Marx-Engels |  Lenin  | Stalin |  Home Page

  Molotov Letter to The Central Committee of CPSU ; On the personality cult and the Programme of CPSU

Marxist-Leninist doctrine and the program of the CPSU on the state ("People's" state and "party of the whole people")
 
In his speech at the 21st Congress of the CPSU in 1959, Khrushchev said:
 
“Along with the problems of economic development, there also arise questions of the political organization of society, state structure and administration in the period of the extensive building of communism.
 
The main direction in the development of socialist statehood is the all-round development of democracy, the involvement of the broadest sections of the population in the management of all the affairs of the country, the involvement of all citizens in the management of economic and cultural construction" (Stand report of the XXI Congress, p. 102).
 
That's all that was said by Khrushchev on this subject at the 21st Congress of the CPSU.
 
But two years later, at the 22nd Congress, speaking on the draft Program of the CPSU, Khrushchev proclaimed:
 
“There are also other kinds of proposals that have been made, I would say, from the standpoint of a dogmatic, rather than a creative approach to the phenomena taking place in life. Thus, for example, in the opinion of some individual comrades, the dictatorship of the proletariat must be preserved until the complete victory of communism.
Such comrades do not at all take into account the objective conditions that have developed in our country, but only operate with arbitrarily snatched quotations, losing sight of the essence of the teachings of Marx, Engels, Lenin about the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat as a state in the transitional period from capitalism to socialism - the first phase of communism. They do not take into account that in our socialist society there are now only working masses who are engaged in socialist production and are united in socio-political and ideological terms. After the complete and final victory of socialism in our country, there is no ground for the dictatorship of one class. Indeed, in relation to what class can we have a dictatorship? We do not have such classes.
 
The comrades also refer to the fact that the organizational-economic and cultural-educational functions inherent in the dictatorship of the proletariat are preserved even during the period of transition to communism. But these functions will remain under communism. To be consistent, the dictatorship of the proletariat must be preserved, according to the logic of these comrades, even under communism. The incorrectness of such reasoning is obvious to everyone ... "(Stenotchet of the XXII Congress, pp. 215 - 216).
 
Mikoyan echoed Khrushchev:
 
“Among the most important theoretical questions, and at the same time of the most vital practical importance, developed and resolved by the new Program, is the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The conclusion of the Program is a new word for the Party, a serious contribution to the theory of Marxism-Leninism.
 
As you know, the dictatorship of the proletariat is called upon to crush the resistance of the exploiting classes, to lead to their disappearance, to transfer the peasantry from the rails of small-scale production to the rails of collective production, to ensure the building of socialism, its complete and final victory, to remake and re-educate the peasants, artisans, employees, and workers in the spirit of socialism. intelligentsia, to create the socialist unity of the people, so that the workers, peasants, and intelligentsia become bearers of socialist relations of production and spokesmen for communist spiritual aspirations.
 
The dictatorship of the proletariat solved all these tasks that confronted it. It was necessary until these tasks were solved. It has ceased to be necessary as a form of state since these tasks have been solved in our country. The new conditions of development have transformed the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat into a state of the whole people.
 
It may be said that the defense of the socialist gains against encroachments from without remains. Yes, indeed, the task of defending the country remains and will remain in the future. It will remain under communism as long as imperialism exists. It would be frivolous to assert that since the function of the defense of the country remains, the dictatorship of the proletariat must also be preserved.
 
The task of defending the country, as a function inherent in the state in general, will be successfully carried out by the state of the whole people ...
 
The Leninists always linked the development of the socialist state with the real needs of the new society. The development of the new state occurs dialectically. From bourgeois democracy, "forward development," wrote Lenin, "does not proceed simply, directly, and smoothly, 'toward more and greater democracy,' as liberal professors and petty-bourgeois opportunists represent the matter" (Soch., vol. 25, p. 433). The development forward from bourgeois democracy goes through the dictatorship of the proletariat, which brings an enormous expansion of democracy for the working people, but immediately makes a number of exemptions from freedom in relation to the exploiters. Only after the destruction of the exploiting classes is broad democracy realized ... "communism alone is able to give truly complete democracy, and the fuller it is, the sooner it will become unnecessary, will wither away by itself" (Soch., vol. 25, pp. 434-435).
 
The Program of the CPSU says that the dictatorship of the working class ceases to be necessary before the state withers away.
 
Dogmatists may say that by characterizing our state as a state of the whole people, we thereby allegedly contradict our teachers, who criticized the Lassalleans for the slogan "state of the people." This would be a completely correct criticism, for what kind of people's state could one speak of under capitalism, when society is split into hostile classes? But it would be sheer dogmatism to transfer those conditions to our society, where the socialist unity of the people has been created and where the state cannot but act as the spokesman for the will of the entire people" (ibid., pp. 456-457).
 
Without going into the essence of the issue for the time being, I would like to show, using the example of A. I. Mikoyan’s speech, how one or two inserted or, conversely, “omitted” words can at once turn the Marxist-Leninist doctrine of the dictatorship of the proletariat into something else.
 
Let us turn to V. I. Lenin's work "The State and the Revolution", from which Mikoyan so conveniently took a quotation for his speech at the 22nd Congress. V. I. Lenin writes:
 
“Only in a communist society, when the resistance of the capitalists has finally been broken, when the capitalists have disappeared, when there are no classes, only then ‘the state disappears and it is possible to speak of freedom,’ only then is truly complete, real democracy without any exceptions possible and will be realized” (T 25, p. 434).
 
The replacement of the Marxist-Leninist doctrine of the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat as the state of the entire transitional period from capitalism to a society without classes - communism, is done very easily and simply - instead of Lenin's absolutely clear and categorical indication that the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary until the complete victory of communism, according to the “new Program of the CPSU” and its theoreticians, the need for the dictatorship of the proletariat disappears already under socialism, with the destruction of the exploiting classes, and not classes in general.
 
It is this substitution - not the destruction of classes in general, but the destruction of only the exploiting classes - that lies as one of the main theoretical provisions at the basis of Khrushchev's "doctrine" about the state.
 
The program of the CPSU proclaims:
 
“The working class is the only class in history that does not aim at perpetuating its dominance. Having ensured the complete and final victory of socialism, the first phase of communism, the dictatorship of the proletariat has fulfilled its historical mission and, from the point of view of the tasks of internal development, has ceased to be necessary in the USSR which arose as a state of the dictatorship of the proletariat, turned into a state of the whole people, into an organ for expressing the will and interests of the entire people.
 
Some comrades argue as follows: whether we call our state the dictatorship of the working class, or whether we continue to call it a state of the whole people, the essence of the matter will not change from this.
 
It seems to me that the comrades who argue in this way are profoundly mistaken. They are mistaken because Marxist-Leninists cannot and should not forget the words of V. I. Lenin that the very term "people's" state expresses both "misunderstanding of the socialist criticism of any state in general, for every state is NOT free and NOT people", and Marxist -Leninist doctrine of the state in general and of the state of the proletarian dictatorship in particular. They are mistaken because the Marxist-Leninist theory of scientific communism is such an integral and interconnected doctrine that one has only to break at least one link in this whole, the whole chain collapses.
 
V. I. Lenin repeatedly pointed out that
 
"... The essence of Marx's teachings was assimilated only by those who understood that the dictatorship of one class is necessary not only for class society in general, but also for the whole historical period separating capitalism from a "classless society" from communism" ("State and Revolution").
 
"... Classes cannot be abolished all at once. And classes have remained and will remain during the epoch of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Dictatorship will not be needed when classes disappear. They will not disappear without the dictatorship of the proletariat" (vol. 30, p. 94).
 
