– Hardial Bains, 1985 –
Excerpts from the speech delivered at the October 22, 1985 session of the Seminar Course on Revolutionary Marxism-Leninism and the Crisis in Bourgeois Social Theory, organized by the Marxist-Leninist Study Group at the University of Guelph
There is a common expression: “It is fine in theory, but will not work in practice.” This is merely a folksy saying — a way of apologizing for an unsatisfactory state of affairs and of rejecting all criticism of this state of affairs. What is the basis for such a chasm between theory and practice which is implied by this expression? If the concept of theory is to have any meaning whatsoever, this expression is clearly wrong. If something is fine in theory, it will be fine in practice. There is an indivisible unity between theory and practice. Theory is born out of practice and, in turn, it guides practice. Practice verifies the truth of theory. Theory divorced from practice is purposeless, while practice without theory gropes in the dark. The statement that something is fine in theory but does not work in practice exaggerates the role of practical activity, and it means that man is unable to predict. This statement is rejection of theory and an attempt to deprive man of scientific knowledge. Such a statement can have meaning only if neither theory nor practice has any meaning.
Since 1825, when capitalism experienced its first crisis of overproduction, the capitalist system has always faced crisis. At first, the crisis of overproduction recurred at periods of every ten years or so. Then, in the twentieth century, with the development of capitalism into monopoly capitalism, the system has been in general crisis, as well as facing the periodic crisis of overproduction. What can be concluded from the practice of capitalism? Those who present this folksy saying will say, “Yes, there are some problems with capitalism, but it is still the best system there is.” In other words, there is no analysis; just an assertion that while there is something wrong with the capitalist system, still it should be accepted. This is stated by the Macdonald Commission, by Finance Minister Wilson, by Drache and Cameron. But the question arises: if everything which has been done about the capitalist system in the past 160 years to eliminate crisis and the ills of capitalism has not cured capitalism of its ills, then what is the basis for saying that now something can be done? There is no theoretical basis whatsoever for this assertion. Life itself has proven the falsity of it. The theory of a self-regulating market mechanism or of state regulation of capitalism is divorced from practice, so how can it be fine in theory? Yet this is what all the apologists for the capitalist system are putting forward.
Such views are aimed at divorcing theory from practice, detaching practical activity from any theoretical basis, while detaching their “theories” from life. Theory reveals the most profound causes of phenomena, the real interconnections amongst phenomena, and the inner basis of change, development and motion. Only with scientific theory is it possible to predict how phenomena unfold and the laws governing the development of phenomena. All the bourgeois and revisionist forces want to keep the working class and broad masses of the people in ignorance so that their practice is not guided by theory, and is deprived of any orientation for the solution of the problems posed by practice. The Macdonald Commission and other bourgeois “theorists” can predict that the earth may face devastation as a result of the population explosion or environmental problems. They can even admit that one day the earth, the sun, the solar system will die. But when it comes to capitalism, they cannot admit that it will one day disappear. Why are they so afraid to predict what is going to happen to the capitalist system? It is because they are not interested to see the underlying principles, the laws, of the capitalist system. They are not willing to have a theory which can illuminate the practice of capitalism, and which will reveal where the capitalist system is headed.
Is there motion in the capitalist system? Everyone says there is motion, but what kind of motion do they recognize? They will admit that there have been changes, such as in technology and production techniques, in government programmes, and so on. The Macdonald Commission even talks about how the introduction of various social programmes has distorted the operation of the free market. Jeff Rose, the president of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, presents the same argument from the other side — that the growth of government activity has restricted the operation of the free market and ameliorated its effects on the people. They all discuss whether or not there should be more or less government intervention; greater or less leeway for the operation of the “free market.” But, after all, this is the Canadian capitalist system, which permits only “evolutionary” changes. Gradualism, merely quantitative changes, are the only kind of changes which they admit, while qualitative changes are forbidden. Liberalism has raised the doctrine of gradualism to the level of “theory,” according to which everyone is “free” to advocate any change whatsoever — except a change which qualitatively transforms the society. From the time of the National Policy of (John A.) Macdonald, various quantitative changes have taken place in the capitalist system in Canada. These have changed the face of capitalism. For example, monopolies have emerged as the most significant feature of the economy. However, the basis of the capitalist system has not changed. It can be observed that today’s crisis is much more destructive, more devastating, than was the case 100 years ago. Its duration is longer. Its recovery period is virtually non-existent. A new crisis threatens before the expansionary phase develops. There is general crisis, as well as the recurrence of periodic crises of overproduction. These quantitative changes have taken place, but the likes of the Macdonald Commission, Michael Wilson, Drache and Cameron, the NDP and the revisionist “Communist” Party all say that this must not give rise to any qualitative change. Not only do they ignore and refuse to study the contradictions inherent in capitalism, but they are also not interested in any qualitative transformation taking place, and they actively oppose any such changes taking place. They recognize that capitalism has come into being, but they do not recognize the passing away of capitalism. They see the clashes taking place, the class struggle, but they do not recognize where these clashes are leading. They may make some observations as to what is taking place, because if they did not do this much they would not be able to justify the millions and millions of dollars spent to fund their “research” on the militarization of the economy, the strengthening of the repressive apparatus, the establishment of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and other organs of repression and so on.
