DIALECTICAL

MATERIALISM

V. Adoratsky

INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHERS • NEW YORK

 Copyright, 1934, by
INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHERS CO., INC.
>70
1a

Printed in the United States of America

 CONTENTS
PAGF
I. Marxism Theory and Tactics of the
as the
Revolutionary Struggle of the Proletariat 5
II.The International-Significance of Leninism 13
III. Materialist Dialecticsas the Theoretical
Foundation of Marxism-Leninism 22

IV. The Fight for Dialectical Materialism 44

V. The Dialectics of Nature and Human Knowl­
edge 64
VI. The Dialectics of Social Development 71
VII. How to Study Lenin 86
Reference Notes . 94
 I
MARXISM AS THE THEORY AND TACTICS OF THE
REVOLUTIONARY STRUGGLE OF THE PROLETARIAT

Lenin defined Marxism as the revolutionary theory

and tactics of the revolutionary class struggle of the
proletariat.
The task of the proletariat is “to take a conscious part
in the historical process of the transformation of society
that is going on under our eyes.” 1
Because of the position it occupies in production and
society the proletariat must act as the leader and or­
ganiser of all the oppressed and exploited in the strug­
gle for communism. In 1846 Marx wrote:
We do not regard communism as a state of affairs that
has to be brought about; nor as an ideal to which reality
must conform. By communism we mean an actual move­
ment that will sweep away the present state of affairs. The
conditions for that movement arise out of already existing
premises.*
By these postulates Marx meant: the growth of the
working class (both in numbers and in class conscious­
ness), large-scale industry and socialised production de­
veloped by capitalism.
The development of the productive forces of social labour
is the historical task and privilege of capital. It is precisely
in this way that it unconsciously creates the material re­
quirements of a higher mode of production.2
But private property in the means of production—
which is the very foundation of capitalism—hampers
* All quotations are taken from English editions unless otherwise
indicated in the reference notes at the back of this book.—Ed.
5
6 DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM
and fetters the further development of the productive
forces. The proletariat alone can break those fetters;
after it has established its dictatorship the proletariat
must smash the machinery of the bourgeois state; it must
defend its own state power in civil war and crush the
opposition of the bourgeoisie; it must take over large-
scale industry and transform the means of production
into social property, in order to reshape production on
socialist lines, and, on the ruins of capitalism and using
the material left over from capitalism, give the widest
possible development to socialist production with all
possible speed. The proletariat assumes the leadership
of the non-proletarian sections of society that are
oppressed and exploited by capitalism. Under the
guidance of the industrial proletariat, and with the help
of its dictatorship, a complete transformation of produc­
tion takes place and the small producers are turned into
members of a socialist society. The proletariat thereby
creates a new material basis for human relationships.
By means of the class struggle, and with the help of its
dictatorship, it abolishes classes and achieves a classless
society. Such is the historical mission of the proletariat
throughout the whole world.3
Revolutionary theory, i.e., scientific deductions and
generalisations based on the experience of revolution
and of the working class movement in all countries, is
of vital importance to the revolutionary struggle of the
working class at the present time. “Without a revolu­
tionary theory there can be no revolutionary move­
ment,” Lenin said. The foundations of this theory were
laid down by Marx and Engels and further developed by
Lenin. During the course of several decades the prole­
tariat has had the opportunity to test this theory by
their own experience in the class struggle. This theory
has played, and continues to play, a tremendous part in
the struggle of the working class. For instance, in Rus-
 MARXISM AND THE PROLETARIAT 7
sia, we could neither have seized, nor retained power,
nor could we have correctly tackled the problems of
building up socialism, were it not for the firm hand and
consistent leadership of the Communist Party, based on
the revolutionary theory of Marxism, and were it not
for the fact that the working class realised that this
leadership was the right one. If the working class is
guided in its struggles by the theory of Marxism and
Leninism, it will defeat the bourgeoisie all over the
world.
Marxism provides no ready-made recipes, that can be
applied uniformly in any and every circumstance with­
out further reflection. The Marxian theory “is not a
dogma, but a guide to action.’’ It gives the general line
as to how the fight of the working class should be con­
ducted. Having studied all the social phenomena of the
time, having himself led the working-class movement,
Marx made certain deductions, indicated the general
trend of development and pointed out what must be the
inevitable course of future events. He showed that the
revolutionary transformation of capitalist society into a
communist society was inevitable, that the proletariat
would take the leading part in this transformation, that
a transition period from capitalism to communism was
unavoidable and that the form of state during that tran­
sition period would be the dictatorship of the proleta­
riat. But Marx, of course, could not forecast, and never
attempted to forecast, the detailed events of the progress
of the world revolution. Marx thought that in order to
decide what should be done at a given historical mo­
ment, in a given country and under given conditions,
one must carefully study (with the help of the method
of scientific communism) all the specific features of the
given situation (which is constantly changing) and the
situation existing not only within the given country it-
 8 DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM
self, but in all the other countries of the world. Marx­
ism considers that only by such a study can the

. . . thinking representatives of the given class [acquire]

the necessary knowledge, the necessary experience—and,
apart from all knowledge and experience—the necessary
political instinct for the quick and correct solution of in­
tricate political problems.4

Marxism draws its ideas from the actual struggle of

the masses. The Marxian theory is worked out in close
conjunction with the mass revolutionary movement. It
is not based on ideas “invented or discovered by this or
that would-be universal reformer” but represents “. . .
merely ... in general terms, actual relations springing
from an existing class struggle, from a historical move­
ment going on under our very eyes.” 5
The theory of Marxism helps the proletariat to under­
stand “the conditions and nature of its own actions.” 6
The duty of the proletarian theoretician is not to
create socialist plans out of his own head; his duty is to
discover the conditions for emancipation from exploita­
tion that are created in the very process of social and
economic development; he must find in the very prog­
ress of events the path that leads to the solution of the
problems of the exploited masses; he must help the
latter in their fight for communism and guide them in
the struggle, so that society based on exploitation may
be destroyed as rapidly as possible and with the least
sacrifice on the part of the proletariat and the toiling
classes in general. As we have said, owing to the
position it occupies in production and society, the
proletariat can, and must, take upon itself the duty
of organising a communist society. The theory of
Marxism should help the proletariat in the task of
exterminating all forms of exploitation as rapidly and
as easily as possible. General postulates are not enough,
 MARXISM AND THE PROLETARIAT 9
precise solutions of the daily problems of the political
struggle and the building up of socialism are required.
That implies a scientific leadership and foresight based
on the study of the actual state of affairs, using for this
purpose the Marxist-Leninist theory. As Comrade
Stalin said:

Theory . . . alone, can give to the movement confidence,

guidance, strength and understanding of the inner relations
between events; it alone can help practice to clarify the
process and direction of class movements in the present and
near future.7

In the article “Our Immediate Task,” written in

1899, Lenin pointed out that the duty of a revolutionary
party

does not consist merely in serving the working class move­

ment; its duty is to link up socialism with the working class
movement ... to introduce definite socialist ideals into the
spontaneous movement, to link it up with socialist convic­
tions consistent with the level of modern science, and con­
nect it with the systematic political struggle for democracy
[this was written six years before the Revolution of 1905,
P.J.], as a means for the realisation of socialism—in a word,
to fuse this spontaneous movement with the activities of the
revolutionary party, into a single indivisible whole. The
history of socialism and democracy in Western Europe, the
history of the revolutionary movement in Russia, and the
experience of our working class movement—such is the ma­
terial that must be studied and mastered in order to work
out the correct forms of organisation and the correct tactics
of our party.8

In the same article Lenin says that ready-made for­

mulas must not be automatically applied to new and
specific conditions:

The material must be analysed . . . independently, for

we shall not find ready-made samples.9
IO DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM
Lenin points out that “the conditions of the Russian
working-class movement are entirely different from
those of the Western European movement.”
Nor could the earlier revolutionary parties in Russia
be taken as examples in every respect. While recognis­
ing “the necessity of learning revolutionary and con-
spirative technique from the old- Russian leaders,”
Lenin pointed out, that “by no means relieves us of the
duty of examining them critically and of working out
our own form of organisation.” 10
That is how Lenin, scrupulously observing the Marx­
ian method, defines the scope of theory, and indicates
the necessity of independently studying every fresh
experience and of making use of all that was valuable in
past development.
We have already stated that, according to Marx, the
proletarian theoretician must give expression to the
revolutionary aims of the mass movement; he must
guide that movement, yet at the same time learn from
it and avail himself of the experience of the whole inter­
national revolution. This was the spirit in which Lenin
wrote and acted. He valued very highly theoreticians
who kept in close touch with the masses.
In 1918 he wrote:

. . . a revolutionary Marxist is distinguished from the ordi­

nary philistine by his ability and willingness to preach to
the still ignorant masses the necessity of the approaching
revolution, to prove that it is inevitable, to explain its
advantage to the people, and to prepare the proletariat and
all the toiling and exploited masses for it.11

In this passage Lenin emphasised the importance of

the ability to maintain contact with the unenlightened
masses, the ability to draw them into the movement and
to lead them into revolutionary positions, so that “the
masses by their own experience may convince them­
 MARXISM AND THE PROLETARIAT 11
selves of the correctness of the Party line.” That is one
of the fundamental principles of Leninism. It is em­
bodied in the Programme of the Communist Interna­
tional and is one of the characteristic and distinguishing
features of the activities of both Marx and Engels.

For the whole task of the Communists—said Lenin—is to

be able to convince the backward, to work among them, and
not to fence themselves off from them by means of fantastic,
childishly “Left” slogans.12
In 1914 the liberal newspaper Rech, discussing the
fight the Bolsheviks were waging against the Liquida­
tors,* bewailed the “carrying of the dissension into the
ranks of the workers.” Lenin in an article entitled
“The Methods Used by the Bourgeois Intellectuals in
the Fight Against the Workers,” wrote:

We welcome the “carrying of dissension into the ranks

of the workers,” for it is the workers, and the workers alone,
who will distinguish dissensions from differences, from dis­
agreements on principle, who will understand the signifi­
cance of these disagreements and form their own opinion
and decide not “with whom” to go, but where to go, i.e,,
decide on a definite, clear, well-considered and tested line of
action.
This line of action can be worked out and the polit­
ical enlightenment of the masses of the workers can be
accomplished only in the course of “a consistent and
stubborn fight to a finish, of proletarian influences and
strivings directed against the bourgeoisie.” 13
Moreover, it must never be forgotten that the masses
learn by their own experience, from events, and not only
from books. In his preface to the i8go German edition
of The Communist Manifesto, Engels wrote:
* Reformist Socialists—Mensheviks—who proposed liquidation of the
underground party organisation and instead favoured legal activities
exclusively.—Ed.
12 DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM
For Marx, the sole guarantee of the ultimate triumph of
the theories contained in the Matiifesto was the intellectual
development of the working class that would result from
joint action and discussion. The events and fluctuations
of fortune in the struggle against capitalism, their victories,
and still more their defeats, would reveal to the combatants
the ineffectiveness of the panaceas they had hitherto be­
lieved in, and would make their minds more receptive for
the thorough understanding of the real conditions of work­
ing class emancipation.

Thus, it is out of the actual mass struggle of the pro­

letariat against the bourgeoisie and the conscious leader­
ship of the struggle on the part of the vanguard of the
proletariat—the Communist Party—that scientific com­
munism arises, differing fundamentally from utopian
and petty-bourgeois reformist socialism. Scientific com­
munism is not based on good intentions, but on the
class struggle of the proletariat and the recognition of
the necessity for the dictatorship of the proletariat. The
theoretical statement of the principles of scientific com­
munism is Marxism and Leninism, the latter being an
elaboration of Marxism in the light of new conditions.
This theory embraces general questions of philosophy
and method as well as their concrete application. It is
essential to the proletariat in its struggles: it imparts
consciousness, self-assurance, and decision to the move­
ment. Those who are able to wield it are saved from
aberrations and uncertainties; it enables us to deter­
mine the correct path to follow and renders the achieve­
ment and the consolidation of victory easier and surer.
 II
THE INTERNATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE OF LENINISM

