You are on page 1of 397

Communist Eschatology

A Christian Philosophical Analysis of the Post-Capitalistic Views of Marx, Engels and Lenin
FN Lee

PART ONE

-1-

-2-

Index Part One


ABOUT THE AUTHOR................................................................................................................................................4
FOREWORD...............................................................................................................................................................4
PREFACE...................................................................................................................................................................5
Chapter I INTRODUCTION TO COMMUNIST ESCHATOLOGY ...................................................................................8
PART ONE................................................................................................................................................................22
HISTORICAL SECTION.............................................................................................................................................22
Chapter II THE MARXIST LENINIST PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY.............................................................................23
Chapter III THE HISTORICAL ROOTS OF MARXISM ................................................................................................32
Chapter IV THE ADVENT OF MARXIST LENINIST REVOLUTIONISM .......................................................................54
Chapter V LENIN'S IMPLEMENTATION OF SOCIALISM ...........................................................................................72
Chapter VI THE POST -LENINISTIC HISTORY OF COMMUNISM ..............................................................................83

-3-

ABOUT THE AUTHOR


Francis Nigel Lee was born in England in 1934. He grew up in South Africa, where he received: the B.A., LL.B., and
M.A. (Philosophy) degrees from the University of Cape Town; the degrees of Cand. Litt. and the Diploma in Theology from
the Reformed Theological College at Stellenbosch; the L.Th., B.D., Th.M. (in Islamic Theology), and Th.D. (in Christian
Systematic Theology) degrees from the University of Stellenbosch; and the Ph.D. degree (in Christian Philosophy and
Communist Philosophy) from the Orange Free State University, a Christian (and anti-communistic) state university
dedicated to the development of a conservative Calvinistic life and world view.
The author of the books Communism Versus Creation, Calvin on the Sciences, The Covenantal Sabbath. and A
Christian Introduction to the History of Philosophy, Dr. Lee has also written many philosophical and theological booklets on
culture, nationality, education, etc. Previously departmental chairman and professor of philosophy and religion at an
American college from 1967 through 1969, and also 1972 visiting professor of apologetics at the Reformed Theological
Seminary in Jackson, Mississippi, from 1969 to 1973 he pastored the Reformed Church (D.R.C.) at Winterton Natal in South
Africa, and is also a barrister-at-law of the Supreme Court of that country. The proud father of two daughters, he is currently
professor of theology at Fairfax Christian College, in Fairfax Virginia, U.S.A., as from 1973.

FOREWORD
In a very moving passage, St. Paul declares, "For we are saved by hope" (Rom. 8:24). As John Murray has pointed out,
this can be better rendered, "For in hope were we saved." It meant, Murray makes clear, that, "In hope" refers to the fact
that the salvation bestowed in the past, the salvation now in possession, is characterized by hope. Hope is an ingredient
inseparable from the salvation possessed; in that sense it is salvation conditioned by and oriented to hope. This is simply to
say that salvation can never be divorced from the outlook and outreach which hope implies. The salvation now in
possession is incomplete, and this is reflected in the consciousness of the believer in the expectancy of hope directed to the
adoption, the redemption of the body.*
Life as an assured and certain hope gave to Christian culture a dynamic power as long as that dimension of hope
remained. As defective eschatologies removed that hope from history and restricted it to eternity, Christian culture retreated
to the cloister and to the walls of the church. Its imperial and conquering power had been undercut, and the kingship of
Christ, and of the believer in Christ, was severely limited.
The dramatic rise of Marxism coincided with the retreat of Christianity. Marxism offered a saving hope, although a false
one, and it parodied the Biblical faith in the sovereign, predestinating power of God with its ideas of materialistic
determinism. It has offered victory to a world where too often ostensible Christians have offered instead retreat.
Now, with the growing internal crisis in the world of Marxism, its inner decay and loss of hope, it is especially important
to analyze the significance of Marxist eschatology in terms of a Biblical eschatology, and to indicate that the Marxist hope
has been indeed a fantastic illusion.
In an already published Chalcedon Study, Gary North, in Marx's Religion of Revolution: The Doctrine of Creative
Destruction (Nutley, N.J.: The Craig Press, 1968), has given an unequalled analysis of the economic fallacies of Marxism
and their roots in a cosmology of chaos. Now, in this work, Francis Nigel Lee gives us the most thorough and illuminating
study yet made of the communist eschatology, its roots, implications, and consequences, as well as its far-reaching
ramifications in every area of life.
More is involved, however, than barren analysis. Dr. Lee gives us a framework for action as well as for understanding,
with a full awareness that ideas have consequences. This is a work, therefore, of major importance, and it has implications
far beyond its subject. It is a study written for those who plan to command the future under God by one who regards it as his
duty and calling under God to do so.
ROUSAS JOHN RUSHDOONY
President, Chalcedon, Inc.
*John Murray: The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959). vol. 1, p. 308 f.

-4-

PREFACE
The present author has no use for communism. To the contrary, he grew up in South Africa, a resident of Natal, a
proponent of free enterprise, and an ardent Calvinist.
Why then, it may be enquired, should he even be interested in the theories of communism? Of what existential
significance can the writings of Marx and Engels and Lenin possibly be to one with the author's background?
Perhaps it is not sufficiently realized that the influence of the writings of Marx and Engels and Lenin not only affects the
life of everyone currently alive on this planet (inasmuch as even Lenin's 1913 The Three Sources and Three Component
Paris of Marxism [p. 3-8] triumphantly claimed that Communist Parties or "independent organizations of the proletariat are
multiplying all over the world, from America to Japan and from Sweden to South Africa"), but that their writings themselves
actually refer not only to free enterprise but also to South Africa, Natal, and Calvinism by name.
Karl Marx's sister married the notarial candidate Juta and emigrated to South Africa (Blumenberg, p. 11). Engels, in his
1895 Supplement to Marx's Capital III (pp.908, 910), regarded the free enterprise "stock exchange" as "confirmation of the
Calvinist doctrine ... [of] predestination," and then went on to state that "colonization ... is purely a subsidiary of the stock
exchange," in whose interests "Africa [was] leased directly to companies ( South Africa), and Natal [was] seized by
Rhodes for the stock exchange." And Lenin, in his 1916 Imperialism-the Highest Stage of Capitalism (pp.77, 102), against
the background of the anti-colonial "protest ... movement in Natal (South Africa)," did not hesitate to point to "Cecil Rhodes,
millionaire, a king of finance, [as] the man who was mainly responsible for the Anglo-Boer War."
Calvinism, South Africa, Natal, stock exchange! Unlike Friedrich Engels, the wealthy factory owner, the present writer
has never even been near a stock exchange throughout his life. However, unlike Marx and Engels and Lenin, the present
writer has been very much inside Calvinism, South Africa, and Natal in his life, and happens to be versed with all three. And
the writer's realization of all three communist authorities' gross ignorance regarding the true states of affairs in these
matters, cannot but make him very critical about the accuracy of their views in other matters too.
Yet the writer would not pre-judge the issue. In the first and especially in the second section of this dissertation, the
communists' own argumentation will be presented almost without comment and at great length. Only in the third section of
our dissertation will the communists' views be subjected to criticism.
Accordingly, the Christian layman may find it profitable to read this dissertation in the following order: first, the epilogue
and the short summary (both at the end of this work); second, the conclusion (ch. 34); third, the introduction (ch. 1); fourth,
the critical section (ch. 20-33); fifth, the chronological table (at the end of the work); sixth, the historical section (ch. 2-6);
seventh, the doctrinal section (ch. 7-19); and lastly. the entire dissertation in the indexed order of its chapters.
Needless to say, the present dissertation does not claim to he an exhaustive treatise on all the aspects of communism,
but merely a study of communist eschatology-an introductory survey of the communist doctrine concerning expected future
events. Those interested in other aspects of communism are to be referred elsewhere-to Bochenski and Niemeyer's
excellent Handbook on Communism, for a general survey of the subject; to Burns's Handbook of Marxism, for a
compendium of the most important communist documents; to Possony's A Century of Conflict, for communist revolutionary
technique and for the military aspects of the problem; to Wetter's Dialectical Materialism, for a survey of Soviet dialectical
materialistic (diamatic) philosophy; and to the present writer's own M.A. (Philosophy) dissertation Communism Versus
Creation, for the analysis and refutation of Marxist-Leninist genesiology; etc. A reasonable grasp of communism, however,
may readily be gained by simply reading the summaries at the end of each chapter of this present work in the order given in
the index (q.v.)
On completion of this present work, my second doctoral dissertation, I would like to extend my most sincere thanks: to
the Triune God, from Whom and through Whom and to Whom are all things, and Whose victory over all anti-Christian
movements such as communism is absolutely secure; to my dear wife Nellie, for lovingly playing this lengthy and
cosmologically proportioned score on the keyboard of her typewriter; and to my doctoral promoter the Reverend Professor
Doctor P. de B. Kock and my two co-examiners Professor Doctors F. J. H. Wessels and P. J. Heiberg for their profound
patience in ploughing through the extensive manuscript; and to my esteemed typesetter, Earl L. Powell of Falls Church,
Virginia, for his great patience with me in last-minute amendments and additions in my endeavor to make this book as up-todate as possible to the glory of God-"his Lord said unto him, 'Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been
faithful over a few things, I will make the ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy Lord' " (Matt. 25:21).
While writing this work, it has become increasingly clear to me that communism has a dynamic plan for developing this
present world here and now, and that only a more dynamic plan for developing this present world here and now will

-5-

triumphantly defeat communism in THIS PRESENT WORLD HERE AND NOW (before A.D. 2000-cf. Epilogue, pp.837-850).
Communism can and must be conquered. It is already cracked, as the December 1971 Sino-Soviet tensions during the
Indo-Pakistani war have dramatically illustrated. But the communist wall will not easily fall of its own accord, and the
indecision of the West may yet allow Russia and China to paper over the crack in their one-time monolith and to conquer yet
larger areas of the free world for the cause of world communism.
Only consistent Christianity, through the power of the risen Christ and His omnipotent Spirit, can (and shall) defeat antiChristian communism and triumph on a cosmic scale. The Church of Christ must once again live according to "all the
counsel of God" (Acts 20:27). It is not sufficient for Christians, with the undoubtedly dedicated Breckinbridge, just to "preach
the gospel to every creature," vital though this undoubtedly is. In addition, we must say with the more consistent Thornwell
(Collected Writings, IV, p. 48-49), that Christians must also subdue the entire cosmos to the glory of God:
We may differ from Dr. Breckinbridge as to the competency of the Gospel dispensation, under augmented measures of
the Spirit, to subdue the world to Christ but we are heartily at one with him as to the duty of the Church to preach the Gospel
to every creature. We may differ from him as to the state of things preceding and introduced by the second advent of Christ,
but we are at one with him as to the necessity of watching and praying and struggling for His coming. It is the great hope of
the future, as universal evangelization is the great duty of the present
If the Church could be aroused to a deeper sense of the glory that awaits her, she would enter with a warmer spirit into
the struggles that are before her. Hope would inspire ardour. She would even now rise from the dust, and like the eagle
plume her pinions for loftier flights than she has yet taken. What she wants, and what every individual Christian wants, is
faith-faith in her sublime vocation, in her Divine resources, in the presence and efficacy of the Spirit that dwells in her-faith in
the truth, faith in Jesus, and faith in God. With such a faith there would be no need to speculate about the future. That would
speedily reveal itself. It is our unfaithfulness, our negligence and unbelief, our low and carnal aims, that retard the chariot of
the Redeemer. The Bridegroom cannot come until the Bride has made herself ready. Let the Church be in earnest after
greater holiness in her own members, and in faith and love undertake the conquest of the world, and she will soon settle the
question whether her resources are competent to change the face of the earth (emphasis mine-N.L.).
Indeed, as the greatest of all the Reformers himself stated: "The nature of the apostolic function is clear from the
command; 'Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature' (Mark xvi. 15). No fixed limits are given them
[apostolic Christians-N.L.], but the WHOLE WORLD is assigned TO BE REDUCED TO OBEY CHRIST, so that by
spreading the Gospel as WIDELY as they could, they might EVERY-WHERE erect His Kingdom" (John Calvin: Institutes of
the Christian Religion, Book IV, chapter 3, paragraph 4).
Moreover, one not only needs to be driven forward by a cultural motive to subdue all things and a missionary motive to
save all people, but also by an eschatological motive to sanctify the whole of life while optimistically awaiting the coming of
God's Kingdom here on earth. "Hallowed be Thy Name! Thy Kingdom come! Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth"
(Luke 11:2). Until "the kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of His Christ, and He shall reign
fore ever and ever" (Rev. 11:15).
Only when all three of these requirements are emphasized-God's command to "subdue the earth" (or the "Dominion
Charter" of Genesis 1:26-28) and God's command to "disciple all nations" (or the "Great Commission of Matthew 28:18-20)
and God's command "Thy will be done" (or the "Kingdom Vocation" of Luke 11:2)-is "all the counsel of God" (Acts 20:27)
being proclaimed. For, having been baptized in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, powerfully
driven ever onward by the trinitarian religious basic motive, Christians are to keep the Father's fundamental Dominion
Charter and the Son's central Great Commission and the Holy Spirit's terminal Kingdom Vocation to the glory of the one true
Triune God alone. And eschatologically, it is only when both the "Dominion Charter" and the "Great Commission" are
obeyed that God's children will overcome the devil by the blood of the Lamb and the Word of their testimony (Rev. 12:11) by
keeping the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus and by laboring for Him with comprehensive and abiding works
(Rev. 14:12-13) in every field of endeavor, for: "Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of
God" (ICor. 10:31).
Thus saith the LORD, the Triune God: "Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness: and let them have dominion
over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the al', and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing
that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in His Own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female
created He them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them: Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and
subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth
upon the earth" (Gen. 1:26-28).
And thus too saith the LORD, the Lord God the Father (after sin!): "When I consider Thy heavens, the works of Thy