* * *
The bourgeoisie and its social theorists admit that there are dangers to the system, but they say that all these dangers are external — that they come from outside and not from within. This denies that these dangers arise from the contradictions inherent to the capitalist system. Bourgeois social theory today does not recognize the objective basis of a thing, the contradictions inherent in the phenomena, or where the phenomena are headed. Thus, at the same time that it underestimates theory and denies it its role, it also does not recognize the forms of social practice — class struggle, production and scientific experimentation. If these forms of social practice were recognized, then man’s active relationship to nature and history would have to be recognized, as would the fact that productive activity in these areas of social practice is the basis of man and human society itself. If bourgeois social theory recognized class struggle, then it will have to deal with the question of where the class struggle is leading. The same would have to be answered in relation to man’s productive activity and scientific experimentation. When all this is denied, what role can there be for theory? It will be a “theory” which conceals and mystifies practice. It will be a “theory” which blames “genes” or “human nature” for the source of the problems — that is, it will be “theory” which does not have any relation to man’s practical activity, which does not answer the problems posed by practice, but denies them. It will be a “theory” which explains a phenomenon by factors outside the phenomenon itself. For example, one of the most celebrated theorists of bourgeois economic theory, William Stanley Jevons, “explained” crises by the occurrence of sunspots. War is explained by the evil nature of man, but not by the evil nature of the system itself. The same thing is done with regard to profiteering, swindles and corruption which are explained as the deeds of evil men or by the fact that “human nature” is flawed, but they are not attributed to men who are produced by the social system. Take another example. Everywhere there are signs: “Don’t drink and drive.” It is true that one should not drink and drive, but the question arises: Is this the main danger which faces the workers, which threatens their lives and limbs? Or does this danger arise from the pursuit of maximum profits by the capitalists? And what is the cause of the drinking problem in capitalist society? Is it not the spiritual devastation of the working class and people under capitalism and, more specifically today, job insecurity and other such problems? Does the bourgeoisie put forward these slogans because it is concerned about the lives and limbs of the workers? No. Such slogans are put forward to convey the impression that the bourgeoisie is concerned. It is also for purposes of providing an excuse for the further strengthening of the instruments of repression, and to carry activities against the masses of the people, such as the RIDE program. If there is a problem of drinking and driving in the society, this is an indictment of the society, not the individual. In fact, when the bourgeoisie refers to the Soviet Union and the problem of alcoholism there, it suggests that people drink because they are oppressed by socialism. It is true that this problem exists in the Soviet Union because of the social system there, but that social system is not socialism. It is capitalism which was restored there after the death of Stalin. The bourgeoisie used to refer to the high suicide rate in Sweden, and it also suggested that this was due to the fact that people were looked after from the “cradle to the grave” by the welfare state and were deprived of any freedom. Again, the social system in Sweden is capitalism, not socialism, but the question arises, why does the bourgeoisie not draw the same conclusion when it looks at the problem of drinking and driving in Canada? Why does it not see this as a problem of the social system? The same thing is done with other phenomena — causes are found which are external to the system.