Because of the intimate relation that exists between

theory and reality, the great changes that have occurred
since the death of Marx and Engels had to find their
reflections in theory.
The theoretical basis that Lenin took over from Marx,
namely, dialectical materialism, was further developed
by him independently.
Lenin lived and acted in new and different conditions
and a number of questions had to be considered afresh.
Using the method of Marx, he solved the difficult
problem of how the fight for revolutionary Marxism
must be conducted in the new and complex conditions
created by the era of imperialism and the beginnings of
the world proletarian revolution. Since the death of
Marx none of the important theoreticians and leaders of
the Second International has been able to cope with
this problem. Lenin was able to solve it because he
maintained the closest contact with the mass movement
of the proletariat and had mastered the Marxist theory
as no one else had. Lenin, himself, was the truest ex­
pression of the world-wide and historical mission of the
proletariat. Having himself led the struggle in the
course of three revolutions, he was able to advance and
develop the Marxist theory in all its component parts.
We are therefore quite justified in describing Leninism
as Marxism of the epoch of imperialism and the prole­
tarian revolution.
The epoch of Lenin differed from the epoch of Marx
and Engels. Marx and Engels lived and developed their
>3
*4 DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM
theory at a time when the proletariat was just beginning
to come out definitely as an independent force, as a
result of which the bourgeoisie became more and more
inclined to come to terms with the forces of reaction.
In his book, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bona­
parte, written in 1852, Marx stated that the nineteenth
century saw the beginning of the proletarian revolution.
He based his statement on the theoretical conclusions he
had arrived at as a result of the Revolution of 1848. In
a speech delivered in the spring of 1852 on the occasion
of the anniversary of the People's Paper* he said:
The so-called revolutions of 1848 were but poor incidents,
small fractures and fissures in the dry crust of European
society. But they revealed an abyss. Beneath the appar­
ently solid surface they betrayed oceans of liquid matter
only needing expansion to rend into fragments continents
of hard rock. Noisily and confusedly they proclaimed the
emancipation of the proletariat, i.e., the secret of the nine­
teenth century and of the revolution of that century.
And in concluding his speech he said:
. . . the English working men are the firstborn sons of
modern industry. Certainly, then, they will not be the last
to aid the social revolution produced by that industry—a
revolution which means the emancipation of their class all
over the world, which is as universal as capital—rule and
wage slavery.14
Marx proclaimed the inevitability of the proletarian
revolution, but it had not yet fully begun during the
lifetime of Marx and Engels.
Marx foresaw that the course of events was bound to
lead to the monopoly of big capital. But it was only
after the death of Marx and Engels that the extension
of the rule of monopoly capitalism throughout the
whole world really took place, leading in its turn to the
rule of finance capital and to imperialism. In the ’six­
ties England was the centre of the development and rule
* A Chartist paper.—Ed.
 SIGNIFICANCE OF LENINISM 15
of big capital (and of the plundering of the colonies).
But by the end of the nineteenth century and the be­
ginning of the twentieth capitalism had developed in a
number of other countries (particularly in Germany and
the United States) much more powerfully than in Eng­
land. All the colonies had already been seized. And
so, at the end of the nineteenth century, a desperate
struggle broke out among the big predatory imperialist
powers, not for the division of the world, but for its
redivision. There began the epoch of imperialism—the
fusion of usurious banking capital with industrial capi­
tal to form finance capital. What Lenin called “decay­
ing, moribund capitalism” set in. For the peculiarities
of this condition and for the main features of the eco­
nomics of imperialism—the latest and last stage of the
development of capitalism—consult Lenin’s great work
Imperialism, and his article, “Imperialism and the Split
in the Socialist Movement.” 15
Prior even to the imperialist war, but particularly on
its outbreak, a revolutionary situation was created in the
countries where capitalism was most highly developed as
a result of the extreme aggravation of the contradictions
of capitalism, the high cost of living, increased oppres­
sion and general deterioration of the condition of the
working class. The revolution began to spread even
before the war. In the East, the revolution followed on
the heels of the 1905 Revolution in Russia; in 1906 it
broke out in Persia, in 1908 in Turkey and in 1911 in
China. In the European countries the approach of
revolution was heralded by big strikes in England (the
general strike on the railways in 1911, the miners’ strike
in 1912), the struggles of the workers in Germany (the
demonstrations in favour of universal suffrage in Prussia
in 1910), and working class demonstrations in Russia
(the protest strikes against the Lena shootings in 1912,
the strikes in Baku and other cities in the summer of
16 DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM
1914, the demonstrations in St. Petersburg, accom­
panied bv armed clashes and the erection of barricades,
etc.).
The proletarian revolution loomed in all capitalist
countries. The fundamental conditions for the transi­
tion to socialism had ripened; a proletarian revolution
had become an objective necessity. The dictatorship of
the bourgeoisie had to be replaced by the dictatorship of
the proletariat, since of all the classes in modern
society the proletariat alone was capable of leading the
toilers out of the impasse to which the bourgeoisie had
brought it.
Of all the workers’ parties of the world, however, the
Russian Bolsheviks alone, headed by Lenin, proved to
be actually prepared to assume the leadership of the
proletarian revolution.
In the West European countries, in the long period
of reaction that followed the suppression of the Paris
Commune in 1871, the workers’ parties had grown
accustomed to pursue only legal forms of the class
struggle. Opportunism was rife: a good deal of “oppor­
tunist garbage,” as Lenin called it, had accumulated.
One of the chief reasons for the strength of oppor­
tunism was the fact that in all imperialist countries the
capitalist class bribed the upper stratum of the working
class (the numerically small labour aristocracy) out of
the super-profits obtained from the plunder of the colo­
nies and semi-colonies. Thus, there was a section, a
numerically small section, it is true, of the working class,
that sided with the bourgeoisie and served as the vehicle
of its influence to the proletariat.
But the situation completely changed with the out­
break of the imperialist war. Then in the Western
countries, in the “free” constitutional monarchies and
republics, armed revolt and the transformation of the
imperialist war into civil war became an urgent neces-
 SIGNIFICANCE OF LENINISM 17
sity, for there was no way of escaping from exploitation
except by bitter struggle.
Of all the European parties, the Russian Bolshevik
Party, alone, had made serious preparation for this
struggle, owing to the fact that in Russia a revolutionary
situation had been developing since the middle of the
nineteenth century. The Russian revolutionary move­
ment was the most powerful in Europe.
In Russia all the contradictions of the modem period
of imperialism were prevalent: the oppression of en­
slaved nationalities by a dominant nation, the military-
feudal oppression of tsarism, which was the most brutal
form of political oppression then existing. The land­
owning nobility still survived in Russia and there were
many survivals of serfdom in economic life (particularly
that of the peasants), habits and customs and in political
institutions. At the same time capitalism was develop­
ing rapidly: large-scale industry grew apace and became
concentrated in a few centres; this was accompanied by
the growth of the working class. Bank capital, syndi­
cates and trusts, those highest forms of imperialist
finance capital, developed also, particularly after 1905.
The proletarian class war against the bourgeoisie spread
and this was accompanied by the growth of the peasants’
war against the landowning nobility. In other words,
we had a combination of two class wars, which Marx
viewed as unusually favourable for proletarian victory.
Marx and Engels had pointed out in their time the
approach of the revolution in Russia, the extremely
rapid development of capitalism in that vast country,
and the unbearable yoke of tsarism.
They had understood: 1, the complexity of the social
structure in Russia, viz., the existence of the most primi­
tive together with the most modern forms (“every stage
of social development is represented from the primitive
commune to modern large-scale industry and high
18 DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM
finance,” as Engels wrote to V. I. Zasulich in 1885); 2,
they took into account the existence of a revolutionary
situation; they saw that the revolution required only a
jolt to bring vast masses of people into action; 3, they
foresaw that the revolutionary explosion would be of
tremendous power and that it would inevitably assume
a most violent and bitter character (‘‘Russia is heading
towards a most violent revolution,” Marx wrote to En­
gels in 1870); 4, they foresaw that in this last of the great
European countries to pass through the capitalist indus­
trial revolution, the conflict would assume unprece­
dented dimensions. ‘‘This time the crash will beat
anything known before; all the factors are there: inten­
sity, universal extension, entanglement of all possessing
and ruling social elements,” so Engels wrote to Marx on
April 14, 1856; 5, they realised the tremendous signifi­
cance of the Russian revolution for the world revolu­
tion. That the latter would be a socialist revolution
Marx and Engels never doubted.16
Of enormous importance for the Russian revolution
and for the development of the Leninist theory was the
fact that quite an extensive experience in revolution and
working class organisation had already been accumu­
lated, and that the theory’ of Marx and Engels had been
worked out in detail and adopted and tested by the
revolutionary proletarian party and by the masses. The
Bolshevik Party grew and gained strength in the course
of a long struggle and the experience of a number of
revolutions. It accumulated the experience of the inter­
national working-class movement and of West European
revolutions and conveyed this experience to the masses.
In his “Left-Wing” Communism, Lenin wrote:
Russia achieved Marxism, as the only correct revolution­
ary theory’, virtually through suffering, by a half century of
unprecedented torments and sacrifice, of unprecedented
revolutionary^ heroism, incredible energy, painstaking search
 SIGNIFICANCE OF LENINISM *9
and study, testing in practice, disappointments, checking,
and comparison with European experience.
Lenin also emphasised the value and significance of
the direct experience gained by the Bolshevik Party in
the long struggle against the autocracy, the liberal bour­
geoisie, petty-bourgeois wavering and uncertain revolu­
tionaries (such as the Socialist-Revolutionaries, the
Anarchists, and so forth), and against the various tend­
encies and deviations within its own ranks. These
deviations and bourgeois., influences were overcome in
the struggle waged against the various forms of oppor­
tunism that successively manifested themselves: Econo-
mism,* Menshevism, the Liquidationist movement,
social-patriotism and the tendencies that disguised them­
selves by “Left” phraseology, such as “Otzovism,”
“Vperyodism” ** “Left Communism,” etc., as well as
against conciliationism, a disguised and therefore par­
ticularly dangerous form of opportunism.
Lenin subjected the Russian revolution and the de­
velopment of Bolshevism to a detailed analysis in a
number of his writings, e.g., “The Tasks of the Russian
Social-Democrats,” “Speech on the Revolution of
1905,” “The Stages, the Trend and Prospects of the
Revolution,” “Farewell Letter to the Swiss Workers,”
“Fourth Anniversary of the October Revolution,” “Our
Revolution,” especially “Left-Wing” Communism.
We have dealt particularly with the Russian revolu­
tion, because it was in Russia that the Bolshevik Party
developed. But it would be a mistake to assume that
Bolshevism (in other words, Leninism) is based only on
the experiences of Russia and that it is a purely Russian
phenomenon. Leninism was drawn from international
* A tendency in Russian Social-Democracy which advocated “pure
and simple” trade unionism.—Ed.
** Olzovism—from the Russian, meaning a tendency favoring the
recall of the Socialist deputies from the Duma; Vperyodism—a tendency
represented by Socialists grouped around the newspaper Vperyod
(Forward).—Ed.
20 DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM
experience and its significance is international. Only by
a proletarian revolution can the revolutionary prole­
tariat and the oppressed masses who are struggling
against imperialism throughout the world, achieve their
emancipation. Leninism is the theory of the proleta­
riat, it sums up and explains this experience, it teaches
the working class how to conduct its fight and how to
secure victory, seize power, consolidate its gains and lead
the toilers in their struggle against exploitation. It also
teaches us how socialism is to be built.
In his pamphlet The Proletarian Revolution and the
Renegade Kautsky, Lenin says that the popularity of
Bolshevism throughout the world is due to the profound
sympathy the masses have for genuinely revolutionary
tactics, because the revolution has begun to mature all
over the world. He enumerates the achievements of
Bolshevism and declares that Bolshevik tactics were
based on a correct appreciation of the revolutionary sit­
uation that had arisen all over Europe.
Bolshevism exposed and routed the old, putrid inter­
national of social-traitors. It laid down the ideological
and tactical foundations of the Third International,
which took into account the gains achieved in the epoch
of peace as well as the experience of the epoch of revolu­
tion which had commenced. The example of the Soviet
state showed that the workers and poor peasants are ca­
pable of taking political power, of defending it against at­
tacks of the world bourgeoisie, and of building socialism.
With Russia as an example, the masses throughout
the world were in a position to convince themselves
that Bolshevism had indicated “the true path of salva­
tion from the horrors of the war and of imperialism and
that Bolshevism could serve as an example in tactics to
all” (Lenin).
The long training and hardening that the Bolshevik
Party had obtained in the struggle guaranteed it an im­
 SIGNIFICANCE OF LENINISM 21
portant place in the international struggle against
opportunism and for the creation of the Third, Com­
munist, International. While crystallising the rich
experience of the Russian revolution, Bolshevism at the
same time reflected the experience of the international
working-class movement (particularly the European)
which had entered the era of the socialist revolution.
Before the war, during the war, and after the war,
Lenin in his writings constantly bore in mind the ex­
perience of the whole international struggle. Under
his leadership, a bitter struggle was waged against
opportunism wherever it was found. It was in this
spirit, the spirit of revolutionary Marxism, that the
Communist Parties in every European country were
trained. Lenin wrote letters to workers in various coun­
tries on questions of the international revolution, point­
ing out that the urgent and essential task in the present
period of history was to fight for the establishment of
the dictatorship of the proletariat all over the world.
It was under Lenin’s leadership that the Communist In­
ternational was created and the fundamental principles
of its programme, organisation and tactics laid down.
Leninism, therefore, is Marxism in the epoch of im­
perialism and of the proletarian revolution. In this
epoch, the proletarian movement reaches new, higher,
levels. The proletariat has grown numerically; it has
become better organised and more class conscious; its
historical activity has increased; it has learned to employ
new methods in the struggle, for it has now conquered
power and established its dictatorship in a vast country.
In his activities and in his writings, Lenin expressed and
analysed the new phenomena of the new epoch. Lead­
ing the struggle of the proletariat in these new condi­
tions, Lenin advanced and developed Marxist theory and
introduced fresh elements into all its phases. Hence
Leninism is a new stage in the development of Marxism.
 Ill
MATERIALIST DIALECTICS AS THE THEORETICAL
FOUNDATION OF MARXISM-LENINISM

The essence of Marxism is materialist dialectics.

Lenin called materialist dialectics “the living soul of
Marxism,” “its fundamental theoretical root.” The
importance of mastering the dialectical method will
therefore be obvious. It is needed in the study of
nature and of society, in the theoretical struggle, in the
practical leadership of the proletariat and its construc­
tive work.
The articles collected in Volume XI of the Selected
Works * provide a general exposition of materialist
dialectics and its application to the study of nature and
of the history of human society and of human thought.
We must learn how to apply this method by studying
the works of Marx and Engels and the masterly applica­
tion of materialist dialectics by Lenin. All his life
Lenin was a diligent student of the works of Marx and
Engels; he read them over and over again, and turned
to them particularly at every turn of history and at
every new stage of the revolution, when new problems
arose for solution. Lenin took his revolutionary mate­
rialist dialectics from Marx and Engels, he repeatedly
advocated the necessity of studying their works for this
purpose. But to say that Lenin mastered the Marxist
method is not enough; he developed it and raised it to
a still higher level.
What do we mean by dialectics? By dialectics Hegel
meant the progress of ideas (thought) by means of con-
* To be published in English Translation.—Ed.
22
 THE THEORETICAL FOUNDATION 23
tradiction, the process of its development toward a
supreme and absolute spirit. Hegel emphasised that
such progress, such development is self-motion. He
considered that every phenomenon had its own motion,
its own process of development, and that this self­
motion is the result of an inherent impulse to develop­
ment. In ancient Greece, dialectics was the name given
to the art of disputation. It was considered that in the
course of an argument, rich in fertile ideas, the opinions
of the disputing parties underwent a change and that
something new and of a higher nature resulted. By
analogy, all motion by means of contradiction came to
be called dialectics. This was the sense in which Hegel
used the term. He believed that motion was universally
produced in this way, i.e., by a conflict of contradictions,
the negation of the old and the creation of the new.
That is how development takes place.
But the dialectics of Hegel are idealistic. It is the
movement of thought that lies at the root of his whole
philosophy. Marx, on the contrary, employed dialectics
materialistically. He created dialectic materialism.
Materialist dialectics is the general movement and de­
velopment caused by the conflict of contradictions that
takes place throughout the universe both in nature and
in society, and which is reflected in human thought.
Dialectic materialism is the philosophy and method of
revolutionary Marxism-Leninism, an instrument for the
study and transformation of everything that exists.
Dialectic materialism is not confined merely to theo­
retical study: it involves practical revolutionary action.
Dialectic thought strives to achieve a complete and
all-embracing conception of phenomena. Every ex­
pressed opinion is more or less one-sided.
Lenin, after conversing with an individual who had
attended the “Vperyod” school at Capri conducted by A.
Bogdanov, who politically was a follower of the “Otzov-
24 DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM
ist” faction, wrote a letter to Maxim Gorky dated No­
vember 29, 1909, in which he stated that his (Lenin’s)
previous conception of the Capri school had been one­
sided. He wrote:
By gad, the philosopher Hegel was right—life does pro­
gress by contradictions; and living contradictions are much
richer, more varied and pithier than the mind of man orig­
inally conceived. I thought that the school was merely
the centre of a new faction. It turns out not to be so:
not in the sense that the school was not the centre of a
new faction (it was, and is so to-day), but in the sense that
this is not the whole truth. Subjectively, certain individuals
made the school such a centre; objectively, it was such a
centre, and, moreover, the school drew from real working­
class surroundings genuine and advanced workers. And so
it turned out that at Capri, beside the contradictions be­
tween the old and new factions, a contradiction developed
between a section of the Social-Democratic intellectuals and
the Russian workers, who are bound, whatever happens, to
bring the Social-Democracy out on the true path, and will
do so in spite of all the intrigues, “brawls and incidents,”
etc., etc., that go on abroad.
From this example we see that there are several sides
to every object arid to every phenomenon. When con­
sidering certain phases, we must not forget those that
are temporarily overshadowed and forced into the back­
ground, but which may assume prime importance in
the further development of the conflict of contradic­
tions. One must be able to view the development of a
given phenomenon in its perspective, to see the inter­
relation of all its component parts, and at the same time
distinguish the “main link” of each given concrete situa­
tion and historical moment. The complexity of the
phenomena of reality, their contradictory nature and
their constant flux and change are reflected in our judg­
ment of them, which also cannot help but be contradic­
tory and in a constant state of flux. That, however, does
not exclude, but, on the contrary, imposes the necessity
 THE THEORETICAL FOUNDATION 25
for finding clear and definite answers to the problems
that arise at any given moment. Dialectic materialism
teaches us to distinguish the contradictions of reality, to
understand their significance and to study their develop­
ment (objective dialectics). Correspondingly, the prog­
ress of concepts (subjective dialectics), by properly
reflecting reality, must conform to what is proceeding in
the external (objective) world and must not allow itself
to be severed from its base. Consciousness must strive
to adapt itself to the (dialectical) progress of the reflected
object.
The importance of the works of Hegel lies in the fact
that he was the first to create a philosophy that at­
tempted (and to a certain extent successfully) to study
the general laws of dialectics. The great merit of Hegel
consists in the fact that he made dialectics the basis
of his philosophy. As Marx said, Hegel was the “first
to give a complete and conscious picture of the general
forms of motion’’ [i.e., of dialectics.—V. J.J. It would,
however, be a mistake to believe that one can simply
take and use the Hegelian dialectics without first radi­
cally re-shaping it.
Marx himself declared that his method not only dif­
fered fundamentally from that of Hegel “but is its direct
opposite.” Marx said, that to Hegel

the process of thinking, which under the name of “the

idea’’ he even transformed into an independent subject, is
the demiurge of the world, and the real world is only the
extreme phenomenal form of “the idea.” With me the
idea is nothing else than the material reflected by the
human mind and translated into forms of thought.

The Hegelian dialectics, accordingly, requires thor­

ough overhauling. It must be “turned right side up
again” in order to reveal “the rational kernel within
the mystical shell.”
26 DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM
Engels also dwelt on the same theme and treated it in
a similar spirit. To the question, wherein lies the error
of Hegel, he replies: in the fact that the laws of dialectics
“are not drawn from nature and history, but imposed
on the latter as laws of thought.” Hence the nonsensical
concept that “the world must conform to a logical
system, which is itself only the product of definite stages
of development of human thought.”
Engels declares that “this relationship must be re­
versed,” whereupon everything will appear normal and
plain.
The dialectical laws, which in the idealistic philosophy
are extremely mysterious, will then immediately become
simple and clear.
On another occasion Engels stated that the mysticism
of Hegel consisted in the fact that
the category [i.e., concept—E.^.] was to him something an­
tecedent, while the dialectics of the real universe was its
mere reflection. Actually the opposite is true: the dialectics
of the mind is only the reflection of the real world both of
nature and of history.17 (The Dialectics of Nature.)
Lenin, like Marx, completely remoulded Hegel,
reversed his theses, put them right side up and inter­
preted them materialistically.
Hegel’s logic, he wrote, cannot be applied in its present
form: it cannot be taken for granted. We must select from
it its logical (gnosiological) shades and purge it of mystical
ideas; that is still a big task.
A valuable guide to the study of Hegel are his
synopses: The Science of Logic and The History of
Philosophy.
Throughout the universe, development proceeds not
as the result of any external cause (God), not because
of any “purpose” inherent in events, but because of
the inherent contradictions that are contained in all
 THE THEORETICAL FOUNDATION 27
things and in all phenomena. “Contradiction is the
root of all motion and of all life,” Hegel wrote. “It is
only because a thing contains a contradiction within
itself, that it moves and acquires impulse and activity.
That is the process of all motion and all development.” *
Lenin in his article On Dialectics points out that con­
tradictions exist universally: repulsion and attraction,
positive and negative electricity, the division into parts,
and the union of the parts to form a whole, etc. In all
the phenomena and processes of nature and society there
are contradictory, opposite, mutually exclusive, and at
the same time associated, tendencies. Dialectics, i.e., the
contradictions, union and conflict of opposites, prevails
in the material world and is reflected in consciousness.
The general laws of dialectics are universal: they are
to be found in the movement and development of the
immeasurably vast luminous nebulae from which in the
spaces of the universe the stellar systems are formed
(these spaces are measured by light years, i.e., the dis­
tance through which light travels in one year, moving
at a speed of 300,000 kilometres per second), in the
internal structure of molecules and atoms and in the
movement of electrons and protons; the latter are also
opposite and mutually connected and undergo trans­
formation, change and development, in other words,
they also reveal the laws of dialectics in their existence
and in their movements.
The development of the animal kingdom also pro­
ceeds by contradictions and the conflict of opposites (the
struggle for existence, procreation by sex, etc.).
In human society the driving force of development is
* Such a conception was essentially inimical to belief in God. The
shrewd priests who controlled religious education in Russia very soon
realised (in the ’sixties) that the theories of Hegel contained certain
very dangerous elements. Accordingly the study of Hegel was pro­
hibited in theological seminaries and academies in spite of the fact
that the Hegelian philosophy is an idealistic philosophy and preserves
God under the guise of the absolute idea.
28 DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM
the class struggle. In the conditions of contemporary
society, the struggle of the revolutionary class, the pro­
letariat, causes the transition from one form of society
to another—the transition from capitalism to commun­
ism. (We shall deal with this in somewhat greater
detail below.)
It is this dialectical movement of the material uni­
verse that forms the subject matter of materialist dialec­
tics.
Lenin said that “contradiction” is the salt of dialec­
tics; its “kernel” is unity and the conflict of opposites.
Dialectics emphasises not only contradiction and op­
posites, but also unity. Lenin thus explains the formula
“unity of opposites”:
We are unable to imagine, express, measure or depict
motion without interrupting that which is continuous, with­
out simplifying, approximating, separating and petrifying
that which is alive. The depiction of the movement of
thought is always an approximation, an act of petrification—
and not merely of thought, but also of sensation, and not
merely of motion, but of all conceptions. Therein lies the
essence of dialectics. And it is this essence that is expressed
in the formula, the unity, the identity of opposites.
The Greek eclectic philosopher Zeno (fifth century
b.c.), known as the father of the dialectical method,
was the first to give clear expression to the idea of the
contradictoriness of motion. Certain of his arguments
have come down to us and these show that thought is
bound to arrive at an impasse if dialectical methods are
not employed and if the unity of opposites is not under­
stood. Here is one of his arguments. An arrow in the
course of its flight is bound to be at some definite point
of its path and occupy some definite place. If that be
so, then at each given moment it is at a definite point
in a state of rest, that is, motionless; hence, it is not
moving at all. We therefore see that motion cannot be
expressed without resorting to contradictory statements.
 THE THEORETICAL FOUNDATION 29
The arrow is in a given place, yet at the same time is not
in that place. It is only by expressing both these con­
tradictory affirmations coincidentally that we can depict
motion. If we were to rest on only half of a phrase,
either motion would disappear, or the object itself. And
that is true of any judgment, for a judgment expresses
only one or a few sides of an object, whereas the object
has innumerable sides and innumerable contacts with
the surrounding world. Hence, a contrary judgment
may be made regarding any thing or phenomenon and
yet to a certain extent it will be correct. Explosive sub­
stances employed in war cause tremendous destruction.
But employed in industry they serve the cause of cul­
ture. Because of the antagonism of classes all things
and phenomena assume opposite significance for each
of the combatant sides: for the proletariat, the Soviet
state means victory; for the capitalists it means defeat
and the end of their rule, and so forth.
The formula “unity of opposites” is particularly im­
portant because it expresses the principal distinguishing
feature of dialectic motion, the most fundamental prop­
erty of all phenomena.
In order to avoid misunderstanding it should be stated
here, that the application of the dialectical method
does not mean arbitrarily combining all and every
contradictory assertion. The unity of opposites must
not be taken to mean the simple repetition of arbi­
trarily chosen postulates and opposite assertions; it is
the combination and conflict of opposites as they exist
in reality and the discovery of the contradictions in real­
ity that are the driving forces and bases of motion.

