The following is the fourth in a series of articles under the title “Hold High the Bright Red Banner of Marxism-Leninism and Proletarian internationalism”. The first three parts appeared in PCDN, Volume 7 Numbers 221, 222, and 223, dated, September 15, 16, and 17, respectively.
* * *
Let us go further. The theoreticians of “three worlds” state: “Lenin’s outstanding contributions to the theory of the proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat are that he revealed the law of development of imperialism, the last stage of capitalism, and created the great theory that victory in the proletarian revolution could be won and socialism built in the country forming the weakest link in the imperialist front.” That is, “Lenin’s outstanding contributions to the theory of proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat” are the “great theory that victory in the proletarian revolution could be won and socialism built in the country forming the weakest link in the imperialist front” and “that he revealed the law of development of imperialism, the last stage of capitalism”.
What is Lenin’s theory of the proletarian revolution? According to Stalin:
Lenin’s theory of the proletarian revolution proceeds from three fundamental theses.
First thesis: The domination of finance capital in the advanced capitalist countries; the issue of stocks and bonds as one of the principal operations of finance capital; the export of capital to the sources of raw materials, which is one of the foundations of imperialism; the omnipotence of a financial oligarchy, which is the result of the domination of finance capital – all this reveals the grossly parasitic character of monopolist capitalism, makes the yoke of the Capitalist trusts and syndicates a hundred times more burdensome, intensifies the indignation of the working class with the foundations of capitalism, and brings the masses to the proletarian revolution as their only salvation...
Hence the first conclusion: intensification of the revolutionary crisis within the capitalist countries and growth of the elements of an explosion on the internal, proletarian front in the ’metropolises’.
Second thesis: The increase in the export of capital to the colonies and dependent countries; the expansion of ’spheres of influence’ and colonial possessions until they cover the whole globe; the transformation of capitalism into a world system of financial enslavement and colonial oppression of the vast majority of the population of the world by a handful of ’advanced’ countries – all this has, on the one hand, converted the separate national economies and national territories into links in a single chain called world economy, and, on the other hand, split the population of the globe into two camps: a handful of ’advanced’ capitalist countries which exploit and oppress vast colonies and dependencies, and the huge majority consisting of colonial and dependent countries which are compelled to wage a struggle for liberation from the imperialist yoke.
Hence the second conclusion: intensification of the revolutionary crisis in the colonial countries and growth of the elements of revolt against imperialism on the external, colonial front.
Third thesis: The monopolistic possession of ’spheres of influence’ and colonies; the uneven development of the capitalist countries, leading to a frenzied struggle for the redivision of the world between the countries which already seized territories and those claiming their ’share’; imperialist wars as the only means of restoring the disturbed ’equilibrium’ – all this leads to the intensification of the struggle on the third front, the inter-capitalist front, which weakens imperialism and facilitates the union of the first two fronts against imperialism: the front of the revolutionary proletariat and the front of colonial emancipation...
Hence the third conclusion: that under imperialism wars cannot be averted, and that a coalition between the proletarian revolution in Europe and the colonial revolution in the East in a united world front of revolution against the world front of imperialism is inevitable.
Lenin combines all these conclusions into one general conclusion that ’imperialism is the eve of the social revolution.’
Thus it can be seen that the “general conclusion” arrived at by Lenin on the basis of his “theory of proletarian revolution” which he based on “three fundamental theses” is: “imperialism is the eve of the socialist revolution”. The theoreticians of “three worlds” arrive at the erroneous conclusion – with the ulterior motive of mystifying Lenin’s theory of proletarian revolution – that “victory in the proletarian revolution could be won and socialism built in the country forming the weakest link in the imperialist front.” Can we equate Lenin’s conclusion that “imperialism is the eve of the socialist revolution” with the conclusion of the theoreticians of “three worlds” that “victory in the proletarian revolution could be won and socialism built in the country forming the weakest link in the imperialist front”? No, these are two different things. The theoreticians of “three worlds” mystify the “general conclusion” by simply stating that Lenin “revealed the law of development of imperialism” and cover it up by talking about a different thing.
