyed, its principles are
eternal and they will appear time and again till the oppressed classes are liberated is a scientific truth.
Though the socialist countries have suffered counter-revolution, the principles of October Revolution, like the principles of Paris Commune, will remain immortal and they will appear time and again until the
world proletariat and the broad masses of the people are liberated. The birth of the Communism is

Lesson from history and our task

In studying October Revolution and Leninism, on the one hand, we must learn from history, and on the
other, we must pay attention to our task. In regard to this, the important questions we need to seriously
keep in mind are as follows:

First: Dialectics of revolution :The revolution advances dialectically ahead, not in a straight but in a zigzag line, amid rise and fall. According to Lenin, one of the laws of revolution is that the defeated exploiter class firmly resists for long keeping all of its things at risk. After one‘s state power has been destroyed and the heaven of plunder has been snatched, he furiously, emotionally and passionately engages in restoring the lost power. Lenin says, ‘The transition from capitalism to communism takes an entire historical epoch. Until this epoch is over, the exploiters inevitably cherish the hope of restoration,
and this hope turns into attempts at restoration.‖14 From this assertion by Lenin a conclusion can be drawn that the possibility of counter-revolution always exists and a historical era is required for the final victory of proletarian revolution.

Second: Petty-bourgeois attitude: Petty-bourgeois attitude always vacillates. The petty-bourgeoisie swing towards revolution when it approaches victory and swing towards counter-revolution when it is defeated. Lenin says, ‘In the train of the capitalist exploiters follow the wide sections of the petty bourgeoisie, with regard to whom decades of historical experience of all countries testify that they vacillate and hesitate, one day marching behind the proletariat and the next day taking fright at the difficulties of the revolution; that they become panic-stricken at the first defeat or semi-defeat of the workers, grow nervous, run about aimlessly, snivel, and rush from one camp into the other-just like our Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries.‖15These assertions by Lenin apply well in the context of today‘s world and Nepal as well.

Third: The whim of becoming a so-called new: There seems a whim of becoming new in the world and Nepalese communist movement. The utterances like the propositions of Marx, Lenin and Mao have lagged behind, one must not stick to the old and the theory should be creatively developed seem to have been presented in an attractive way. The old path, conservatism and dogmatism, are opposed; but that new and creativity have ultimately gone to serve the reaction. If we talk of Nepal, the erstwhile CPN UML and the present Prachanda and Baburam, in their whim to become new, have degenerated into reaction. We must firmly oppose the old path, conservatism and dogmatism to make revolution; however that opposition must not be from the empiricist, right revisionist and reactionary perspective but from Marxist one. Great Lenin had vehemently opposed dogmatism and empiricism in the course of developing theory and the angle of his opposition was Marxist.

Fourth: Democratic republic and cabinetism: Till the whole twentieth century and the initial period of the twenty first century, the spectre of democratic republic and cabinetism caused to frighten the ICM. And it is frightening now in Nepal very much. The communists had accepted democratic republic during a period of struggle against feudalism, nevertheless after capitalism changed into imperialism and reaction they opposed it. Lenin put forward a slogan of the Soviet Republic against democratic republic. The democratic republic is the main form of old democratic revolution and the bourgeois parliamentarian system. After the First World War and the Russian October Revolution, the era of democratic republic= and bourgeois parliamentarian republic ended, and the era of proletarian socialist revolution begun. The democratic revolution that is accomplished in the underdeveloped countries became a part of socialist revolution. Let it be remembered, Mao has explicitly clarified it in his article headed, “On New Democracy”. Nevertheless, what is strange is that those who want others to call them communist shamelessly say that the establishment of democratic republic is the beginning of new chapter of new era. What more theoretical and political degeneration can be other than this?

So far as the question of cabinetism is concerned, it has dangerously appeared in Nepal before us. Lenin
says, ‘The petty-bourgeois democrats, those sham socialists who replaced the class struggle by dreams of class harmony, even pictured the socialist transformation in a dreamy fashion—not as the overthrow of the rule of the exploiting class, but as the peaceful submission of the minority to the majority which has become aware of its aims. This petty-bourgeois utopia, which is inseparable from the idea of the state
being above classes, led in practice to the betrayal of the interests of the working classes, as was shown,
for example, by the history of the French revolutions of 1848 and 1871, and by the experience of
socialist participation in bourgeois Cabinets in Britain, France, Italy and other countries at the turn of
the century.‖16 After the February revolution in Russia, the social democrats and Mensheviks had joined
the reactionary bourgeois cabinet and Lenin had termed them agent, pawn and puppet of the bourgeoisie. Yes, same type of new puppets is emerging now in Nepal in the name of communists.

Fifth: Preparation of revolution: The revolutions that were carried out in 1905, 1917 February and October in Russia were the consequences of planned theoretical, political, organizational and military preparation made by Lenin. In this context, Lenin had carried out ruthless ideological struggle against spontaneity, legal Marxism, economism, liquidationism, Menshevikism and cabinetism and on the other, he had deeply studied and synthesized the questions including degeneration of capitalism into imperialism, imperialism and war and the relation between imperialism and opportunism. We must learn well on the preparation of revolution from Lenin and we must very much responsibly carry on the task of revolution that goes ahead from new democracy to socialism and communism.

Sixth:The question of organizing communist international: The establishment of the  communist international is an urgent necessity for the world proletarian revolution to advance. Lenin had played important role on this question after Marx and Engels. He had carried out preparation of the Third International around the First World War by waging ideological struggle against right revisionism present in the Second International and organized the Third International right after the October socialist revolution. At the time of the Second World War the Third International was dissolved and later Comminform was organized. It did not work after the demise of Stalin. Mao did not have opportunity to organise new international. Various efforts have been done to organize communist international after Mao. Now the ICM is divided in various streams. At present, learning from Lenin and waging ideological struggle against right opportunism present in the ICM, a concrete initiative to organize the communist international is necessary to take up.


Reference Materials:

  1. Lenin collected works, Vol. 19, page 23.
    2. Quoted in ‗Long Live Leninism!‘
    By the editorial board of Hongqi, issue no. 8 (April 16, 1960)
    3. Lenin collected works Vol. 17, page 143
    4. Lenin collected works Vol. 33, page 54
    5. Stalin collected works Vol. 5, page 180
    6. Lenin collected works Vol. 26, page 27
    7. Stalin collected works Vol. 8, page 13
    8. Lenin collected works Vol. 14, page 262
    9. Lenin collected works Vol. 38, page 222.
    10. Lenin collected works Vol. 23, page 334.
    11. History of the CPSU (Bolsheviks), page, 356
    12. Lenin collected works Vol. 26, page 179
    13. Lenin collected works Vol. 23, page 118
    14. Lenin collected works Vol. 28, page 254
    15. Lenin collected works Vol. 28, page 254
    16. Lenin collected works Vol. 25, page 408

October 25, 2017

Source : http://thenextfront.com/october-revolution-leninism-and-the-task-today-mohan-vaidya-kiran/