In brief, bourgeois social theory is characterized by finding causes external to the system and denying any causes which are inherent to the system itself. Once this is the case, then the method of bourgeois social theory will also be external to the system — that is, divorced from the system as it actually is. “Models” are constructed which have no basis in reality, while, from the other side, empirical studies are carried out with no theoretical basis. Bourgeois social theory underestimates both theory and practice and develops each without reference to the other. On the one hand, models are constructed on the basis of abstract thinking alone, without regard for the data and information obtained from practice. On the other hand, experimentation and fact-finding without any theoretical basis are carried out. Thus, the Macdonald Commission presents its “model” of the free market and political democracy, which is merely a phrase without any relation to the real operation of the system. Together with this, it presents tables of data and facts of life eclectically and willy-nilly, without any theoretical foundation. Both rationalism and empiricism are approaches which break the living link between theory and practice. For example, the psychologist Skinner can find that the behaviour of mice can be conditioned in a very definite way, and then draw the conclusion that the behaviour of man can be regimented in precisely the same manner. On this basis, Skinner wrote novels constructing a “utopia” based on society being run as one big Skinner box. But are individuals in the society like mice? Men make their own history, and they create their own life, and not arbitrarily, as they choose, but under conditions and circumstances inherited from the past and on the basis of definite laws of development of society. However, for both the rationalists and empiricists, man makes the world as he pleases. According to them the capitalist system was brought into being arbitrarily because some individuals no longer wanted to have the feudal system. One society or another supposedly comes into being, not because of definite developments in the economic foundation of the society, but because some individuals or some primaeval force exert force over others. But the feudalists did not wish feudalism to be overthrown. How come history did not develop as the feudalists wished, but as the bourgeoisie wished? Is it something in the “nature” of capitalism, that it is really consistent with nature and human nature as the bourgeoisie suggests? In fact, all the social systems which have come into being are the creation of man. Only on that basis is man, in turn, the product of the system with the qualities, attributes and features of that system.
The explanation of social phenomena by external causes has gone to the extent that the bourgeoisie is putting forward the so-called creation theory on a par with the scientific theory of evolution. The religious opinion is given that man comes into being because God decided to put man on earth. Now the view is being pushed that this “theory” should be recognized as science, as if this would prove that all ideas get “equal treatment” under bourgeois democracy. But, far from giving science its due, this reduces science to the level of religious mysticism. Once “creation science” is recognized as science, science is thrown out the window. Far from being broad-minded, this is the most dogmatic and fanatical stand. It is obscurantist and the denial of all history. Historical development of nature and of society is essential to provide any scientific explanation of phenomena of nature and society. To put the hocus-pocus of the “creation theory” on a par with the theory of evolution is to negate science altogether. Science is not a matter of a decision by some individual. Science must be true to itself — that is, it must not deny the inner logic of phenomena. Science does not depend on what a Hitler, a Ronald Reagan or a Gorbachev demand of it. At the same time, man cannot live without science, and without subordinating himself to the conclusions of science. The authority of science is such that man defies it at his peril. Science, which puts forward the laws of development of nature and history which really exist does not rise or fall according to whether or not some individual accepts its conclusions. Those who do not accept these conclusions will smash their heads on reality.
* * *
Bourgeois social theory does not put man at the centre of social phenomena. Man is detached from the centre of social phenomena, and then the theory is given that the situation is impossible, nothing can be done about it, the powers that be are out of everyone’s reach. This is not true. Ruling classes have come into being in the past, and they have passed away. Social systems have come into being in the past, and they too, have passed away. No ruling class or social system has perpetuated itself forever. But the bourgeoisie wants to last forever and to perpetuate its system. Thus, it seeks to deprive the working class of both its revolutionary theory, Marxism-Leninism, and its revolutionary practice, class struggle. Bourgeois social theory advocates the notion that all causes are external and, once this is given, then no theory can be tested. How will you “test” the theory that crises are caused by sunspots? Or that man is the creation of God? These are metaphysical assertions, which can be accepted only as assertion, never as fact. Superstition will reign. Whether it is social science, natural science or the technical sciences, anything can be said; everything will become a matter of definition and interpretation. Then the bourgeoisie will boast about what a “free” society it has, how anyone can have any ideas they want so long as they do not do anything to rock the system. This “free” society is presented as being free of any inherent motion, and the whole society is called upon to fight those forces which are destroying the system — forces which are “alien” and “foreign.” How is it possible for some alien forces to destroy a system which has no internal basis of change? Hitler argued in that fashion. He said that some “aliens” were “subverting the system” and that this provided him with the licence to destroy the opposition. An enemy is defined with qualities which are not the qualities of that system, doing something which is alien to that system. The bourgeoisie goes so far as to argue that its “free” society is very “fragile,” and it can only be held together against such alien forces through the deployment of massive repressive forces — the courts, judiciary, police, army, and so on. In its rejection of any internal basis of change and its fanatical defence of the bourgeois society, the ugliest chauvinism and jingoism are whipped up. Thus, the very “theories” of external causes are used to intensify exploitation, to justify repression and so on. In this way, there exists an unsurpassable gulf between bourgeois social theory and practice, which allows anything to be done without any theoretical justification, while all manner of “theories” are arbitrarily presented which have no basis in life.