In order that the specific features of dialectical think­

ing may be better understood it will be useful to com­
pare and contrast it with other, non-dialectical methods
and forms of thinking. This will help to bring out
3o DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM
more clearly the fundamental features of materialist
dialectics and to give a more precise idea of its laws,
particularly its basic law: motion is the result of con­
tradiction, the unity and conflict of opposites.
Opposed to dialectics are metaphysics, eclectics,
sophistry, and the puerile “evolutionary” conception of
development. Materialist dialectics does not tolerate
the use of stereotyped and ready-made schemes. It de­
mands the profound study of concrete circumstances,
the precise formulation of the real process of develop­
ment; it also demands revolutionary action.
Dialectical thinking is the opposite of metaphysics,
which regards things and phenomena, not in their unity
and interrelationship, but each separate from the other,
outside of the grand, general relationship, and conse­
quently, not in motion, but in a state of rest, frozen,
unchanging and lifeless. Metaphysical thinking is in­
capable of depicting the real inter-relations and devel­
opment of phenomena.
How, for instance, is one to regard capitalist, bour­
geois democracy? To approach this phenomenon with
a ready-made answer would be metaphysics. It would
be untrue to say that capitalism is an evil at all times
and under all conditions. Compared with the serf sys­
tem, capitalism was beneficial: to a certain extent it
freed the toilers and placed them in more favourable
conditions for their development and their struggle for
emancipation. The serf system, on the other hand, was
beneficial compared with slavery. As long as the serf
system exists, as long as it predominates, the movement
towards capitalism is a progressive movement. But
when the serf system is abolished, the workers are left
facing one main enemy-capitalism. In relation to the
past, capitalism is beneficial; in relation to the future,
in relation to the more perfect system, i.e.} socialism,
capitalism is an evil that must be destroyed.
 THE THEORETICAL FOUNDATION 31
For the proletariat, bourgeois democracy is, of course,
preferable to a tsarist autocracy. The proletariat cannot
but strive to overthrow autocracy. But even a demo­
cratic republic is one of the forms of the class rule of
the exploiters, viz., the bourgeois dictatorship, which
must be replaced by a Soviet state—by proletarian
democracy.
Slavery is abominable. But slavery was necessary at
a given phase of the historical development of human­
ity, in the remote past, at a given level of development
of productive forces. At that time it represented a
necessary stage of development, a definite advance. At
a particular stage of development of productive forces,
enemies, instead of being killed, were turned into slaves
and their labour power was thus preserved and put to
use.
If we are asked, what interest has the past to us, we
reply that development throughout the world takes
place unevenly. In one place (the U.S.S.R.) bourgeois
democracy is a thing of the past; in other places (outside
the U.S.S.R.) it is a thing of the present. Moreover,
feudal relations, and even slave relations (at least sur­
vivals of them) continue to exist in Asia and Africa and
even in Europe and America. At the present time all
these are dominated by the fundamental contradiction
between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, between
wage slavery and the struggle against wage slavery, be­
tween the system of capitalist states and the U.S.S.R.
Yet at the same time, old forms of oppression continue
to exist. Only by its own efforts, without the aid of
God (who we do know does not exist) can mankind
escape from its bestial existence, its semi-barbaric con­
ditions of life, and from the grip of poverty, oppression
and ignorance. In this struggle for emancipation the
proletariat takes the lead. Its fight is against the funda­
mental and dominating relations of wage slavery; but
32 DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM
parallel with this form of exploitation there remain the
survivals of preceding forms of oppression, against
which the proletariat must also wage a bitter war.
Dialectic materialism is the theory that guides the
proletariat in its struggles. The proletariat wages war
on the bourgeoisie and in time will overthrow it; it will
abolish the rule of the bourgeoisie and destroy the
relations of exploitation; but at the same time it must
take over and still further develop the cultural achieve­
ments that were amassed under the rule of the bour­
geoisie.
The bourgeois, the capitalist, is our enemy. But
having defeated the enemy and broken his resistance,
we must take advantage of his knowledge and experi­
ence. We must make use of the cultural and scientific
developments achieved under the bourgeoisie and com­
pel the bourgeois specialists to work for the cause of
communism.
In the process of development all things give way to
others, all things are negated. But the characteristic
feature of dialectical negation is that it does not merely
throw to one side, it abolishes by first overcoming. So­
cialism cannot be brought about without mastering and
remoulding all that which was accumulated in the pre­
ceding stage of historical development and all that
which was taken over from the past and developed by
the bourgeoisie. Such a dialectic negation of the bour­
geoisie can be accomplished only by the proletariat,
the class most closely associated with modern large-scale
industry, which is the most valuable product of bour­
geois development.
We thus see that nothing is immutable; everything
changes, everything passes from one state to another.
For this reason metaphysical thought, which regards
things in isolation and treats them as immutable, cannot
 THE THEORETICAL FOUNDATION 33
correctly reflect the ceaseless process of motion and the
inter-relationship of all phenomena.
As we have stated, development arises out of inherent
contradictions. For instance, the capitalist system is a
unity of opposites: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.
The dialectics of this contradiction was brilliantly set
forth by Marx in The Communist Manifesto16 and in
Capital. The bourgeoisie and the proletariat are op­
posites; but at the same time they comprise a definite
unity: they are the classes of a single social and economic
formation—capitalism—in a state of irreconcilable con­
tradiction. This contradiction will be logically solved
dialectically by the internal struggle, the proletarian
revolution. The logic arises out of the mass struggle.
In the process of revolution, the proletariat becomes
transformed, it becomes trained for the performance of
its historic mission. In 1846 Marx wrote:
The revolution is essential not merely because the domi­
nant class cannot be overthrown by any other means, but
also because only in the course of the revolution can the
class which overthrows cleanse itself of the mire of the old
society and become fit to create a new society.
This is one of the fundamental ideas of Marxism.
Marx returned to it time and again. Thus, in 1850 in
his speech to the Communist League, Marx said, ad­
dressing himself to the workers:
You must pass through fifteen, twenty, perhaps fifty years
of civil war and national conflict, not merely in order to
change the system, but also to change yourselves and to ren­
der yourselves fit for political rule.
And again in 1871, in his pamphlet, The Civil War in
France, repeating the same thought, Marx said:
They [the working class] know that in order to work
out their own emancipation, and along with it that higher
form to which present society is irresistibly tending, by its
own economical agencies, they will have to pass through
34 DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM
long struggles, through a series of historic processes, trans­
forming circumstances and men.19
Here we discern the same unity of opposites, the mu­
tual conflict of these opposites and the inevitable solu­
tion of the conflicts by a transition to a new form of
society. Without the long and severe training obtained
in its struggles the proletariat cannot fit itself to perform
its historical mission.
It is the task of materialist dialectics to study the
conflict of opposites proceeding in the world around us
and to reveal it in its true form. It must seek the
dialectic foundations of the contradictions and not
select symptoms and phases of phenomena casually and
eclectically (that is, arbitrarily and independently of
their essential inter-relationship). It must seek to dis­
cover the driving forces of development. At the same
time it must actively participate in the struggle on the
side of the revolutionary class and lead the mass strug­
gle of the proletariat.
My ideals for the upbuilding of new Russia will not be
chimerical only if they express the interests of an actually
existing class that is compelled by conditions to act in a
definite direction. In adopting the viewpoint of the ob­
jectivity of the class struggle I do not thereby justify reality;
on the contrary, I point to the profound (if at a first glance
invisible) sources and forces that exist within that reality
and make for its transformation.20
Eclecticism employs methods repugnant to dialectic
materialism. Dialectics is opposed to the habit of the
eclectics of arbitrarily selecting isolated phases, and their
inability to grasp an object or a phenomenon as a whole,
in its totality, and in its systematic and inevitable inter­
relationships and development as they exist in reality.
Instead of taking the phenomenon as a whole in all its
complexity, but at the same time in its unity and total­
ity, they onesidedly exaggerate isolated features, com­
 THE THEORETICAL FOUNDATION 35
ponent parts and phases. Materialist dialectics demands
that the important factor should be singled out, but that
at the same time attention should be devoted to those
phases that are brought to the forefront by circumstances.
It also demands that the phenomenon as a whole should
not be lost sight of. Ideas must represent the inter­
relation of the various phases of phenomena as they
exist in reality and emphasise the fundamental contra­
dictions (the “main link,’’ as Lenin expressed it, i.e.,
that which is essential to the practical leadership of
the class struggle of the proletariat). As one of many
examples of the manner in which Lenin attacked eclec­
ticism, one may mention his criticism of Comrade Buk­
harin in the discussion on the trade union question.21
As an example of his ability to single out the “main
link,” and of the value of this ability to the proletarian
revolution, we may refer to the change to the New
Economic Policy effected by the Communist Party of
the Soviet Union under Lenin’s leadership and to
Lenin’s explanation and analysis of the circumstances
that attended this measure.22
In contradistinction to the eclectic conception, dialec­
tics teaches the doctrine of The Concreteness of Truth.
In his Introduction to the Critique of Political Economy
Marx explained that the concrete is concrete by virtue
of the fact that it combines within itself a multiformity
of definitions, because it is “unity in multiformity.”
The concrete is the whole of nature, the whole of reality,
surrounding us: it embraces, combines and coalesces all
contradictions. Our knowledge moves towards an ever
more complete and more profound reflection of this
complete (concrete) reality.
While realising the limitation and provisional nature
of abstract postulates, dialectical thought employs ab­
stractions within certain limits. An abstraction singles
out a certain phase, concentrates on it and studies it.
36 DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM
In his Foreword to the first volume of Capital, Marx
declares that in the study of social, and particularly
economic forms, neither microscope nor chemical re­
agents are of any use. “The forces of abstraction must
replace both.” And in Volume I, Chapter 1 of Capital,
in which he analyses the principal phenomena of bour­
geois exchange society (commodity, value and money)
Marx gives us an example of how to use abstractions
and of the limits which they are invaluable to scientific
research.23 (Cf. Lenin’s article, “Karl Marx,” and his
Preface to Marx’s Letters to Kugelmann.)
Of course, when Marx undertook to present a general
picture of the laws of capitalist society he did not con­
fine himself to this alone. When investigating reality
in all its complexity we must endeavour to create a
picture that most faithfully reflects that reality and to
discover the concrete truths that reflect the real situa­
tion in all its totality and in the unity of its contradic­
tions and opposites.
In the notes Lenin made on his reading of Hegel, he
declares that “concreteness ... is the spirit and essence
of dialectics.” And in his popular exposition of the
nature of dialectics,24 he states that one of the funda­
mentals of dialectical logic is that “there is no abstract
truth, truth is concrete.” This means that one must
not be content with general arguments: it means that
reality demands clear and precise replies to the con­
crete problems that arise in the course of historical de­
velopment and the struggle of the working class, and
it means further, that if one wants to express an opin­
ion with a full knowledge of the subject, one’s mind
must be able to reflect all the relationships and the
full complexity of the concrete conditions of the given
phenomena and to express the general laws of devel­
opment of those phenomena.
In contrast to the dialectic conception of develop'
 THE THEORETICAL FOUNDATION 37
ment, which reveals the full complexity of a process,
we have the puerile and superficial conception of “peace­
ful” development, “evolution” without contradictions
and without leaps, upheavals and revolution. This
conception is impotent in the face of the actual process
of development. As a matter of fact a genuine con­
ception of evolution, answering actual reality, must
embrace not only gradual changes, but also sudden
changes, “leaps,” breaks in continuity. Without such
leaps no phenomenon can be explained, for it would
be necessary to assume that nothing new can arise, that
everything already exists in an imperceptibly minute
form liable to subsequent growth. As a matter of fact,
however, we continually meet with breaks in con­
tinuity and with the appearance of new qualities that
formerly did not exist. Changes of form always take
place in reality by means of revolution, leaps. In the
process of development old forms are negated and new
forms take their place which in their turn are negated.
The act of birth is an act of revolution. Yet the
period during which the child is carried in the womb
of the mother is one of slow and gradual change. Social
development proceeds by the struggle of classes and by
revolution. Dialectics gives a true and profound theory
of development; it represents it as pursuing a com­
plex, not a direct path, and as comprising, not merely
the accumulation of slow and gradual changes, but also
periods of cataclysm, sudden change, leaps, revolutions,
reverse movements (as though taking a run for a sudden
leap forward), ebb and flow, and so forth; evolution as
represented by the bourgeois ideologists is a simple,
smooth and tranquil process. The dialectic is difficult
and complex, “cunning” as Hegel expressed it; it is
very hard to understand and master. But what would
you have, when the world of reality and the process
of its development are themselves complex, and not
38 DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM
the simple processes the good, respectable citizen would
have them be.
The dying of the old and the birth of the new is a
complicated and difficult process. In all development
it is the process as a whole that is important, and not
merely the result.
It is sheer self-deception to believe that fruits may
be gathered without long and arduous labour. Those
who fear revolution, who shrink from the methods of
struggle that reality imposes, are, in practice, supporters
of the exploiters and traitors to the cause of emanci­
pating the working class from wage slavery.
In 1918 Lenin explained the meaning and impor­
tance of the class struggle that was taking place at that
time as follows:
When the bourgeoisie, and the government officials,
clerks, doctors, engineers, etc., who are accustomed to serve
it, resort to extreme measures of resistance, the intellectuals
are horrified. They tremble in rear and whine pitifully
about the necessity of a return to “compromise.” We, on
the contrary, like all true friends of the oppressed classes,
only rejoice at the extreme resistance offered by the ex­
ploiters; for we expect the proletariat to grow to manhood
and to mature for power not by persuasion and pleading,
not in the school of dulcet preaching and edifying declama­
tions, but in the school of life, the school of struggle. The
proletariat must learn how to become the ruling class and
how to gain complete victory over the bourgeoisie, for it
cannot obtain this knowledge ready-made. It must learn
by struggle. And it is only serious, bitter and desperate
struggle that teaches anything. The more extreme the
resistance of the exploiters is the more energetically, firmly,
mercilessly and successfully will they be suppressed by the
exploited. The more varied the efforts and pains the ex­
ploiters take to defend the old, the sooner will the proleta­
riat learn to drive its class enemies out of their last hiding
places, tear out the roots of their domination and remove
the very soil on which wage slavery, mass poverty, and the
profits and the insolence of the moneybags could (and, in­
deed, had to) spring up.
 THE THEORETICAL FOUNDATION 39
With the growing resistance of the bourgeoisie and its
hangers-on, the strength of the proletariat and of the peas­
antry which ally themselves with it also grows. The ex­
ploited gain in strength and manhood, they grow and learn
to throw off the “old Adam” of wage slavery in proportion
as the resistance of their enemies, the exploiters, increases.
Victory is bound to be on the side of the exploited, for
on their side is life itself, the strength of numbers, the
strength of the masses, the strength of the inexhaustible
springs of self-sacrifice and of the idealistic and honest
reserves of energy and talent of the so-called “common”
people, the workers and peasants, awakened and eager to
build up a new order. Victory is on their side.25
These lines describing the dialectics of the class strug­
gle, although written in 1918, still preserve their
force. As long as classes and class society exist, the
class struggle of the proletariat is essential for the devel­
opment of society and for its progress to a higher form
of organisation, viz., communism. Those who fail to
understand this, who refuse to understand the necessity
for treading the difficult path to communism, who are
terrified at the difficulties and anxious to escape them
by endeavouring to create peace between the exploited
and the exploiters, in practice are enemies of com­
munism; for they are hindering the cause of the ex­
ploited masses and diverting them from the only path
of escape from an exploiting, slave society.
Another serious violation of dialectics is the refusal
to reckon with actual and inevitable causes, and the
intellectual evasion of stages that must be passed
through in reality. Those who thus evade and antici­
pate tend to become isolated from the masses in practi­
cal politics and cease to lead the revolutionary struggle
of the masses, thereby playing into the hands of the
bourgeoisie.
Dialectics demands that the successive stages of transi­
tion should be clearly defined.
Innumerable instances may be cited of Lenin’s ability
40 DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM
to define transitions. Here we will only mention the
transition (transformation) of the imperialist war into
civil war, a transition of world historical importance,
which Lenin not only studied in all its details, but in
which he directly took part. The basis of this transi­
tion is the development of the proletarian revolution,
which, by means of the dictatorship of the proletariat,
brings about the transition from capitalism to com­
munism. He calculated the course of this development
in all its complexity. In 1916 he wrote that the im­
pending socialist revolution would be
an outburst of mass struggle on the part of all the various
oppressed and discontented elements. Sections of the petty
bourgeoisie and of the backward workers will inevitably
participate in it—without such participation mass struggle
is impossible, without it no revolution is possible—and just
as inevitably will they bring into the movement their
prejudices, their reactionary phantasies, their weaknesses
and errors. But objectively they will attack capitalism, and
the class conscious vanguard of the revolution, the advanced
proletariat expressing this objective truth for a heterogene­
ous and discordant, motley and outwardly uncohesive mass
struggle, will be able to unify and direct it, to gain power,
to seize the banks, to expropriate the trusts, which are
hated by all (though for different reasons) and introduce
other dictatorial measures which will amount to the over­
throw of the bourgeoisie and the victory of socialism, but
which will by no means immediately be “purged” of petty
bourgeois slag.26
The scientific forecast contained in this passage was
subsequently fully corroborated. Lenin’s works writ­
ten in the period 1917-23 deal with a number of ques­
tions connected with the leadership of the class struggle
of the proletariat in the transition period from the
capitalist exploiting system to a classless, communist
society. In a series of articles he analysed the various
stages of the revolution, and the various phases of the
transition period itself. He picks out the fundamental
 THE THEORETICAL FOUNDATION 4i
features of current phenomena and shows whence and
whither the transition is proceeding. This is necessary
in order that every effort be made to extend and deepen
the proletarian revolution and to secure the triumph of
its cause.27 Only thanks to its theoretical grasp of the
meaning of revolutionary struggle was the leadership
of the Party of Lenin able to secure the victory of the
proletariat, the dictatorship of the proletariat and the
subsequent development of socialist construction.
As has been stated, the ability to distinguish the logi­
cal sequence of the stages of transition is not only of
theoretical importance; it is also of great practical im­
portance in the leadership of the struggle of the prole­
tariat and in determining its strategy and tactics.28
Lenin possessed the faculty of discerning the conflict
of contradictions and of opposites as they took place in
actual reality. We have already said that dialectic ma­
terialism demands the expression and formulation of
the actual process of development.
Genuine (objective) dialectics is distinguished from
sophistry, which does not study the actual process of
development in its totality, but indulges in an arbitrary
play of ideas (i.e., subjective dialectics, applied arbi­
trarily and severed from the dialectic movement of the
external world).
Many examples of sophistry can be found in the war
waged by the opportunists against revolutionary Marx­
ism and particularly in the utterances of Kautsky and
Plekhanov after they had become traitors to revolu­
tionary Marxism. An examination of the sophisms of
the opportunists is given by Lenin in his "Collapse
of the Second International,” where he states that:
The dialectic method demands a many-sided investiga­
tion of a given social phenomenon in its development; it
demands that we proceed from the exterior, from the ap­
42 DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM
parent, to the fundamental moving forces, to the develop­
ment of productive forces and to the class struggle.20
The sophist, however, picks out a postulate which is
only correct under certain conditions, instead of under­
taking an all-sided investigation, and ignores the most
important point, viz., that the conditions under which
the given postulate is correct soon cease to exist, that the
whole environment changes and that, as a result, every­
thing else radically changes. For instance, Marx and
Engels spoke of the legitimacy of the wars for national
emancipation that took place in Europe in the first
half of the nineteenth century, e.g., in Prussia in 1813.
Kautsky takes these words of Marx and Engels and
applies them in a different epoch, namely, to the wars
of the twentieth century, which are essentially imperial­
istic and predatory.
It is the method of all the sophists of all times to quote
examples obviously relating to basically dissimilar cases.30
The whole article, “Collapse of the Second Inter­
national,” is a brilliant example of materialist dialectics.
The article gives a detailed and precise explanation
of the nature of the sophistry of the opportunists. In
Lenin’s works we find innumerable examples of how
to apply materialist dialectics and how to combat the
false, truth-distorting views of the opportunists. We
find it in his polemical writings against the Populists—
“Who are the Friends of the People and How They
Fight against Social-Democracy”; against Struve—“The
Economic Content of Populism and the Criticism of
it in Mr. Struve’s Book”; against the Economists—
What Is To Be Done? against the Mensheviks, the
Liquidationists, the “Otzovists” and against Trotsky—
“Two Tactics,” “Notes of a Publicist,” “Debatable
Questions,” “Violation of Unity under Pretence of
Unity.” We also find it in his philosophical polemic
 THE THEORETICAL FOUNDATION 43
against the Machists—Materialism and Empirio-Criti­
cism. The true dialectical method of overcoming the
opposition argument is the only correct method, namely,
not to brush it aside (that is not difficult), but to make
a detailed analysis, a conscientious investigation of the
question in all its detail, based on a profound study of
the object of dispute as a whole (at the same time not
sacrificing the general grasp of the whole subject to
details). The result is a profound and all-round con­
ception; things become revealed in the relationships in
which they stand to each other in reality. We thus
arrive at a concrete truth approximating to a complete
and exhaustive comprehension of the subject as a unity
of opposites.
We cannot understand capitalism unless we grasp the
unity of opposites made up of the bourgeoisie and the
proletariat and unless we realise the inevitability of
the transition from capitalism to communism by means
of the class struggle of the proletariat. We cannot un­
derstand the unity of the opposites: ether and matter,
negative and positive electricity, attraction and repul­
sion.31 A struggle of opposites, a perpetual succession
of forms, transitions from state to state, from form to
form—such is the dialectics of the world that sur­
rounds us.
In our description of dialectics so far we have dwelt
only on its basic law, viz., on the unity of opposites. We
did this because this law is the most important of all
and the one that has been least dealt with in popular
literature. This law, as well as the other laws, “the
transformation of quantity into quality” and the “nega­
tion of negations” is brilliantly explained in Engels’
Anti-Duhring.22
In the next chapter we shall have to deal with the
dialectical law of the “transformation of quantity into
quality.”
 IV
THE FIGHT FOR DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM

We have seen that dialectic materialism demands the

study of phenomena in their totality (concretely) just
as they occur in reality. It also demands of those who
desire to be guided by the Marxist theory in the study
of the driving forces of development that they take a
conscious part in the process of development on the
side of the revolutionary class, organising it and direct­
ing its forces. Such a philosophy is acceptable only to
a revolutionary class.
The only real revolutionary class in present-day so­
ciety is the proletariat, the class that “has nothing to
lose but its chains.” Contemporary dialectic material­
ism is the th oretical reflection of the proletarian revo­
lution of the present day.
Only by organisation and struggle can the proletariat
defend its interests, achieve its aims and throw off the
yoke of exploitation. And it must conduct an organ­
ised and irreconcilable struggle for its revolutionary
philosophy also. The theoretical struggle is an impor­
tant and inseparable part of the class struggle of the
proletariat.83 We have referred above to the tremen­
dous importance of revolutionary theory. The impor­
tance of the fight for dialectic materialism must be
particularly emphasised.
Two main forces are in constantly increasing conflict
in the class struggle of the present day, viz., the bour­
geoisie and the proletariat. Correspondingly, we have
the conflict of two systems of state organisation, viz.,
the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, on the one hand,
44 x
FIGHT FOR DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM 45
which protects the system of wage slavery and is based
on the brutal suppression of the proletarian revolution
(at the present time, chiefly by fascist methods) and
on the other hand, the dictatorship of the proletariat,
which overthrows the bourgeoisie and suppresses the
exploiters and the task of which is to raise the level of
the toiling masses, to develop socialist production and
create a classless society. In modern philosophy we
correspondingly find two main tendencies, viz., dialectic
materialism, the philosophy of the revolutionary pro­
letariat, and philosophical tendencies hostile to revo­
lutionary Marxism, which are anti-materialist and
anti-dialectical and which in various forms defend re­
actionary views, clericalism and so forth, their ultimate
aim being to keep the proletariat under the ideological
influence of the bourgeoisie.
Philosophy in general is closely connected with poli­
tics. In one of his letters to C. Schmidt (October 27,
1890), Engels wrote that “political, legal and moral
reflexes . . . exercise the greatest direct influence upon
philosophy,” i.e., philosophy is inseparably bound up
with politics. The predominance of any particular
line in a philosophy has an overwhelming effect on
the conduct of those who have come under the influence
of that philosophy. That, for instance, explains why
the bourgeoisie so zealously support religion and the
belief in God, using them in furtherance of their po­
litical aims, and why, as the capitalist system more
and more approaches its decline, they increasingly sup­
port reactionary idealism and clericalism in philosophy.
The defence of any particular philosophic view is in­
timately connected with the class struggle, for philoso­
phy is essentially party philosophy.* The direct
* Philosophy is not—“impartial,” or “non-political”; every school
of philosophy represents a certain set of political views, the views of
a political party. On the subject of parties in philosophy, see Lenin’s
Materialism and Empirio-Criticism (International Publishers), p. 290.
46 DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM

interests of the bourgeoisie compel it “to perpetuate

theoretical confusion” and to strive to keep the prole­
tariat under its intellectual influence. It is in the in­
terests of the proletariat to resist all attempts to distort
materialist dialectics, which is its own theoretical
weapon.
Lenin himself, during the whole course of his active
life, fought bourgeois philosophy and idealism in all
their forms and manifestations. He also fought that
crude, non-dialectic and mechanical materialism which
is absolutely impotent and helpless in face of idealism.
In the ’nineties, Lenin fought professorial objectivism,
as represented by Struve, the subjectivism of the Pop­
ulist,84 and neo-Kantism, as advocated by the revision­
ists headed by Bernstein in Germany and by Struve in
Russia (neo-Kantism today is the official philosophy of
the German Social-Democrats, or social-fascists). In
the beginning of this century Lenin fought the idealist
philosophy of Mach and Avenarius and their followers,
who in Russia were headed by A. Bogdanov. The
philosophical views of Bogdanov were at one time fairly
popular in our Party (just as were the views of E. Duhr­
ing among the German Social-Democrats in the ’seven­
ties) and it became urgently necessary to fight them.
Lenin persistently fought the philosophy of Bogdanov
and from 1906 to 1908 he subjected Bogdanov’s idealism
and eclecticism to merciless criticism. In his letters to
Bogdanov (unfortunately they were not published at
the time and have not been found since, and so they
have remained unstudied) and in his book Materialism
and Empirio-Criticism, which appeared in 1909, Lenin
explains and criticises the essence of Bogdanov’s phi­
losophy. In 1914 Lenin wrote:
The sum total of the literary activities of A. Bogdanov
may be reduced to an attempt to inoculate the mind of the
proletariat with camouflaged idealistic conceptions cf the
FIGHT FOR DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM 47
bourgeois philosophers. . . . For many years A. Bogdanov
has been an opponent of the philosophy of Marxism and a
supporter of bourgeois idealistic views hostile to the mate­
rialism of Marx and Engels.
Lenin attached great importance to philosophic ques­
tions and carefully studied the literature on philosophy,
and on a number of occasions he subjected the reac­
tionary views of the bourgeois philosophers and their
various henchmen to devastating criticism.35
During the whole course of his active life Lenin
studied materialist dialectics, applied it, fought for it
and explained the necessity of studying and applying
this theoretical weapon of Marxism. See, for example,
his pamphlet “Once More on the Trade Unions,” “The
Present Situation and the Errors of Comrades Trotsky
and Bukharin,” which appeared in 1921, and his article
“The Importance of Militant Materialism,” dated
March 12, 1922.
In the years 1913 to 1916 Lenin collected material
apparently with the intention of writing a special work
on materialist dialectics. Preoccupation with more
urgent matters and the approach of the revolution pre­
vented him from writing this book, but the material
he collected is very rich and voluminous. Extracts and
notes have been preserved in philosophical notebooks
that are of extreme theoretical value.86
Such, in general, was the fight that Lenin conducted
on behalf of dialectic materialism.
Apart from the main enemy of dialectic materialism
—its opponents at the present day are represented by
the revisionist tendencies in philosophy, against which
an irreconcilable war must be waged. Anti-Marxian
and anti-Leninist tendencies are to be found in the
mechanistic revision of Marxism (Comrade Bukharin,
for example, has been guilty of mechanistic errors),
48 DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM

which is the chief danger, and in Menshevist idealism

(Comrade Deborin and his group).
The mechanistic outlook is hostile to dialectics; it
repudiates it, considers it as scholastic, metaphysical,
etc. The mechanists regard themselves as materialists;
but, in fact, because of their inability to think dia­
lectically, they are impotent in the face of idealism
and are themselves forced to abandon the materialist
position. As an example, one may cite the inability
of the mechanists to deal with the question of quantity
and quality. This is one of the questions on which
the limitations and shortcomings and the metaphysical
nature of the mechanistic philosophy are particularly
revealed. We shall therefore dwell on this question in
a little more detail.
According to the mechanist conception, the explana­
tion of all phenomena must be sought in the mechanical
motion of qualitatively identical and unchanging units
(atoms, electrons). All qualitative differences between
things are due to the difference in the composition of
these units and to the difference in their simple me­
chanical motion (transplacement in space). Hence,
quality does not exist in actual reality but depends en­
tirely on our subjective perceptions. Objectively there
exists only the mechanical motion of atoms and their
quantitative relations. In the note he made during his
study of natural science Engels referred to the tendency
to reduce everything to mechanical motion and to re­
gard that as the sole aim of science, and said that “It
ignored the specific nature of other forms of motion.”
While considering it erroneous to explain everything
in mechanical motion alone, Engels nevertheless did not
deny that mechanical motion is universal and is asso­
ciated, in one way or another, with every phenomenon.
Every higher form of movement is always essentially as­
sociated with real mechanical (external or molecular) mo-
FIGHT FOR DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM 49
tion, just as higher forms of motion simultaneously cause
other forms of motion: chemical reaction is impossible
without changes in temperature and electricity; organic life
is impossible without mechanical, molecular, chemical, ther­
mal, electrical and other changes. But the presence of these
supplementary forms does not in any given case exhaust
the essential nature of the main form. Some day we shall
undoubtedly “reduce” thought experimentally to molecular
and chemical motion in the brain; but will this exhaust the
essential nature of thinking? 37
Thus, Engels declares that although there can be
no thought unaccompanied by mechanical and chemi­
cal processes within the brain, these alone do not ex­
plain the specific nature of thinking. Thinking must
be regarded as a whole; its internal, subjective side
must be considered together with all the qualities and
conditions that determine and produce it, i.e., in its
concrete reality, and not merely from the point of view
of mechanical motion. This example clearly illustrates
the attitude of dialectic materialism to every specific
“quality,” particularly to so popular a phenomenon as
our processes of thinking. It explains the difference
between the conceptions of dialectic materialism and
of mechanistic conceptions.
The materialist dialectician declares that mind cannot
be separated from matter; our mind (“spirit”) is a
property of specifically organised matter, viz., the brain
of man, who is a member of a specific historically devel­
oped society. This qualitatively specific phenomenon
actually exists in objective reality. We ourselves are
the best proof of this, for we are thinking beings, per­
forming intellectual labour. We do actually think, it
does not merely seem to us that we do. Even imag­
ination is, in a manner of speaking, thought. The
external world is reflected in the mind of man.
Thought is not the object itself reflected in the mind;
it is but the reflection of the object. The theory that
50 DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM
the external world is “reflected” in the mind is funda­
mental to the theory of knowledge of dialectical mate­
rialism. The movement of atoms takes place both in
a cobblestone and in a man’s head and both the cob­
blestone and the head reflect the action of the external
world; but it is perfectly obvious that the movement
and the reflection are qualitatively different in each
case. In the next chapter we shall deal in greater detail
with the question of our knowledge.
Mechanical materialism denies the reality of a specific
quality of thinking; it regards it merely as mechanical
motion of atoms (electrons) and considers matter and
mind as being equal, identical. This materialism,
which denies the reality of higher forms of motion and
reduces everything to gross and simple mechanical mo­
tion, to transplacement, proves to be absolutely help­
less before idealism. For idealism also asserts that
thought and the objective world are identical.38 Me­
chanical materialism, therefore, paves the way for ideal­
ism of the most subjective kind. It leads to the
inevitable conclusion that the only reality is one’s own
sensations, for however much theoretical thinking may
be denied, this reality cannot be denied. Moreover,
mechanical materialism cannot resist the idealistic belief
in a creator, in some force external to the world, for
the reason that mechanical materialism cannot explain
what it is that sets in motion the gigantic mechanism
that the world appears to him to be. The world ma­
chine of mechanical materialism requires some external
impulse, the universal clock requires somebody to wind
it up. There is no way out of this dilemma except to
acknowledge the existence of God.
And so, true dialectics acknowledges the reality
(actual existence) of qualities as specific forms, as the
sum of the properties and peculiarities of things.
Within the limits of a definite quality, quantitative
FIGHT FOR DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM 51
changes may occur without affecting that quality, with­
out changing it; but only within definite limits. When
quantitative changes go beyond a definite limit they
result in a leap and a change in quality; there occurs
what Hegel termed the transformation of quantity into
quality and which we meet with in the surrounding
world of nature and society at every step. Within the
limits of from o° to ioo° C. under ordinary terrestrial
conditions (atmospheric pressure, etc.) water remains a
liquid, preserves this quality. One hundred degrees is
the boiling point; water becomes transformed from a
liquid into a gas. Zero is freezing point, water be­
comes transformed into ice, i.e., into a solid. Thus
arise new qualities, formerly non-existent.
With the appearance of a new quality, new quantita­
tive relations come into effect, so that we may also
speak of the transformation of quality into quantity.
The high quality of class consciousness, discipline, or­
ganisation and firmness of principle of the Communist
Party, which at first represented the numerically small,
but actually most advanced section of the proletariat,
subsequently resulted in the Bolshevik Party’s being
able to assume the leadership of the movement of mil­
lions and to obtain a following of tens of millions.
Thus, in the course of time, quality was transformed
into quantity.
Another example, which strikingly illustrates the
transformation of quantity into quality and the rise of
new quantitative relations on the basis of the new
quality, is the process that is now taking place in the
Soviet Union of the mass transition of the middle indi­
vidual peasant to collectivisation. A new social stratum
is being created, new qualities are arising. The middle
peasant was the ally of the Soviet state, but the col­
lective farm peasant is now becoming the bulwark of
the Soviet state. We would here mention the fact re-
52 DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM
ferred to by Comrade Stalin in one of his speeches, viz.,
that the pooling of the farm implements of the individ­
ual peasants results in a far greater productivity of
labour in the collective farms than the same quantity
of implements and forces represent in the individual
farms. Collectivisation creates a new quality of social
relationships, expressing itself in an enhanced produc­
tivity of labour and in better results of labour, both
qualitatively and quantitatively.
Examples of the transformation of quantity into
quality, and vice versa, may be cited without end. They
demonstrate the correctness of dialectic materialism,
which teaches that these two aspects of phenomena are
closely associated, become transformed one into the
other, but that both are real. The confusion of the
mechanists arises from the fact that they deny the ob­
jective existence of qualities, that they regard quantita­
tive factors as the only reality and do not see the
peculiarities or, as it is scientifically called, the specific
nature of phenomena. The inability to use the dialectic
method also leads the mechanists to rely on the con­
clusions of a single science (mechanics) and to ignore
the experience of the other sciences, with the result
that they regard the conclusions of that science as the
sole and ultimate truth.
As far back as 1908, Lenin advanced important and
fundamental arguments against mechanical materialism.
“The recognition of unchanging elements, of the un­
changing essence of things is not materialism, but meta­
physics, i.e., anti-dialectic materialism,’* he declares in
Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, and goes on to
state that dialectic materialism insists on the approxi­
mate and relative character of all scientific theories re­
garding the structure of matter and its properties, on
the absence of absolute boundaries in nature, on the
transformation of moving matter from one state into
FIGHT FOR DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM 53
another, seemingly incompatible state, and so forth. In
conclusion, Lenin declares himself to be in complete
agreement with Engels’ statement to the effect that from
the point of view of dialectic materialism, only one thing
is immutable, viz., the recognition of a world existing
outside of us and reflected in our minds.

