ST

_By NORMAN FREED

1970 marks the centenary of
the birth of V. I. Lenin. All over
the world, on all continents,
working people associate Lenin’s
name and his immense contribu-
tion to human knowledge and
action with their struggles for
Social emancipation. In these
stormy times Marxism-Leninism
has become the most influential
ideology, the revolutionary guide
for social change.

It has been pointed out on
Previous occasions that the bour-
8e0ls, right-wing social demo-
cratic and revisionist ideologists
Of all shades will find it difficult,
if Hot impossible, to ignore the
Lenin centenary and the contri-
bution made by this great man
of our time. We also anticipated
that they would strive to belittle,
€masculate and distort the scien-
tific substance, the international
Character and significance of

€nin and Leninism.
fone articlé which appeared in
Ay Jan. 6, 1970 issue of the
“lobe and Mail, under the head-

Ing “How history’
Lenin ory has made

Imes of London, bears out our

_ Preconception.

, Viewe

CRUDE DISTORTION
ae 1s, Of course, understand-
pene the bourgeoisie finds it
Sige Cial and useful to use re-
slay nists, in this case a Yugo-
anh Fc cnist, for its attacks on
clasts Istortion of scientific so-
Milo Mm. The only references Mr.
Be van Djilas was unable to dis-
ie nse the date and place of
eat ie birth and similar histori-
Ble All other treatment
ae Rernts a complete distortion
sign, the substance and the
ti Mcance of Lenin’s contribu-
On to mankind.
€ assessment and critique of
N by this revisionist apostle
Ot very subtle, in fact. it is
TY crude. His main theme —

Leni
is n
ve

Rie history has made Lenin a
© cx Bic figure”—is so contrary to
| ¢XPerience, to the facts of his-

Ory, to the record of achieve-

Ments, to the influence of scien-

n C Socialism and to reason that
om the word go it puts him
cael in the anti-Communist
= P. All the rest of the drivel
ae hodge-podge of innuendos
He he Prove” his main theme.
ia ails, of course, because his
See assertions are false,
‘ Out any foundations in: his-
Ty or experience.

SCIENTIFIC APPROACH
ce turncoat makes the
ae that Lenin has been trans-
BS ed into an “infallible saint
ane ee and was “a fervent
Trith implacable dogmatist.”
tort of course means nothing

le jugglers of distortion.
coun as is well known, was
cewrest enemy of mysticism
i Of any belief in blind faith.
niece above everything else a
amet of science; more, he made
Bone contribution to the
WOER: €X problem of the unity of
tei and deed. In philosophic
a Aa made an immense con-
unit 1on to the concept of the

y of theory and practice. He
fe . theory as the generaliza-
the fe Practice and practice as

: €st and source for the fur-
Ae opment of theory.
soa his active life he fought

Inst dogmatism, both in

eory an : .

cont d practice, as being
seaimental to the cause
lal emancipation. 9?

a tragic figure” by Milo- .
_ Yan Djilas, reprinted from: The

Tary to science and thus’
of ~

SUUUUUCOUUAUNAUEAUOAEAUEAUEAUOUEAUAQUAUELUAUCOUEACOGEEGEOUCAUEUCOAUEAUOUUOUEGUEAUOUEOOEOUOUEOUEAEEUEELUOUELUEOEAUOUEOUEAEEGUEAEOUOOUEOUEGUEGCOGEGACROUOGUOUEAEGUEOUEOLELOOUEGUEGUEUOOUOGUEGOAUEGUEGUOGOGUEOUEUEEAEOG#AEOOCOGCOGUGUCUEONEONEONEOUEObEGbOLOOREE

Reply to a Renegade

VIEWS ON PARTY

Mr. Djilas, after grudgingly
acknowledging that Lenin had
written a revolutionary critique
of Russian society, “The Devel-
opment of Capitalism in Russia,”
and elaborated the doctrine of
the revolutionary party of a new
type, has the temerity of accus-
ing Lenin of building a “profes-
sional party of bureaucrats” and
charges “here too were planted
the seeds of dissensions in the
world as we see it today.”