"... The Communist Party must be clearly aware that in the period of transition from capitalism to communism, that is, during the dictatorship of the proletariat..." (vol. 31, p. 131).
 
Many more similar statements by V. I. Lenin could be cited. But, in my opinion, even the cited ones are enough to tell with complete certainty that according to V. I. Lenin, the dictatorship of the proletariat disappears only when classes and class distinctions disappear.
 
M. A. Suslov, in his report at the Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU on 14 / P 1964, justified the need for a transition from the dictatorship of the proletariat to a "nationwide" state with reference to the following quote from K. Marx's letter to Brakka ("Criticism of the Gotha Program") -
 
“Between capitalist and communist society there lies a period of revolutionary transformation of the former into the latter. This period also corresponds to a political transitional period, and the state of this period cannot be anything other than the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.
 
But the program does not deal with either this last or the future statehood of communist society" (K. Marx and F. Engels, soch., vol. 19, p. 27, ed. II).
 
Suslov said:
 
"Indeed, the Chinese theoreticians, allegedly based on the ideas of Marx, say: 'The withering away of the dictatorship of the proletariat is also the withering away of the state.' Meanwhile, Marx speaks of the 'statehood of communist society', which is no longer the dictatorship of the proletariat..."
 
... It seems to me that there is no longer any consistency, no logic, and all the more, clarity of the Marxist scheme for the development of a socialist society.
 
By acting in the way the supporters of the thesis of the Program of the CPSU about a "state of the whole people" act, that is, by breaking up, dividing Marx's continuity and sequence of development into some completely arbitrary stages, one can, of course, reach the "evidence" that our state is now is in the first quarter of the first subphase of the II phase of incomplete communism ...
 
Supporters of the thesis of a "state of the whole people" forget that V. I. Lenin himself has a proper explanation regarding the letter to Brakka, which, in my opinion, does not need comments.
 
Speaking of the fact that a comparison of the views of Marx and Engels, upon a superficial examination of the letter, allegedly shows [that] there is a divergence of views on the state between Marx and Engels, for Engels declares that the Commune was no longer a state in the full sense of the word, and Marx in his letter speaks not only of the dictatorship of the proletariat as a transitional state, but also of the “future statehood of communist society,” V. I. Lenin wrote:
 
"...Such a view would be fundamentally wrong. Closer examination shows that the views of Marx and Engels on the state and its withering away completely coincide, and Marx's expression quoted refers precisely to this dying statehood." ("State and Revolution").
 
Further in the same work, V. I. Lenin points out that
 
"... Engels speaks of the "destruction" of the bourgeois state by the proletarian revolution, while the words about withering away refer to the remnants of the proletarian state after the socialist revolution."
 
You can, of course, interpret and reinterpret the words of Marx, Engels, Lenin in any way, but the meaning of these words is only one - the withering away of the state is precisely the withering away of the dictatorship of the working class.
 
Indeed, there is no wall between the state of socialist society and the future, residual, dying statehood of communist society. Socialism gradually develops into communism. But the state of socialist society, the first phase of communism, the dictatorship of the proletariat, according to Marx and Lenin, does not at all grow into some new type of state, into a "state of the whole people." The dictatorship of the proletariat consciously and inevitably leads to the abolition of all classes and class distinctions; it, and it is precisely this, is in the hands of the working class the indispensable tool with which it, as the only completely revolutionary class, achieves the complete abolition of classes and class distinctions. after which the dictatorship of the proletariat goes to its gradual "falling asleep", "withering away". V. I. Lenin wrote:
 
"The expression 'the state is dying' is chosen very well, for it indicates both the gradualness of the process and its spontaneity" (ibid).
 
At the Tenth Congress of the RCP(b), fighting Trotsky and his like-minded people, V. I. Lenin said:
 
"... Marx and Engels fought mercilessly against people who forgot about the difference between classes, talked about producers, about the people or about working people in general. Anyone who knows the works of Marx and Engels in any way cannot forget that through all these works passes ridicule of those who talk about the producers, about the people, about the working people in general...
 
There will be a dictatorship of the proletariat. Then there will be a classless society... Thoughts, speech, assumptions that classes will disappear before communism, Marx and Engels ridiculed mercilessly and said that only communism is the abolition of classes" (vol. 30, p. 226 et seq.).
 
Yes, there is no wall between socialism and communism. And in this Khrushchev is right. But putting forward at the present stage of development of our state the theory of the so-called "people's" state, Khrushchev completely ignores Lenin's remark that
 
“A society in which the class difference between the worker and the peasant has remained is neither a socialist nor a communist society. Of course, when interpreting the word socialism in a certain sense, one can call it socialist, but this will be casuistry, a dispute about words. Socialism is the first stage of communism - but it's not worth arguing about words" (vol. 24, p. 330).
 
So let's follow the advice of V. I. Lenin.
 
Marx, Engels, Lenin argued that the dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary and historically inevitable for the entire transition period from capitalism to communism, not because they wanted it so much, but based on strictly scientific conclusions from the experience of the real life of society.
 
When considering the position of the theoreticians and supporters of the CPSU Program on the question of the state structure of socialist society, what strikes one first of all is their persistent striving to bring to the fore only one side of the dictatorship of the proletariat - its violent side, the side of suppressing the overthrown exploiting classes, bypassing completely precise and firm
 
V. I. Lenin's instructions that the dictatorship of the working class is mainly an organizing, educating and moral force. V. I. Lenin did not tire of emphasizing that
 
"... the dictatorship of the proletariat is inevitable, necessary, and absolutely obligatory for the exit from capitalism. Dictatorship means not only violence ... it also means a higher organization of labor than the earlier organization ... This new organization of production is born with the greatest difficulty, because to overcome one's disorganizing, petty-bourgeois licentiousness is the most difficult thing, it is a million times more difficult than to defeat the landowners or capitalists..." (vol. 23, pp. 343-345).
 
The experience of the revolution confirms that changing forms of government is not a difficult task, that the elimination of the ruling class of landowners and capitalists is a thing possible in a short time.. but a change in the fundamental conditions of economic life, a struggle against those habits that have been absorbed into everyone for centuries and millennia .. ... this is a matter which, subject to the complete overthrow of the exploiting classes, requires long years of persistent organizational work" (vol. 29, p. 484).
 
Or, more importantly,
 
“The dictatorship of the proletariat ... is not only violence against the exploiters, and not even mainly violence. The economic basis of this revolutionary violence, the guarantee of its vitality and success, is that which represents and implements a higher type of social organization of labor than capitalism. This is the essence; this is the source of strength and the guarantee of the inevitable complete victory of communism.
 
The dictatorship of the proletariat ... means this: only a certain class, namely the industrial workers, is in a position to lead the entire mass of working and exploited people in the struggle to overthrow the yoke of capital, in the course of the overthrow itself, in the struggle to maintain and strengthen victory, in the matter of creating a new one, socialist social system, in the entire struggle for the complete abolition of classes (we note in brackets: the scientific difference between socialism and communism is only that the first word means the first stage of the new society growing out of capitalism, the second word, its higher, further stage).
 
It is clear that for the complete abolition of classes it is necessary not only to overthrow the exploiters ... not only to abolish the property, it is also necessary to abolish all private ownership of the means of production, it is necessary to abolish both the difference between town and country, and the difference between people of physical and mental labor. This is a very long work. In order to make it, an enormous step forward in the development of the productive forces is needed, it is necessary to overcome the resistance (often passive, which is especially stubborn and especially difficult to overcome) of the numerous remnants of small-scale production, it is necessary to overcome the enormous force of habit and inertia associated with these remnants.
 