-6-

fingers, the moon and 'he stars, which Thou hast ordained; What is man, that Thou art mindful of him? and the son of man,
that Thou visitest him? For Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels [or: than a "divine being], and hast crowned
him with glory and honour. Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of Thy hands; Thou hast put all things under
his feet" (Ps. 3:3-6).
And thus too saith the LORD, the Lord Jesus Christ: "All power is given unto Me in heaven and in earth. Go ye
therefore. and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching
them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world"
(Matt. 28:18-20).
And thus too saith the LORD, the Lord Who is the Spirit: "Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth:
'Yea,' saith the Spirit, 'that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them' (Rev. 14:13). "For the testimony
of Jesus is the Spirit of prophecy" (Rev. 19:10), and "the Spirit of Christ ... testified beforehand ... the glory that should
follow" (I Pet. 1:11).
Thus saith the Lord! And therefore, thus saith too the writer of this dissertation, who desires only to become a more
obedient Christian and to subject himself even more unreservedly to the ever-expanding reign of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Francis Nigel. Lee
The Manse, Winterton, Natal, South Africa-January 1972
Fairfax Christian College, Fairfax, Virginia, USA-January 1974
anno Domini, regente Iesu
(For a resum of communist activities since this dissertation was submitted in January 1972, through the time of its
publication in early 1974, see the Chronological Table below, at page 859 and following pages.)

-7-

Chapter I
INTRODUCTION TO COMMUNIST ESCHAT OLOGY
"As Lenin once said: 'No dark force will withstand the alliance of science, the proletariat and technology.' Those
prophetic words have become living reality. We have smashed and destroyed the evil force of the exploiters. We
have wiped out for good all forms of economic and spiritual oppression. And now we are concentrating more and
more of our effort on eliminating man's dependence on the elements, on subjugating them to man's will. Man will
thereby take the last hurdle on his road to the realm of true freedom."
-Nikita Khrushchev: The Road to Communism (1961)
A new social order is possible, in which the class differences of today will have disappeared, and in whichperhaps after a short transition period, which, though somewhat deficient in other respects, will in any case be very
useful morally-there will he the means of life, of the enjoyment of life, and of the development and activity of all
bodily and mental faculties, through the systematic use and further development of the enormous productive powers
of society, which exist with us even now, with equal obligation upon all to work.
-Friedrich Engels1
Before commencing on our dissertation itself, we deem it prudent by way of this Introduction: firstly, to define the
meaning of the expression communist eschatology" in the sense in which we shall use it; secondly, to discuss the authority
of the writings of Marx and Engels and Lenin in communist circles; thirdly, to state the problem to be solved by this
dissertation; fourthly, to delineate the material to be used in so doing; fifthly, to mention the difficulties of the subject; sixthly,
to enumerate the chief sources to be consulted; seventhly, to outline the methodology and structure of the dissertation;
eighthly, to admit frankly the presuppositions of our approach; and ninthly, to discuss the vital importance of the subject to
every person alive today-after which (tenthly) a summary of this Introduction will be given.
1.

Definition of Communist Eschalology

The title of our dissertation is "Communist Eschatology - a Christian philosophical analysis of the post-capitalistic views
of Marx, Engels, and Lenin." Accordingly, it would seem desirable that clarity should be reached right here at the very outset
as to what we mean by the two main words in our title, viz.-"Communist Eschatology." Hence the following definitions.
Firstly, then: What is "communism"?
Karl Marx, the founder of modern Marxist communism, himself supplied us with two classic definitions. In his 1844
Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, he stated: "Communism is the positive abolition of private properly, of human selfaIienation, and thus, the real appropriation of human nature, through and for man. It is therefore the return of man himself as
a social, that is, as a really human, being, a complete and conscious return which assimilates all the wealth of previous
development. Communism as a complete naturalism is humanism, and as a complete humanism is naturalism. It is the
definitive resolution of the antagonism between man and Nature, and between man and man. It is the true solution of the
conflict between existence and essence, between objectification and self-affirmation, between freedom and necessity,
between individual and species. It is the solution of the riddle of history and knows itself to be this solution." 2 And in his 1867
Capital, he described communism as the "community of free individuals, carrying on their work with the means of production
in common, in which the labor-power of all the different individuals is consciously applied as the combined labor-power of
the community."3
Friedrich Engels, the life-long friend of Marx and, together with the latter, the co-founder of modern communism,
cryptically stated in his 1847 Principles of Communism: "Communism is the doctrine of the requisites for the emancipation
of the proletariat,"4 and Lenin quoted Engels as having defined the objects of communism as "(1) to achieve the interests of
the proletariat in opposition to those of the bourgeoisie; (2) to do this through the abolition of private property and its
replacement by community of goods; (3) to recognize no means of carrying out these objects other than a democratic
revolutionary force."5
Lenin, the founder of modern Russian communism, himself followed the same line of reasoning. On the very day of
Lenin's revolutionary takeover of Russia, he proclaimed that "the cause for which the people have fought, namely the
immediate offer of a democratic peace, the abolition of landed proprietorship, workers' control over production, and the
establishment of Soviet power-this cause has been secured." 8 Later, in his post-revolutionary 1920 Tasks of the Youth
League. Lenin asked: "What is a Communist?" And thereupon he answered his own rhetorical question as follows:
"'Communist' is a Latin word. Communis is the Latin for 'common.' Communist society in which all things-the land, the
factories -are owned in common and the people work in common. That is communism."7
But perhaps the most comprehensive definition of communism-and one enjoying the full support of modern communist
philosophers 8-is that laid down in the New Party Program adopted at the Twenty-second Congress of the Communist Party
of the Soviet Union (C.P.S.U.) in 1961: "Communism is a classless social system with one form of public ownership of the
means of production and full social equality of all members of society; under it, the all-round development of people will be

-8-

accompanied by the growth of the productive forces through continuous progress in science and technology; all the springs
of co-operative wealth will flow more abundantly, and the great principle 'From each according to his ability, to each
according to his needs' will be implemented. Communism is a highly organized society of free, socially-conscious working
people in which public self-government will be established, a society in which labor for the good of society will become the
prime vital requirement of everyone, a necessity recognized by one and all, and the ability of each person will be employed
to the greatest benefit of the people."9
By "communism," then, communists mean the views propounded by Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and Vladimir Lenin
relative to their desire to abolish private ownership of all the means of production and all the implications thereof. And in this
dissertation we shall use the word in this authorative communist sense.
Secondly, it must be inquired: What is "eschatology"?
Eschatology is the study of the future, and the eschatological orientation of communism as such is already apparent
from the above definitions of "communism"; for communism, even though it also offers an explanation of the past and the
present (and indeed, of everything in the universe), Is nevertheless especially a program for the future. With restless
movement, communism - as seen by communists-stretches forward toward the attainment of the future perfection of man
and nature, toward the future realization of the eschata-the "last things."
It may be objected that "eschatology," as the doctrine of the "last things," is exclusively a theological discipline, and has
no place in a philosophical dissertation. However, as we have shown elsewhere,'0 alongside of a theological eschatology,
there is also great merit in developing a specifically philosophical eschatology too, just as there is merit in developing a
philosophical ethics (alongside a theological ethics).11 For inasmuch as theological eschatology should only attempt to
systematize exclusively the Biblical revelation regarding the future (and then again, pre-eminently in its direct relationship to
the revelation of the divine plans for the unfolding of the future), it is submitted that a philosophical eschatology is needed
too-an eschatology in which an attempt must be made to systematize the extra-Biblical material12 regarding the future as a
whole, which material is now found in the past and present development both of the universe (or nature) and of human
products (or culture), then again, to systematize this material preeminently in relation to the (present) natural universe and
human culture as such, rather than in relation to the exclusively Biblical account of the divine plans for the future.12
The Christian theologian, then, will use only the Bible in his eschatological research, and the non-Christian philosophical
eschatologist will totally disregard the Bible in his research. But the Christian philosophical eschatologist will avoid both of
these two extremes. From a careful study of the past and of the present state of the universe and of man's culture, he will
attempt to understand their future tendencies-in a Christian Biblical perspective.12
Philosophical eschatology, then, attempts to give a scientific account of the future of the universe as a whole (that is, of
nature and culture in their entirety) through a scientific examination thereof here and now.
Communists too have a philosophical eschatology. And although communist eschatology has its roots in the distant past
(in the dialectical laws which communists believe govern the coming into being and passing away of all things)13-even as
Christian eschatology too rests in the distant past14-communist eschatology as such starts to unfold in its full implications
particularly after the principial destruction of capitalism by a successful communist revolution-even as Christian eschatology
as such starts to unfold in its full implications particularly after the principial destruction of sin by the life and death and
resurrection of Jesus Christ. 15
By communist eschatology, then, we mean particularly the communist view of the process of communism's progressive
conquest of the whole world after the advent of the proletarian revolution, even as by Christian eschatology we mean
particularly the Christian view of the process of Christ's progressive conquest of the whole world after the advent of Christ's
resurrection.16
In this dissertation, however, we shall not attempt to give a detailed Christian eschatology. For our subject is an analysis
of communisi eschatology, not of Christian eschatology. And although we should attempt to give a Christian philosophical
analysis of communist eschatology (which will necessarily involve the use of some Christian eschatology), the provision of
an exhaustive Christian eschatology as such is not our present purpose.17 (Cf., however, our forthcoming book, Come, Lord
Jesus!).
Restricting our field to communist eschatology, then, we must immediately distinguish between communist tactics,
communist strategy, and communist goals.
By communist tactics, we mean those day by day activities whereby communist strategy to extend their influence (both
in non-communist and in socialist countries) by means of press campaigns, exploitation of sports, trade, strikes, etc., to gain
a small advance (or even to deliberately lose a little ground in order to confuse a noncommunist enemy). 18
By communist strategy, we mean those long-term plans to gain an important objective not easily' reachable, such as the
objective of neutralizing a hostile anti-communist government or engineering a communist takeover of a non-communist
state, by means of a whole series of tactics subordinate thereto.
Communist tactics are not to be discussed in this present dissertation,'9 and, by and large, neither is communist
strategy. For here we are largely to be engaged exclusively with communist goals-the ultimate eschatological aims of
communists, to be implemented especially after they conquer the world, should they so succeed. Here we are going to
examine the eschatological "whither" rather than the sacramental "how" or the pragmatical "whereby."
Yet we shall need to discuss how communists, presently in control of only some countries, plan to achieve world
communism everywhere. We shall need to understand how they plan to walk down what Khrushchev calls The Road to
Communism20 in a specific country, once they have succeeded in taking over that country in a socialistic revolution. Hence
we shall need to understand the general eschatological direction which socialist states believe must be taken in the entire

-9-

post-capitalistic period subsequent to their takeover of a particular country.


The scope of this dissertation, then, as suggested by its title, is an examination of "communist eschatology"-i.e., a
Christian philosophical12f "analysis of the post-capitalistic21 views of Marx and Engels and Lenin."22
2.