From the point of view of Engels, only one thing is

immutable, viz., the reflection in the human mind (when
there is a human mind) of the external world that exists
and develops independently of that mind. For Marx and
Engels there is no “immutability,” no other “essence,” no
other “absolute substance” in the sense that this concept
has been depicted by futile professorial philosophy. The
“essence” of things or “substance” are also relative: they
represent only the deepening of the human knowledge of
objects. Yesterday the deepening of human knowledge
took in the atom, today electrons and the ether, but dialectic
materialism insists on the temporary, relative and approxi­
mate character of all knowledge of nature obtained by the
advancing science of man. The electron is as inexhaustible
as the atom, nature is infinite, but it infinitely exists. And
it is this single, categorical and only absolute recognition
of the existence of nature outside of human consciousness
and sensation that distinguishes dialectic materialism from
relative agnosticism and idealism.

In addition to the recognition of this “relativity and

approximateness” of the picture of the world created
on the basis of our knowledge, which becomes ever
deeper, but which is never completed and never ex­
hausts the multiform content of the objective world,
dialectic materialism differs from metaphysical, me­
chanical materialism in its ability to handle flexible
concepts and to rest content with results achieved.
It should here be pointed out that mechanistic mate­
rialism is essentially the methodology of the Right
deviationists. Theoretically, it expresses and justifies
the class interests of the last of the capitalist classes
54 DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM
remaining in the Soviet Union and therefore repre­
sents the chief danger on the theoretical front.
Such anti-dialectical, counter-revolutionary theories,
as, for instance, the conception of opposites as being
only an external, and not internal, property of phe­
nomena, are, in the conditions prevailing in the Soviet
Union, theoretical expressions of the interests of the
bourgeoisie. They provide a theoretical justification
for the denial of class contradictions and the class war
(of the proletariat) and support the advocacy of class
peace (between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat).
One such theory is the mechanistic theory of equilib­
rium, of the correlation between a system and its en­
vironment. This provides a theoretical basis for the
theory that the kulak enterprises will grow into social­
ism through the medium of the co-operative societies.
According to the arguments of the Right theoreticians,
the “kulak system” should merge with the socialist
“environment” and they claim that there are “scien­
tific” grounds for this. Obviously this is a very useful
theory for a class that is being completely liquidated.
It justifies and corroborates the policy of the Rights,
who consider that the kulak should not be disturbed.
Hence, the mechanistic philosophy is essentially bour­
geois and anti-proletarian. Its general traits are that it
underestimates the value of theory, it fails to understand
dialectics and is hostile to it. This theoretical nihilism
and failure to understand the necessity for the study
of dialectic materialism in practice lead to the sur­
render of the materialist position to idealism and to a
general submission to the ideology of the bourgeoisie.
Mechanistic materialism is impotent in the face of ideal­
ism; it connives at and assists idealism.
There is yet another danger, namely, of falling, in
company with the idealists (Hegel), under the influ­
ence of abstractions, of losing contact with concrete
FIGHT FOR DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM 55
reality, of confining oneself to dialectic conceptions
without connecting those conceptions with the develop­
ment of the objective world, of not distinguishing cate­
gories from the material relationships of the objective
world—in a word, the clanger of straying onto the path
of idealism and of forgetting the requirements of mate­
rialism. This danger is threatened by the Menshevistic
idealism of the Deborin group, who conceal idealistic
and anti-Marxian views under the guise of Marxian
phraseology and the pretence of fighting for dialectic
materialism.
While the mechanist theory has no profound social
roots in our midst, Menshevistic idealism is nevertheless
a real and serious danger. Clothed in the garb of ortho­
dox Marxism, it acts as a channel of bourgeois influences
to the proletariat.
Some of the distinguishing features characteristic of
certain representatives of this tendency, and which in
fact are common to the whole school of Menshevistic
idealism are: the severance of theory from practice;
the denial of the party nature of philosophy; profes­
sorial, contemplative “objectivism”; failure to appre­
ciate Lenin as a materialist and dialectician; failure to
appreciate Lenin’s contribution to the development of
dialectic materialism; the disguise of non-Marxian
and idealistic views by Marxian phraseology; priggish
“scholarliness” which is totally unjustified because this
ostensible “scholarliness” is not backed by any practical
work or by a positive study of the subject.
The idealistic revision of Marxism effected by the
Menshevistic idealists is clearly illustrated by the fact
that this tendency makes the materialist dialectics of
Marx identical with the dialectics of Hegel. Hence,
their revisionism is essentially of a Hegelian character.
The founders of scientific socialism always empha­
sised the importance of studying the method of dialectic
56 DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM
materialism. They even pointed out how this should
be done, namely, by studying the history of philosophy,
and in particular, Hegel. In one of his Forewords to
Anti-Diihring (1878) Engels wrote:

Theoretical thinking is an inborn property only in the

form of capability. It must be developed and perfected,
and for this no other method has so far been found except
the study of the history of philosophy.
By studying the history of philosophy we learn the
experience of scientific thinking accumulated over a
period of more than two thousand years. In his letters
to Conrad Schmidt, Engels recommended that in study­
ing the history of philosophy, particular attention
should be paid to Hegel. Hegel is extremely difficult
to study. Those who undertake to study him require
assistance and this assistance is given by Marx, Engels
and Lenin (particularly valuable are the latter’s philo­
sophical notebooks to which we referred above).
Menshevistic idealism distorts the views of Marx,
Engels and Lenin and regards the logic of Hegel as
identical with the logic of Marx. As we have seen,
Hegel and Marx approach the question of the relation
of mind to existence from fundamentally different
points of view.
In his article, “Hegel and Dialectical Materialism,”
Deborin declares that:

Hegelian logic should serve as the starting point for the

development or structure of materialist dialectics.
And he concludes by saying:

At any rate, the need for a theory of materialist dialectics

has long been felt. Hegelian logic cannot fully satisfy this
need, but it should serve as the starting point for material­
ist dialectics.
FIGHT FOR DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM 57
This school not only regards Hegel’s logic as the
starting point, but also considers that its structure re­
quires no radical alteration. Marx put Hegel’s logic
“right side up,” i.e., he reconstructed it and endowed
it with new principles. Deborin, on the contrary, as­
serts that “in general, the Hegelian structure must be
considered as correct even from the materialist point
of view.”
The idealist view of dialectics is further revealed in
the conception and application of the laws of dialectics.
Take for instance the fundamental law of the unity of
opposites. Engels and Lenin consider that this law
expresses the very essence, the “kernel” of dialectics.
Lenin says:

Unity (coincidence, identity, interaction) of opposites is

conditional, temporary, transitory and relative. The con­
flict of mutually exclusive opposites is absolute, just as
development and motion are absolute.39
And according to Lenin this dialectical law signifies:
The recognition (discovery) of contradictory, mutually
exclusive and opposite tendencies in all manifestations and
processes of nature {including spirit and society).40
Thus, according to Lenin (and Lenin expresses the
point of view of dialectic materialism), the conflict of
opposites is absolute and inherent in all phenomena of
the external world.
Deborin treats the question entirely differently. In
his article, “Marx and Engels” (which, by the way, is
thoroughly idealist), he completely adopts the Hegelian
idealist scheme: he asserts that at first there are only
differences, which then pass into contradictions, and
the latter pass into opposites. Hence, Deborin admits
the possibility of opposites and the conflict of opposites
not existing at certain stages. For him, accordingly,
58 DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM
contradiction is not the starting point. He thus falls
a victim to the very mechanists, against whom he has
written so much, who also repudiate the existence of
opposites that are inherent in absolutely every form
of motion of matter.
As we have repeatedly pointed out, one of the funda­
mental and distinguishing features of the dialectic ma­
terialism of Marx is the prominence it gives to the
necessity for practical revolutionary activity. Marx
criticised the contemplative character of the material­
ists that preceded him. Deborin, on the other hand,
in his Foreword to the Works of Hegel, does not say
a word about this feature of dialectic materialism, but,
on the contrary, emphasises its passive and contempla­
tive character.

The task of the dialectic . . . method is not to introduce

anything of its own into an object, but to observe the
process of its development. In this sense the dialectic
method is indeed the only real scientific and objective
method. The dialectic method merely reproduces the
process of development of an object.

During the whole course of this long article the

author says not a single word about the most impor­
tant component part of materialist dialectics, viz., prac­
tical revolutionary work. That is not a mere accident.
One of the most obvious features of Menshevik ideal­
ism, which reveals its anti-proletarian character, is the
severance of theory from practice. In a speech deliv­
ered in 1920 to the Third All-Russian Congress of the
Russian Young Communist League, Lenin declared:

Without work and without struggle, book knowledge of

Communism derived from communist pamphlets and books
is worth exactly nothing at all, since it but perpetuates the
old severance of theory from practice, which was the most
objectionable feature of the old bourgeois society.
FIGHT FOR DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM 59
The separation of theory from practice is charac­
teristic of Menshevik idealism. The representatives of
this school occupied themselves with philosophy com­
pletely isolated from the tasks of socialist construction
in the U.S.S.R. and from the international working
class movement. They separated philosophy from poli­
tics, instead of placing it at the service of the prole­
tarian party. It is no mere accident that practically
all the writers of this school were unwilling to partici­
pate in the fight against Trotskyism and to expose the
methodological errors of the factionalists who were op­
posing the general line of the Party. By divorcing
philosophy from proletarian Marxism and Leninist poli­
tics, Menshevistic idealism in practice places its service
at the disposal of bourgeois politics.
The whole standpoint of Menshevistic idealism was
bound to lead to the separation of theory from prac­
tice. This was clearly revealed in all the activities of
the representatives of this school. The bulk of their
literature consists of “writing about other people’s
writing.” *
Not a single problem of historical materialism is
treated by the Menshevistic idealists from the stand­
point of the new experiences of the revolutionary pe­
riod. They have ignored Lenin’s instructions as to how
* This expression was used by Engels in one of his letters written
in the ’eighties in which he gave characterisations of the writers who
contributed to the Neue Zeit. The majority of these writers were
opportunists. These “people,” Engels wrote, “who refuse to study
questions of principle and who create a literature on literature and
litterateurs (nine-tenths of present-day German writing is writing about
other people’s writing), will, of course, produce a far greater number
of printed pages in a year than those who seriously study a certain
thing and who desire to write about other books only, firstly, if they
have themselves mastered these books and, secondly, if the books
contain anything worth writing about.” This description most aptly
fits the representatives of present-day opportunist and Menshevistic
idealism and the petty-bourgeois radicals of the Trotskyist type who
masquerade in the garb of orthodox Marxism.
6o DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM
dialectics should be studied. In his article, “The Sig­
nificance of Militant Materialism,” Lenin states that
dialectics must be studied from the materialist point
of view, i.e., one must study the dialectics that “Marx
applied practically in his Capital” and in his historical
and political works, and, also, that dialectics must be
studied on the basis of the examples of dialectics “in
the sphere of economic and political relations which
modem history, particularly the present imperialist war
and the revolution, provide in great abundance.” The
representatives of Menshevik idealism were incapable
of making such a study. The whole line they adopted
prevented them from doing so; prevented them from
understanding Lenin as a philosopher and from ap­
preciating and fulfilling his instructions. They were
hampered by their idealistic, abstract and formal point
of view and their class position as petty-bourgeois
radicals.
In a number of writings, notes and utterances, Lenin
declared that abstractness, the severance of theory from
reality, the use of schemes and formalism, were con­
trary to materialist dialectics. For instance in the notes
he wrote on the margins of his copy of Bukharin’s
Economics of the Transition Period, opposite the pas­
sage in which Bukharin says that in the pre-war period
“the so-called ‘national state’ was already a pure
(Lenin’s italics) fiction,” Lenin wrote:

Not a pure fiction, but an impure form. The violation of

“dialectical materialism” consists in the logical (not mate­
rial) leap over several concrete stages.41

Opposite the passage in which Bukharin speaks of “dia­

lectic negation,” but fails to give a concrete explanation
of the nature of negation and to support the formula
by facts, Lenin makes the note:
FIGHT FOR DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM 61
the author abuses the phrase “dialectic negation”: it must
not be used without first demonstrating it by facts, it must
be used cautiously.42
In his notebook of excerpts, Marxism on the State,
Lenin copied out the following critical remark directed
by Engels against the opportunists. Engels stated that
the opportunists

give prominence to generalised and abstract political ques­

tions, thereby concealing th'e immediate concrete problems,
which automatically arise at the first outbreak of events, and
at the first political crisis. The only thing that can result
from this is that at the critical moment the Party will
suddenly find itself impotent and that uncertainty and lack
of unity will reign within the Party on important questions,
owing to the fact that these questions were never discussed.
Against this passage Lenin makes the marginal note:

Prominence to the abstract, the concrete obscured!! Ex­

cellent! That is the main point!43
Many similar notes could be cited.
Lenin, therefore, condemns the application of ready­
made schemes, the inability, or lack of desire, to
formulate theoretically the actual situation, with all its
contradictions and complexity, and the inability to
think concretely. Lenin untiringly exposed and con­
demned every departure from this fundamental demand
of dialectic materialism.
It is not possible here to give a complete analysis
of the whole system of false views and misguided ut­
terances of the Menshevistic idealists. Much space
would be required for a historical, not dogmatic, ap­
proach to the study of the theory of knowledge. In
studying the problems of knowledge, the whole of
human experience must be taken into account; it must
be made sure that the theory of knowledge shall be a
62 DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM
really materialistic one; that there shall be no rupture
with the cognised object and finally, that the material­
ist path shall be selected, viz., from things to concepts,
and not from concepts to things. The fact that dialec­
tics is made identical with the theory of knowledge is a
guarantee against the creation of some special sphere
isolated from concrete reality, a system of abstractions
and eternal categories a la Hegel.
As an instance of the erroneousness of such methods,
Marx, in a letter to Annenkov, cites the doctrinaires,
who on the eve of the Great French Revolution en­
deavoured to preserve the throne, the Chamber of
Deputies and the Upper Chamber as essential com­
ponents of social life and as eternal categories. Marx
says:
... In the eighteenth century, a number of mediocre
minds were busy finding the true formula which would
bring the social order, king, nobility, parliament, etc., into
equilibrium, and they woke up one morning to find that
there was in fact no longer any king, nobility or parlia­
ment. The true equilibrium in this antagonism was the
overthrow of all the social conditions which served as a
basis for these feudal existences and their antagonisms.
“Mediocre minds’’ do not link up their knowledge
with constantly changing material and objective reality,
or do so only in words.
The fact that dialectics, which demands concrete
thinking and a grasp of objective reality as one whole,
is the theory of knowledge, serves as a guarantee that
those who are guided by dialectics will not find them­
selves in the unpleasant and ludicrous position in which
the doctrinaires found themselves.
Revolutionary Marxism, i.e., dialectic materialism,
teaches us to approach questions of knowledge dialecti­
cally, to study the transition from not knowing to know­
ing. Dialectics is a property of human knowledge, since
FIGHT FOR DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM 63
our knowledge reflects the dialectic motion of the ob­
jective world (nature and society). Dialectic material­
ism does not regard the results of knowledge as final;
at the same time, however, it does not doubt the vital­
ity, fertility, integrity and objectivity of human knowl­
edge, and of its ability to overcome all obstacles in the
process of social development.
The development of human thought is based on the
development of social productive labour. Lenin de­
clared that “the continuation of the work of Hegel and
Marx must consist in the dialectic study of the history
of human thought, science, and technology.’’44
It is on this basis that we must study the unity of
opposites, viz., the theory and practice of the actual
relations existing in the surrounding world and of the
abstract conceptions that arise in the human brain as
a reflection of these actual relations.
We must be guided by Leninism in the study of
materialist dialectics and combat the mechanistic re­
pudiation of dialectics and its mutilation at the hands
of the idealistic and Menshevistic idealists. We must
expose the errors of both these schools and correct them.
Theory must be placed at the service of the proletarian
revolution and adapted to the practical class struggle.
Philosophy must be completely party philosophy.
In class society, and as long as classes exist, Marxism
and Leninism can exist and develop only by combating
all bourgeois and petty-bourgeois tendencies, influences
and ideas.
 V
THE DIALECTICS OF NATURE AND HUMAN
KNOWLEDGE