To assume that all "working people" are equally capable of this work would be an empty phrase or an illustration of antediluvian, pre-Marxist socialism. For this ability is not given by itself, but grows historically and grows only out of the material conditions of large-scale production. This ability is possessed ... only by the proletariat" (vol. 29, pp. 388-389).
 
V. I. Lenin said:
 
“The class that took political domination into its own hands took it, knowing that it was taking it alone.
 
This is contained in the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat. This concept only makes sense when one class knows that it alone takes political power into its own hands and does not deceive either itself or others by talking about "nationwide", "general election", power consecrated by all the people" (vol. 32, p. .250).
 
Putting forward as a "new word" in Marxism the concept of a "nationwide" state, declaring the view of the dictatorship of the proletariat as a state of the entire transitional period from capitalism to full communism as dogmatism, the supporters, and theorists of the Program of the CPSU are subjecting to a radical revision one of the most important provisions of the Marxist-Leninist theories of scientific communism - the doctrine of the state as an instrument of class domination.
 
Marx, Engels, Lenin taught that every state is an instrument of class domination, is an organ of power that the proletariat needs insofar as it, with the help of the state, has not destroyed all classes and class differences. The Marxist-Leninist doctrine is inconceivable without the doctrine of the class struggle. The Marxist-Leninist doctrine of classes and the class struggle is unthinkable without recognizing the correctness of its position on the class nature and class character of any state. It was on the basis of this position that Lenin asserted that "every state is NOT free and NOT people."
 
The following statement by V.I.
 
“In ordinary discussions about the state, that mistake is constantly made, which ... Engels warns against ... namely: they constantly forget that the destruction of the state is also the destruction of democracy, that the withering away of the state is the withering away of democracy ...
 
...Perhaps, someone even fears that we do not expect the advent of such a social order when the principle of subordination of the minority to the majority will not be respected, because democracy is, after all, the recognition of this principle?
 
No. Democracy is not identical with the subordination of the minority to the majority. Democracy is a state that recognizes the subordination of the minority to the majority, that is, the organization for the systematic violence of one class over another, one part of the population over another.
 
We set as our ultimate goal the destruction of the state, that is, of all organized and systematic violence, of all violence against people in general" (vol. 25, p. 428).
 
In fact, even without being Marxists, thinking about the very concept of "democracy", we will come to the conclusion that democracy is the power of the people, the power of the majority, POWER. But, the question is, over whom and over what? If we follow the logic of the theoreticians of the 22nd Congress, if we agree with their assertion that the development of socialist society into communist society occurs as democracy develops more and more fully, as the dictatorship of the proletariat grows into a "nationwide" state, and this "state" into communist self-government - then, one asks, are we not thereby asserting that the development of society into a communist society occurs as it strengthens, as power grows?
 
It pleases us to call this power of the people, that is, the power of the whole people. But over whom and over what is this power exercised? Where is the subject (so in the text - Ed.) of this power? Separate "anti-people" elements? And where is the Marxist-Leninist theory about the class nature of the state? There is none.
 
Following the logic of the theoreticians of the XXII Congress of the CPSU, we will inevitably come to a dead end in questions of the Marxist-Leninist doctrine of classes and class struggle, we will inevitably come to the recognition of the non-class or supra-class nature of state power, we will inevitably slide into a denial of the Marxist-Leninist doctrine of the state as an organ of the ruling class.
 
The program of the CPSU is consistently moving along this path.
 
Both on the question of a "nationwide" state, and on many other questions on which we will dwell later, the Program of the CPSU is moving away from the Marxist-Leninist class, proletarian positions to a conciliatory Social-Democratic point of view.
 
Let us take the thesis of the Program of the CPSU on the entry of our society into a period of extensive building of communism.
 
I don't want to say that, from the point of view of Marxism-Leninism, we entered this period as early as October 1917. But suppose we entered it in 1961.
 
We deny the need for the dictatorship of the proletariat in connection with the transition to this period. Let it be. But nevertheless, we are broadcasting everywhere that "the Party proceeds from the Leninist proposition that the construction of communism should be based on the principle of material interest. Pay according to work will remain the main source of satisfying the material and cultural needs of the working people over the next twenty years" (Program of the CPSU) .
 
Is it possible to combine two, in my opinion, mutually exclusive provisions of the Program of the CPSU - one about the uselessness of the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e. a socialist state, and another about the need to strengthen and expand in every possible way the socialist principle of distribution according to work?
V. I. Lenin saw in the consistent and daily implementation of this basic principle of socialism the most important condition for the “correct functioning of the first phase of communist society” (emphasized by me. - GM. T. 25, p. 444).
 
Labor free from exploitation of the citizens of socialist society, labor for oneself and for the good of society is the only possible and the only source of social wealth and well-being of the working people in a socialist society. Therefore, the work of each member of socialist society is not only his personal affair, but acquires the most important state significance. Because of this, socialist society declares work to be the first OBLIGATION of every able-bodied member of society, on the basis of the principle "he who does not work shall not eat."
 
The dictatorship of the working class is an organ created by the socialist revolution not only to suppress the resistance of the overthrown exploiting classes, not only to destroy them, but mainly for the speedy and unswerving implementation of the basic principle of socialism "from each according to his ability, to each according to his work", for the education masses in the spirit of a conscious attitude to work as the first and most necessary duty, in order to compel those who are trying to evade the conscientious fulfillment of this sacred duty to society.
 
Rejecting the dictatorship of the working class on the grounds that, with the liquidation of the exploiting classes, there are no more classes in our society in respect of which dictatorship is necessary, and, as already mentioned, emphasizing its violent side, the theorists and defenders of the Program of the CPSU for some reason forget about inevitable bourgeois character of the state of the transitional period from capitalism to communism, that the basic principle of socialist distribution "to each according to his work" necessarily needs to be put into practice in bourgeois law as a regulator of the distribution of products and the distribution of labor.
 
V. I. Lenin in his work "The State and Revolution" explains these circumstances as follows:
 
"... In the first phase of communist society ... "bourgeois law" is not completely abolished, but only partially, only to the extent of the economic revolution already achieved, i.e. in relation to the means of production. "Bourgeois law" recognizes them as private property individuals. Socialism makes them common property TO THE EXTENT - and only to that extent - "bourgeois law" disappears.
But it still remains in its other part, remains as a regulator (determinant), of the distribution of products and the distribution of labor among the members of society. "He who does not work shall not eat", this socialist principle has already been realized;
 
"for an equal amount of labor, an equal amount of products" - and this principle has already been implemented. However, this is not yet communism, and this does not eliminate “bourgeois law,” which gives unequal people for an unequal (factually unequal) amount of labor an equal amount of product” (vol. 25, p. 439).
 
Further, Lenin writes:
 
“Bourgeois law in relation to the distribution of consumer products inevitably presupposes, of course, the bourgeois state, for law is nothing without an apparatus capable of forcing observance of the norms of law. It follows that under (first phase of) communism not only does bourgeois law remain for a certain time, but even the bourgeois state without the bourgeoisie!
 
What a striking difference is the position of V. I. Lenin, who in the first phase of communism inevitably assumes a bourgeois state in the sense of coercion to comply with bourgeois norms of law, contained in the socialist principle of “distribution according to work”, from the position of supporters of a "nationwide" state, who do not notice the forced dictatorial character proletarian state!
 