Authority 0' Marx and Engels and Lenin

Communist eschatology, then, is the systematicization of the views of Marx and Engels and Lenin regarding the future.
But why just Marx and Engels and Lenin? Why not too the views of earlier communists such as those of Morelly (1753f)
and Mably (1768), and of the conspiratorial Illuminati of 1776f and the French Jacobins of 1789 and of the 1796
revolutionary Illuminati communists Babeuf and Buonarroti and the latter's 1830f socialist revolution in France, and the
views of the great Moses Hess (1837f)?
Undoubtedly, all of the above (and many others) did deeply influence Marx and Engels and Lenin. Engels referred to the
"actual communistic theories [of Mably and] Morelly."23 Marx and Engels mentioned the Illuminati and their leader Von
Knigge by name. 24 Lenin greatly admired the French Revolutionary Jacobins.25 Marx and Engels highly praised Babeuf as a
genuine communist and propounded similar views in their own Communist Manifesto.20 And again, it is also clear that it was
Moses Hess who actually converted Marx and Engels to communism.2?
Moreover, Marx and Engels and Lenin even acknowledged the authority of some of their contemporary socialists. For
example, Ferdinand Lassalle (1 836f) and Joseph Dietzgen (1 869f). Lenin acknowledged Lassalle's "Philosophy of
Heraclitus the Dark" in his own Philosophical Notes
On Dialectics." 28 And as regards Dietzgen-Marx regarded him as "our philosopher," 29 Engels credited him with "a
remarkable instinct for arguing out so much correctly,"30 and Lenin described him as "nine-tenths materialist" and as "a
Marxian."31
Yet modern communists do not appeal to the above pre-Marxian communists, from whom Marx and Engels and Lenin
derived their communism. Nor do they appeal to the fellow socialist contemporaries of Marx and Engels and Lenin. Instead,
the modern appeal is to Marx and Engels and Lenin themselves.
Even Marx and Engels themselves seemed to view only their own and one another's writings in a really authoritative
light, as too did the later Lenin, whom Marx and Engels, of course, had not met or even read.
On the one hand, each of the three was painfully aware of his own shortcomings. Marx's use of an unprintable four-letter
word to refer to some of his own writings reveals exactly what he thought of their intrinsic worth.32 Engels wrote to Marx that
he was "still dissatisfied" with his own essay on the Mark (the primitive German commune) and that "I myself would like to
be quit of the stuff";33 and in his Introduclion to his Anti-Dhring, Engels declared: "It was not my fault that I had to follow
Herr Dhring into realms where at best I can only claim to be a dilettante. This applies to jurisprudence and in many
instances also to natural science. ... I am also aware of the inadequacy of my knowledge of physics and chemistry."34 And
Lenin roundly admitted in his 1899 Letter to Potressov: "I recognize my backwardness in philosophic matters."35
Furthermore, Lenin criticized Marx and Engels, and they too criticized one another. Quite a few of the works apparently
jointly written by Marx and Engels were actually first written by Engels, but had to be largely completely re-written by Marx.36
Nor did Engels himself hesitate to criticize some of the sentences in Marx's 1848 Class War in France in his own 1891
Introduction Ihereto 87 and even to correct a statement in Marx's Capital in a subsequent Engelsian edition thereof. 38 Nor did
Lenin fail to describe Marx's own view of the "Class War" of 1848 (in the latter's Address of 1850) as "a magnificent and
valuable mistake";39 and already in 1899 Lenin was stating: "We do not regard Marxist theory as something completed and
inviolable; on the contrary, we are convinced that it has only laid the corner-stone of the science which socialists musi
further advance in all directions if they wish to keep pace with life."40
On the other hand, however, each of the three thinkers implicitly believed in the general authority of his own views. Marx
quarrelled with just about every one of his contemporary socialistic thinkers except with Engels-for Engels was the only
great socialistic thinker contemporary with Marx who at that time (except for peripheral matters) endorsed everything Marx
had written, in which writings Marx himself so passionately believed. 41 Engels himself described his own Ludwig Feuerbach
and the End of Cixtsical German Philosophy as "the most detailed account of historical materialism which, as far as I know,
exists."42 And Lenin's extreme intolerance even toward his fellow Marxist Mensheviks just because they criticized his own
Leninistic interpretation of Marxism, indicates that he too thoroughly endorsed his own position.43
Furthermore, Marx and Engels each endorsed the other's position (and sometimes even elevated it above his own), as
too did Lenin.
Wrote Marx to Engels: "Your satisfaction [with Marx's written work] up to now is more important to me than anything the
rest of the world may say of it."44 And elsewhere Marx confessed: "Engels is always one step ahead of me." 45
Engels returned the compliment at Marx's graveside: "Mankind is shorter by a head, and the greatest of our time at that.
... On the 14th of March, at a quarter to three in the afternoon, the greatest living thinker ceased to think. He had been left
alone for scarcely two minutes, and when we came back we found him in his armchair, peacefully gone to sleep but forever.
An immeasurable loss has been sustained both by the militant proletariat of Europe and America, and by historical science,
in the death of this man. The gap that has been left by the departure of this mighty spirit will soon enough make itself felt."46
Immediately after Marx's death, Engels wrote to Liebknecht: "Although I have seen him this evening laid out on his bed,
the rigidity of death in his face, I cannot fully realize that this brilliant mind has ceased to impregnate the proletarian

-10-

movement of both worlds with its mighty thoughts. We owe all that we are to him; and the movement as it is today is the
creation of his theoretical and practical thought..47 Looking hack on Marx's death at a later stage, Engels subsequently
wrote to Becker: "The greatest mind in our Party had ceased to think, the strongest heart that I have ever known had
ceased to beat."48 And yet ten years later, Engels wrote to Mehring: "If the greater man [Marx] dies, the lesser [Engels]
easily gets overrated, and this seems to be just my case at present; history will set all this right in the end."49
Indeed, Marx and Engels corroborate one another on almost every point. With enthusiasm did Engels later relate "how
the two of us in Brussels in the year 1845 set about jointly to expound the opposition between our view ... and the
ideological view of German philosophy... To Feuerbach, who after all in many respects forms an intermediate link between
Hegelian philosophy and our conception, we never returned." 50
This complementariness of Marx and Engels was also recognized by Lenin in his own The Marx-Engels
Correspondetwe.51 "In general," wrote Lenin, "the philosophy of history yields very, very little; this is comprehensible, for it is
precisely here, in this field, in this science, that Marx and Engels made the greatest step forward."52 Lenin's book Karl Marx
is full of praise for the latter;53 in Lenin's book The State, he says of Engels' The Origin of the Family, Private Property and
the State that: "You may rely upon every phrase in it...";54 and in Lenin's Materialism and Empirio-Cn)icism, he warmly
endorsed "Friedrich Engels-the well-known collaborator of Marx and co-founder of Marxistn."55
If the synthesis of the views of Marx and Engels as "Marxism" (though '6Marxism-Engelsism" would be a much fairer
description)55 had already been brought about by post-Engelsian and pre-Bolshevik socialists ,56 it was Lenin himself that
brought about the establishment of the (Third) Communist International in 1919, which established the further synthesis
between Marxism-Engelsism and Lenin's views into the tight system still I known as 'Marxism-Leninism."57
Stalin, by endorsing Marxism-but particularly by endorsing Leninism-helped to canonize this synthesis. "Leninism,"
wrote Stalin, "is Marxism in the epoch of imperialism and of the proletarian revolution. ... Marx and Engels lived and worked
in the pre-revolutionary epoch .. .when developed imperialism did not yet exist. ... Leninism is the further development of
Marxism. .. Leninism includes all that Marx taught, plus Lenin's new contribution to the treasury of Marxism, which
necessarily follows from all that Marx taught ... (... being fundamentally one and the same)58
So then, we may perhaps say that if the works of Marx are the "Law" and those of Engels are the "Prophetic Books" and
both of them together the "Old Testament" of communism, Lenin is the "New Testament" (cf. his 1922 -Testament!), and all
three together constitute the communist "Scriptures."
For since Lenin, all communist leaders have, like Stalin,58 enthusiastically re-endorsed the writings of Marx and Engels
and Lenin as the basic and absolutely authoritative documents of the communist life and world view. "The changes in the
world," wrote Khrushchev in 1957, "will proceed in the direction well described by Marx, Engels and Lenin in their theoretical
works. We communists have deep faith in the triumph of Marxist-Leninist teachings."59 And in 1958 he added: "The
communists have always been and always will be faithful to Marxist-Leninist teaching,"60 and "there are no different points of
view and never have been between the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Communist Party of China on
questions of principle [italics mine-N.L.], because they proceed from the single teaching of Marxism-Leninism, which they
follow faithfully."61 And even in 1959, he declared: "We are in full and complete agreement with the fraternal Communist
Party of China, though its methods [italics mine-N.L.) of building socialism are in many ways dissimilar to ours. We know
that China has its peculiarities in historical development, in the size of its population, the level of production, and national
culture. Therefore, it would be a mistake to ignore these peculiarities and to imitate what is good for one country but does
not suit another. Why are there no differences [in principle-N.L.] between us and the Communist Party of China? Because
the class approach and class understanding of both parties is the same. The Chinese Communist Party stands firmly on
Marxist-Leninist class positions."62
And since then, even though Red China and Russia have-to some extent-gone their separate ways (as, for that matter
Catholicism and Protestantism have also gone their separate ways since the Reformation), as is now well known-yet the
important point is that notwithstanding this, both these communist powers have continued to appeal to Marx and Engels and
Lenin as their basic authority (just as Catholics and Protestants appeal to the Bible as theirs). The 1966 second edition of
The Thoughts of Mao Tse-tung, for instance, declares that "the theory of Marx, Engels, Lenin is universally applicable,"63
and the 1970 edition too refers to "the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism."64
And even in Russia, Khrushchevian philosophers recorded in 1963 that "true democracy can be won only by following
the road which the scientific socialism of Marx, Engels and Lenin has pointed out."85 Post-Khrushchevian Brezhnevian
Soviet experts exclaimed in 1968 that "Marx and Engels laid the foundation of communism as a science [and] Lenin
developed the theory of scientific communism ... [so] that the theory of scientific communism is now called MarxismLeninism."66 And for the occasion of the centenary of Lenin's birth, in 1970, the C.P.S.U. declared that: "The whole of
modern history is inseparably connected with the name of Lenin. Lenin is the great successor to the revolutionary teaching
of Marx and Engels. He is the founder of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the leader of the greatest social
revolution and the builder of the world's first socialist state. Lenin's ideas had and continue to have the most profound
influence on the entire course of world development."67
The most apparent proof of the utter authority of the writings of Marx and Engels and Lenin in communist circles even
today, however, is the facility and authority with which they are quoted even against fellow communists regarded as
deviating from the true road. For quite apart from recent disturbances within the Communist Parties of Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Roumania, it is now well known that even since 1960 there have been three main groups within international
communism relatively hostile even to one another, viz., the right-wing communists (Yugoslavia and Communist Party of