Marxism-Leninism permits no such detaching of theory from practice or method from theory. It does not for one moment permit anything which does not have its basis in the real world. It accepts no theory which is divorced from practice, which does not arise from practice and which is not verified by practice. The Marxist-Leninist world outlook is called dialectical materialism. Its method is dialectical, dealing with phenomena in themselves, in their interconnections and in their development in internal motion. Its theory is materialist, taking the phenomena as they actually are, neither adding anything nor taking anything away. Neither the theory nor the method are imposed on reality. They are abstracted from reality as it actually is. For example, the laws of dialectics are nothing other than the most general laws of nature and history, as well as of thought itself. These laws can in the main be reduced to three: the transformation of quantity into quality and vice versa, the interpenetration of opposites, and the negation of the negation. All matter, whether in nature or society, is in motion, which is governed by the contradictions inherent in phenomena. Quantitative increases lead to qualitative change. The process of development, the passing away of the old and the coming into being of the new as a result of the struggle between the opposites inherent in all phenomena, is a feature of both nature and of society. In no way are these laws imposed on phenomena from without. They are deduced from them. This is the opposite of the Hegelian dialectic which foists laws on nature and history as laws of thought, of the unfolding of the “absolute Idea.”
Applying these laws to the study of the social system, materialist dialectics concludes that there are no “immutable” social systems, and that they are not established on the basis of any “eternal principles” or ideas. Only such dialectics is able to explain both the possibility and the necessity of the emergence of class society out of the development of the primitive commune and the successive emergence of the slave, feudal and capitalist systems, and that just as the slave and feudal systems passed away, so too the capitalist system must be overthrown to be replaced by the socialist system. Such dialectics shows that progress depends on the social force which is emerging and developing, not on the obsolescent forces which strive to block the progress of the society which will bring about their own negation. The law of the transformation of quantitative changes into qualitative changes points to the necessity for revolutions by the oppressed classes in order to bring about the transformation of the society from one stage of development to the next. Thus, when the bourgeoisie carries a state-organized offensive against Marxism-Leninism, its motive is to dictate that the masses should not seek the cause of the phenomenon within the phenomenon itself; that they should not study the history of human society in its development, and that the proletariat should not take up the mission assigned to it by history — the task of carrying out the revolutionary transformation of society from capitalism to socialism.
Can it be said that any development has taken place from the period of the government of Pierre Trudeau to that of Brian Mulroney? In terms of qualitative changes, no change has taken place — the capitalist system remains. However, in terms of quantitative changes and the development of the capitalist system itself, it cannot be said that the society is unchanged. The contradictions inherent to the capitalist system are not inert. They have further sharpened. The struggle between bourgeoisie and proletariat has become sharper, as have the contradictions within the ranks of the bourgeoisie. The crisis has further deepened, leading to the further aggravation of all the contradictions inherent to the capitalist system. In these conditions, the bourgeoisie is becoming more desperate. It has given Mulroney, the “supreme negotiator,” the aim of lessening the contradictions inherent in the society. In. the Bahamas, he is portrayed as the great conciliator. Similarly, at home he has been given the task of bringing about “national reconciliation” — the resolution of the contradictions within the ranks of the monopolies, and the task of realizing “national consensus” and eliminating the “adversarial system” — that is, the class struggle. In a general way, this was also true during the period of Trudeau’s government, but this problem has emerged with greater force as a result of the deepening and broadening of the crisis and the further aggravation of the contradictions inherent in the society. Thus, neither can it be said that “nothing has changed” — the contradictions inherent to the capitalist system have further deepened and, in response to these objective contradictions, the bourgeoisie is responding by intensifying and systematizing its all-round offensive against the working class and broad masses of the people. Nor can it be said that there has been a “fundamental change,” such as the so-called “drive to the right” which the revisionists talk about to justify the merging of the proletariat with the so-called progressive bourgeoisie, or the “fundamental regrouping” which Drache and Cameron talk about.
Why is the bourgeoisie putting such emphasis on “national reconciliation” and “national consensus”? It can only be because on the national and international scale the class struggle is intensifying, as are the contradictions within the ranks of the bourgeoisie. If there were no class struggle, and no sharpening of the class struggle, such a program would be ridiculous. Thus, neither can the changes which are taking place be ignored, nor can they be exaggerated. The demand of the bourgeoisie for changes in the structures and superstructures of the capitalist system are a de facto recognition of the class struggle and they are an intensification of the class struggle waged by the bourgeoisie against the working class movement for the elimination of exploitation and for emancipation. Even though the bourgeoisie carries this struggle under slogans of eliminating the struggle, it is in fact intensifying this struggle. If it wanted to end the class struggle, then it would have to put forward the demand for the elimination of the condition which gives rise to the class struggle, the capitalist system itself.