Incidentally, the Program of the CPSU itself is of great help in the correct solution of the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
 
From the rostrum of the 22nd Congress of the CPSU, Khrushchev addressed us with the question, “Why, in fact, is the state itself preserved, although the main thing that gave rise to it, class antagonism, has disappeared? This is explained by the fact that the tasks that society can solve only with the help of the state have not yet been exhausted."
 
What are these tasks that society can solve only with the help of the state, the “nationwide” state?
 
The answer to this question is provided by the Program of the CPSU. According to the Program, such tasks not yet solved by our state are -
 
1) the creation of the material and technical base of communism in industry and agriculture;
 
2) further strengthening of the indestructible alliance between the working class and the peasantry;
 
3) the gradual erasure of contrasts between town and country, between physical and mental labor, between highly paid and low-paid labor;
 
4) the all-round development and improvement of socialist democracy, the enlistment of all citizens in active participation in the administration of the state, in the direction of economic and cultural development;
 
5) strengthening the defense of the USSR, the power of the Soviet Armed Forces, as the most important function of the socialist state;
 
6) education of the entire population in the spirit of scientific communism;
 
7) the development of a communist attitude to work among all members of society;
 
8) approval of communist morality;
 
9) tireless education of Soviet people in the spirit of proletarian internationalism and Soviet patriotism;
 
10) overcoming the remnants of capitalism in the minds of people;
 
11) exposure of bourgeois ideology;
 
12) improvement and strengthening of the principle of material interest and payment according to work, etc. etc.
Here, it turns out, what a great many responsible and difficult tasks our state faces at this stage of its development, at the stage of the so-called full-scale construction of communism!
 
It seems to me that a deep Marxist analysis is not required in order to draw an indisputable conclusion from a mere cursory examination of this list of tasks that our state has to solve (or complete) that our society is still far from the end of the first phase of communism, and, moreover, not at the beginning of its second phase, the conclusion that almost any of these tasks, not to mention their totality, can be solved only by the state of the working class, only by the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
 
To deny the necessity of the dictatorship of the working class for the successful solution of these tasks means, from the standpoint of Marxist-Leninist ideology, to deny the class nature of these tasks.
 
The position of the Program of the CPSU on the leading role of the working class, as the most advanced, most conscious class of our society, in the system of the state of the whole people, next to the provision on the uselessness of the dictatorship of the proletariat, does not save the situation, because it, this position, in my opinion, is devoid of any specific political content.
 
V. I. Lenin not only developed the teachings of Marx-Engels on the hegemony of the proletariat in the socialist revolution, not only developed their teachings on the dictatorship of the proletariat as a proletarian state in a transitional period, but also filled these concepts with concrete content.
 
Speaking about the Soviets, about this "Russian form of the dictatorship of the proletariat" (vol. 28, p. 236), about the trade unions, about the Komsomol, about the Party as separate links in the general mechanism of the dictatorship of the working class, V. I. Lenin wrote:
 
“... it turns out, in general and as a whole, a formally non-communist, flexible, and relatively broad, very powerful, proletarian apparatus, through which the party is closely connected with the class and the masses and through which, under the leadership of the party, the dictatorship of the class is carried out” (vol. 25 , p. 192).
 
V. I. Lenin did not engage in a game of concepts and buzzwords and did not try to oppose the leading role of the working class in the socialist revolution to its revolutionary dictatorship, to tear them apart from each other.
 
For V. I. Lenin, the leading role of the working class in the socialist revolution and the dictatorship of the working class in the revolution are equivalent and inseparable concepts!*
 
Marx, Engels, Lenin gave a precise and clear distinction between two phases of a single and inseparable process - the transition of society from capitalism to communism.
 
In "State and Revolution" V. I. Lenin wrote:
 
Marx, without embarking on utopias, defined in more detail what can now be determined with regard to this future, namely: the difference between the lower and the higher phase (stage, stage) of communist society.
 
... Marx gives a sober account of exactly how the socialist society will be forced to manage. Marx comes to a concrete analysis of the conditions of life in a society in which there will be no capitalism, and at the same time says:
 
We are dealing here not with a communist society that has developed on its own basis, but with one that is just emerging from capitalist society and which therefore in all respects, economically, morally, and mentally, still bears the imprint of the old society from the depths of which it emerged.
 
This communist society, which has just emerged from the bowels of capitalism, which bears in all respects the imprint of the old society, Marx calls the "first" or lower phase of communist society.
 
The means of production have already moved out of the private property of individuals. The means of production belong to the whole society. Each member of the society, performing a certain share of socially necessary work, receives a certificate from the society that he has completed such and such amount of work. According to this certificate, he receives from the public warehouses of consumer goods an appropriate amount of products, minus the amount of labor that goes into the public fund, each worker, therefore, receives from society as much as he gave him.
 
As if "equality" reigns.
 
But when Lassalle says, referring to such social orders (usually called socialism, and in Marx called the first phase of communism), that this is a "just distribution", that it is "the equal right of everyone to an equal product of labor", then Lassalle is mistaken, and Marx explains his mistake.
 
“Equal law,” says Marx, “we really have here, but it is still ‘bourgeois law,’ which, like any law, presupposes inequality. Every law is the application of the same scale to different people who are in fact not the same, not equal to each other, and therefore equal right is a violation of equality and injustice. Indeed, each receives, having worked out an equal share of social labor with another, an equal share of social production (after the indicated deductions).
 
Meanwhile, individual people are not equal: one is stronger, the other is weaker; one is married, the other is single, one has more children, another has fewer, etc."
 
... Breaking down Lassalle's petty-bourgeois vague phrase about "equality" and "justice" in general, Marx shows the course of development of communist society, which is forced at first to destroy only that "injustice", that the means of production are seized by individuals, and which is not in a position to immediately destroy and further injustice, which consists in the distribution of commodities "according to work" (and not according to need).
 
Marx not only takes into account the inevitable inequality of people in the most precise way, he also takes into account the fact that one more transfer of the means of production into common ownership does not eliminate the shortcomings of distribution and the inequality of “bourgeois law,” which continues to prevail, since products are divided according to work” (vol. 25, p. pp. 436 - 438).
 
Here is a detailed Marxist-Leninist definition of what is socialism, or the lower, first phase of communism.
 
The same clear and definite explanation belongs to Marx and Lenin in relation to the second, highest phase of communism.
 
V. I. Lenin writes further:
 
"Marx continues: "...In the highest phase of communist society, after the division of labor that enslaves man has disappeared; when the opposition of mental and physical labor disappears along with it; when labor ceases to be only a means of life, but becomes the first need of life; when, along with the all-round development of individuals, the productive forces also grow and all sources of social wealth flow in full flow, only then will it be possible to completely overcome the narrow horizon of bourgeois law, and society will be able to write on its banner: each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. 25, p. 439).
 
V. I. Lenin gives us the opportunity to establish what socialism (in the commonly used sense of the word) and communism are from the point of view of Marxism-Leninism.
 
Socialism is -
 
1) The abolition of private ownership of the means of production, its replacement by public property;
 
2) The elimination of the exploiting classes, and then of all classes and class distinctions;
 
3) Elimination of the "economic, mental and moral" remnants of capitalism;
 
4) Elimination of free trade and money circulation;
5) Creation of labor productivity, higher in comparison with capitalism;
 
6) Strengthening the socialist principle of distribution - "from each according to his ability, to each according to his work."
 
The list of tasks facing our state, given in “the Program of the CPSU” (see p. ... of this section), indisputably indicates that our society, if we do not want to enter into a dispute with Marx and Lenin, has not yet entered into, not completed the construction of a socialist society, that our state has not yet fully completed any of the main tasks by which a society can deserve the name socialist.
 