-11-

Italy), the leftist communists (China and Albania), and the Soviet-group communists (Russia and her satellites). These
tensions have disturbed and split Communist Parties in the West too,68 but all these factions always quote Marx and Engels
and Lenin as their authority, even in their internecine feuds.
The Red Chinese, for example, in attacking the Russians, have prided themselves on their own orthodoxy while accusing
the Russians of revisionism. For according to the Peking Review of March 25, 1966: "After Stalin's death, the leaders of the
C.P.S.U. headed by Khrushchev, gradually revealed their true features as betrayers of Lenin and Leninism, and embarked
on the old path of the German Social Democrats Bernstein and Kautsky, who betrayed Marx and Engels and Marxism."69
And more recenily, the Red Chinese have described the Polish riots of December 1970 as proof that "the colonial rule of
Soviet revisionist social imperialism in Eastern Europe has fallen into a crisis, and that modern revisionism has gone further
bankrupt," Poland having become a "dependency of Soviet revisionism." 70 To the Chinese, the Yugoslavs, however, are still
worse than the Russians, and are, in fact crypto-capitalists,71 whereas the highly doctrinaire and Peking-oriented Communist
Party of Australia recently branded the Russian leaders as "the new Czars," and accused them of having "restored
capitalism in Russia."68 On the other hand, maintain the Chinese, "the friendship between the Chinese and Albanian
peoples, based on the principles of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism, is unbreakable,"72 and "the Albanian
Party of Labor, headed by Comrade Enver Hoxha, the long-tested leader of the Albanian people, is a party taking MarxismLeninism as its guide to action, a party long steeled in the flames of revolutionary struggle and a party which maintains close
contacts with the masses. It has always been loyal to Marxism-Leninism and the principles of proletarian internationalism."73
The Russians, however, do not see themselves as revisionists, but as "creative Marxists,"74 and equally oppose
Yugoslav "revisionism"71 and Red Chinese and Albanian "reactionary dogmatism"71 or "uncreative Marxism."75 Right after the
start of the Sino-Soviet disagreement, the Russians at first merely referred to the Chinese indirectly, deploring the "reaction
of conservative [= dogmatistic!-N.L.] forces in the communist movement to the creative [- Soviet!-N.L.] Marxism-Leninism of
the modern epoch."16 By April 1970, on the centenary of Lenin's birth, however, Brezhnev and Kosygin were appealing to
Lenin to endorse their internal line against Red China.77 And by January 11, 1971, Moscow Radio was describing Mao's
thoughts as "an unprincipled mixture of utopian and equalitarian ideas of the peasants' uprisings, Confucianism, anarchism,
Trotskyism, chauvinism, Chinese feudalism, national bourgeois ideas and other ideas contrary to Marxist principles."70 Nor
are the Russians much kinder to the Albanians. "The actions of the Albanian leaders indicate that they are departing from
internationalist positions and backsliding onto the path of nationalism," 78 and "narrow nationalism is indeed the common
characteristic of the Chinese-Albanian left and the Yugoslav right deviations."71
Perhaps most interesting of all - certainly from the doctrinal angle-is the Albanian position. To the Albanians, "the
friendship between the Albanian and Chinese peoples is great and unbreakable. It is a close, fraternal friendship based on
the immortal principles of Marxism-Leninism. It is a friendship steeled in our joint struggle for national liberation and for the
sacred cause of building socialism and Communism in our two countries, in our joint struggle against U.S.-led imperialism
and its lackey-the Belgrade Tito clique which represents modern revisionism-and in our unswerving struggle for the defense
of the purity of Marxism-Leninism."80 While Khrushchev, according to the Albanians, was a "base, unfounded, anti-Marxist, a
plotter and common putschist, a real Judas," and guilty of "demagoguery and hypocrisy ... similar to the slanders of the
imperialists and Tito."81
However, the point of importance here is that, in spite of all internal differences, communists and Communist Parties
everywhere always appeal to Marx and Engels and Lenin as their final authority. Even the 1959 Program of the League of
Communists of Yugoslavia claims that Yugoslavian communists are fighting "on two fronts-against both [the Soviet and the
Chinese!] forms of revision of the basic scientific principles of socialism as laid down by Marx, Engels and Lenin."11
But again it must be asked: Why just "as laid down by Marx, Engels and Lenin"? Why not as also laid down by later
Marxist-Leninists, such as Trotsky, Stalin, Khrushchev, Mao Tse-tung and Ch Guevara?
Undoubtedly, all these later communists considered themselves to be good Marxist-Leninists, no matter how much they
differed from one another in their emphases. However, by no means all who claim to be Marxists or Marxist-Leninists appeal
to all (or even to any) of these thinkers; and some of these thinkers also frequently attacked one another (e.g., TrotskyStalin; Khrushchev-Mao), but all of them always themselves appealed to the final authority of Marx and Engels and Lenin.
For example, internationalistic-communistic Trotskyites everywhere are anti-Stalinist82 precisely because they claim to
be (Marxist-)Leninists.83 Similarly, post-Trotskyite nationalistic-communistic Stalinists everywhere (including the Albanians
and the Red Chinese), even when fulminating against non-Leninistic Marxist revisionists" (such as the German Social
Democratic Party or the British Labor Party), again appeal to Marx and Engels and Lenin (and never to Trotsky!) as their
authority.84 Again, Khrushchev, in spite of his differences with Yugoslav communists on the one hand and Albanian and Red
Chinese communists on the other, and in Spite of his repudiation of Stalin's personality defects (but hardly of Stalin's
Marxist-Leninist doctrine!),85 always claimed to be following Marx and Engels and Lenin.86 And Mao Tse-tung (in spite of
allowing his own 87 "thought" to be raised to the level of that of Marx and Engels and Lenin, and in spite of allowing [the
Marxist-Leninist!] Stalin87 to remain alongside the triumvirate Marx and Engels and Lenin [and alongside of Mao himself!] as
a full authority in Red Chinese circles)88 has always claimed that he (Mao) and Stalin89 are both faithful followers of Marx and
Engels and Lenin and are therefore to be considered as authoritative.90
The position is, then, that Trotsky is only authoritative in the circles emanating from the anti-Russian-communist
(Trotskyite) Fourth International, and is even anathema to the anti-Russian (because pro-Stalinist and therefore anti-Trotskyi
therefore Stalin hated Trotsky!) Red Chinese and Albanians;91 Stalin is today only fully authoritative in Red China 92 and
Albania, 93 partially authoritative in Russia94 and her satellites, and anathema to Yugoslavia95 and most Western communists;

-12-

Khrushchev is today of only very minor authority (in contrast, however, to the still "canonical" [Khrushchevian] New Party
Program of the C.P.S.U. of 1961), and even then, only in the Soviet bloc-but a hated man in the Chinese bloc;98 Mao is of
complete authority in the Chinese bloc88 and Chinese-oriented Western parties,97 but anathema to the Soviet bloc;10 and Ch
Guevara, the Cuban communist guerilla, is at most a useful mentor on terrorist warfare, but is hardly regarded as an
authoritative communist theoretician even by those young Western Hemisphere communists who idolize him as a hero.
Only Marx and Engels and Lenin, then, are universally authoritative for all communists everywhere. As the Communist
Party of the U.S.A. remarked in 1957: "The Communist Party [of the U.S.A.] bases its theory particularly on the principles of
scientific socialism as developed by Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, and V.I. Lenin."98 In the following year, Moscow Radio
broadcast: "There is only one Marxist-Leninist teaching. There was only one Marx and only one Lenin. All Communist and
Workers' Parties are guided by their teachings."99 And this is why Selsam and Martel confine their Reader in Marxist
Philosophy (published by the communistic International Publishers) to "the writings of Marx, Engels and Lenin."100
The nature of the authority of Marx and Engels and Lenin, however, is not mechanical. Apart from the fact that Marx
was primarily the economist, Engels the naturalist, and Lenin the revolutionist of the triumvirate,101 and apart from their
minor differences of opinion102 and of emphasis (such as Lenin's great stress on tactics),103 it must be remarked that
communists do not believe and never have believed in the "plenary verbal jot-and-tittle inspiration" of the Marxist writings-to
put it in theological terminology. Or-if we may be pardoned the brief use of another dogmatological distinction: communists
believe that their Marxist writings are not mechanically, nor organically, but rather dynamically "inspired"-that is, they are
generally authoritative because they describe states of affairs as they really are, and not absolutely authoritative irrespective
of the empirically assembled and empirically verifiable truth of their contents. They are authoritative as a guide to action,
rather than as "eternal truths" required to be intellectually assented to as articles of faith.
This was clearly the view of Marx and Engels and Lenin themselves. Wrote Engels in his 1890 Letter to Bloch: "Marx
and I are ourselves partly to blame for the fact that younger writers sometimes lay more stress on the economic side than is
due to it[For regarding] the more recent 'Marxists' , the most wonderful rubbish has been produced from this quarter
too."104 And in his 1890 Letter to Schmidt he exclaimed: "As Marx used to say about the [views of the] French 'Marxists' of
the late seventies: 'All I know is that I [Marx] am not a Marxist!' "105
As Lenin wrote in his 1917 The Task 0/the Proletariat in Our Revolution: "'Our doctrine is not a dogma, but a guide to
activity,' said Marx and Engels, who always scorned the mere acquisition and repetition of 'formulae,' capable at best only of
outlining general tasks, which are necessarily changed by the concrete economic and political circumstances of each
particular period in the historical process . In analyzing a given situation, a Marxist must proceed not from the possible,
but from the real."106 And yet again: "We do not regard Marxist theory as something completed and inviolable; on the
contrary, we are convinced that it has only laid the cornerstone of the science which socialists must further advance in all
directions if they wish to keep pace with life 107. Consequently, this is also the view particularly of modern Russian
Brezhnevian "creative Marxists" too,108
But even though Marxism-Leninism is merely a "guide to activity," it is nevertheless an authoritative "guide to activity."
As Lenin wrote in his The Three Sources and the Three Component Parts of Marxism: "The chaos and arbitrariness that
had previously reigned in the views on history and politics gave way [at the advent of Marxism] to a strikingly integral and
harmonious scientific theory, which shows how, in consequence of the growth of productive forces, out of one system of
social life another and higher system develops100. And elsewhere: "Marxism differs from all other socialist theories in the
remarkable way it combines complete scientific sobriety in the analysis of the objective state of affairs and the objective
course of evolution with the most definite recognition of the importance of the revolutionary energy, the revolutionary
creative genius and the revolutionary initiative of the masses-and also, of course, of individuals, groups, organizations and
parties that are able to discover and exercise contact with various classes110.
Perhaps Marxism-Leninism does indeed require the selective interpretation of an active Communist Party to apply it in
practice;111 but according to authorities such as MeFadden,112 Acton, 113 and Hampsch,114 there is nevertheless a basic unity
in the writings of Marx and Engels and Lenin, and the latter are certainly authoritative to communist parties everywhere.
And on the basis of the above discussion, we ourselves cannot but agree with this conclusion.
3.

Statement of the Problem

Herewith we have automatically arrived at the problem-that is, at the evident state of affairs with which we have now
been confronted.115
Desiring to ascertain how communists expect the future to unfold, we have seen that only the writings of Marx and
Engels and Lenin are regarded as universally authoritative to all communists everywhere. The problem, then, is to discover,
understand, expound, systematize, evaluate, and correct everything that can be found in the writings of Marx and Engels
and Lenin, which and which alone throw light on the subject of communist eschatology.

4.

Delineation of the Material

Having stated the problem, it will be necessary to delineate the material to be used before proceeding further.
Firstly, it will be necessary to give the historical background against which the significance of the writings of Marx and

-13-

Engels and Lenin can be understood in their historical setting.116 However, this historical background will be limited to an
examination only of those predecessors of Marx and Engels and Lenin to whom the latter appeal for authority,111 and of the
most important communistic successors of Marx and Engels and Lenin especially in Russia and, to a lesser extent, in Red
China, in so far as they have been able to work out the eschatological implications of the views of Marx and Engels and
Lenin in practice.117 For as Khrushchev remarked: The changes in the world will proceed in the direction well described by
Marx, Engels, and Lenin in their theoretical works. We communists have deep faith in the triumph of Marxist-Leninist
teachings."118 "If anyone thinks we shall forget about Marx, Engels, and Lenin, he is mistaken. This will happen when
shrimps learn to whistle"119 -that is, neverl
Secondly, we shall limit our doctrinal discussion chiefly to the views of Marx and Engels and Lenin alone, largely
excluding the views of Stalin and Khrushchev and Mao (except in so far as they illustrate the unfolding of the eschatological
views of Marx and Engels and Lenin), and almost totally excluding the (universally speaking) relatively unimportant views of
other communists such as Guevara, Tito, Trotsky, etc. However, inasmuch as Russia and Red China are undoubtedly the
most important countries in the communist world, and inasmuch as Soviet Russia has now had fifty-four years to develop
socialism since its revolution (as compared to China's twenty-three years), and inasmuch as, up to the last decade, China
still looked to the Soviet example, we shall also say something about the modern Russian views, and, to a lesser extent, a
word or two about the modern Red Chinese views.
Thirdly, we shall further restrict our discussion even of the views of Marx and Engels and Lenin largely to an
examination of their histomatic (i.e., historical materialistic or cultural-scientific)'20 rather than of their diamatic (i.e., dialectical
materialistic or natural-scientific)121 views. This restriction will be applied, because 'diamat' deals largely with communist
protology122 which has been adequately treated by the present writer in another work on communist genesiology (or
protology) ,123 and because communist eschatology is the subject of this present work. However, in passing, even in this
present work we will briefly ground 'histomat' in (pre-histomatic) diamat and also briefly mention the ultimate eschatological
implications of (post-histomatic) diamat. 124
Fourthly, we shall further limit ourselves largely to a discussion of the eschatological histomat of Marx and Engels and
Lenin, as opposed to their protological histomat. This is in keeping with the eschatological nature of this dissertation.
However, it will also be necessary to give a considerable description of the initially protological histomatic condition of man
under "primitive communism" as well-in so far as the future communism of communist eschatology is believed to be a return
to this condition of "primitive communism," albeit at a higher level.'25
And lastly, we shall largely limit our critique of communist eschatology to a critical examination of the implications of
what the communists them-selves believe, rather than posit a sophisticated Christian eschatology in its place.126 We shall,
however, briefly state the Christian eschatological position at the close of each critical chapter, to enable the reader to
understand the critical perspective of the present writer more clearly.
5.