He is apparently opposed to
the working class organizing its
own party, but if it must have a
party it should be of a liberal or
Labor Party type, where every-
body can do their own thing. It
could do everything except chal-
lenge the rule of monopoly and

“Jead the working class and its

allies to assume political state
power and begin the building of
a socialist society. :

A party which is dedicated to:
and is guided by the science of
Marxism-Leninism is characteriz-
ed by this revisionist apostle as
a “professional party of bureau-
crats.” All we can say 1S that
this renegade is serving his mas-
ters very well indeed. ;

ON REVOLUTION
We find it very difficult to fol-
low the charge that Lenin had
“planted the seeds of dissensions
in the world as we know it to-
day.” What does this mean? We

had thought that the dissensions |

in our time are the response of
the people to the evils of state-
monopoly capitalism, the conse-
quences of exploitation, wars,
oppression, poverty and cultural
genocide, in toto representing a
striving for fundamental change.
Perhaps this turncoat is resur-
recting the old refrain that revo-
Jution brings forth counter-revo-
lution. We must frankly admit
that Leninists will never give UP
their revolutionary perspective.
History and experience has ;
proven beyond doubt that ponies i
progress cannot be achieved .

without revolutionary change.
Whether the revolutionary
change will be peaceful or non-
peaceful depends on the relative
strength of the contending class
forces at the given time and
place.

One thing is certain, no ruling
class will ever give up its power

voluntarily. The working class”

must be prepared to defend its
political gains.

CAUSE OF DIFFERENCES

Perhaps this renegade is allud-
ing to the differences within the
world Communist movement and
is blaming Lenin for their emer-
gence. This charge is, of course,
ridiculous. The differences reflect
the various social, economic and
cultural levels of development,
the petty-bourgeois influences
emanating from the large peas-
ant populations and the perni-
cious pressures of nationalism.
~ ‘Marxism-Leninism is not the
source of the differences, as
claimed by this revisionist; it is
the only solid basis for their
solution.

ON THE STATE

Ths brings us to another wild
claim made by Mr. Dijilas. He
writes that ‘according to both
Marx and Lenin the state was
supposed to begin withering
away, overnight as it were, after
its inception.” Only a charlatan
could attribute such a concept to
Marx and Lenin. They viewed
the withering away of the state
as a process. They understored
the fact that the state came onto
the scene of history with the
emergence of classes and would
wither away when the conditions
which gave rise to the state will
have been eliminated, when a

_ society without classes and with-

out the memory of classes in the
minds of men will have been
created.

This philistine talk about the
state withering away overnight
is not only infantile, it is mali-
cious, Just imagine the working,
class taking political power, as

Lenin—the Man of the Century

HUOUUMQOUUUuuneegnaQuuueneedQOUUueeeOOUOUUUUOOOAOOUOUEOEEOQOQOUOGOEOGOQOQOUUOUUEOOOQUQUUULOOGOOOQUUUEOROUOELERGOOOOOUUALOGOOQOOOOUUCOOOOOOOGUUOOEQOOQUUOEEOOOOGOUUONOGOOGOUUEOHOEOOOOUUUUOEOOENOUOUCUORENOGOUULEOEOOOOUUULOEEOOUGUUUoENOOUOUUuoEEOOQUOOE

in Russia, and the next day do-
ing away with the state, and
then facing a civil war, foreign
intervention and the mighty his-
toric task of building the ma-
terial foundation for socialism.
Without a strong working-class
state there would be no Soviet
Union today.

That of course is not of great
moment to this apostle of ab-
stract dogma. It seems that all
the pretense and sermonizing
about science is thrown out of
the window. This is typical of all
revisionists.

ON IMPERIALISM

How crude and vindictive can
one become! There seems to be
no limit once one gets on the
revisionist path. Mr. Diilas
claims that Lenin’s theory of
capitalist imperialism was not
original, that J. A. Hobson, the
British reformer, was the first to
develop it. ;

Space does not permit a full
treatment of this most important
contribution by Lenin.