According to Marx and Lenin, the first phase of communism, socialism, differs from the second phase, complete communism, in the main and defining features, in the following:
 
1) Such a high level of development of the productive forces of society, on the basis of which it will be possible to "overcome the narrow horizon of bourgeois law" and write on the banner "to each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
 
2) The transformation of labor from a vital necessity into a vital need.
 
The practice of socialist construction made some amendments to the theoretical outlines of Marx and Lenin, in particular, on the issue of commodity-money circulation under socialism, dictated the need for two forms of ownership of the means of production - public and group, collective-farm-cooperative.
 
But as soon as we declare that we have begun the full-scale construction of (1st phase) communism, we must inevitably carry on the work of building (1st phase) communism.
 
1) to the gradual replacement of collective-farm-cooperative property with public property, while not forgetting the very important and profound instructions of V. I. Lenin that
 
"...Land is considered by us as common property.
 
Well, what if I take a piece of this common property for myself, cultivate on it twice as much grain as I need, and speculate on the surplus grain... am I acting like a communist? No, as an exploiter, as an owner..." (vol. 31, p. 268).
 
“As long as there remains private ownership of the means of production (for example, agricultural implements and livestock, even if private ownership of land is abolished) and free trade, the economic basis of capitalism remains” (ibid., p. 367).
 
2) to such an increase in labor productivity that it is possible to create an abundance of consumer goods, while not forgetting Lenin's indication that
 
“Labor productivity is, in the last analysis, the most important thing, the most important thing for the victory of the new social system... Capitalism can be defeated and will be finally defeated by the fact that socialism will create a new, much higher productivity of labor” (vol. 25, p. 398).
 
3) to the gradual replacement of commodity-money circulation by a system of direct product exchange between industry and agriculture, while not forgetting Lenin's instructions that
 
"not appropriation, not a tax, but the exchange of products of large-scale ("socialized") industry for peasant products, such is the economic essence of socialism, its basis" (vol. 32, p. 300).
 
“Money is a clot of social wealth, a clot of social labor, money is evidence of the receipt of tribute from all workers, money is the remnant of yesterday’s exploitation. That’s what money is! Is it possible to immediately destroy money? No ... It takes a lot of technical and, which is  much more difficult and much more important than organizational conquests in order to destroy money, and until then one has to remain with “equality” in words, in the constitution, and in the position where everyone who has money has an actual right to exploit" (vol. 29, p. 328 - 329).
 
4) to the gradual transformation of labor into the first necessity of life, while not forgetting Lenin's indication that he assumes
 
"gratuitous work for the public good, not taking into account individual differences, erasing any memory of everyday prejudices, erasing inertia, habits, the difference between individual branches of work, the difference in the amount of remuneration for work, etc." (vol. 30, p. 164).
 
This is how, from the point of view of Marxism-Leninism, the transition to the task of the direct practical construction of a (1st phase of) communist society should be presented, if, following the Program of the CPSU, we tear it off, compare or oppose to the construction of socialism.
 
And what does the “Program of the CPSU” say about the transition to the full-scale construction of (1st phase of) communism? According to the CPSU Program, the solution of this problem consists, as already mentioned, in the following:
 
1) In the creation of the material and technical base of (1st phase of) communism in industry and agriculture, and the creation of such a base in agriculture is conceived "as the all-round strengthening of the collective farm system."
 
2) The need to "fully use such tools for the development of the economy as money, price, profit, trade, finance", etc. bourgeois instruments.
 
3) In "reliance on the principle of material interest", on the principle of payment according to work.
 
Isn't it an interesting transition to the direct, full-scale construction of communism?
 
Instead of a gradual transition from two forms of ownership, inherent only in socialism, to a single public ownership of the means of production, which determines communism, there is an "every possible strengthening" of these two forms. Even more - the transfer of the main means of production from the hands of the state into the hands of individual production teams - the sale of basic agricultural equipment to collective farms.
 
Instead of the gradual replacement of commodity-money, market relations, which are inherent not only in socialism, but also in capitalism, by a system of direct product exchange, which determines communism, there is an all-out expansion and strengthening of commodity-money relations. Even more - cardinal measures are planned to introduce, strengthen, and expand such commodity-money categories as profit, as some kind of "socialist competitiveness." Instead of gradually diminishing the role of personal material interest, i.e. instead of the gradual preparation of society for the transition from the socialist principle "to each according to his work" to the communist one - "to each according to his needs", - (there is) reliance on the principle of material interest, on the principle of payment according to work.
 
There is something to be a little confused about...
 
Why is there such confusion and confusion in this matter? What does that testify to?
 
I am sure that all this testifies to only one thing - that the theoretical position of the Program of the CPSU about the entry of our country into the period of the full-scale construction of (1st phase of) communism, into the period presented by the Program as a certain higher stage than socialism - turned out to be untenable, turned out to be in conflict with life, in contradiction with the theory of scientific communism of Marx-Lenin.
 
It is easy to see that the tasks that the Program of the CPSU has set for our society, every one of them, are aimed at one goal - towards the further construction of socialism, towards the completion of socialism.
 
This fact is undeniable. And therefore, all the theoretical provisions of the Program of the CPSU on the transition of our country to the task of directly building the highest phase of communist society, on the already accomplished development of the dictatorship of the proletariat, as a state of the period of socialism, into a state of the whole people, etc., are crumbling. etc.
 
We have considered only one, the inner side of the issue of the so-called public state. But this issue has another side, no less, if not more, important than the internal one, the external side of this issue, its international side.
 
Does the “Program of the CPSU” recognize the existence of the international side of the problem of the so-called "public state"? Recognizes, because it is to this side that the following piece of the Program is devoted:
 
"For the complete withering away of the state, it is necessary to create both internal conditions - the building of a developed communist society, and external conditions - the final resolution of the dispute between capitalism and communism in the international arena in favor of communism."
 
That is all that is said in the “Program of the CPSU” on this occasion. And we will not find anything else and anywhere about this side of the problem of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the state of the whole people, neither in the Program of the CPSU, nor in other materials devoted to the so-called public state.
 
It seems to me that such a position is not accidental, because even the closest superficial acquaintance with this side of the “thesis of the Program of the CPSU” about the uselessness of the dictatorship of the proletariat and its development into a "people's" state shows that this thesis is even more contrary to Marxism than when considering its internal side -Leninism, that from the point of view of Marxism-Leninism, he, as they say, does not climb into any gates.
 
V. I. Lenin very sharply and very definitely stated:
 
“If the power of the Soviets is exercised, if the bourgeoisie is overthrown in one country, the second task is to fight on an international scale, fight on a different plane, the struggle of the proletarian state among the capitalist states” (vol. 29, p. 40).
 
"Dictatorship is a big, cruel, bloody word, expressing a merciless struggle for life and death between two classes, two worlds, two world-historical epochs" (vol. 30, p. 330).
 
"The dictatorship of the proletariat does not mean the cessation of the class struggle, but its continuation in a new form and new means. AS long as the classes remain, as long as the bourgeoisie, overthrown in one country, intensifies its attacks on socialism on an international scale, until then a dictatorship is necessary" (Abstracts of the report on the tactics of the RCP (b) at the Third Congress of the Comintern).
 
One last statement of V. I. Lenin is worth whole volumes!
 
It shatters to smithereens all the arguments of the theoreticians and supporters of the Program of the CPSU in their attempts to prove that the liquidation of antagonistic classes within one country means the end of the dictatorship of the proletariat in that country.
 