As we have said, materialist dialectics is an invaluable

instrument for the study of the surrounding world,
nature and human society. Marx and Engels were
keenly interested in every sphere of natural science.
Engels did a great deal in this sphere. He set forth
the conclusions drawn from his studies in Part I of
Anti-Diihring. In addition, he wrote a large work on
The Dialectics of Nature, which unfortunately he never
succeeded in publishing (the manuscript however was
preserved and has been published by the Marx-Engels-
Lenin Institute). The conclusion Engels arrived at,
viz., that development in nature takes place in accord­
ance with dialectical, and not metaphysical laws, is
strikingly borne out by modern science. This has been
pointed out by Lenin, who, after Engels, was the first
of the Marxian theoreticians to study one of the most
important branches of modern science, namely, physics.
Science has made considerable strides since Engels
pursued his studies in the ’seventies. Lenin examined
the new material from the standpoint of a materialist
dialectician. He explained the crisis in modern physics
from the Marxian standpoint and indicated the path
that must be pursued by scientific research.
In his criticism of modern theory he attacks the cleri­
calism (idealism) that refuses to seek a scientific explana­
tion of phenomena and which evades recognition of
what is actually proceeding in nature, thus leading to
stagnation of thought and intellectual reaction.
64 '
 DIALECTICS OF NATURE 65
As we have stated, in connection with the disputes
that arose among Marxian writers after the 1905 Revolu­
tion, Lenin carefully worked out the dialectic materialist
theory of knowledge. He showed that there were two
lines of philosophy—idealism and materialism—on every
one of the questions in dispute: matter and experience,
sensation and knowledge, space and time, cause and
effect, absolute and relative truth, etc. Idealism con­
siders that a spiritual principle (i.e., God) lies at the
basis of everything and is identical, or akin to our mind
(which latter the idealists sever from its actual contact
with matter). Lenin analyses the philosophy of the
Englishman, Bishop Berkeley, as typical of the idealist
philosophy.45 Materialism considers it wrong to place
spirit at the base of all phenomena. It regards matter
as the basis of everything and asserts that matter exists
independently, and outside of our mind. The external
material world reacts on our mind, is reflected in it and
determines it. Matter is the primary, the fundamental;
mind is secondary and derivative. Mind is inseparably
associated with matter; it is a property of matter or­
ganised in a special way, viz., our brain, and is a product
of the latter’s activity. Mind reflects the external world.
There can be no mind or thought without brain. The
idealists, on the other hand, sever thought from the
brain and consider that spirit is the beginning of all
things. The idealists turn the whole course of things
upside down. In their opinion matter is derived from
spirit. Materialism declares that there is no “spirit
world,” there is no “transcendental” world; the world
is unitary, and its unity lies, as Engels says, in its mate­
rialness.
Through our sense organs we receive impressions of
the material world existing outside of us (human society
and nature). These sense perceptions provide the mate­
rial for our knowledge. The world is reflected in our
66 DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM
mind because we ourselves are part of that world. Such
is the conception of knowledge proclaimed by dialectic
materialism. A material object and our minds comprise
the unity of opposites, with which we are familiar. We
must not, as idealists like Berkeley do, confuse the ex­
ternal world with our consciousness of the external
world and make them identical. External objects and
our consciousness of them are opposites, not identical
things. But the opposite is not absolute: the external
world and our consciousness are not isolated from each
other. The unity we have here is unity in the sense
that without a material world and without the brain of
man, consciousness of the world cannot exist. It is unity
also in the sense that our consciousness, in general, faith­
fully reflects the objective world. This is very well
explained by Lenin in the sections on “Absolute and
Relative Truth’’ and “The Criterion of Practice in the
Theory of Knowledge” in Chap. II of his philosophical
work Materialism and Empirio-Criticism.46
The essence of the explanation given by Engels and
Lenin is that, while we must realise that at any given
stage of its development our knowledge is relative, con­
ditional and approximate, nevertheless, in every scien­
tific theory, in spite of its shortcomings, we must discern
the grain of objective truth, the fragment that correctly
reflects the surrounding world. We must learn how to
assimilate and develop this truth, although our knowl­
edge is historical and transitory. In the works of Hegel
there is much that is mystical, idealistic and clericalist,
but they contain the fundamentals of the dialectical
method. We must be able to select that which is true
and the product of a brilliant mind from that which
is untrue, fantastic and antiquated. That is what the
great masters of materialist dialectics, Marx, Engels and
Lenin, did.
Our knowledge contains an absolute (unconditional
 DIALECTICS OF NATURE 67
and unquestionable) truth, viz., that it reflects the exter­
nal world. The truth of our knowledge is tested and
confirmed by practice.
Neither the old metaphysical materialists nor Hegel
were able properly to apply the dialectical method to
the process of development of our knowledge. This was
done by Marx and Engels, and subsequently by Lenin.
In one of his philosophic notebooks Lenin wrote:

The approach of the mind (of man) to a particular thing,

the taking of a cast of it (in other words, an impression)
is not a simple, direct act; a lifeless mirror reflection, but
a complex, twofold and zig-zag act, which harbours the
possibility that the phantasy may entirely fly away from
reality; what is more, it harbours the possibility that the
abstract conception, the idea, may be transformed (imper­
ceptibly and unwittingly on the part of man) into phantasy
(and in the long run, into God). For even the simplest gen­
eralisation and the most elementary general idea is a frag­
ment of phantasy.47

The creation of phantasies (e.g., regarding the power

of the dead, demons, god, disincarnate powers, etc.) is
due to various complex causes, chief of which is the de­
pendence of man on circumstances which enslave him,
such as natural and social forces, and which appear to
him to be external and alien. This also explains the
various religions and faiths.48
Properly applied to our knowledge, i.e., if it is
realised that the mind of man is determined by the
development of the material world which proceeds in­
dependently of the mind, and of which thinking man is
himself a part, materialist dialectics is the best weapon
against clericalism, against stultification of thought and
against the substitution of the living work of the mind
by lifeless abstractions that end in intellectual stagna­
tion.
The old theory of matter was that it consisted of
68 DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM
indivisible and simple particles—atoms. Recent dis­
coveries have shown that the atoms are not simple, but
extremely complex. Atoms have been divided into
still more minute particles, electrons.49 Science has
revealed that the laws of motion of these particles differ
from the laws governing the incomparably slower mo­
tion of large masses of matter. Not being acquainted
with dialectic materialism, scientists began to draw the
conclusion that with the disappearance of the atom,
matter also disappears, that our knowledge is impotent
and that we are not destined to know the real world;
in other words, they began to adopt the standpoint of
idealism and agnosticism. (“We are not fated to
know!”)50
Lenin, however, showed that the new discoveries,
while compelling us to reject the old theories of science,
deepen our knowledge of matter and confirm the cor­
rectness of dialectic materialism, which teaches us to
regard scientific truths not as unshakable dogmas, but
as approximately true reflections of objective processes;
reflections that are bound to be corrected and perfected
by every new development of science. The new dis­
coveries do not shake the basic standpoint, viz,, that
which we know as matter.
Chapter Five of Lenin’s Materialism and Empirio-
Criticism, entitled “The Latest Revolution in Natural
Science and Philosophic Idealism,” shows that the
recent discoveries of physics serve as striking corrobora­
tions of dialectic materialism.
Thanks to his genius for mastering materialist dialec­
tics, Lenin was able to contribute something also to
the study of natural phenomena. He gave precise indi­
cations of the nature of the errors of the natural scien­
tists—who are materialists rather by instinct—and showed
wherein they deviated from materialism because of their
lack of knowledge of dialectics.
 DIALECTICS OF NATURE 69
Lenin criticised their theory dialectically, separating
that which was true and correcting that which was
untrue, and showed how research should be conducted.
As an example we cite his analysis of the address of the
English physicist, A. W. Rucker,61 who represented “the
instinctive materialist point of view” and whose errors
were due to his ignorance of dialectic materialism. Or
take his criticism of the works of Duhem and Stallo 62
in which, for instance, he points out where Duhem
comes close to dialectic materialism and wherein lies his
weakness, and also shows how he descends to a reaction­
ary philosophy because of his inability to raise himself
from metaphysical materialism to dialectic materialism.
On the subject of the dialectics of nature, Engels in
1885 wrote in his Foreword to the second edition of
Anti-Duhring, as follows:

It is possible to reach this standpoint because the accumu­

lating facts of natural science compel us to do so. . . .
Natural science has now advanced so far that it can no
longer escape the dialectical synthesis. But it will make
this process easier for itself if it does not lose sight of the
fact that the results in which its experiences are summarised
are ideas; but that the art of working with ideas is not
inborn and also is not given with ordinary everyday con­
sciousness, but requires real thought, and that this thought
similarly has a long empirical history, not more and not
less than empirical natural science. Only by learning to
assimilate results of the development of philosophy during
the past two and a half thousand years will it be able to
rid itself on the one hand, of any isolated natural philos­
ophy standing apart from it, outside it and above it and,
on the other hand, also of its own limited method of
thought, which was its inheritance fronrEnglish empiricism.
We conceive nature as the sum total of all bodies
(from the stars to the atoms, electrons and the ether),
which are in a constant state of interaction and motion,
constantly changing their forms and qualities and pass-
70 DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM
ing from one into the other. It is impossible to under­
stand their movement and the transformation of one
form into another (e.g., inorganic matter into organic
matter) without using the dialectic method.
Moreover, it is necessary to grasp the difference be­
tween the philosophic and the physical conception of
matter. It is absolutely correct to recognise the exist­
ence of matter and the objective world, independently
and outside of our mind. The external world reacts
on our senses and is reflected in our mind. The recog­
nition of the objective reality of the external world is
an absolute truth, confirmed every minute by fact and
by practice. This is the foundation of the materialist
philosophy. The material world is essentially cognis­
able, since the “cognising apparatus,” if we may so
express ourselves, does not exist outside of the world,
but is a part of the world. This “cognising apparatus,”
i.e., thinking people and human society, is the fruit of a
long development. The existence and development of
humanity is the best proof of its strength and vitality,
and also of the strength and vitality of the human mind.
Theories of physics, as well as other scientific theories,
are but relative truths. They are ever approaching
closer to an understanding of the objective world, for
instance, of the physical structure of matter; their
knowledge becomes progressively deeper; but they can
never result in final and exhaustive knowledge, in ulti­
mate truth. In his Materialism and Empirio-Criticism
(p. 152) Lenin says:

The scientific doctrine of the structure of substance, the

chemical composition of food, and the electron may become
antiquated with time; but the truth that man is unable to
subsist on thoughts and beget children by platonic love
alone can never become antiquated!
 VI
THE DIALECTICS OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

The development of society also proceeds by contra­

diction. Here, too, materialist dialectics is essential
not only for the study of social phenomena, but also in
order to lead the struggle of the proletariat and to guide
historical activity. History is made by men. But hith­
erto there could be no conscious guidance of the devel­
opment of history. Mankind can become the master of
its development only after the complete triumph of
communism. Engels in Anti-Duhring says:

The seizure of the means of production by society puts

an end to commodity production, and therewith to the
domination of the product over the producer. Anarchy in
social production is replaced by conscious organisation on
a planned basis. The struggle for individual existence
comes to an end. And at this point, in a certain sense,
man finally cuts himself off from the animal world, leaves
the conditions of animal existence behind him and enters
conditions which are really human. The conditions of
existence forming man’s environment, which up to now
have dominated man, at this point pass under the dominion
and control of man, who now for the first time becomes the
real conscious master of nature, because and in so far as
he has become master of his own social organisation. The
laws of his own social activity, which have hitherto con­
fronted him as external, dominating laws of nature, will
then be consciously applied by man with complete under­
standing, and hence will be dominated by man. ... It is
only from this point that men, with full consciousness, will
fashion their own history; it is only from this point that
the social causes set in motion by men will have, predomi­
nantly, and in constantly increasing measure, the effects
ni
72 DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM
willed by men. It is humanity’s leap from the realm of
necessity into the realm of freedom.
Of course, it must not be thought that this “leap”
will take place in a single instant; for it represents a
“change which marks a turning point in world history,”
a transition to a new type of society. Such leaps, as
Marx, Engels and Lenin pointed out, may extend over
ten or more years.53 In the Soviet Union the “leap
from the realm of necessity into the realm of freedom”
is being accomplished by the dictatorship of the pro­
letariat led by the Party of Lenin and armed with
revolutionary theory. The advantages of planning in
economic life and the rapidity of development of so­
cialist economy are already apparent.
In the sphere of social development, the law of the
unity of opposites and of motion by contradiction
manifests itself in the productive activities of society and
in the class struggle. In modern society, large-scale
production predominates and the fundamental contra­
diction is between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.
As has been stated, Marx, Engels and Lenin attached
the greatest significance to the struggle of the proleta­
riat. They considered it their prime duty to lead the
class struggle of the proletariat, and to subordinate
everything to its interests.
Applying dialectic materialism to the study of society,
Marx discovered that the basis of social development is
the development of production. Material production
is the foundation of social life because on it depends
man’s very existence. In order to exist men must eat,
drink, clothe themselves, and provide themselves with
dwellings; only then can they occupy themselves with
politics, science, art and so forth (Engels). Labour is
required to create the material things necessary for
men’s existence. The productive activities of human
society consist in extracting things from nature, in
 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT 73
working them up and in adapting them to the needs of
man. Human labour, which is essential to man’s
existence, exercises decisive influence on the whole
structure of human society.
The application of dialectic materialism to the history
of human society is very clearly illustrated in Marx’s
theory of the class struggle. Marx showed that develop­
ment in class society arises out of the class struggle,
which attains maximum intensity during the period of
revolution. Revolution is the result of the contradic­
tions created between the productive forces of human
society and the productive relations within which they
operate and develop.54 Under capitalism the contradic­
tion between the old productive relations and the pro­
ductive forces that have outgrown and can no longer
develop freely within these relations, manifests itself in
the struggle of the revolutionary class, the proletariat,
against the exploiting class, the bourgeoisie. Thus, the
struggles of the revolutionary class advance the develop­
ment of society. Marx called the class struggle “the
battles of developing production.” (Letter to Weyde-
meyer, March 5, 1852.)
Marx was not the first to discover the existence of
classes and the class war, as he himself states in the letter
to his friend Weydemeyer. But Marx was the first to
give an exhaustive explanation of the basis of class divi­
sions (namely, a definite stage of development of
production). He was the first to give a complete ex­
planation of the meaning and significance of the struggle
of the modern proletariat and the part it plays. He
pointed out how and under what conditions the aboli­
tion of classes and the transition to a classless society
would be accomplished with the help of a proletarian
revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat. Marx
was the first to discover the general law of social devel-
74 DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM
opment and thereby transformed socialism from utopian
to scientific.
In an article written in 1899 Lenin stated that Marx’s
theory
transformed socialism from utopian to scientific; it laid firm
foundations for the science and indicated the path of its
further development and the elaboration of its parts. It
has exposed the essential nature of modem capitalist econ­
omy by explaining how the hiring of workers and the
purchase of labour power conceals the enslavement of mil­
lions of propertyless people by a handful of capitalists and
owners of land, factories, mines, etc. It has shown how the
whole development of modern capitalism tends to the
squeezing out of small-scale production by large-scale pro­
duction and creates conditions that render a socialist order
of society both possible and essential. Beneath the layer
of ingrained customs, political intrigues, astute laws and
subtle doctrines it has taught us to discern the class war,
the struggle between the various propertied classes and the
propertyless masses and the proletariat that leads them. It
has revealed the real task of a revolutionary socialist party,
namely, not to invent plans for the reconstruction of society,
not to plead with the capitalists and their hangers-on to
improve the condition of the workers, not to plot con­
spiracies, but to organise the class struggle of the proletariat
and to lead that struggle, the ultimate aim of which is to
win political power for the proletariat and to organise so­
cialist society.65
It would be a serious error to imagine that social
production and social development takes place, like
natural phenomena (change of seasons, the breaking of
the ice on the river, eclipse of the sun, etc.) independ­
ently of the conscious efforts of men. History is made
of men, by their productive activities, by their mass
actions and by their class struggles. Men themselves
build up their material and spiritual culture, using the
foundations inherited from preceding generations.
Historical development pursues an extremely complex
path. Conflict arises between the productive forces of
 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT 75
men and productive relations that no longer correspond
to these productive forces. Once society has broken up
into classes, development proceeds by the conflicts of
those classes expressed in various forms: ideologically
(in the sphere of philosophy), scientifically, politically,
etc., as well as in purely physical forms—wars between
classes and between nations. The inherent contradic­
tions of social development are solved “by tl^e practical
and violent action of the masses.” 60
“Order” and oppression in class society are main­
tained by violence, by the organised state power of the
exploiters. This “order” can be destroyed and replaced
by a new kind of order only with the aid of the organ­
ised violence of the revolutionary class. In our times
this must take the form of the dictatorship of the prole­
tariat, established by revolution with the aim of creating
a classless communist society.67
According to Marx and Lenin, revolutions are the
most vital and decisive factors in the history of human
society. “Revolutions are the locomotives of history,”
Marx said. This aphorism was quoted by Lenin in his
pamphlet, Two Tactics of the Social-Democrats in the
Democratic Revolution, in which he also referred to
revolution as “the festival of the oppressed and ex­
ploited.” He wrote:

At no other time are the masses of the people in a posi­

tion to come forward so actively as creators of a new social
order as during the time of revolution.58
In another article he writes:

Marxism differs from all other socialist theories by its

admirable combination of sober scientific analysis of objec­
tive conditions and the objective process of evolution with
the most emphatic recognition of the importance of the
revolutionary energy, the revolutionary creative power and
the revolutionary initiative of the masses, as well as, of
76 DIALECTICAL ^MATERIALISM
course, of individuals, groups. organisations and parties that
are able to establish contact with the masses?9
This leads 11s to an extremely important phase of
dialectic materialism, namely, its insistence on the im­
portance of active revolutionary work. History is made
by men. Historical science studies how this is done,
what class forces participate in historical actions and
how historical development is brought about. But
mere study is not enough. We must not only study
history, but make history: the “making” of history is
much more important and much more interesting than
studying it (although that, of course, is essential). Both
Marx and Lenin considered that one of the defects of
the old materialism was its inability “to understand the
conditions and appreciate the significance of practical
revolutionary activity,” without which materialism, in
their opinion, was incomplete, one-sided and inanimate.
Revolutionary Marxism does not suffer from this
defect. In all his activities Lenin (like Marx) was a
prominent exponent of revolutionary materialist dialec­
tics and a theoretician of the proletariat, who fully com­
bined “sober, scientific analysis of the objective state of
affairs” with “revolutionary initiative and energy.” He
was a leader of the proletarian revolution, a strategist
and tactician of the class struggle of the proletariat.
The reader will find a brilliant appreciation and de­
scription of the works of Marx and Engels and their
activities from this point of view in the Preface to the
Russian translation of Marx's Letters to Kngebnann,
and in the Introduction to the Russian translation of
The Letters of J. P. Becker, J. Dietzgen, F. Engels, K.
Marx and Others to F. <4. Sorge and Others. This side
of Lenin’s activities should be carefully studied. It is
precisely this factor that makes Marxism a real revolu­
tionary theory, for, as Lenin frequently emphasised, un-
 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT 77
less revolutionary theory is combined with revolutionary
practice it is not Marxism, but opportunism.
The works of Lenin were inspired by revolutionary
policy and were closely associated with the class strug­
gle of the proletariat. The most complete summary of
the basic principles of the strategy and tactics of
Leninism will be found in the pamphlet, “Left-Wing’
Communism, an Infantile Disorder, while valuable in­
dications will be found in What Is To Be Done?, Two
Tactics, State and Revolution, and The Proletarian
Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky.
To give a complete description of the great and com­
plex work Lenin performed in leading the class struggle
of the proletariat is a tremendous task that still remains
to be done. Many phases of Lenin’s work as a leader
and theoretician of the proletariat have still been barely
studied (e.g.> his part in the leadership of the Civil War
and his work in organising and directing the dictator­
ship of the proletariat; even his significance as the leader
and theoretician of the Party has not yet been fully
brought out and properly appreciated). This cannot be
done in a single article, it would require a whole vol­
ume, or several volumes. In this article we can only
deal with some of the most important postulates of the
revolutionary tactics of Leninism and show how tre­
mendously important the consistent and firm Leninist
Party leadership, based upon a strictly scientific analysis
of objective conditions, was for the success of the revolu­
tion.
It should first be noted that Leninism, while faith­
fully following the Marxian conception of the Party and
of its role as the vanguard of the working class, devel­
oped this conception still further on the basis of the
new experience gained in the revolutionary struggle.
In order to lead the class struggle of the proletariat,
an organisation of its vanguard is necessary in the shape
78 DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM
of a Communist Party, which “acts as a driving force,”
which “comprehends the conditions, course and general
results of the working-class movement,” which can
champion those general interests of the movement as a
whole at every stage of the struggle and which can esti­
mate the movement “not only from the point of view of
the past, but also from the point of view of the
future.” 60
The Party must be trained and steeled in consistency
of principles by prolonged participation in the struggle.
Apparently—Engels wrote to Bernstein in 1882—a work­
ers’ party in any large country can develop only by internal
conflict, which indeed is, in general, consistent with the
dialectic laws of development. The German party became
what it is in the struggle of the Eisenachers against the
Lassalians, a struggle in which the fight itself was the most
important factor. Infantile disorders cannot be cured by
moral precepts; under present conditions these disorders
have to be gone, through once.
This, of course, does not mean that various shades of
opinion are always to be permitted in the Party. The
strength of the Party lies in its unity, a unity based upon
consistency of programme and tactics. This unity is
achieved by fighting every deviation from revolutionary
Marxism: Right opportunism, which minimises the
significance of the class struggle and strives to bring the
proletariat under bourgeois influence and leadership
(as instanced by Menshevism), and the virtual rejection
of the class struggle which masquerades under Leftist
slogans and phrases (instances of which were the “Left”
Liquidators, the Otzovists, the Ultimatumists and the
Vperyod-ists during the years of reaction 1908-10 and
Trotskyism during the years 1924-26). Extremely impor­
tant also is the fight against the conciliators, who act
as a shield for opportunism: while verbally recognising
the correctness of revolutionary Marxism, in practice
 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT 79
the conciliators make no attempt to combat distortions
of revolutionary Marxism. Conciliationism is therefore
an extremely dangerous form of opportunism. Under
present conditions the chief danger is Right oppor­
tunism.
Lenin always insisted on the necessity of waging a
consistent and merciless fight against all forms of oppor­
tunism and he himself showed us how this fight should
be conducted. He persistently fought against Right
opportunism.81 Yet at the same time he conducted war
on the “Left” doctrinairism, which is particularly im­
portant for the purpose of winning the masses; for the
masses are inexperienced, unorganised, have not yet suf­
ficiently abandoned petty-bourgeois prejudices, and
when driven to desperation and rage by the hopelessness
of their position are, as a rule, greatly influenced by
anarchist phrases, and “Left” demagogy (which is the
reverse side of Right opportunism, “a punishment for
its sins,” as Lenin expressed it). A general review of
the Party’s fight for Bolshevism on two fronts is given
by Lenin in his pamphlet, "Left-Wing” Communism, an
Infantile Disorder, in which he writes:

While the first historical task (viz., that of winning over

the class conscious vanguard of the proletariat to the side
of the Soviet power and the dictatorship of the working
class) could not be accomplished without a complete ideo­
logical and political victory over opportunism and social­
chauvinism, the second task, which now becomes the imme­
diate task, and which is to lead the masses to the new
position that will assure the victory of the vanguard in the
revolution, this immediate task cannot be accomplished
without the liquidation of Left doctrinairism, without com­
pletely overcoming and getting rid of its mistakes.

What are the distinguishing features of the Marxist-

Leninist tactics? As we have pointed out, Marxist-
Leninist theory, policy and tactics are based on contact
8o DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM
with the masses, on the ability to guide the struggle of
the masses toward communism, and to increase the
conscious purpose and organisation of the masses. The
Communist Party lends consciousness, organisation and
invincibility to the mass movement. It draws its ideas
from the experience of the revolutionary mass struggle
in all countries.
Lenin said that the fundamental law of all great revo­
lutions was the experience gained by the masses. He
frequently referred to the great importance that Marx
attached to “the historical initiative of the masses.”
What Marx and Engels criticised most in English and
American socialism was exactly this isolation from the
working-class movement.62 The victory of the revolu­
tion can be assured only if the initiative and energy of
the masses is widely developed and if their instinctive
struggle is given conscious leadership and organisation.
Success of revolutionary tactics can be assured if the
profound sympathy of the masses is gained. This sym­
pathy must be gained by prolonged and stubborn strug­
gle, both before the proletariat gains power and after it
has set up its dictatorship.

The proletarian revolution is impossible unless the vast

majority of the toilers sympathise with and support their
vanguard—the proletariat. This sympathy, however, is not
given immediately and is not decided by vote, but must be
won in the process of long, arduous and bitter class strug­
gle. The class struggle of the proletariat to win the sym­
pathy and support of the majority of the toilers does not
end with the conquest of political power by the proletariat.
The struggle continues after the conquest of power but in
other forms. In the Russian revolution circumstances
proved to be exceptionally favourable for the proletariat
(its struggle for dictatorship), for the proletarian revolution
took place at a time when the whole people was armed
and when the whole of the peasantry was anxious for the
overthrow of the power of the landlords and was outraged
 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT 81
by the “Kautskyian” policy of the social-traitors, the Men­
sheviks and the Socialist-Revolutionaries.
But even in Russia, where at the moment of the proleta­
rian revolution circumstances proved to be exceptionally
favourable, where remarkable unity between the whole pro­
letariat, the whole army and the whole of the peasantry
was immediately established, even in Russia the struggle of
the proletariat for the sympathy and support of the majority
of the toilers took months and years after it had set up its
dictatorship.63

The long and persistent fight for the sympathy of the

masses must be carried on systematically. The sympathy
of the masses must be won by the tactical methods and
by the aims and purposes for which the Communist
Party is striving.
In its tactical leadership of the revolutionary struggle
the proletariat must be guided by two basic postulates.
First, Leninism does not prescribe any particular form
of struggle to the proletarian movement, but strives to
master all forms, for example: demonstrations, the par­
liamentary struggle, the revolutionary use of parliament
when the situation dictates it, as well as higher forms of
struggle, viz., armed insurrection, civil war and the dic­
tatorship of the proletariat. Secondly, Leninism adopts
a historical approach to the question as to what par­
ticular form of struggle is to be selected at any moment,
taking into account the concrete circumstance of the
given situation. Maximum flexibility must be displayed
in the selection of means.
In an article entitled “Guerilla Warfare/’ written in
September, 1906, Lenin wrote:

Marxism is distinguished from all primitive forms of

socialism by the fact that it does not impose on the move­
ment any one particular form of struggle. It admits the
most varied forms of struggle. Moreover, it does not “in­
vent” them, but only generalises, organises and lends con­
scious form to the methods of struggle practiced by the
82 DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM
revolutionary classes and which arise spontaneously in the
course of the movement itself. Uncompromisingly hostile
to all abstract formulas and doctrinaire recipes, Marxism
demands that the most careful attention be paid to the mass
struggle of the moment, which, as the movement develops,
as the consciousness of the masses grows and the economic
and political crisis becomes increasingly acute, creates ever
new and varied methods of defence and attack. Marxism,
therefore, absolutely does not reject any form of struggle.
Marxism cannot confine itself to the forms of struggle that
are practiced and are possible at the given moment, but
recognises the inevitable appearance of new forms of strug­
gle, that are still unknown to those who are taking part in
the struggle at the given period and which arrive with the
change in circumstances. If one may so express it, Marxism
learns from the practice of the masses and does not in the
least claim to teach the masses the “systematic” forms of
struggle, invented in the study.64
In “Left-Wing’ Communism, also, Lenin pointed
to the necessity of learning and mastering every form
of struggle and of being able to apply every one of them
with equal facility, so as to be prepared for the changes
of circumstances that occur so rapidly and unexpectedly
during a period of revolution.

History generally, and the history of revolutions in par­

ticular-writes Lenin—is always richer in content, more
varied, more many-sided, more lively and “subtle” than
some of the best parties and some of the most class con­
scious vanguards of the most advanced class imagine. This
is understandable because the best vanguards express the
class consciousness, the will, the passion, the phantasy of
tens of thousands, while the revolution is made at the
moment of its climax and the exertion of all human capa­
bilities by the class consciousness, the will, the passion, and
the phantasy of tens of millions who are urged on by
the very acutest class struggle. From this follow two very
important practical conclusions: first, that the revolution­
ary class in order to fulfil its task must be able to master all
forms or sides of social activity without exception (and
complete after the capture of political power, sometimes
 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT 83
with great risk and amidst very great dangers, what they
did not complete before the capture of power); second, that
the revolutionary class must be ready to pass from one form
to another in the quickest and most unexpected manner.68

The Communist Party must absolutely master every

form of struggle: for the struggle of the proletariat and
of the toiling masses will become a real class struggle
and will lead to the goal of creating a communist society
only when the organising and guiding influence of the
vanguard that is consciously striving toward communism
will be guaranteed.
In the article, “Guerilla Warfare,” Lenin pointed out
that all forms of struggle may become distorted if they
are not applied in a certain relationship one to another
under the leadership of the Communist Party.

It is said that guerilla warfare reduces the class conscious

proletariat to the level of degraded drunkards and tramps.
That is true. But this only proves that the Party of the
proletariat can never regard partisan warfare as the only,
or even the principal method of struggle, and that this
method must be subordinated and properly co-ordinated
with the main methods of struggle, that are ennobled by
the enlightening and organising influence of socialism.
Without this latter condition every method of struggle in
bourgeois society, without exception, will bring the prole­
tariat to the level of the various non-proletarian strata
above or below it, and being left to the mercy of the spon­
taneous course of events, will become bedraggled, corrupted
and prostituted. Strikes, when left to the mercy of the
spontaneous course of events, become transformed into “al­
liances” between the workers and employers against the
consumers. Parliament becomes a brothel in which a gang
of bourgeois politicians carry on wholesale and retail trade
in the “freedom of the people,” “liberalism,” “democracy,”
“republicanism,” “anti-clericalism,” “socialism” and in all
kinds of popular merchandise. The newspapers become
procurers, whom anybody can purchase, a means of de­
bauching the masses and of pandering to the base instincts
of the crowd, and so forth. No universal methods of
84 DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM
struggle are known to Social-Democracy that would set up
a Chinese wall between the proletariat and the social strata
that are situated either a little above or below it. In
different epochs, Social-Democracy applies different meth­
ods; but it applies them strictly in accordance with definite,
ideological and organising conditions.66

The selections of the methods of struggle must be

determined by the concrete objective conditions. This
leads us to the second basic principle we have referred
to.
In this same article Lenin wrote:

Marxism insists that the question of the methods of

struggle shall be investigated from an absolutely historical
standpoint. Those who would treat this question apart
from the concrete historical circumstances simply fail to
understand the very elements of dialectic materialism. In
the various periods of economic evolution and depending
on the varying, political, national and cultural, social and
other conditions, various methods of struggle assume promi­
nence and become the chief methods of struggle, and ac­
cordingly the secondary and supplementary methods of
struggle also change in their turn. To attempt to express
a definite opinion, yes, or no, regarding any particular meth­
od of struggle, without subjecting the concrete circumstances
of the given moment and the given stage of its development
to careful analysis, simply means abandoning the standpoint
of Marxism completely.

