For decades or even longer periods after socialist Andustrialization and agricultural collectivization, it will be impossbile to say that any socialist coyptry Will be free from those elements which Lenin repeat- edly denounced, such as bourgeois hangers-on, para- Sites, speculators, swindlers, idlers, hooligans and em- bezzlers of state funds; or to say that a socialist coun- try will no longer need to perform or be able to relinquish the task laid down by Lenin of conquering ee “this contagion, this plague, this ulcer that socialism has inherited from capitalism.” Period gradually to settle the question of who will win — socialism or capitalism. The struggle between _ the road of socialism and the road of capitalism runs through this whole historical period. This struggle Tises and falls in a wave-like manner, at times becom- ing very fierce, and the forms of the struggle are Many and varied. The 1957 Declaration rightly states that “the conquest of power by the working class is only the beginning : pF the revolution, not its conclusion.” To deny the existence of class struggle in the period the dictatorship of the proletariat and the necessity of thoroughly completing the socialist revolution on the €conomic, political and ideological fronts is wrong, _ does Not correspond to objective reality and violates Marxism-Leninism. 18 Both Marx and Lenin maintained that the entire Period before the advent of the higher stage of com- munist society is the period of transition from capital- Ism_ to communism, the period of the dictatorship of the Proletariat. In this transition period, the dictator- Ship of tthe proletariat, that is to say, the proletarian State, goes through the dialectical process of establish- ment, Consolidation, strengthening and withering away. = a the Critique of the Gotha Program, Marx posed the question as follows: . . Ps ‘Between capitalist and communist society lies the poniod of the revolutionary transformation of the one litical transition period in which the state can be ¢} Nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the prole- j tariat.” 3 : aap frequently emphasized Marx’s great theory : the dictatorship of the proletariat and analyzed the Velopment of this theory, particularly in his out- Standing work, The State and Revolution, where he Wrote: “ bev : the transition from capitalist society—which is . Ping towards communism—to a communist so- ™ —“Y is impossible without a ‘political transition | Period,’ and the state in this period can only be the "evolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.” He further said: ae Poy. The essence of Marx’s teaching on the state has “tatorship of a single class is necessary not only ee eAsvery class society in general, not only for the iy ane which has overthrown the bourgeoisie, but . Or the entire historical period which separates “Pitalism from ‘classless society,’ from communism.” Stated above, the fundamental thesis of Marx | win; nin is that the dictatorship of the proletariat es Aevitably continue for the entire historical period ae transition from capitalism to communism, that ‘zt the entire period up to the abolition of all class hi €rences and the entry into a classless society, the Siler stage of communist society. that ‘will happen if it is announced, halfway through, Neg, dictatorship of the proletariat is no longer _Meessary? 3 Does this not fundamentally conflict with the teach- Le Tn a socialist country, it takes a very long historical : ao the other. There corresponds to this also a po- _ 4.-" Mastered only by those who understand that the ings of Marx and Lenin on the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat? Does this not license the development of “this con- tagion, this plague, this ulcer that socialism has in- herited from capitalism’’? In other words, this would lead to extremely grave consequences and make any transition to communism out of the question. Can there be a “state of the whole people”? Is it possible to replace the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat by a “state of the whole people”? This is not a question about the internal affairs of any particular country but a fundamental problem involving the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism. In the view of Marxist-Leninists, there is no such thing as a non-class or supra-class state. So long as the state remains a state, it must bear a class charac- ter; so long as the state exists, it cannot be a state of the ‘whole people.” As soon as society becomes classless, there will no longer be a state. Then what sort of thing would a “state of the whole people” be? ‘Anyone with an elementary knowledge of Marxism- Leninism can understand that the so-called state of the whole people is nothing new. Representative bour- geois figures have always called the bourgeois state a “state of all the people,” or a “state in which power belongs to all the people.” Certain persons may say that their society is already one without classes. We answer: No, there are classes and class struggles in all socialist countries without exception. Since remnants of the old exploiting classes who are trying to stage a comeback still exist there, since new capitalist elements are constantly being generated there, and since there are still parasites, speculators, idlers, hooligans, embezzlers of state funds, etc., how can it be said that classes or class struggles no longer exist? How can it be said that the dictatorship of the proletariat is no longer necessary? Marxism-Leninism tells us that in addition to the suppression of the hostile classes, the historical tasks of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the course of building socialism necessarily include the correct handling of relations between the working class and peasantry, the consolidation of their political and eco- “nomic alliance and the creation of conditions for the gradual elimination of the class difference between wo.ker and peasant. : When we look at the economic base of any socialist society, we find that the difference between ownership by the whole people and collective ownership exists in - all socialist countries without exception, and that there is individual ownership too. Ownership by the whole people and collective ownership are two kinds of owner- ship and two kinds of relations of production in socialist society. The workers in enterprises owned by the whole people and the peasants on farms owned collectively belong to two different categories of laborers in socialist society. Therefore, the class difference between worker and peasant exists in all socialist countries without exception. This difference will not disappear until the transition to the higher stage of communism is achieved. In their present level of economic devel- opment all socialist countries are still far, far removed from the higher stage of communism in which “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” is put into practice. Therefore, it will take a ‘Jong, long time to eliminate the class difference be- tween worker and peasant. And until this difference is eliminated, it is impossible to say that society is classless or that there is no longer any need for the dictatorship of the proletariat. In calling a socialist state. the “state of the whole people,” is one trying to replace the Marxist-Leninist theory of the state by the bourgeois theory of the state? Is one trying to replace the state of the dictator- ship of the proletariat by a state of a different char- acter? “i If that is the case, it is nothing but a great historical i retrogression. The degeneration of the social system in Yugoslavia is a grave lesson. ie Leninism holds that the proletarian party must exist together with the dictatorship of the proletariat in socialist countries. The party of the proletariat is indispensable for the entire historical period of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The reason is that the dictatorship of the proletariat has to struggle against the enemies of the proletariat and of the people, re- mould the peasants and other small producers, con- stantly consolidate the proletarian ranks, build social- ism and effect the transition to communism; none of — these things can be done without the leadership of — the party of the proletariat. ig Can there be a “party of the entire people”? Is it possible to replace the party which is the vanguard ‘of the proletariat by a “party of the entire people”? This, too, is not a question about the internal affairs of any particular party, but a fundamental problem involving the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism. . . In the view of Marxist-Leninists, there is no such thing as a non