There are those who present themselves as being very super-revolutionary. They organize tempests in teacups and are very self-satisfied when they are attacked by the bourgeoisie. In the 1960s, various Trotskyites and New Leftists were very pleased with themselves when they got themselves expelled from the university; they could complain about how repressive the society is and boast about how radical they are. The Trotskyites, and various elements from the disintegrating strata such as those who formed the “Weathermen,” even put forward the thesis that the way to increase the consciousness of the masses was to have them bludgeoned by the police in a demonstration. So as to achieve this lofty aim, any provocation or terrorist act could be justified by them. All of this denies that there is a real motion inherent in the society, a movement which is heading towards the destruction of the capitalist system. This does not mean that the offensive of the bourgeoisie is of no consequence for the masses, that the people can stand by and wait for history to unfold spontaneously. If the bourgeoisie accomplishes what it is striving to do in this period, to rig up the corporate fascist state and savagely crush the struggle of the working class against exploitation, then the revolution will be delayed, the necessary deep-going qualitative transformation from capitalism to socialism will be delayed, with much pain and suffering for the working class and broad masses of the people who will face the shifting of the burden of the crisis onto their back and the danger of imperialist world war and fascism. If the working class and broad masses of the people succeed through their struggle in preventing the bourgeoisie from accomplishing the aim it has set for this period, then the bourgeoisie will not be able to prevent the qualitative transformations from taking place. For example, there was a civil war in Spain. The people lost the war and the fascist Franco won. In the 40 years since, the qualitative change in the society has not taken place. The social revolution has not yet won victory. Spain had a revolutionary government, but it was defeated by the fascists. The bourgeoisie succeeded in imposing a regime of dark terror there. After the defeat of fascism in World War II, U.S. imperialism arose as the gendarme on the world scale and it protected all the fascist regimes such as Franco’s. This experience shows that views and practices which are not based on the laws governing the development of the society must be rejected. It helps the bourgeoisie to encourage disruptive elements precisely because they are opposed to the revolutionary transformation and pose no danger to the bourgeoisie or the capitalist system. This is why, in order to set policy consistent with the aim given to the revolutionary forces by history, it is essential to be guided by the most scientific social theory, the Marxist-Leninist theory, which is dialectical in its method and materialist in its theory.
Theory cannot be divorced from practice. Theory does not develop apart from practice, nor can practice achieve results unless it is guided by theory. Theory arises from practice, to meet the demands put by practice, and the test of theory is man’s practical activity in waging the class struggle, the struggle for production and scientific experiment. But can it be said that before man acts, he must have theory? There are those intellectualists who say that first we will understand the world, then we must develop theory and, when theory is perfected, then we will act. Thus, in the name of accepting the importance of theory, theory is denied. The development of theory through man’s centuries-long struggle with nature is denied in the name of developing theory. Marxism did not emerge full-blown from the head of an inspired individual, but solved the problems posed by practice on the basis of man’s theoretical and scientific arsenal built up over the centuries. Marxism-Leninism came into being and developed as a response to the problems posed by the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat. Practice is prior to theory and signals the development of theory. Frederick Engels pointed out that “Before people began to argue, they began to act. In the beginning, there was action.” The class struggle between bourgeoisie and proletariat emerged as an objective fact from the very moment of the birth of the capitalist system. This struggle put forward demands which had to be answered by theory. Thus, practice is not the activity of this or that individual, but is social practice. Theory will be true to itself when it fulfils the demands of practice. If it fails to fulfil the demands of practice, then it will not have the dignity of scientific theory.
Intellectualizing, placing theory above practice and prior to it, does not give theory its place of dignity and honour, but actually deprives it of this position. It is not man’s intellect which determines whether or not theory can fulfil the demands of practice. Whether one individual or another understands theory is not crucial. But in a decaying and dying society, intellectualism is presented as a means to push forward the society. Intellectualism deprives the masses of their role as the makers of history, while putting forward some intellectuals as the ones who direct the development of the society through their decrees and orders. What, for instance, would the consequences be if man were to intellectualize about the law of gravity, without reference to the problems posed by practice? Vast resources could be devoted to the making of some measurements and calculations, but man would never get off the ground. Man recognizes the law of gravity and takes it into account as a force of habit. The knowledge acquired from practice is deepened continuously in order to meet the demands of practice. As it is systematized and generalizations are drawn, then this knowledge acquires the force of theory. But while the law of gravity is recognized as a force of habit, when it comes to social theory, it is rejected as a force of habit, turned into an object of intellectualism. Karl Marx pointed out that: “The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it.” Change does not take place through intellectualizing about the interpretations of the world. Change takes place on the basis of objective laws, on the basis of which a programme of action is established to bring about change. The knowledge of these laws, theory, becomes a material force when the masses are imbued with it. Historical materialism is the scientific social theory which meets the demands put by practice for the transformation of the society through the revolutionary class struggle of the proletariat. If this theory is not given its proper place, then man will not succeed in bringing about the changes which are necessary through his conscious action. Once theory is not given its proper place, the method will be spontaneous, practice will be “hit and miss.”