Difficulties of the Subject

In spite of the above delineation of the material, however, our subject is full of difficulties.
The first difficulty is that Marx and Engels and Lenin nowhere gave us a systematic philosophy, but only "philosophical
nuggets" here and there in scores and scores of books and articles and pamphlets largely written polemically to deal with a
particular historical problem which is frequently obscure to the modern uninitiated reader. 127 For this reason, we deem it
necessary to give a historical analysis of the background of these writings (in section one) before proceeding to interpret
them (in section two) and criticize them (in section three) of our dissertation.
The second difficulty is the fact that not eschatology but revolution is the major theme of communist theory, as Tucker128
and North 129 and Ramm130 and indeed even the Marxists themselves131 all have pointed out. In fact, in spite of the
importance of our subject (even to the communist),132 the purely eschatological writings of Marx and Engels and Lenin are
few and far between.133
Thirdly, a far greater difficulty still, is that what little Marx and Engels and Lenin did write about the post-capitalist
condition of the world as they expected it to be, is sprinkled fragmentarily and most unsystematically as a sentence here and
a phrase there (as Kraan points out),134 throughout many of their writings which themselves have little or nothing to do with
eschatology. The very nature of the material to be studied makes some overlap in the various chapters of this dissertation
unavoidable. As Gary K. North, professor of history at the University of California, Riverside, remarked in a December 28,
1970, letter to the writer: "Your dissertation will be a tough one, since Marx said so little with regard to the post-Capitalist
universe."135 One year later, after completion of the dissertation, I can reply to North: "Correct!"
Fourthly, an even greater difficulty, perhaps, is that up to now there has never been any real attempt by post-Leninistsbe they communist, non-communist, or anti-communist, to collate the eschatological material in Marx and Engels and Lenin
in a systematic matter. In Kraan's famous Christian Confrontation of Marx, Lenin and Stalin, for example, he devotes but 3
of his 419 pages to communist eschatology.138 As Ramm points out, 137 there is a crying need for an authoritative textbook
on communist eschatology. Humbly,.this work of the present writer would seek to fill this need. However, the pioneering
nature of the present work is obvious, and suffice it to say that locating, systematizing, and evaluating the material offered
herein has been far from easy.
Fifthly, the dialectical style of the Marxist-Leninist writings makes their interpretation particularly difficult, as Possony138

-14-

and Bochenski and Niemeycr 189 have indicated. It is necessary to read the Marxist-Leninist writings in depth in order to be
able to distinguish their tactics from their strategy in a given case, as indeed suggested by the title of one of Lenin's booksOne Step Forward, Two Steps Back! As De KIerk 189 states, communist doctrine is involved and complex.
Sixthly, there is the problem of logomachy, or the communist device of deceiving their opponents through the subtle use
of words which deliberately lead the noncommunist to understand the words used by communists in a different way to that
in which communists themselves understand them. Classic examples of this are the much used words peace" and
"democracy." For by "peace," the communists mean "world conquest by communism, preferable without (communists')
bloodshed," and by "democracy" they mean "the dictatorship of the Communist Party" (which they again misleadingly call
"the dictatorship of the Proletariat") 140
Seventhly, there is often difficulty in distinguishing the successive post-capitalistic periods of the "dictatorship of the
proletariat," "socialism," and "communism" in the communist writings-and these are the key words in communist
eschatology!
The "dictatorship of the proletariat" is clearly the period immediately following capitalism, but there is some difficulty in
establishing precisely when it terminates, namely, at the commencement of socialism or at the commencement of the
subsequent period of communism. This is because Stalin'41 claimed in 1938 that "socialism" had then arrived, whereas
Khrushchev142 made the same claim in 1958-1959. Consequently, we do not know exactly when the dictatorship is
supposed to have ended and socialism to have begun.
Again, the word "socialism" sometimes is used in such a way as to suggest that it commences right after the destruction
of capitalism,148 whence the "dictatorship of the proletariat" would then be the first stage of "socialism." Yet again,
"socialism" sometimes clearly means "future communism." 144
So too, even the word "communism" is variously used as well-sometimes it means "primitive communism";145 sometimes
it means the entire post-capitalistic period (including the "socialistic" commencement thereof) ;148 and sometimes it means
post-socialistic "future communism."147 In addition, the Marxists sometimes called the pre-Marxist utopias as well as the antiLeninistic Marxists of the Second International "socialists" or "communists," and Marx even called some non-Marxian
utopian futurologists "communists."148 On the whole, however, the Marxists successively distinguish148 between "proletarian
dictatorship," "socialism," and "communism," or at any rate between post-capitalistic "socialism" and post-socialistic
"communism," and it is this latter terminology and meaning which we shall follow here throughout.
Eighthly, writing this thesis in an anti-communist country where the writings of Marx and Engels and Lenin are banned
by law has made the task very difficult. Much research was done overseas, and the obtaining of access to scarce prohibited
material in the original German has proved difficult, as there is only one known complete (and restricted) set thereof in any
South African public library.
Ninthly, the difficult job of logically systematizing the non-logical (historical, economic, sociological, etc.) Marxist-Leninist
material presented in this book, which does in any case always "offer resistance" to all logical attempts to bring scientific
order into the non-logical "chaos," was rendered far more difficult on account of the aforementioned additional difficulties
than it would have been without them.
But lastly, all the effort was worth it! For the Marxist-Leninist eschatology is indeed the dynamic of that whole system-the
magnetic force pulling the movement forward on a worldwide scale.149 Communist esehatology cannot be ignored. Without
some knowledge of communist eschatology, communism itself would never have gotten off the ground; and without some
knowledge of communist eschatology, the West will continue to be impotent to check its further spread.
6.

Chief Sources

Subject to all the above-mentioned difficulties, the chief sources containing the fragmentary material of eschatological
importance are (inter alia) especially the following works of Marx and Engels and Lenin, and constant reference will be
made to them during the course of this dissertation:
WORKS OF KARL MARX: On the Jewish Question (1843)-includes material on the future of money and religion;
Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts (1844)-includes material on the future of man as such; Contribution to the Critique
of Hegel's Philosophy of Right (1844)-includes material on the nature and future of religion; Theses on Feuerbach (1845)includes material on the future of the family; The Poverty of Philosophy (1847)-includes material on the future of the division
of labor and the future of the state; Capital, vol. I (1867)-includes an account of the nature and future of money and
fragments on post-capitalistic communism; The Civil War in France (1871 ) - on the eschatological significance of the Paris
Commune; On the Nationalization of Ground and Land (1872)-includes argumentation on the future nationalization of
production assets; Critique of the Gotha Program (1875 ) - on future "socialism" and "communism"; and his Capital, vols. II
and III (posthumously edited by Engels, and each with a couple of paragraphs of eschatological significance).
WORKS OF FRIEDRICH ENGELS: Review of Thomas Carlyle's Past and Present (1844) - on the future of religion; The
First Elberfeld Address (1845 ) - on the grounds for the future disappearance of the state; Principles of Communism (1847)
- on the nature of (future) communism; Letter to Cuno (l872) - on the future of the state; On Authority (1874) - on the
necessity of control even under future communism; Letters to Bebel and to Bracke (l875) - on the future of the state; AntiDhring (1878) - containing some futurological material; Dialectics of Nature (1878f)-including material on the (diamatic)
future of the universe; Socialism-Utopian and Scientific - containing a few passages on future freedom and statelessness;

-15-

The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State (1884)-briefly mentioning something of their future too; and his
1891 Introduction to Marx's Civil War in France-identifying the 1871 "Paris Commune" as a species of the post-capitalistic
"dictatorship of the proletariat."
WORKS OF MARX AND ENGELS: The Holy Family (l84S) - containing a critique of non-Marxist left-Hegelian doctrine
and a Marxist (somewhat future-oriented) alternative thereto; The Gennan Ideology (1846) - including an interesting section
on the careerless nature of future labor; Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848) - including the famous ten-point program
for the future; On the Polish Question (1866) - including material on the future of nationality.
WORKS OF VLADIMIR LENIN: Here we should perhaps separately detail firstly those of his works written before the
implementation of socialist or communist eschatology at the time of the successful proletarian revolution in 1917, and those
written after that time-which latter are obviously more practically and less theoretically oriented than are the former.
PRE-REVOLUTIONARY WORKS OF LENIN: What Is to Be Done? (1903)-on the necessity of the (then still future)
"democratic centralization" of the proletarian party; One Step Forward, Two Steps Back (1904) - on the necessity of future
tactical maneuvering; Socialism and Religion (1909)-on the future of religion; The Paris Commune (1912)-and on its meaning for the future; Letter to Gorki (1913)-including the nature of religion and its future disappearance; On the National
Question and On the Nationalization of Jewish Schools (1913) and The Rights of Nations to Self-Determination (1914)-all
three on the future of nationality; Philosophical Notes (191Sf)-very fragmentary, but highly useful philosophically, and
yielding a few glimpses of future expectations; Imperialism-the Highest Stage of Capitalism (l916) - on future world
developments immediately prior to the communist takeover; The Discussion on Self-Determination Summed Up (1916) - on
the future of nationality; The Youth International (1916)-including the future of youth; Letters from Afar and The Tasks of the
Proletariat in Our Revolution (1917)-including some aspects of the commencement of communist eschatology; Materials
Relating to the Revision of the Party Program (1917)-on the future communist program; State and Revolution (l917) - on the
future of the state.
POST-REVOLUTIONARY WORKS OF LENIN: The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government (1918) - one of the first
post-revolutionary documents; Speech to the Third Workers' Co-operative Congress (1918) - on the necessity of socialist
co-operation; Speech at die Founding of the Cornmunist International (1919 ) - on the plan for world takeover; Draft Program of the Russian Communist Party (Bolshevik)of vital eschatological importance in all fields; The Task of the Working
Women's Movement in the Soviet Republic (1919) - on the future of women and the family; Speech Delivered at the First
Congress of Agricultural Artels (l9l9) - on the necessity of collectivization; Report on the Subbotniks (1919) - on the 'ultimate
goal of universal unpaid labor; Left-wing 'communism' an Infantile Disorder (1920) - on the necessity of the (socialistic)
dictatorship of the Communist Party; From the First Subbotnik on the Moscow-Kazan Railway to the All-Russian May-Day
Subbotnik (l92O) - on the intensification of unpaid labor; Twenty-one Conditions for Communist Organization (1920) - on the
tactics and strategy of communist world conquest; The Tasks of the Youth League (1920)-including material on communist
ethics and their future; On Polytechnical Education (1920)-a vital sketch of future pedagogics; The Tax in Kind (1921 ) - on
the New Economic Policy of Socialist Russia; On the Significance of Militant Materialism (1922) - on post-capitalistic
epistemology; Five Years of the Russian Revolution and the Prospects of the World Revolution (1922)-self-explanatory!;
The Attribution of Legislative Functions to the State Planning Commission (1922)-on the eschatology of government; Letter to
the Congress (1922)alias Lenin's famous "Testament"; The Question of Nationalities or of 'Autonomization' (l922) - on the
future of the nations; On Co-operation (l923) - on the necessity of communization; and Better Fewer, But Better (1923)Lenin's last article, on his plans for the realization of world communism.
The above sources are by no means the only documents to be used in this dissertation, but they are the more important
ones. The relative preponderance of Lenin's writings over those of Marx and Engels is explained by the fact that the latter
did not live to see the socialist revolution, whereas Lenin did and also wrote much vital material of eschatological importance
after that event.
7.