Supporters and defenders of the "people's" state have forgotten about the existence of antagonistic, hostile classes and their states OUTSIDE of our state, they have forgotten that the socialist revolution, according to Marx and Lenin, both in letter and in spirit of their, above all, revolutionary teaching, DOES NOT END with the liquidation of the exploiting classes in one or more countries.
 
And the result of this regular forgetfulness of the theoreticians and defenders of the Program of the CPSU was the position of the Program about the complete and final victory of socialism in the USSR. The program of the CPSU proclaims:
 
"Having ensured the complete and final victory of socialism - the first phase of communism - and the transition of society to the full-scale construction of communism, the dictatorship of the proletariat has fulfilled its historical mission..."
 
Speaking at the February Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU in 1964, M. A. Suslov exclaimed:
 
“Peking theorists in every possible way hush up the position that Lenin emphasized and said that dictatorship is needed “in order to finally create and strengthen socialism” (vol. 29, p. 259), that the disappearance of the danger of restoring capitalist relations “means the end of the dictatorship of the proletariat” (vol. 33, p. 75)."
 
Is M. A. Suslov right in saying this?
 
He is wrong, because he mixes together two different sides of this issue - internal and international.
 
What does the approval of the Program of the CPSU on the complete and final victory of socialism in the USSR mean?
 
It means, firstly, that no internal factors are any longer able to lead to the restoration of capitalism in our country, and, secondly, but most importantly, it means that our country is already guaranteed against the restoration of capitalism and through intervention from the world imperialism, including through military intervention.
 
Let us turn to V. I. Lenin. He pointed out countless times:
 
"We are not in a position to bring about a socialist revolution in the West at will - this is the only absolute guarantee against restoration in Russia" ("The Agrarian Program of Social Democracy in the First Russian Revolution").
 
"We will come to final victory only when we manage to finally and totally break international imperialism... We will come to victory only together with all the workers of other countries..." (Speech in the Moscow Soviet, 1918).
 
"You can finally win only on a global scale ..." (Report on foreign policy at a meeting of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Moscow Council).
 
According to V. I. Lenin, it follows that only a series of victorious socialist revolutions in other countries can give us the right to speak of the final victory of socialism in our country as the first socialist country.
 
Some comrades, defending the position of the “Program of the CPSU” on the final victory of socialism in the USSR, are trying to prove that V. I. Lenin, speaking of a number of victorious socialist revolutions in other countries as the only absolute guarantee of the victory of socialism, precisely meant by these revolutions a number of post-war socialist revolutions in the people's democracies.
 
Such a statement is another attempt with unsuitable means.
 
These comrades admit a small but very significant inaccuracy, a reticence that distorts the very meaning of Lenin's words. V. I. Lenin taught:
 
It is impossible to win finally, completely on a world scale in Russia alone, but it is possible only when the proletariat wins in all, at least the advanced countries, or at least in a few of the largest advanced countries.
 
Only then will we be able to say with complete certainty that the cause of the proletariat has triumphed, that our first goal - the overthrow of capitalism - has been achieved" (vol. 29, p. 40).
 
And Lenin particularly stressed this idea more than once.
 
Thus, for V. I. Lenin, it was not at all indifferent where and in what countries the socialist revolution would take place.
 
One does not have to be a Marxist to understand why Lenin saw revolutions as the only guarantee of the final victory of socialism in at least a) several of the b) advanced and c) largest countries.
V. I. Lenin was a sober politician, and he well understood that a full guarantee of the final victory of socialism, full confidence that in any case, including in the case of armed intervention, we will definitely come out victorious, if only we can have a corresponding superiority in all the forces of socialism - economic, military, political - over the forces of imperialism. V. I. Lenin was well aware that without bringing "at least a few of the largest advanced countries" to the side of socialism, such superiority cannot be achieved, and especially when we have to catch up with capitalism in terms of economic development.
 
The question is whether it is possible to bring under the Lenin rubric several of the largest advanced countries of the people's democracy of the West or the East?
 
I don't think so. NOT possible YET.
 
I think that it would be superfluous to give any figures to justify this statement of mine. It seems to me that the very fact that we still have to catch up with capitalism in terms of economic development speaks for itself. And it is enough to refer to the words of the compilers of the Program, who said:
 
"Even if we agree with the President of the United States, who just recently declared that we have a balance of power, even then it would be unreasonable to threaten war" (Khrushchev, 22nd Congress of the CPSU).
 
"If in 1950 the share of socialist countries in world industrial production was about 1/5, now it exceeds one third" (Suslov. Report at the Plenum of the Central Committee 14/11-64).
 
The only serious proof of the correctness of the thesis of the Program of the CPSU about the complete and final victory of socialism in the USSR could be given only by showing that V. I. Lenin, speaking of a number of victorious socialist revolutions in other countries as the only real guarantee of this final victory, had in mind was not socialism, not the First phase of communist society, but communism proper, its second phase. This is quite possible, since in his speeches and works V. I. Lenin very often did not make any distinction between the use of the words socialism and communism.
 
Is there any such proof? I very carefully studied all the collected works of Lenin available to me, but did not find anything similar in it. Vice versa. Listen -
 
"... It goes without saying that only the proletariat of all the advanced countries of the world can finally win, and we Russians are starting the work that will consolidate the English, French or German proletariat, but we see that they will not win without the help of the working masses of all oppressed colonial peoples, and above all the peoples of the East.
 
We must realize that the vanguard alone cannot bring about the transition to communism" (Second All-Russian Congress of Communist Organizations of the Peoples of the East).
 
No matter how you interpret these Leninist words - whether in the form of a transition from capitalism to socialism or in the form of a transition from socialism to communism - they have only one essence: the final victory of the new system is impossible without the victory of a number of revolutions in several of the largest advanced (in economic, military, and political respect) countries of the world.
 
This Leninist thought does not allow any other interpretation for communists, for it takes the problem of the dictatorship of the proletariat as a whole, as the main and inevitable, most necessary element of the socialist revolution as a whole, that is, conceivable on a global scale, and not from the positions of narrow nationalities, limited by the boundaries of one country, as does the Program of the CPSU and its theorists and supporters.
 
The assertions of the Program of the CPSU about the final victory of socialism in the USSR, about the uselessness of the dictatorship of the proletariat and its development into a state of the whole people, are a denial of the Marxist-Leninist doctrine of the socialist revolution, which continues up to the complete and final victory of socialism on earth.
 
I said above that Marxism-Leninism is such an integral and interconnected doctrine that it is impossible in one way or another to deviate from one part of it, so as not to violate the other, so as not to break its overall harmony and integrity.
 
The program of the CPSU, following the assertion of the final victory of socialism in our country, proclaims that
 
"The Party regards the building of communism in the USSR as the great international task of the Soviet people..."
 
V. I. Lenin taught that
 
“Proletarian internationalism requires, firstly, the subordination of the proletarian struggle in one country to the interests of this struggle on a world scale; secondly, it requires the ability and readiness on the part of the nation, which is carrying out victory over the bourgeoisie, to make the greatest national sacrifices for the sake of overthrowing international capital” ( Report at the Second Congress of the Comintern).
 
V. I. Lenin taught that
 
"internationalism in fact is one and only one: selfless work on the development of the revolutionary movement and revolutionary struggle in one's own country, support (by propaganda, sympathy, materially) for the same struggle, the same line, and only this one in all countries without exception.. ." (Letters on tactics).
 
V. I. Lenin taught that the tactics of the communists, counting on a world revolution are,
 
"obligatory for a Marxist, for every proletarian and internationalist", "as the only internationalist one, for it does the maximum possible in one country for the development, support, awakening of the revolution in all countries" (The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky).
 