* * *
Theory lags behind practice. It is called forth by the demands of practice and is verified by practice. Man’s struggle with nature existed from time immemorial, but the scientific conception of this struggle was put on a scientific footing, given the dignity of a scientific theory, only in the 19th century. Once this theory comes into being, the theory which fulfils the demands of practice, then this theory guides practice. As has already been pointed out, practice gropes in the dark without theory, while theory is purposeless if it is not linked with practice. This theory becomes the basis on which the political program of the proletariat is put forward. When it is said that theory lags behind practice, this merely explains that man’s theoretical treasury has its origin in social practice, and not the other way around. Marx proved that social being determines social consciousness. He put socialism on a materialist footing and removed it from the realm of utopian conceptions of the organization of a perfect social order constructed first in the mind of man and imposed on the society.
Theory must fulfil the demand put by practice, and dialectical and historical materialism is this theory. At the same time, this theory is in continuous development, not in the sense that any fundamental principle is altered, but that it is enriched and deepened, and assumes its final shape not in the mind of man but through revolutionary class struggle. Marxism was further developed when the capitalist system developed into monopoly capitalism. The social-democratic parties of the Second International, unable to cope with the change which took place in capitalism — its development into monopoly capitalism, the period when the proletarian revolution had become the order of the day — remained tied to dogmas of the earlier period. Lenin analysed these changes in capitalism and their profound implications for the strategy and tactics of the proletariat. Lenin showed the necessity for the Party of a new type and for using the Party as the weapon of class struggle, and he organized the Great October Revolution. Marxism developed to the stage of Leninism. The experience of socialist construction in the Soviet Union provided further experience of the “working class movement in its general aspect,” further enriching the theoretical treasury and practical experience of Marxism-Leninism. In the entire period since the death of Comrade Stalin, the proletariat has faced the onslaught of modern revisionism, the counter-revolution in the Soviet Union, the onslaught on the fundamental principles of Marxism-Leninism in every sphere. Comrade Enver Hoxha analyzed and fought against all these trends of modern revisionism — Titoite revisionism, Khrushchevite revisionism, Maoism, Eurocommunism and so on — and in the course of this not only defended the fundamental principles of Marxism-Leninism, but further enriched the theoretical and practical treasury of Marxism-Leninism. Thus, the theory remains qualitatively unchanged. The theory called forth by the demand of the proletarian revolution and construction of socialist society exists and does not need to be “revised.” At the same time, as a science, these laws are grasped with greater profundity, understood in greater depth, in the course of the waging of the revolutionary class struggle. Thus, the Marxist-Leninist theory is neither a matter of cultivating the understanding of some individual who “develops theory,” or reinvents fundamental principles with every twist and turn of the movement, nor is it a matter that theory is a dogma, divorced from life and imposed on it as a mathematical formula.
Stalin said that: “Theory is the experience of the working-class movement in all countries taken in its general aspect. Of course, theory becomes purposeless if it is not connected with revolutionary practice, just as practice gropes in the dark if its path is not illuminated by revolutionary theory. But theory can become a tremendous force in the working-class movement if it is built up in indissoluble connection with revolutionary practice; for theory, and theory alone, can give the movement confidence, the power of orientation and an understanding of the inner relations of surrounding events; for it and it alone can help practice to realize not only how and in which direction classes are moving at the present time, but also how and in which direction they will move in the near future.” The theory of the working class movement is historical materialism. The working class movement is nothing other than the movement of the working class for its emancipation, for the elimination of capitalist exploitation and all exploitation of man by man. If this theory is fine, why will it not work in practice? There is no reason. The statement that something is fine in theory but does not work in practice applies very well to bourgeois social theory, which is divorced from reality and the needs of social practice, but it does not apply to scientific social theory. Nonetheless, the bourgeoisie considers that its social theory is fine even though it does not work in practice, while the charge is laid that the revolutionary theory of Marxism-Leninism is “impractical.” It is bourgeois theory, which considers the causes as external to the phenomenon, which cannot work.