Methodology and Structure

Having established the above, it is now necessary to say something about the methods to be used in this dissertation
and about the structure of the latter itself.
Actually, the two go hand in hand, inasmuch as chosen methods directly influence the edification of a structure. Having
obtained clarity on the goal150 of the dissertation and the sources151 to be used in its construction, it is necessary to find the
correct way of proceeding from the sources to the goal.
As the writer has pointed out elsewhere,'52 this is exactly the meaning of the word "method"-namely, a way or road
proceeding from a definite starting-point or source to a definite termination-point or goal. Our method(s) must therefore
enable us to follow the correct procedure from the major sources of the communist worldview to the solution of the stated
problem, namely the construction (and evaluation) of the contents of communist eschatology.
Procedure implies proceeding on the way or road-implies method(s). Construction implies prior clarity concerning the
nature of the structure to be erected. Methods and procedure, structure and construction, therefore go hand in hand.
This dissertation will try to do three main things, and will therefore be divided into three main sections.
Firstly, according to our above "statement of the problem,"150 it will be necessary to "discover" and "understand" the
writings of Marx and Engels and Lenin relative to communist eschatology. To do this, a historical survey of the sources of

-16-

these documents themselves will be necessary. And this we will do in our "historical section."
Secondly, having "discovered" and "understood" the Marxist documents, it will next be necessary, as also stated in the
problem,150 to "systematize" and to "expound" them. For this purpose, a doctrinal exposition of the eschatological contents
of the documents will be required. And this we will do in our "doctrinal section."
Finally, it will also be necessary to "evaluate" and to "correct" 150 the eschatological views of Marx and Engels and Lenin.
This will be done by giving a critique of their historical and doctrinal views. And this we will do in our critical section."
In the first or "historical section," we shall first give a short survey of the section and then give a general outline of the
Marxist-Leninist philosophy of history, of the historical roots of Marxism, of the advent of Marxist-Leninist revolutionism, of
Lenin's implementation of socialism, and of the post-Leninistic history of socialism. Each of these topics will he further subdivided into sub-headings, all of which follow one another in the correct chronological order.
In the second or "doctrinal section," we shall first give a short survey of the section and then give an account of the
communist eschatological doctrine of: labor, value, property, class, the family, education, morality, law, the state, nationality,
the arts, science, and religion. Each of these topics in its turn will be analyzed as to its nature, after which an account will be
given of its status under "primitive communism," alienation, socialism, and future communism, according to Marx and
Engels and Lenin, and then (very shortly) under socialism and future communism according to modern post-Leninistic
communists.
In the third or "critical section," we shall first give a short survey of the section and then give a critique of the communist
view of history and of each of the topics discussed in the doctrinal section. In every case, we shall first discuss the partial
credibility of the communist views, and then mention their theoretical contradictions and the practical problems encountered
in attempting to implement the communist program, where-after we shall give a transcendental critique of the topic and
indicate the religious nature of the communist view thereof, and finally close with a short statement of the Christian
philosophical view of the topic as a viable alternative to that of communism.
Every chapter of all three sections of the dissertation will commence with a statement of what is therein to be discussed
and will end with a summary of the conclusions therein reached; and a final chapter on the general conclusions of the whole
dissertation will be given after the end of the critical section.
The methodology and structure of the thesis, then, is fivefold: firstly, an introduction to the subject-with which we are
presently engaged; secondly, a historical section-which follows next; thirdly, a doctrinal section-which follows thereafter;
fourthly, a critical section-which evaluates the aforegoing; and finally, a conclusion-in which the findings of the whole
dissertation will be presented.
8.

Presuppositions of This Approach

In trying to present a picture of communist eschatology as it really is, a number of presuppositions must be made at the
outset. By stating these presuppositions for the benefit of the reader, we are being critical of our own viewpoint, and thus we
help the reader to understand the perspective from which we write so that he can easily determine the value of this
dissertation for himself in terms of his own present standpoint.
The first presupposition that we have made in this dissertation is that the communistic account which we will cite in
detail-the account of Marx and Engels and Lenin of the historical sources of their own views and the eschatological aims
thereof-is a true reflection of what Marx and Engels and Lenin themselves really believed to be the case. On the whole, this
has not proved terribly difficult to do, for as Marx and Engels wrote in the Manifesto of the Communist Party: "The
Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims." 525 On the whole, we have found this to be largely the case in respect
of the writings of Marx and Engels, and, to a lesser extent, of Lenin (as opposed to the very deceptive and concealing
nature of modern communistic propaganda writings).
The second presupposition is that we have correctly understood the Marxist-Leninist writings in the sense in which Marx
and Engels and Lenin intended them to be understood. Particularly in view of the communist dialectic,153 care has to be
taken in trying to determine the precise purpose of the communists when they made their statements, as well as in
establishing the intended and actual meanings thereof. We have taken care to do this, even to the point of ourselves
thinking dialectically about these writings, and we presuppose that we have succeeded. If we have not, we submit that the
Marxist-Leninist writings are quite beyond the understanding of the average man. However, the large consensus of
opinion183 among both communist and anti-communist experts as to the intended meaning of the documents, convinces us
that we too have understood their message.
The third presupposition is that we have correctly evaluated the writings of Marx and Engels and Lenin. Here we have
tried to be scrupulously honest. For this reason, in our critical section, we will firstly give the communists all credit for
discovering true states of affairs, where we believe this to be the case; and we believe that this part of our critique will satisfy
every reader-even those sympathetic to communism. Only thereafter-but still only in terms of the communist assumptions
themselves-will we draw attention to what we believe to be the contradictions and practical problems inherent in the
communist views themselves and the inability thereof to account for other obvious states of affairs in the universe; and we
believe that this part of our critique, the transcendental critique, will satisfy all non-communists and perhaps even cause the
communists themselves to reexamine their own position. Only then will we propose a more satisfying account of the
phenomena discussed: an account which we believe has none of the difficulties and inconsistencies of the communist viewviz., the Christian view.

-17-

Our fourth presupposition, then, is that the Christian view is the correct one, as it indeed claims to be.154 We shall
attempt to demonstrate why we believe that this is the case, by showing that the Christian view explains all the discovered
states of affairs which communism cannot satisfactorily explain. In so doing, we believe that all Christian and many nonChristian non-communists and at least some communists themselves will be brought to admire the internal consistency and
comprehensive accuracy of the Christian viewpoint, and, by the grace of God according to divine election, be brought to
make it their own.
Our fifth presupposition, following from the fourth, is that the Bible is altogether trustworthy (even as it itself claims to
be)155 as a guide even in the realm of philosophy and philosophical eschatology,156 and that we have correctly understood'57
the philosophical implications of its teachings, the most important of which are: that the Triune158 God alone is eternal159 and
unchangeable;160 that He is the Creator, 161 Sustainer,1 62 Redeemer, 163 and Consummator 164 of all165 things; that He
created166 man as the very image 167 of God and viceroy168 of the universe to dominate and subdue it 169 to the glory of
God ;170 that man deliberately turned and has continued to turn away171 from God, by putting his trust in one or more parts of
the created universe instead,172 whereby he has become separated from the true Origin and the only Explanation of the
universe; 173 that only by the elective grace174 of God-by the Almighty Father,175 the First Person of the Triune God; and only
through the merits of the 1ife 176 and deaths177 and resurrection178 of Jesus Christ, 179 the Second Person' 80 of the Triune God;
and only by the gracious operation' 81 of the Holy Spirit, 182 the Third Person183 of the Triune God-can man 184 and his culture185
be saved; that the Bible is the infallible Word185 of the Triune God and gives us accurate information even regarding the
nature of the universe itself, 185b regarding our present inability 186 to understand the universe satisfactorily without the help of
the Bible, regarding our ability 187 to understand the universe satisfactorily188 even if only partially189 with the help of the
Bible,190 and regarding the necessity of our studying the universe itself, 191 albeit always in the light192 of the Bible; and that
the Bible further gives us broad192 yet accurate 193 information concerning the course of future events in the universe,194 and.
that this information can be systematized195 both for theological purposes196 and as a guide to the systematic analysis of the
nature197 and tendency198 of the universe gained from the study of the universe itself-for purposes of philosophy199 and
philosophical eschatology.200
Our sixth and final presupposition is that we have been able to present this dissertation clearly and understandably to
the reader, so that he will know exactly what we mean, irrespective of whether he agrees with us, and that he will in this way
have been adequately confronted with the tremendous importance of the subject as a whole.
9.

Importance of the Subject

This, then, brings us to the importance of the subject as a whole. For why, it may he enquired, was it thought necessary
to write such a lengthy dissertation on the matter of communist philosophical eschatology?
We submit that communist philosophical eschatology is of vital importance to at least four categories of people-to
communists, to non-communists, to anti-communists, and to Christians.
Firstly, the subject of communist eschatology is of vital importance to communists themselves. And it is important for
both theoretical and practical reasons.
It is important to communists for theoretical reasons, inasmuch as whereas idealistic bourgeois philosophers are
supposed to be unable to predict the future, materialistic "socialist philosophers" are; and for the latter, communist
eschatology yields them a clear-cut theoretical understanding of the communist world toward which communists believe
world history is inexorably unfolding. 201
"Bourgeois philosophers," of course, will deny this, because, wrote Marx, they are not "disinterested inquirers" engaged
in "genuine scientific research," but "hired prizefighters" haunted by a "bad conscience and the evil intent of apologetic."202
Such bourgeois "professors of economics," wrote Lenin, "are nothing more than scientific salesmen of the capitalist class,
and the [bourgeois] professors of philosophy are scientific salesmen of theology."203
"Socialist philosophers," however, as "disinterested inquirers," can even now clearly foresee the future unfolding of
communist eschatology. This "genuine scientific research"202 of which apparently only socialist thinkers are capable, enables
them to develop communist theory and place it at the disposal of the Communist Party. For, as Stalin remarked, "the Party
must be armed with revolutionary theory, with a knowledge of the laws of revolution. Without this it will be incapable of
directing the struggle of the proletariat, of leading the proletariat,"204 whereas "the tendency of practical workers to brush
theory aside runs counter to the whole spirit of Lenin and is fraught with serious dangers to the cause,"205 and "what they
[Marx and Engels] did, was to give to a relatively blind and instinctive struggle the theory which converted it into a conscious
struggle with a specific plan and purpose." 208
Nor did Lenin differ in his insistence on the vital importance of correct communist theory. "The only choice," he wrote in
his Left-Wing Communism an Infantile Disorder,201 "is either bourgeois or socialist ideology. There is no middle course...
Hence, to belittle socialist ideology in any way, to deviate from it in the slightest degree, means strengthening bourgeois
ideology." In his What Is to Be Done?, he declared: "Without a revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary
movement. The role of the vanguard can be fulfilled only by a party that is guided by an advanced theory.208 And in his
Against Revisionism, he put communist theory into eschatological perspective in his words: "The main thing in the doctrine
of Marx is that it brings out the historic role of the proletariat as the builder of a socialist society."209
This suggests the practical importance of communist theory, and it is significant that all students in Russia (and in the
Soviet and the Red Chinese bloc) must today study Marxist-Leninist theory.210 Even in Stalin's day, as from 1938 onwards