He defined imperialism as the
highest stage of the development
of capitalism. He proved with
scientific precision that imperial-
ism is the last stage, the last
rung in the development of capi-
talism from laissez-faire, free
competition to monopoly, econo-
mic intervention of the state,
state-monopoly capitalism. He
proved that imperialism is an
objective, inevitable process in
the evolution of capitalism: In
its imperialist stage capitalism
retards and obstructs social ad-
vance and has to be replaced by
the next higher stage of human
development—socialism.

This constitutes an original
development of Marxism in our
time. Are these the conclusions
that were made by J. A. Hob-
son? Of course not. This is not to
deny the contribution made by
Hobson. Developments _ since
have fully substantiated the ba-
sic contribution made by Lenin.
His foresight was remarkable be-
cause it was scientific.

ABOUT LENINISM

The final comment we wish to
make is about the claim that
during the life of Lenin nobody
talked about Leninism. What
does that prove? Nobody talked
about Marxism during the life of
Marx either. What is involved is
an assessment of the contribu-

2

tion made by Lenin to human
thought and action. If Lenin’s
contribution was “constricted
and schematic,” if “the scientific
theoretical approach has hardly
any place in Lenin’s thinking
unless action is involved,” if “his
mode of thought was not a
philosophical one, nor were his
methods scientific,” then Mr.
Djilas and his ilk are right.

History and experience has re-
futed these and other allega-
tions. Lenin was an eminent man
of creative thought and action
who developed the science of
Marx and Engels in the realm of
philosophy, natural sciences,
political economy, the strategy.
and tactics of the socialist revo-
lution, the founding of a revolu-
tionary party of a new type, and
the building of socialist and com-
munist society.

The most outstanding revolu-
tionary developments of this
century are associated with the
role and influence of Lenin: the
great October Socialist Revolu-
tion, the birth of the first social-

‘ist country in human history,

the world socialist system, the
national and social liberation
movements, the advances gained
by the working class and demo-
cratic forces in the highly de-
veloped capitalist countries, the
concept of peaceful co-existence.
These are some of the reasons
why history has made Lenin the
most outstanding man of our
century.
THE REAL PURPOSE

In typical revisionist fashion
Lenin’s contributions are reduc-
ed by Djilas to mere pragmatism.
Lenin is accused of having revis-
ed Marx. Communists are accus-
ed of having abandoned béth
Marxism and Leninism. It is
difficult to understand how one
reconciles the claim that there
is no Leninism. How anyone can
abandon something that isn’t
there is beyond reason. But rea-
son is apparently of no conse-
quence to these gentry.

We should not however mis-

. understand the real purpose for

these circus-like juggling acts.
The real purpose is to create
confusion, diversion with the aim
of weakening the influence of
scientific socialism in this epoch
of transition from capitalism to
socialism.

Gentlemen, it won’t work!

Thousands facing death
on Greek prison island

Tony Ambatielos, representa-
tive abroad of the Greek Patrio-
tic Anti-dictatorship Front has
appealed to the British govern-
ment to intercede to save the
lives of the 2,000 pdltical pris-
oners held in concentration
camps on the Greék island of
Leros.

The Greek News Agency in
Britain further reports that the
appeal followed the death last
month of one of the political
prisoners, Nicos Galatis. He had
been critically ill for ten days,
but was not given proper medi-
cal care. Meanwhile, 500 others
are seriously ill in the Lakki
concentration camp on Leros
and, Ambatielos said, there could
be more victims if emergency
measures are not taken. wae

In a similar letter to the Inter-
national Red Cross in Geneva,
Ambatielos said that when Nicos
Galatis was thrown into concen-
tration camp nearly three years
ago, he was a healthy man. He
died at the age of 47 “in the
hands of the Greek authorities,
though he had committed no of-
fense nor was he charged with
any.. It is clear he died as a
result of criminal denial of me-
dical treatment which could have
saved him... :

“The question of the remain-
ing political prisoners now takes
on even greater urgency. They
must be given proper medical
care and the seriously sick be

‘transferred to the mainland, -if

not. released, ‘as in all justice.
they ought te-be-”.. =<. C2" iy

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—JANUARY 46-1 970 Page 5» =