What is the “proof” given by the bourgeoisie that its social theory is fine, while the Marxist-Leninist theory is “impractical”? The “proof” is that the capitalist system is carrying on even though Marx predicted that it would fall. It is therefore concluded that Marx was wrong and that bourgeois social theory is correct. Of course, it is not true that since Marx made his prediction the bourgeoisie has not fallen. The Paris Commune overthrew the bourgeoisie, but it returned through a counter-revolutionary, aggressive war. The Great October Revolution overthrew the bourgeoisie and built real socialism, even though the bourgeoisie managed to organize a counter-revolution and re-establish capitalism in the Soviet Union. The bourgeoisie has also been overthrown in Socialist Albania and it has been eliminated as a class. Even though the capitalist system is the predominant system on the world scale, the new has already come into being and can never be eliminated. What does it prove to say that Marx is proven wrong because the bourgeoisie has not been overthrown in most places? This begs the question. Let us take the example of a mountain climber. Experienced, knowledgeable and well-equipped, he stands at the bottom of a mountain which man has not yet scaled. Is it an argument against the adequacy of the knowledge, experience and so on of the mountain climber to say that he has not yet scaled the mountain? Even if the climber should fail in his first attempt, can it be said that this proves that the mountain cannot be scaled? Practice must be improved, and the theory, the knowledge and ability will be improved in the course of practice. The mountain will be scaled, just as the “unconquerable” Mount Everest was scaled. The bourgeoisie, by citing the fact that it has not been overthrown and that its system persists, disproves nothing about Marxism, nor does it prove the validity of bourgeois social theory. It is merely asserting its divine right to rule, but it will be overthrown just as surely as were the monarchs who asserted the divine right of kings.
* * *
According to bourgeois social theory, history is aimless; different social systems and social forces are given no aim by history. That is, the bourgeois social theory denies the necessity of the study of nature and history in approaching the study of society. What developments would have taken place in the fields of science if the historical development of the phenomena had not been considered? What would biology be if it had not developed to the point where it studied the history of development of various phenomena? There would be no theory of evolution. What would geology be if it did not study the history of the earth and of land formations? Society is a product of nature as well as of history. Society emerges at a definite stage in the development of the natural world. It is necessary to see at what stage of development society emerged, and then to study that society in its history and development. The bourgeoisie does not recognize that history should be taken into account in the study of society. According to the bourgeoisie history is not understandable. It presents theories according to which history moves in circles; it is the product of “great men”; or that society is the creation in life of some ideas which come to the mind of some individuals. In this way social phenomena just come into being and pass away without any rhyme or reason.
The labour aristocrats do not take as their starting point the aim given by history to the proletariat. They take as the starting point the rejection of this aim. As is the case with Drache and Cameron and the social-democrats and revisionists of all hues, their thesis is like that of a certain anarchist and petty-bourgeois theorist, Proudhon: capitalism has a “good side” and a “bad side” — the “good side” is production, and the “bad side” is poverty, unemployment, and so on. Thus, what should be done, according to them, is to eliminate the “bad side” so that the “good side” can flourish. The bourgeoisie is very pleased with such “critics” who are greater defenders of capitalism than the bourgeoisie itself. They are provided with millions of dollars and every privilege to fill the air with the promise that they will eliminate the “bad side” of capitalism. But what they set out to eliminate is the aim given by history to the proletariat, the aim of ending the exploitation of man by man by overthrowing capitalism. All the propaganda that the “bad side” of capitalism should be eliminated and that the “good side” should be preserved is for purposes of preserving the system of wage slavery and denying the working class its historic mission as the builder of socialist society. Not only do they want to eliminate the aim of the proletariat, but they are theorizing that the proletariat itself can be eliminated under capitalism, as a result of technological change. In other words, they want a capitalist mode of production with no economic foundation. According to them, the struggle is between evil-doers and do-gooders, and the programme of the do-gooders is to convince the bourgeoisie to change its ways.
History gives an aim to an epoch, not from outside the epoch or the laws inherent to it. History is the concretization of what any phenomenon in nature and society has achieved to that time, and it gives that period an aim based on what that phenomenon has become through the course of its law-governed development. For example, the aim given by history to society has been to develop the social productive forces. This is the case whether one is speaking about pre-class society or the entire epoch of class society. It is not possible to conceive of a society which has not been given this aim by society. This aim emerges from the very nature of man, as the being which creates its own life through its own activity, demanding that nature must yield up what is necessary for the life of man. But bourgeois social scientists deny this aim of society. They deny any inner logic of the development of history. It cannot be otherwise, because if the aim given by history to society is accepted, then life proves that the bourgeoisie, its capitalist mode of production and the bourgeois society erected on it, cannot fulfil that aim, that they have become moribund, decayed and parasitic and must be discarded from the stage of history, just as slave society and feudal society were discarded.