Let us compare these statements of V. I. Lenin with his repeated and categorical statements that without the victory of the socialist revolution in several of the largest advanced countries, the final victory of socialism is impossible.
 
What does this comparison say? That Lenin's teaching on proletarian internationalism is based not only and not so much on class, proletarian hatred of the exploitation of man by man, not only and not so much on the passionate revolutionary desire to help all working people in their struggle against all forms and types of oppression and oppressors, but , first of all, the most sober Marxist account of the fact that only the complete superiority of the forces of socialism over the forces of capitalism is capable of providing the working people with an equally complete guarantee of their victory. Lenin's teaching of proletarian internationalism is based on a real consideration of the fact that it is possible, even inevitable in the future, enthusiasm on the part of the state or states for their narrowly national tasks in the construction of a new social system.
 
Precisely because V. I. Lenin saw the guarantee of the final victory of socialism in a series of victorious revolutions in several of the largest advanced countries, precisely for this reason he did not get tired of repeating that the only internationalist policy is the policy of pursuing the maximum feasible in one country for the development, support , the awakening of the revolution in all other countries.
 
Proletarian internationalism demands that national tasks be subordinated to international ones. Proletarian internationalism requires mutual support, mutual assistance to each other from all sections of the international proletariat. But proletarian internationalism requires help and support, first of all, from the country "carrying out victories over the bourgeoisie", because - according to V. I. Lenin - without return help and support, all the efforts of this country to independently solve the problem of final victory over the bourgeoisie are doomed to failure.
 
In itself, the thesis of the Program of the CPSU that "the Party regards communist construction in the USSR as a great international task for the Soviet people" is indisputable, since it is based on Lenin's instruction about the revolutionary influence of our economic successes. True, it is still too early for us to talk about the concrete revolutionary influence of our economic successes, especially in the light of Khrushchev's classic comparison of a "trouserless" Soviet worker with a fully equipped worker in capitalist states.
 
But it's not the case. Taken by itself, the thesis of the Program of the CPSU about the "great international task of the Soviet people", as I have already said, is indisputable. But when next to this “thesis in the Program of the CPSU” there is an assertion about the final victory of socialism in the USSR, it seems to me that then the very thesis about our great international task acquires a somewhat different meaning.
 
Indeed, what does the statement about the final victory of socialism in the USSR mean, the statement that serves as a premise for the thesis about the great international task of the Soviet people? It means that we consider ourselves henceforth fully guaranteed against all attempts by the world bourgeoisie to restore capitalist relations in our country; it signifies our indirect and rather subtle recognition of the fact that in connection with the final victory of socialism in the USSR, we have the opportunity, to put it mildly, to digress somewhat from the fulfillment of our "ordinary" international obligations for the sake of our great international task; it means that we are able to refrain "from the greatest national sacrifices for the overthrow of international capital"; it means, finally, that for us it is no longer necessary, although desirable, the tactics of the Communists, counting on a world revolution.
 
This is the striking result we arrive at as soon as we try to destroy the integrity and consistency of the Marxist-Leninist doctrine of the dictatorship of the proletariat, of the socialist revolution.
 
Why do we need different victims, tactics, and other Marxist-Leninist "tricks" there now? - after all, we have already won finally and irrevocably. Let us calmly build communism for ourselves - we have everything necessary for this; build it, then the people will look and say: this is life! We are for communism, and long live the world revolution!
 
Inextricably linked with the problem of the so-called "people's" state is the question raised by the Program of the CPSU about the transformation of the party of the working class in our country into the party of the whole people.
 
The program of the CPSU substantiates the thesis of the transformation of the party of the working class into a party of the whole people as follows:
 
1) Changes in the class structure of our society;
 
2) the fundamental community of interests of all sections of the working people of the USSR with the interests of the working class;
 
3) The established ideological unity of our entire society. It seems to me that much of what could be said here in relation to the provision of the Program on the transformation of the party of the working class into a party of the whole people, has already been said in the previous lines. It only remains to add the following:
 
The liquidation of the exploiting classes in the USSR did not lead to the liquidation of classes in general in our country. And, fortunately, no one disputes this. But, unfortunately, few people think what follows from this.
 
And from this it follows, from the point of view of Marxism-Leninism, that while and since there are classes in our society, no matter what, antagonistic or friendly, as long as and to the extent that class contradictions and class struggle exist and will continue to exist.
 
Another thing is the pattern of resolving antagonistic or non-antagonistic contradictions. While the former are overcome through social revolution, the latter are overcome without revolutionary upheavals. But both of them are overcome in the struggle. And those who try to pass off socialist society as a society without class contradictions and class struggle make a serious mistake; which passes off the features of resolving non-antagonistic contradictions in socialist society as reconciling them.
 
While and insofar as our society implements the principle "from each according to his ability, to each according to his work", which reflects and consolidates the actual inequality of people, while and insofar as two forms of property exist, are legally fixed and are further strengthened in society - public and cooperative, so far and since in it there is an opposition between physical and mental labor, between town and country, so long as and insofar as (and in view of the above) our society needs a state, i.e. in the army, police, courts, prisons, etc. organs of coercion and violence - so far and to the extent that all arguments about the social, moral and ideological unity of class society are anti-scientific verbal assurances that have no Marxist-Leninist basis.
 
Only the complete victory of communism, its highest phase, means the complete destruction of all and all classes and class differences, and with them all and all class contradictions and class struggle, and only this destruction leads to the complete moral, political and ideological unity of society.
 
When we spoke about the "nationwide" state, there was a part of the Program of the CPSU devoted to the tasks facing our society at the present stage of its development (see p. ...).
 
Let us try to analyze these tasks in relation to the approval of the “Program of the CPSU” on the moral and ideological unity of our society.
 
The question is, if in our society such a strong moral, political and ideological unity of society has already developed that it is already possible to write in the Program of the CPSU about the transition from the party of the working class to the party of the whole people, then why is the same Program of the CPSU and countless party and state directives literally on every step they call on us to strengthen the alliance between the working class and the peasantry, to observe discipline in all areas of life, to enhance the role of control and accounting in every way, to strengthen and expand the principle of material interest, to devote all our efforts to educating the population, especially young people, in the spirit of communist morality, to overcome the survivals of capitalism in the minds of people, in the development of a conscious attitude to work (so in the text. - Ed.), etc.?
 
The Central Committee of the CPSU and the Soviet government have made and are making great efforts to carry out these tasks in practice. The question is, if all these phenomena, for example, such as the remnants of capitalism in the minds of people, an irresponsible attitude to work, the manifestation of parochialism and departmentalism, etc., are exceptions to the rule, then why then elevate them to the rank of the most important party and state tasks? Is it really necessary in the conditions of complete moral-political and ideological unity of society to have a "special machine, a special apparatus of suppression" to combat "possible excesses of individuals"?
 
The answer to these questions suggests itself - all these "remnants" and "manifestations" so far, unfortunately, are not "excesses of individuals", but widespread, mass phenomena. And there is nothing anti-Marxist or anti-Soviet in recognizing this fact. V. I. Lenin recognized "the possibility and necessity of excesses of individuals" even in the conditions of a communist society. What is surprising in the fact that in the conditions of a socialist society, in the conditions of the existence of classes both within society and outside it, such excesses are not limited to individuals, but still remain a mass phenomenon?
 
No wonder. Another thing is surprising - how can one pursue quite definite and clear goals in practical affairs, while at the same time in theory trying not to notice them and bypass them?
 
Only with the complete victory of communism will it be possible to talk about the moral-political and, moreover, about the ideological unity of society. To declare this now means, as V. I. Lenin pointed out, "jumping not to the lower, not to the middle, but to the higher phase of communism."
 