Marxist-Leninist revolutionary tactics are based on an

examination of the concrete circumstances of the given
situation. The purpose of this is to prevent us from
becoming separated from the masses, to enable us to
move forward together with the masses, to lead them
and help them to rise to a higher level. We must not
retreat in face of difficulties, but strive to overcome
them by drawing new forces into the fight. We must
encourage the activity of the masses, improve their or­
ganisation and stimulate their class consciousness. The
 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT 85
attack must be conducted systematically and consist­
ently, avoiding in our leadership “logical (that is, men­
tal) leaps over several concrete stages, as Lenin once ex­
pressed it, considering this to be a grievous sin against
dialectic materialism.
Given such a leadership, the masses will rise to a
higher level of political consciousness in the very course
of events, learning from their own actions, mistakes,
defeats and victories.
The essence of Marxist-Leninist tactics was brilliantly
explained by Lenin in his article “Karl Marx,” * in
which he wrote:

The fundamental task of proletarian tactics was defined

by Marx in strict conformity with all the premises of his
materialist-dialectical world outlook. Nothing but an ob­
jective calculation of the sum total of all the mutual rela­
tionships of all the classes of a given society without
exception and consequently a calculation of the objective
stage of development of this society as well as a calculation
of the mutual relationship between it and other societies,
can serve as the basis for the correct tactics of the class
that forms the vanguard.67
Valuable material on this subject will also be found
in “Left-Wing’ Communism, To be a materialist
dialectician it is not enough to reiterate the principles
of Marxism in general form. We must study the experi­
ence of the class struggle of the proletariat and learn
to give expression to the concrete circumstances of that
struggle, to emphasise the main tasks and advance
proper slogans to lead the proletarian struggle and be
able to find the main link that will enable us to hold
the whole chain.
♦ Published in pamphlet form under the title, Teachings of Karl
Marx, Little Lenin Library, No. l.—Ed,
 VII
HOW TO STUDY LENIN

A few words should be said in conclusion as to how

to study the works of Lenin. It should be borne in
mind that Lenin was a leader of the proletariat. A
study of his literary works must be closely combined
with a study of his activities and of the conditions in
which he worked. Only in this way will the works of
Lenin be properly understood and appreciated. This
study, however, must be linked up with the present-day
struggle of the proletariat.
The manner in which Lenin studied the works of
Marx and Engels is an example of how the works of
Lenin should be studied. From a number of his arti­
cles, particularly those articles dealing with Marxism
and with the works and correspondence of Marx and
Engels, we see how he was able to draw the lessons of
materialist dialectics from his study of Marx and Engels.
Lenin drew particular attention to the following
formula contained in one of the letters of Engels:
“Marxism is not a dogma, but a guide to action.” None
of the Marxists who had studied the works of Marx and
Engels had paid proper attention to this aphorism; but
Lenin quite rightly pointed out that it gives a succinct
and excellent description of the very essence of the
Marxian theory.
Lenin pointed out that an outstanding feature of the
method of Marx and Engels was the living contact they
themselves maintained with the mass movement. In
spite of their knowledge and tremendous erudition, they
were free from the slightest tinge of pedantry or bookish-
86 '
 HOW TO STUDY LENIN 87
ness. As Engels said, the moment socialism was trans­
formed from utopia to a science it became necessary to
treat it as a science, namely, to study it. The valuable
knowledge inherited from the past must be mastered.
But that is not enough. We must be able to draw
lessons from the experience of the current struggles of
the masses and at the same time take an active part
in it, lead it and lift it to higher levels. Marx and
Engels possessed this capacity in a very high degree; and
it was this that Lenin considered to be exceptionally
valuable and worthy of imitation. In his Preface to the
Russian translation of Marx’s Letters to Kugelmann,
Lenin says that:
Above everything else he [i.e., Marx— V.A.] put the fact
that the working class heroically, self-sacrificingly and tak­
ing the initiative itself makes world history.
Marx and Engels attached the greatest importance to
the “historical initiative” of the masses and were not
dismayed by the fact that the activity of the masses might
be accompanied by errors. Indeed, whenever something
new is being created and the old ruts abandoned errors
are inevitable. The most vital revolutionary cause may
be marred by mistakes, but the mass movement, the new
experience gained, the creative spirit displayed and the
new institutions initiated compensate for any mistakes
that may be committed. In fact, there is no way the
broad masses can be taught except by their own actions
and by their own experiences.
Marx and Engels never dogmatically thrust upon the
masses views which they held to be correct, but which
the masses could understand as a result of their own
experience and not merely as a result of verbal precepts
and preaching. But this cautious attitude in respect of
the education of the masses was accompanied by the
most exacting demands in matters of theory. In his
88 DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM
Introduction to the Russian translation of The Letters
of J. P. Becker, J. Dietzgen, F. Engels, K. Marx and
Others to F. A. Sorge and Others, Lenin speaks of the
merciless, even “ferocious” war that Marx waged against
opportunism.
Previously expressed postulates must not be treated
in a stereotyped way as universal precepts applicable to
all times and all conditions without taking into con­
sideration the changes that have taken place since those
postulates were enunciated, and without a careful study
of the new factors that have arisen and which the most
penetrating minds formerly could not possibly foresee.
When studying the works of Marx and Lenin we must
constantly bear in mind the circumstances in which they
lived and acted, the conditions that gave rise to a par­
ticular slogan, or the persons against whom a particular
polemic was directed: that is to say, their works must be
studied with due appreciation of the concrete time and
place in which they were written. The lessons drawn
from the study must be applied to the present-day strug­
gle of the proletariat, while the closest contact must be
maintained with the movement and tasks of the class
struggle of our time. Only in this way will the basic
demand of Marxism-Leninism be observed, namely, that
theory shall not be “a dogma, but a guide to action,”
not a mere subject for academic study, but a science and
a valuable weapon in the class struggle of the proleta­
riat.
Lenin’s attitude towards science, the working-class
movement and the mass struggle was exactly the same
as that of Marx and Engels. Like Marx, Lenin prized
in the revolutionary class its “ability to create the fu­
ture.” He knew how to lead the mass struggle and to
combat “ferociously” every distortion of revolutionary
Marxism, in whatever sphere it might manifest itself and
under whatever flag it might proclaim itself. Lenin
 HOW TO STUDY LENIN 89
was able to appreciate the peculiarities of concrete
circumstances, to study the works of the founders of
scientific communism and to apply them to the new
conditions of the tvorking class struggle.
In our own study of Lenin’s works, we must strive to
adopt the methods he used. We must acquire the abil­
ity to fight for revolutionary Marxism-Leninism. For
there have been many opportunist distortions of Lenin’s
teachings since his death, and we shall encounter such
distortions again in the future. We all know the efforts
the Trotskyist opposition made to effect a revisionist
distortion of Leninism, while similar attempts were
made by the Right opposition and the semi-Trotskyist
“Leftists” in the years, 1928-29, and 1930.
An example of the way Lenin studied the works of
Marx will be found in his article “Marx on the Ameri­
can ‘Black Redistribution.’ ” 68 In this article, after
describing the circumstances in which Marx wrote his
article in opposition to H. Kriege (whose views closely
resembled those of the Russian Socialist-Revolutionaries
at the beginning of this century) and comparing the
farmer’s movement in America in the middle of the
nineteenth century with the peasant movement in Rus­
sia at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of
the twentieth century, Lenin shows how Marx combated
the petty-bourgeois illusions of the peasantry, while
appreciating the revolutionary democratic character of
the peasant movement. Lenin used this example from
Marx in order to strengthen his own hand in the fight
against the Mensheviks, who entirely failed to under­
stand the significance of the peasant movement and to
realise that the peasantry was the principal ally of the
working class in the struggle against tsarism.
Another example is Lenin’s work on the question of
the state. Having studied everything that Marx and
Engels ever wrote on the subject, Lenin was able to
90 DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM
establish their real views, which had been completely
mutilated by the opportunists. This alone was a tre­
mendous service to the cause of revolutionary Marxism.
But he did more than that. Basing himself on the
theoretical views of Marx and Engels and applying their
methods, Lenin used the experience provided by the
revolutionary struggles of the proletariat in 1905 and
1917 to further develop the theory of Marx. He created
the theory of the Soviet state, which arises with the estab­
lishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Studying
the works of Lenin on this subject,69 we are able to
follow step by step the manner in which Lenin used the
Marxian method in order to solve one of the funda­
mental problems of the revolution—the organisation of
the state power of the revolutionary proletariat.
A perusal of the fundamental work written by Lenin
on this question, State and Revolution, reveals how care­
fully he studied the works of Marx and Engels, how
painstakingly he transcribed individual thoughts and
even fleeting remarks the theoretical value of which, in
spite of their brevity, is tremendous. In Lenin’s popu­
lar lecture on “The State,” 70 which gives a general
review of the question of the state and represents a
valuable addition to the works above enumerated and
an introduction to a more profound study of the ques­
tion, we find several practical suggestions as to how the
works of Marx and Engels should be studied.
These are only two examples of many that might be
quoted. In the works of Lenin the three component
parts of the Marxian theory: philosophy, political econ­
omy and socialism are dealt with. Lenin mastered the
material in all three spheres, developing the theory of
Marx and elaborating a number of important questions
in the light of the facts provided by the latest develop­
ment of the proletarian revolution.
In the sphere of philosophy he threw light on the
 HOW TO STUDY LENIN 9i
problem of materialist dialectics: he elaborated the
theory of knowledge of dialectic materialism,71 studied
and explained the crisis of contemporary natural sci­
ence,72 and treated the problems of historical material­
ism in a new way.
In the sphere of economics attention should be drawn
to his works on capitalism in Russia—“The Develop­
ment of Capitalism in Russia, Selected Works, Vol. I;
on imperialism—“Imperialism the Highest Stage of
Capitalism,” Selected Works, Vol. V; on the agrarian
question—“The Agrarian Programme of the Social-
Democrats in the First Russian Revolution,” Selected
Works, Vol. XII; “The Agrarian Question at the End
of the Nineteenth Century,” Selected Works, Vol. I,
and, finally, his work dealing with the economics of the
transition period—“State and Revolution,” “The Imme­
diate Tasks of the Soviet Government,” “Economics and
Politics in the Era of the Dictatorship of the Proleta­
riat,” all in Selected Works, Vol. VII; “The Tax in
Kind,” Selected Works, Vol. IX, etc.
In the Selected Works much space is devoted to
Lenin’s writings on the problems of socialism. The
policy and tactics of the class struggle of the proletariat,
the Party, its programme and organisation, the dictator­
ship of the proletariat, the Soviet state and the building
up of socialism. Here, too, Lenin bases himself on the
theories of Marx and Engels, while at the same time
making a concrete study of the complex factors of the
class struggle of his own day.
Lenin mastered the very essence of these problems,
painstakingly collecting all that could be found in Marx
and Engels on the subject he was examining. Our aim
should be to make a similar study and a similar appli­
cation of the works of Lenin. The writings of Lenin
are a storehouse of knowledge, essential to the proleta­
92 DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM
riat and invaluable in the leadership of its fight for
communism.
By studying the works of Lenin we shall learn to
realise the significance and importance of revolutionary
theory, we shall see how theory must be associated w7ith
the actual class movement and the struggle of the mil­
lions who are exploited and oppressed by capitalism.
We shall learn what is meant by the Communist Party’s
leading the proletarian revolution and under what con­
ditions the revolution can triumph. And, following the
example of Lenin, we must learn how to participate in
the struggle ourselves.
The Communist Party of the Soviet Union, which
was formed under Lenin’s guidance and trained in the
spirit of revolutionary Marxism, is carrying on and de­
veloping the socialist construction begun under Lenin’s
leadership and along the lines he indicated. Tens of
millions of proletarians and toilers are participating in
this gigantic task. Learning from the experience of the
struggles and constructive work of the masses of proleta­
rians and collective farmers, who are working for the
establishment of communism, the Leninist Central
Committee, headed by Comrade Stalin—best able to
continue the cause of Lenin—and the wThole of the Party,
is developing the policy, the tactics and the theory of
Marxism-Leninism.
For an understanding of Leninism it is important to
study the present work of the Communist Party of the
Soviet Union and the socialist construction now in
progress under its guidance, as well as the international
revolutionary movement and the fight of the Com­
munist International, which was also founded under the
direct leadership of Lenin. The full profundity of the
theoretical works of Lenin beomes revealed only when
they are associated with the struggle that is now pro­
ceeding. For they were written with the purpose of
 HOW TO STUDY LENIN 93
guiding the great struggle of the proletariat to victory.
An excellent guide for those undertaking a systematic
study of Lenin’s writings is Comrade Stalin’s book,
Leninism, and this should serve as the principal guide
to those who desire to obtain a thorough knowledge of
the problems that Lenin so brilliantly expounded and
solved.
Comrade Stalin, the leader of the Communist Party
of the Soviet Union, is ..the most outstanding Leninist
theoretician. It was under his leadership that, since the
death of Lenin, the fight against Trotskyism, the Trot­
sky-Zinoviev opposition and the Right Opportunists was
conducted. Alike in practical politics and in theory
(and the two are intimately associated), Comrade Stalin
is brilliantly carrying out the Leninist line.
The works of Lenin are of the utmost importance to
the class struggle of the proletariat. Leninism general­
ises the experiences of the world proletarian revolution
and studies all forms of the class struggle in order to
make the best use of them and in order to develop the
science that is essential to the proletariat as the vanguard
of the struggle for emancipation from all forms of op­
pression and exploitation. This science must be made
accessible to the vast proletarian army, for it will help
it to achieve increased unity of action and consciousness
of purpose. The better organised the vast numbers of
proletarians and toilers are, and the more energetically
and purposefully they wage the struggle against the
domination of capitalism, the sooner the yoke of age-
long slavery will be shattered.
 REFERENCE NOTES
1. Karl Marx, Herr Vogt, 1S60.
2. Marx, Capital, Vol. Ill, p. 304, Kerr edition, Chicago.
3. Cf. V. I. Lenin, State and Revolution (International Publishers).
4. Lenin, “Left-Wing" Communism, an Infantile Disorder (Inter­
national Publishers).
5. The Manifesto of the Communist Party (International Publish­
ers), p. 23.
6. Frederick Engels, Herr Eugene Duhring's Revolution in Science
[Anti-Diihring] (International Publishers).
7. J. Stalin, Foundations of Leninism, p. 27 (International Pub­
lishers).
8. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. II, pp. 496-497, Russian edition.
9. Ibid., p. 497.
10. Ibid., p. 497.
11. Lenin, 7'he Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky
(International Publishers).
12. “Left-Wing" Communism.
13. Collected Works, Vol. XVII, Russian edition.
14. “The Revolution of 1848 and the Proletariat,” Karl Marx, Man,
Thinker and Revolutionist (International Publishers), p. 74.
15. Collected Works, Vol. XIX (International Publishers).
16. Cf. Marx’s letters to Engels, Nov. 13, 1859; Feb. 13, 1863; Sept.
27, 1877, etc.
17. F. Engels, The Dialectics of Nature.
18. Lenin, “Karl Marx,” Collected Works, Vol. XVIII.
19. Karl Marx, 7'he Civil IPar in France (International Publishers),
p. 44.
20. Lenin, “The Political Line,” Collected Works, Vol. XVI, pp. 143-
144, Russian edition.
21. Lenin, “Once More on the Trade Unions,” Collected Works,
Vol. XXVI, pp. 109-145, Russian edition.
22. Cf. Lenin, “The Significance of Gold, Now and After the Com­
plete Victory of Socialism,” Collected Works, Vol. XXVII, pp. 79-85,
Russian edition; also various articles in the same volume.
23. Cf. Lenin’s article “Karl Marx” and his Preface to Marx’s Letters
to Kugelmann.
24. Cf. Lenin, “Once More on the Trade Unions,” Collected Works,
Vol. XXVI, pp. 109-145, Russian edition.
25. Lenin, Collected TVorAs, Vol. XXII, p. 157, Russian edition.
26. Lenin, “The Discussion on Self-Determination Summed Up,”
Collected Works, Vol. XIX.
27. Cf. Lenin, “New Times and New Errors in a New Guise,” and
“The Significance of Gold, Now and After the Complete Victory of
Socialism.” x
 REFERENCE NOTES 95
28. See Lenin, “Letters on Tactics," Collected Works, Vol. XX, pp.
118-129.
29. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. XVIII (International Publishers),
p. 283.
30. Ibid., p. 285.
31. Cf. Lenin’s note “On Dialectics,” Materialism and Empirio-
Criticism (Collected Works), Vol. XIII, p. 321.
32. Engels, Anti-Duhring, Section 1, Chap. 12, “Dialectics: Quantity,”
and Chap. 13, “Dialectics: The Negation of the Negation." A very
good explanation of the dialectical method is given by Engels in his
brochure Socialism, Utopian and Scientific, compiled from three chap­
ters of Anti-Diihring. The second chapter of this pamphlet deals
with the nature of the dialectical method.
33. Cf. Lenin, What Is To Be Done? (International Publishers).
34. Cf. Lenin, The Economic Content of Populism and the Criticism
of It in Mr. Struve's Book, Chapter 2, entitled “Criticism of the Socio­
logy of the Populists.”
35. Lenin, “The Importance of Militant Materialism,” Collected
Works, Vol. XXVII, pp. 180-190, Russian edition.
36. These notebooks have now been published in Vols. IX and Xil
of the Lenin Miscellany, Russian edition.
37. Engels, The Dialectics of Nature.
38. Cf. Lenin, Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, Introduction, in
which is outlined the views of Berkeley, who reduces the whole world
to our sensations.
39. Lenin Miscellany, Vol. XII, p. 324, Russian edition.
40. Ibid.
41. Lenin Miscellany, Vol. XI, p. 399, Russian edition.
42. Ibid., p. 378.
43. Lenin Miscellany, Vol. XIV, pp. 227-229, Russian edition.
44. Lenin Miscellany, Vol. IX, p. 139, Russian edition.
45. Cf. Lenin, Materialism ana Empirio-Criticism, and Note 23 in
Vol. XI of Selected Works.
46. Collected Works, Vol. XIII.
47. Lenin Miscellany, Vol. XII, p. 399; cf. also “On Dialectics,”
Selected Works, Vol. XI.
48. Cf. Lenin, Selected Works, Vol. XI.
49. Cf. Chapter 5, Part 1, “The Crisis in Modern Physics," Mate­
rialism and Empirio-Criticism, p. 213.
50. Ibid., pp. 259-269.
51. Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, pp. 233 et seq.
52. Ibid., pp. 265-269.
53. Cf. Lenin, “Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Power,” Collected
Works, Vol. XXII, p. 466, Russian edition.
54. Cf. Lenin, “Karl Marx," Section, “Materialist Conception of
History and the Class Struggle.”
55. Lenin, “Our Programme,” Collected Works, Vol. II, p. 481,
Russian edition.
56. Marx, “Letter to Annenkov," 1846.
57. Lenin, “The State," Collected Works, Vol. XXIV, pp. 362-377,
Russian edition; see also State and Revolution.
58. Lenin, Selected Works, Vol. VIII.
59. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. XII, p. 32, Russian edition.
60. Cf. The Communist Manifesto.
96 DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM
61. Cf. What Is To Be Done?, One Step Forward, Two Steps Back,
and “The Collapse of the Second-International.”
62. Cf. Introduction to the Russian translation of The Letters of
J. P. Becker, J. Dietzgen, F. Engels, K. Marx and Others to F. A.
Sorge and Others.
63. Lenin, “Greetings to the Italian, French and German Com­
munists,” Collected Works, Vol. XXIV, pp. 481-482, Russian edition.
64. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. X, p. 80, Russian edition.
65. Lenin, “Left-Wing* Communism.
66. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. X, pp. 85-87, Russian edition.
67. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. XVIII, Section, “Tactics of the
Class Struggle of the Proletariat.”
68. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. VII, pp. 219-221, Russian edition.
69. Lenin, State and Revolution, Will the Bolsheviks Retain State
Power?, The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky,
“Theses and Speeches on Bourgeois Democracy and the Dictatorship of
the Proletariat,” etc.
70. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. XXIV, pp. 362-377, Russian edition.
71. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. XIII, pp. 326 and 21-201.
72. Ibid., Chap. 5.