History is the history of man’s struggle for mastery over nature, and of the successive social formations which came into being as he advanced in this struggle. At a certain stage of development, the productive forces were developed to the point where a surplus product was created above the immediate needs of the society, creating the condition for the emergence of class society. Looking back from the perspective of today, someone may declare that slave society appears unnatural and has an aim not given by history. But this is to deny both the development mankind reached which gave birth to slave society, as well as the further development of the slave society which made that society superfluous, and created the conditions for it to be superseded by feudalism. But the bourgeoisie presents the issue as if it were a matter of some evil individuals emerging and, through force, enslaving others — that is, that there was no economic basis for the emergence of slave society, no aim given to that society by the previous social development. Such a theory also cannot explain what created the condition for the decline of the slave society — namely the further development of the social productive forces. Feudalism also came into being as a new social formation, with a new system of social relations suited to the stage of development of the social productive forces and, at a certain stage, feudal social relations also became a fetter on the development of the social productive forces. The same is the case with the capitalist system, which has also had its day and, today, clashes are taking place to overthrow this moribund system.
The condition for the further advance of the society is the elimination of the exploitation of man by man. History has brought into being the social force to accomplish this aim — the social force created by large-scale production under capitalism, the modern proletariat. Whereas in all previous exploiting societies, the rising social force was another exploiting minority, in capitalism the modern proletariat is the force which will create the social relations consistent with the social character of production, and will eliminate the exploitation of man by man. The aim given by history to the final stage of class society, is to develop the productive forces to such an extent that there is no turning back and that mankind advances to classless society, communism. With the advent of communism, Marx said, the pre-history of man ends and history begins, when man becomes the conscious master of nature and his own life. Today, man is master of neither and the condition for him to gain mastery of both is the further advance of society to socialism and communism.
History gives one aim. The declining classes try to impose another aim, an aim which is at odds with the aim given by history. The aim which the declining classes throughout history have given themselves is to perpetuate themselves and their social order. To accomplish this aim which is at odds with the aim given by history, the declining classes become desperate, hysterical and fanatical. They cause untold death and destruction until they are overthrown. Karl Marx revolutionized human thinking and put it on a scientific level, and it is not coincidental that the bourgeoisie rejects this contribution of Karl Marx. Each class acts in accordance with the historical stage of development. The bourgeoisie has taken the place of obstructing the development of the productive forces in order to perpetuate its own existence. The proletariat has the position given by history to revolutionize the society, to eliminate the exploitation of man by man. The aim of history remains the same — the development of the social productive forces — but the aims of the bourgeoisie are diametrically opposed to this. The aim of science is to be true to itself, to reveal the inner logic of phenomena and, in this, science is the weapon of all the progressive classes in their struggle to push forward the development of society.
Bourgeois social theory rejects all this. For the bourgeoisie, history gives no aim. The proletariat is considered incidental to capitalist production; science is expropriated by the bourgeoisie to serve its own aim, thereby depriving the society of science. In sharp contrast and opposition to the lofty ideals of developing the social productive forces in the service of man, to end exploitation of man by man, and to put science at the proper level, and uphold the ideals of freedom and progress, stands the aim of the bourgeoisie to perpetuate itself. With the arrogance of all declining classes, it is obstructing the further development of the society. It arrogantly portrays all past and future society in its own image. For example, it gives the theory that there have always been and will always be exploiting classes, and that the struggle of the proletariat for emancipation is doomed to fail, because it will merely give rise to some new exploiting class and, therefore, it is futile to wage the class struggle. No argument is given, only assertion and bourgeois prejudice. The bourgeoisie tries to suggest that scientific socialism is a utopian dream, an ideal society which is constructed in the imagination and can never be constructed in reality. After all, isn’t human nature flawed? Aren’t people innately greedy and profit-seeking? But the scientific socialism of Marx put an end both to the utopian fantasies of those who only dreamed of ridding society of its ills, and showed that the elimination of exploiting class society is the inevitable product of historical development. Thus, it is the bourgeois nightmare that capitalism and the bourgeois society erected on it will last forever, which is utopian and unrealizable. Historical materialism does not deny historical development. On the contrary, it shows in a living way how society has developed and where it is headed. The bourgeoisie tries to suggest that its “free inquiry” gives anyone the right to create any speculative theory, and that society can be erected as man pleases — that it could return to feudalism or slave society, that small-scale production could supersede large-scale production, and so on. Recent history records what happens when such efforts are made. Mao Zedong tried to impose small-scale production in agriculture and industry. Collectivization of agriculture was carried out without a modern material-technical foundation. Backyard steel furnaces were built across China. The result is that, far from constructing socialism, it is capitalism which has been constructed in China!
(What Is Fine in Theory Will Be Fine in Practice, MELS, Toronto 1985)