-18-

all Soviet college students had to take two years of "History of Philosophy" and of "Dialectical Materialism" (including studies
of the writings of Heraclitus, the Eleatics, Democritus, Epicurus, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, the Scholastics, Copernicus,
Telesio, Bruno, Campanella, Galileo, (F.) Bacon, Hobbes, Gassendi, Descartes, Spinoza, Locke, Tolland, Priestley, Newton,
Leibniz, Berkeley, Hume, Voltaire, Rousseau, La Mettrie, Diderot, Holbach, Helvetius, Kant, Fichte, Hegel, Feuerbach,
Belinski, Herzen, Chernishevski, Nietzsche, and twentieth-century philosophies,211 and even before the death of Stalin,
nearly one billion copies212 of the classical works of Marxism-Leninism (most of them philosophical works) had been
distributed in the Soviet Union alone-an average of five books on communist philosophy for every member of the population!
The reason for this widespread philosophical activity is obvious-the Soviet Union believes it has reached socialism,213
and the sights have even now been set on the soon attainment of communism. Hence the necessity of bringing philosophy
and more especially philosophical eschatology to the masses, for, as Lenin remarked and Stalin repeated: "Ideas become
power when they seize hold of the masses."214 And as Khrushchev remarked in 1959: "We have always followed, and will
also follow in the future, the great international teachings of Marx and Engels, and Lenin."215 And as the 1961 New Party
Program of the C.P.S.U. records under the heading "Party Members, Their Duties and Rights": "The primary Party
organization ... educates Communists in a spirit of loyalty to the Party cause, ideological staunchness and communist
ethics; and organizes the study by Communists of Marxist-Leninist theory in close connection with the practice of communist
construction and opposes all attempts at revisionist distortions of Marxism-Leninism and its dogmatic interpretation," and
gets each Party member "to master Marxist-Leninist theory, to improve his ideological knowledge, and to contribute to the
moulding and education of the man of communist society."216
It is significant that, even long after the Sino-Soviet feud started, an authoritative post-Khrushchevian Soviet publication
proclaimed that "the international character of Marxism-Leninism is implicit in the fact that its true adherents all over the
world hold the same views on social development and the prospects for social progress,"217 and that the official Soviet
publication for the celebration of the centenary of Lenin's birth in April 1970 almost deified Lenin and his views.218 And small
wonder. For the Soviet Union and her satellites are determined to march forward to eschatological communism by the end
of the twentieth century at the latest.
In the decade 1961-70, the Soviet Union was scheduled to surpass the U.S.A. in industry and agriculture, and to reach
the highest standard of living in the world.219 In the present decade, 1971-80, Russia plans to produce an abundance of
wealth and thus lay the technical basis for the advent of communism; and before or by the year 2000, she plans to enter the
millennium of full communism.220
As the famous Russian philosopher Afanasyev wrote in his Marxist Philosophy in the nineteen-sixties: "Our age is a
witness to the triumph of materialism and the deep crisis and degradation of idealism. And although idealism is still fighting
materialist philosophy, the outcome of this battle is beyond all doubt: the future belongs to the scientific, Marxist-Leninist
world outlook." 221 For as Lenin himself had previously confidently remarked: "One or the other will triumph-a funeral dirge
will be sung over the Soviet Republic or over world capitalism."222
Clearly, believe the communists, it is world capitalism that will be sting over and the Soviet Republic that will do the
singing of the funeral dirge. For as Khrushchev himself remarked to a Westerner: "Whether you like it or not, history is on
our side. We will bury you!"225 That is: "We will be present at your funeral!"224 And history is on their side, believe the
communists, because only communism effectively harmonizes theory and practice.
As Marx himself had already put it in his 1844 Contribution to the Critique of Hegels Philosophy of Right: "Theory is
capable of gripping the masses as soon as it demonstrates ad hominem, and it demonstrates ad hominem as soon as it
becomes radical."225 For: "Just as philosophy finds its material weapons in the proletariat, so the proletariat finds its
intellectual weapons in philosophy. And once the lightning of thought has penetrated deeply into this virgin soil of the
people, the Germans will emancipate themselves and become men. The emancipation of Germany will be an emancipation
of man. Philosophy is the head of this emancipation and the proletariat is its heart. Philosophy can only be realized by the
abolition of the proletariat, and the proletariat can only be abolished by the realization of philosophy."226 Hence all the
secrets of theory "find their rational solution in human practice and in the comprehension of this practice."227 For "the
philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it" (Theses on Feuerbach:XI).
Lenin correctly added that "the millions of people will never heed the advice of parties if this advice does not coincide
with what the experience of. their own lives teaches them,"228 for Marx and Engels had established that "the standpoint of
life, of practice, should be first and fundamental in the theory of knowledge."220
And Khrushchev told the Twentieth Congress of the C.P.S.U. that "revolutionary theory is not a collection of petrified
dogmas and formulae, but a militant guide to action in transforming the world, in building communism. Marxism-Leninism
teaches us that a theory isolated from practice is dead, and practice which is not illumined by revolutionary theory is
blind."220 And in his For Victory in the Peaceful Competition with Capitalism, he stated: "Every practical question of the
building of socialism, is at the same time also a theoretical question, directly related to the creative development of MarxismLeninism. The one cannot be separated from the other."231
Or as the Central Committee of the C.P.S.U. itself so eschatologically declared: "The power of the Marxist-Leninist
theory lies in the fact that it enables the party to find the right orientation in any situation, to understand the inner connection
of current events, to foresee their course, and to perceive not only how and in what direction they are developing in the
present, but how and in what direction they are bound to develop in the future."232
Secondly, however, this subject of communist eschatology is also of vital importance to all non-communists. And here
again for both theoretical and practical reasons.

-19-

Theoretically, it cannot be denied that communism is of great contemporary cultural importance throughout the world,
and that no one can understand the history of the twentieth century without a knowledge of communism. And inasmuch as
communist eschatology has gripped the fancy of many influential people on both sides of the iron and bamboo curtains, so
that all contemporary planning in military policy, economics, politics, religion, etc., is being geared either to try to aid or to
defeat the communist program, a knowledge of communist eschatology is essential for everyone.
Practically, inasmuch as it is communism's proclaimed goal233 to communize all communizable non-communists, and
inasmuch as communism would achieve this by the year 2000 at the latest (and, if possible, even by 1978), it is in
everybody's interests to know what kind of a world they will be living in, should the communists succeed.
Thirdly, communist eschatology is obviously important to all anti-communists. Theoretically, as the outspokenly anticommunistic academician Gary North has pointed out, 234 no modern historian or social thinker can fully escape the influence
of Marx's intellect. And practically, the specter of an expanding worldwide movement already controlling more than a third of
the globe's population (and fast on its way to controlling one-half), a movement dedicated inter alia to the liquidation of all
anti-communists as "enemies of the people," is hardly coniforting to anti-communists, and so it is certainly in their own
interests to take note of communist eschatology in order to understand and thus be able effectively to oppose its
implementation ever.
As President George Meany of the A.F.L.-C.I.O. has said: "The conflict between communism and freedom is the
problem of our time. It overshadows all other problems. The conflict mirrors our age, its toils, its tensions, its troubles, and its
tasks. On the outcome of this conflict depends the future of all mankind."285
And finally, communist eschatology is important to all Christians everywhere. All knowledgeable Christians will agree
that communism as such is a violently anti-Christian movement and bears many of the characteristics of the spirit of the
antichrist as such.238 The increasing dialogue between apostates from Christianity and anti-Christian communists is frarikly
disturbing,287 and the continuing influence of all the several varieties of communists-both of orthodox Marxist-Leninist proMoscow or pro-Peking Communist Parties as well as of non-Leninistic purely Marxian socialists, of revisionistic Fabian
fronts, and of internationalistic communistic Trotskyite groups-throughout the (communist and the non-eommunist) world-is
also highly alarming. Nor may the likelihood of the "re-Stalinization" of Marxist-Leninist Russia by any means be discounted.
Indeed, there are even some disturbing signs that this may actually be starting to happen today.23~ As Sir Winston Churchill
once stated: "The schism between communism on the one hand and Christian and Western civilization on the other is the
most deadly, far-reaching and rending that the human race has ever known."
Yet Christians are not defeatists! To the contrary, not the Marxian dialectic, but the risen Christ rules239 this His universe,
and He shall perfect it nonetheless. 240 His commands241 to His followers are clear: "Subdue the earth!"242 and "Make
disciples of all nations!"243-including the nations of Soviet Russia and Red China!244
A knowledge of communist eschatology will enable Christians to see communism's weaknesses and their own
strengths, and give them fresh courage to redouble their efforts, and, imbued by the almighty power of God's Spirit, 245 to get
on with the job of fully evangelizing the whole world and thus subduing the earth to the glory of God.246
10. Summary
In this Introduction, we started off by defining "communist eschatology." We saw that the word "communist" refers to the
views of Marx and Engels and Lenin and their desire to abolish private ownership of all the means of production, and that
"eschatology" is a scientific account of the future as a whole, including the future of nature and culture in their entirety.
"Communist eschatology" therefore is not an account of communist tactics or short-range strategy, but rather the communist
view of the process of communism's conquest of the whole world after the advent of the proletarian revolution, or-as implied
in the words of the title of this dissertation-"Communist Eschatology" is an "analysis of the post-capitalistic views of Marx,
Engels, and Lenin."
Secondly, we analyzed the authority of Marx and Engels and Lenin in communist circles. We saw that the writings of
neither pre-Marxist socialists nor of socialist contemporaries of Marx and Engels and Lenin nor of post-Leninistic
communists are regarded as authoritative by modern communists, whereas Marx and Engels and Lenin believed in the
authority of their own and of one another's writings, even as modern communists everywhere (even in their quarrels with
one another) appeal to the Marxist-Engelsian-Leninist writings as generally authoritative (or "dynamically inspired") in
settling all questions of faith and conduct-inasmuch as they believe these writings to reflect the truth of life and history itself.
Thirdly, and on the basis of the above, we stated the problem of the dissertation: "The problem, then, is to discover,
understand, systematize, expound, evaluate, and correct everything that can be found in the authoritative writings of Marx
and Engels and Lenin, which and which alone throw light on the subject of communist eschatology."
Fourthly, we proceeded to delineate the material to he used in the dissertation, and stated our intention of limiting the
historical background. to an examination only of those thinkers whom Marx and Engels and Lenin recognized as their
predecessors, and of the most important of their Marxist-Leninist successors especially in Russia and, to a lesser extent, in
Red China. We further limited our doctrinal material chiefly to the discussion of Marx and Engels and Lenin alone (with just a
brief comparison with the modern Russian [and, to a lesser extent, the modern Chinese] views), and then again to their
histomat rather than to their diamat. The histomat to be used here was again largely limited to its eschatology (although
necessarily comparing protological "primitive communism" with eschatological "future communism"), and we further limited
the field by stating that the dissertation would chiefly discuss only cornmunist eschatology rather than Christian eschatology.
Fifthly, we drew attention to the difficulties involved in discussing the subject of communist eschatology, viz.: the lack of

-20-

any work on systematic philosophy by Marx or Engels or Lenin; the relative paucity of their expressed views on the subject
of eschatology; the extremely fragmentary nature of these few esehatological statements and their wide dispersion
throughout scores of essentially non-eschatological Marxist-Leninist writings; the lack of any consultable textbooks for or
against communist esehatology; the difficult dialectical style of the communist writings; their sometimes deliberate
logomachy, particularly in the case of Lenin; the sometimes ambiguous communist usage of the key eschatological words
''socialism'' and ''communism,'' the meaning of which has to be determined by and for and in each specific citation; the
relative inaccessibility of the sources to the writer-the sources being governmentally banned in the country where the
dissertation was actually written; and the unavoidable difficulty of logically systematizing any non-logical material,
particularly when in addition subjected to the above further difficulties.
Sixthly, we outlined the chief sources to be used, viz., those works of Marx, of Engels, and of Marx and Engels, and
those pre-revolutionary and post-revolutionary works of Lenin, which contain some eschatological material, however little,
and we enumerated the titles of the eschatologically more important of these works.
Seventhly, in outlining the methodology and structure of the dissertation, the one presupposing the other, it was seen
that the sources to be used and the statement of the problem as expressed in the title of the dissertation rather pointedly
indicated the advisability of the threefold division of the dissertation actually followed, viz.: a historical section, a doctrinal
section, and a critical section-preceded by an introduction and succeeded by a conclusion.
Eighthly, we outlined the presuppositions of our approach, viz., the presuppositions: that the Marxist-Leninist writings
studied really reveal the true eschatological views of their writers; that we have correctly understood these writings; that our
evaluation of their strengths and weaknesses has been correct and should convince the really honest reader of the
untenability of communist eschatology; that the Christian philosophical view of the same phenomena discussed by the
Marxists is essentially satisfactory; that the Bible is altogether trustworthy in supplying the necessary guidelines for a correct
life and world view; and that we have succeeded in expressing all this in a manner intelligible to the average reader.
Ninthly, we discussed the importance of the subject of communist eschatology, and saw that it is of vital importance to
everyone-to communists, as the only true harmony of theory and practice, for their own understanding of the theoretical
Marxist plans for the future, as well as for their own practical implementation thereof; to non-communists, in order to
understand the great importance of such a highly influential modern cultural force as communism, and also because the
success thereof would drastically change their own lives; to anti-communists, in order to understand what communism is
really about and how they can try to counter it, and what communism has in store for them (viz., their liquidation), should it
succeed. And to Christians, communist eschatology is important as a revelation of the spirit of the antichrist, a challenge to
Christianity, and a system which Christians must be able to understand, refute, and overcome in their obedience to the
commands of Christ to subdue the earth and to evangelize the entire world.
And now-in the light of the above-we must next enquire247 concerning the origin, development, and goal of communist
eschatology: "What saith the [Marxist] Scriptures?"