Such a jump cannot be supported by any reference to Marxism-Leninism. So theorists and defenders of the thesis "from the party of the working class to the party of the whole people" have to confine themselves to verbal tightrope walking, like the following:
 
"The Communist Party of the Soviet Union has not ceased to be the party of the working class, for it has been and remains the spokesman of its communist ideals. But the Communist Party in our country has become not only the party of the working class, but of the whole people, because the whole people have adopted the Marxist-Leninist worldview of the working class , his ideals" (collection "From the party of the working class to the party of the whole people", 1964).
 
Speaking on February 14, 1964, at the Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU, M. A. Suslov said:
 
The party of the working class, without which the dictatorship of the class is impossible, retains both formally and in essence its proletarian class character until the complete victory of socialism.
 
This is the undeniable truth. But it is also indisputable that the party, as a political organization, reflects the changes taking place in the class structure of society. The CPSU emphasized in its Program that the working class would remain the leading force in Soviet society until the complete victory of communism. Even during the period of extensive building of communism, the party remains the spokesman for communist ideals, the aims of the working class and its fundamental interests. At the same time, it becomes the party of the whole people. This is not happening according to someone's subjective wishes, but because the goals and ideals of the working class have become the goals and ideals of all classes and strata of the people who built socialism" (I emphasized. - GM).
 
Much of this statement is surprising and incomprehensible.
 
It is not clear in what sense of the word the first paragraph of this quotation speaks of socialism - about socialism in the "common sense of the word", i.e. about communism, or about socialism as the first phase of communism?
 
It is not clear what kind of changes in the class structure of society are we talking about - is it the liquidation of the exploiting classes, or is it a qualitative change in the character of the classes?
 
It is surprising and incomprehensible why the working class, having previously and remaining to this day the leading force of Soviet society, the working class, "whose goals and ideals have become the goals and ideals of all classes and strata of the people," why it should, precisely for this reason, renounce the leading role in the party ?
 
Why?
 
If, speaking of the complete victory of socialism, M. A. Suslov has in mind the complete victory of communism, then this means that the party of the working class both formally and in essence retains its class proletarian character until the construction of a complete classless society. If so, then we are formally and essentially Marxist-Leninists.
 
If, speaking of the complete victory of socialism, M. A. Suslov has in mind the present period of development of our society, then this means that both formally and in essence the party of the working class is losing its class proletarian character somewhere halfway from capitalism to communism. If this is so, then we formally and essentially break with Marxism-Leninism.
 
As soon as we recognize that our society is a class society, even if with significantly erased class boundaries, just as soon we are obliged to admit, if we are Communist-Leninists, that a non-class or general class party, as well as a state of the whole people, is in our society cannot be , or, as Lenin liked to say; either we admit that "party membership is the highest principle of class", and then we are Marxist-Leninists, or we are for the "party of the whole people", and then there is nothing in common between us and the Marxist-Leninists.
 
Defenders of the CPSU Program argue:
 
“How is the class spirit of a Marxist-Leninist party expressed in a socialist society, where there are no antagonistic classes, where the exploiters have been destroyed and the exploitation of man by man has been abolished forever, where the socio-political unity of society has been strengthened? The communists answer this question as follows: the class character of the Marxist-Leninist party in such a society consists in its loyalty to communism - the highest class principle of the international proletariat, in the implementation of communism - this ultimate goal of the international working class" (collection "From the party of the working class to the party of the whole people", 1964).
 
Such an attempt to salvage the situation and to give the so-called all-people's party a class Marxist character is yet another attempt with unsuitable means.
 
The question is, how is the class spirit of a Marxist-Leninist party expressed in a capitalist society?
 
Following the logic of reasoning of the theorists and defenders of the CPSU Program, one should answer this question in the same way as they themselves answer it - the class character of the Marxist-Leninist party in a capitalist society consists in its loyalty to communism (socialism), in the implementation of communism (socialism).
 
Following the logic of the arguments of the supporters of the ”Program of the CPSU”, we will inevitably have to come to the conclusion that any party that sets as its ultimate goal the establishment of socialism and communism, regardless of whose class interests it expresses and what specific paths it intends to follow or is heading towards this goals - is the essence of the class Marxist-Leninist party.
 
Following this logic, we will be forced to rank among the Marxist-Leninist parties such parties as the English Labor Party, the Italian, French or Japanese Socialist Parties, and so on, parties that proclaimed that their ultimate goal was "socialism".
 
We will be all the more compelled to admit this, since from now on we have proclaimed that ideological, that is, theoretical, differences cannot serve as an obstacle in the struggle for a common goal.
 
The program of the CPSU emphasizes that
 
"The period of extensive construction of communism is characterized by a further increase in the role and importance of the Communist Party as the leading and guiding force in Soviet society."
The program of the CPSU explains what caused this increase in the role and importance of the Communist Party:
 
"The increased role of the party in the life of Soviet society at a new stage in its development is due to:
 
- the growth in the scale and complexity of the tasks of communist construction, requiring a higher level of political and organizational leadership;
 
- the rise of the creative activity of the masses, the involvement of new millions of working people in the management of state affairs and production;
 
- the further development of socialist democracy, the enhancement of the role of public organizations, the expansion of the rights of the union republics and local organizations;
 
- the growing importance of the theory of scientific communism, its creative development and application, the need to strengthen the communist education of the working people and the struggle to overcome the remnants of the past in the minds of people.
 
And as a result of the "growth of the role and importance of the Communist Party" - the Program of the CPSU proclaims the transition from the party of the working class to the "nationwide" party.
 
You involuntarily ask questions - if THIS is the creative development and application of the theory of scientific communism, then where is Marxism-Leninism in it ?! Marxism-Leninism, which is based on the doctrine that ONLY the working class, in alliance with other friendly classes and strata of society, ONLY he (working class Ed) alone, ONLY HIS PARTY, is able to eliminate all and any class contradictions and differences and ensure the complete and final victory of communism on the ground?!
 
Such a "creative development and application of the theory of scientific communism" leaves nothing in this theory similar to scientific communism because it nullifies the Marxist-Leninist doctrine of the revolutionary role of the working class in history, limiting this history to the first phase of communist construction in ONE country.
 
The program of the CPSU acts consistently and logically - rejecting the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat, declaring its development into a "people's" state, it does not stop halfway and goes further, from the party of the working class to the "people's" party, replacing the dictatorship of the class with the hegemony of the class, mixing it into a heap principles of communism with the aims of the working class.
 
Well, how can one not recall the words of V. I. Lenin that
 
“Basic propositions and goals are two different things: after all, even anarchists will agree with us on goals, because they too stand for the abolition of exploitation and class differences. Principles are not a goal, not a program, not tactics and not theory. Tactics and theory are not principles ... The principles of communism consist in the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat and in the application of state coercion in the transitional period. These are the principles of communism, but this is not its goal "(vol. 32, p. 445).
 
So, according to V. I. Lenin, and not according to the Program of the CPSU, it is impossible, fundamentally mistaken, since it is devoid of any real meaning, to assert that communism is the highest class principle, and through such a substitution to express the class character of the party.
 
Communism is the ultimate goal of the working class. And this goal means nothing more than the destruction of all classes and class distinctions. And only the working class is capable of destroying classes and class differences, as the only class that is not interested in perpetuating its rule, for only the working class is not the owner of the means of production and does not have the opportunity to exploit the labor of others. And the only tool with which the working class can achieve its ultimate goal, communism, is its state, the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is what Lenin teaches.