The theory of proletarian revolution is one thing and approach to the question of the proletarian revolution is another thing. Stalin points out: “The very approach to the question of the proletarian revolution, of the character of the revolution, of its scope, of its depth, the scheme of the revolution in general, changes accordingly.” Stalin elaborates this point in this manner:
Formerly, the analysis of the prerequisites for the proletarian revolution was usually approached from the point of view of the economic state of individual countries. Now, this approach is no longer adequate. Now the matter must be approached from the point of view of the economic state of all or the majority of countries, from the point of view of the state of world economy; for individual countries and individual national economies haVe ceased to be self-sufficient units, have become links in a single chain, called world economy; for the old ’cultured’ capitalism has evolved into imperialism, and imperialism is a world system of financial enslavement and colonial oppression of the vast majority of the population of the world by a handful of ’advanced’ countries.
Formerly it was the accepted thing to speak of the existence or absence of objective conditions for the proletarian revolution in individual countries, or, to be more precise, in one or another developed country. Now this point of view is no longer adequate. Now we must speak of the existence of objective conditions for the revolution in the entire system of world imperialist economy as an integral whole; the existence within this system of some countries that are not sufficiently developed industrially cannot serve as an insuperable obstacle to the revolution, if the system as a whole or, more correctly, because the system as a whole is already ripe for revolution.
Formerly it was the accepted thing to speak of the proletarian revolution in one or another developed country as of a separate and self-sufficient entity opposing a separate national front of capital as its antipode. Now, this point of view is no longer adequate. Now we must speak of the world proletarian revolution; for the separate national fronts of capital have become links in a single chain called the world front of imperialism, which must be opposed by a common front of the revolutionary movement in all countries.
Formerly the proletarian revolution was regarded exclusively as the result of the internal development of a given country. Now, this point of view is no longer adequate. Now the proletarian revolution must be regarded primarily as the result of the development of the contradictions within the world system of imperialism, as the result of the breaking of the chain of the world imperialist front in one country or another.
Where will the revolution begin? Where, in what country, can the front of capital be pierced first?
Where industry is more developed, where the proletariat constitutes the majority, where there is more culture, where there is more democracy – that was the reply usually given formerly.
No, objects the Leninist theory of revolution, not necessarily where industry is more developed, and so forth. The front of capital will be pierced where the chain of imperialism is weakest, for the proletarian revolution is the result of the breaking of the chain of the world imperialist front at its weakest link; and it may turn out that the country which has started the revolution, which has made a breach in the front of capital, is less developed in a capitalist sense than other, more developed, countries, which have, however, remained within the framework of capitalism.
The “general conclusion” drawn from the theory of proletarian revolution is that “imperialism is the eve of the socialist revolution”. The “general conclusion” drawn from the approach to the question of proletarian revolution is: “The front of capital will be pierced where the chain of imperialism is weakest, for the proletarian revolution is the result of the breaking of the chain of the world imperialist front at its weakest link; and it may turn out that the country which has started the revolution, which has made a breach in the front of capital is less developed in a capitalist sense than other, more developed, countries, which have, however, remained within the framework of capitalism.” The first general conclusion puts forward the nature of our era and the second general conclusion opposes the right opportunists and revisionists who oppose the proletarian revolution breaking out in the country or countries forming the weakest link in the imperialist front which are less developed in the capitalist sense. Further, it opposes the right opportunists and revisionists who draw the unwarranted conclusion from this that the weakest link in the imperialist front can only be breached in less developed countries in the capitalist sense, and not in the more developed countries in the capitalist sense. As Stalin points out: “Where will the chain break in the near future? Again, where it is weakest.” And then he points out that it could be in India or in Germany.
This is how Stalin presents Lenin’s theory of proletarian revolution and Lenin’s approach to the question of the proletarian revolution. By simply stating as the theoreticians of “three worlds” do, that Lenin “created the great theory that victory in the proletarian revolution could be won and socialism built in the country forming the weakest link in the imperialist front” is to mystify Lenin’s theory of proletarian revolution, the approach to the question of proletarian revolution, and the question of the victory of socialism in one country.