-21-

PART ONE
HISTORICAL SECTION
"Only a precise knowledge and transformation of the culture created by the entire development of mankind will enable
us to create a proletarian culture."
-Lenin: The Tasks of the Youth League (1920)
Survey
The subsequent or doctrinal section will deal with the Marxist-Leninist eschatology of labor, value, property, class, the
family, education, morality, law, the state, nationality, art, science, and religion, respectively. And each of those chapters will
commence with a short survey of the Marxist-Leninist account of the nature, origin, and the development of the theme
concerned before proceeding to a Marxist-Leninist account of the post-capitalistic expected eschatological destiny thereof.
Consequently, in this present historical section on the history of communist eschatology, it will not be necessary to touch on
the origin and development of these themes as such at any length.
All we shall attempt in the present historical section-as indeed regarded as essential by Lenin (see quote on page 33)-is
to give an account and cntique of the development of Marxist-Leninist thought in general from the beginning of time down to
the present, and its current projected program until the expected advent of communism by A.D. 2000, in order to provide us
with the necessary historical background and framework for an adequate understanding of the details of communist
eschatology in respect of the specific themes to be developed in the succeeding doctrinal and critical sections.
In the five chapters of this historical section, then, we shall successively do the following: Firstly, we shall give a short
account of the Marxist-Leninist philosophy of history (i.e., a short account of the communist view of the development of thc
universe and its chief contents from its origin to its destination). Secondly, we shall give a rather extensive account of the
historical roots of Marxism (i.e., a survey of the major events in world history which led to the emergence of revolutionary
Marxism and communist eschatology especially during the past century and a half). Thirdly, we shall give a detailed account
of the history of communism and of communist eschatology under Marx and Engels and Lenin up to the advent of the
Russian Revolution (i.e., the development of communism from the birth of Marx in 1818 and of Engels in 1820 to the
sbcialist takeover of Russia in 1917). Fourthly, we shall give an account of Lenin's implementation of socialism in postrevolutionary Russia (i.e., from the 1917 Revolution up to Lenin's incapacitation in 1923). And fifthly, we shall endeavor to
give an account of the post-Leninistic history of socialism (i.e., a survey of the way in which and the extent to which
professedly socialist lands committed to work for the advent of communism [such as particularly Soviet Russia and to a
lesser extent Red China] have sought [and have been able] to implement communist eschatology after the incapacitation of
Lenin in 1923 [shortly before his death] up to the present in 1972 and how they currently plan to implement communist
eschatology in the future [toward the year 2000]).

-22-

Chapter II
THE MARXIST LENINIST PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY
"Communism as the positive transcendence of private property, as human self-estrangement, and therefore as the real
appropriation of the human essence by. and for man; communism therefore as the complete return of man to himself as a
social (i.e., human) being-a return become conscious, and accomplishment within the entire wealth of previous
development, communism is the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution."
-Karl Marx: Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844
Marx's teaching is all-powerful because it is true.

-Vladimir Lenin1

According to Marxism-Leninism, the tasks of history, of philosophy, of natural science, of religious criticism, of
eschatology, and of the revolutionary proletariat, are intimately connected (see notes 2 and 3, below).
Hence, in this chapter, we will successively discuss: Marxism and philosophy, the laws of dialectical materialism,
historical materialism, "primitive communism," slavery, feudalism, capitalism, socialism, and future communism-where after
we will summarize the entire chapter.
1.

Marxism and Philosophy

"The task of history," wrote Karl Marx in 1843, "is to establish the truth of this world. The immediate task of
philosophy, which is at the service of history, once the saintly form of human self-alienation has been unmasked, is to
unmask self-alienation in its unholy forms. Thus the criticism of heaven turns into the criticism of the earth, the criticism of
religion into the criticism of right, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics." 2
Marx continued: "Theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses ... German theory ...
proceeds from a resolute positive abolition of religion. The criticism of religion ends with the teaching that man is the highest
essence for man. ... As philosophy finds its material weapon in the proletariat, so the proletariat finds its spiritual weapon in
philosophy. ... [The proletariat Is] a sphere, finally, which cannot emancipate itself without emancipating itself from all other
spheres of society and thereby emancipating all other spheres of society, which, in a word, is the complete loss of man, and
hence can win itself only through the complete re-winning of man."8
Philosophy itself, however, must be subjected to a dynamic historical critique. And so, two years after writing the above,
the activistic young Marx could add: 3a "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways: the point,
however, is to change it." And even if the mature Engels later believed that natural scientists "may adopt whatever attitude
they please," yet "still be under the domination of philosophy," the question is "whether they want to be dominated by a bad,
fashionable philosophy or byn form of theoretical thought which rests on acquaintance with the history of thought and its
achievements."4 For "modern philosophy is essentially dialectic, and no longer requires the assistance of that sort of
philosophy which, queen-like, pretended to rule the remaining mob of sciences. As soon as each special science is bound to
make clear its position in the great totality of things and of our knowledge of things, a special science dealing with this
totality is superfluous or unnecessary. That which still survives of all earlier philosophy, is the science of thought and its
laws-formal logic and dialectics. Everything else is subsumed in the positive science of nature and history."5
The real sciences, then, are those of nature and of history.
2.

The Laws of Dialectical Materialism

According to Marxism-Leninism, a distinction must be made between nature and history.


"Nature" (or "pre-history") covers the period of the world's development prior to the appearance of man and its
subsequent development irrespective of man, whereas "history" covers the period of the human development of the world
since the emergence of man down to the present day.
Nature or "pre-history" is accounted for by the communistic science of dialectical materialism or diamat (quite
comprehensively dealt with in one of our previous books, Communism Versus Creation); whereas history is the province of
the communistic science of historical materialism or histomat8 (which-at least as regards its eschalological thrust-will in large
measure be covered by this present dissertation).
Yet historical histomat presupposes prehistorical diamat: without the latter as its pre-historical basis, there can be no
possibility of historical materialism. For as Stalin said: "Historical materialism is the extension of the principles of dialectical
materialism to the study of social life, an application of the principles of dialectical materialism to the phenomena of the life
of society, to the study of society and its history."01 And so it will be necessary to say a few words about diamat at this stage,
before proceeding to a more detailed account of histomat as its suprastructure.
In the realm of the natural or "pre-historical" universe studied by diamat, according to Engels and Lenin only matter in

-23-

motion is eternal7 and infinite.8 As such, matter in motion is the ultimate ground of all being and the deepest layer of all
existence. "The material, perceptible universe to which we ourselves belong is the only reality," wrote Lenin; adding: "Nature
is infinite, but it exists infinitely."' It is only a "religious fable that god created the world. Indeed, if matter is primary and
eternal, it is uncreatable and indestructible, it is the inner, final cause of everything existing. In a world where matter is the
primary cause, the primary foundation of everything, there is room neither for god nor any supernatural force."10
Now every part of this eternal and infinite material universe is necessarily11 in dialectical motion, which motion is
governed by humanly discoverable12 dialectical laws which, according to Engels, 13 cause "the whole of nature" to have "its
existence in eternal coming into being and passing away, in ceaseless flux, in unresting motion and change," and which
keep the universe moving in eternal flux and cyclical course," for "nothing is eternal but eternally changing, eternally moving
matter and the laws according to which it changes."
These basic laws, four in number, 14 are the law of unity of contradictory opposites, the law of transformation from
quantity to quality, the law of the negation of the negation, and the law of upward movement.
It will be advisable to say a little about each of them, as these laws are applicable not only in respect of diamat, but (in a
more complex form) in respect of histomat too.
The first law, that of the unity of contradictory opposites, was stated by Lenin as "the theory of how opposites can be
and commonly are identical."15 It explains how things move, seeing that "even simple mechanical change of place can only
come about through a body at the same moment of time being both in one place and another place ..." (thus Engels). 18 It
explains how living things die, seeing that they contain the contradictory seeds of death;17 and it also explains even such an
"absurd contradiction and real absurdity" as "the square root of minus one" in mat hematics.18 In the realm of histomat, it
explains the contradiction between the various classes, such as between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat within (the unity
of) capitalistic society.19
The second law, that of transformation from quantity to quality, explains how "qualitative changes can only occur by the
quantitative addition or quantitative subtraction of matter or motion" (thus Engels). 20 It explains how water changes into ice
and steam,21 how each complex molecule of each qualitatively new member of the hydrocarbon series is produced by the
merely quantitative addition of a CH2 molecule,22 and how quantitative changes in living beings are supposed to produce
qualitatively new genera.23 And in the realm of histomat, it explains how quantitative extension of socialistic principles can in
time produce a qualitatively different and pure communism.24
The third law, that of the negation of the negation, explains how a grain of barley, negated at its germination into a stalk,
later reappears in the ripened and dying stalk, thus constituting a negation of the negation.25 It also explains how butterflies
negate the eggs from which they spring and are later themselves negated when they die.28 And in the realm of histomat, it
explains how the common ownership of property under "primitive communism" is negated by the emergence of private
property under capitalism, which is itself later negated by the re-emergence of common property under socialism.27
The fourth law, that of upward movement, a consequence of the third law, explains how the grain of barley produces
more barley grains, and the butterfly more butterflies. It also explains28 how, in algebra,. if after a is negated (producing -a),
that negation is itself negated (by multiplying -a by -a), and how a higher magnitude is thereby produced, viz., (+)a2. And it
also explains how one living species is supposed to evolve into another more specialized and highly developed species.
And in the realm of histomat, the law illustrates how pure communism constitutes an "upward bound" improvement on
socialism, which in turn is an improvement on capitalism, feudalism, slavery, and primitive communism. For as Engels
wrote: "All successive historical situations are only transitory stages in the endless course of development of human society
from the lower to the higher."29
These four causal laws of Engels (which also intrigued Marx30 and which were elaborated by Lenin into sixteen laws 8l)
permeate and govern the progressive unfolding of the entire universe-of mathematics, geology, nature, science, logic,
history (revolution), linguistics, society, economics, aesthetics, law, ethics, religion, philosophy (and even ideas).31
3. Historical Materialism
Let us now take a look at the way in which, according to Engels, these dialectical laws caused the eternal and restless
universe to develop from natural pre-history to human history: from simple eternal matter down to the emergence of man.
As a result of increasing dialectical tension, the quantitative evolutionary activity of eternal matter ultimately led to
qualitative revolutionary leaps, resulting in the production of something new within the universe- nebular masses. Next,
these nebulas ultimately contracted into rotating island universes, such as our Milky Way. Within the latter, distinguishable
heavenly bodies such as innumerable solar systems finally emerged. Billions of years later, dialectical tensions within our
solar system produced the sun, the planets and their moons, the asteroids, meteors, and comets. Among the planets, our
earth developed from a gaseous ball, through a liquid state, into a largely solid state. The earth's crust then cooled down
and atmospheric changes favored the formation of protoplasm.'1~ Ultimately, noncellular and cellular Protista emerged, "of
which some were gradually differentiated into the first plants and others into the first animals." "And from the first animals
were developed, essentially by further differentiation, the numerous classes, orders, families, genera and species of
animals;32 and finally mammals ... and among these again finally that mammal in which nature attains consciousness of
itself-man."33
"With man," wrote Engels, 34 "we enter history. Animals also have a history, that of their descent and gradual evolution to
their present position. This history, however, is made for them ... On the other hand, the more human beings become

-24-

removed from animals in the narrower sense of the word, the more they make their history themselves ... [and] the most
essential historical activity of men, the one which has raised them from the animal to the human state , [is] the production
of their requirements of life."
According to communism, history did, in fact, evolve from nature. For historical man is regarded as having evolved from
the natural ape. "Many hundreds of thousands of years ago," claimed Engels,85 "a specially highly-developed race of
anthropoid apes lived somewhere in the tropic zone-probably in a great continent that has now sunk to the bottom of the
Indian Ocean." "When after thousands of years of struggle the differentiation of hand from foot and erect gait were finally
established, man became distinct from the ape and the basis was laid for the development of articulate speech and the
mighty development of the brain that has since made the gulf between man and the ape an unbridgeable one. The
specialization of the hand-this implies the tool, and the tool implies specific human activity, the transforming reaction of man
on nature, production."30
From all this, it is clear that social labor created man. Man was labor and is labor-homo laborans, homo faber, a "toolmaking animal."37
Marx defined history as the "self-developing social state" of mankind,3"' and insisted that "for the socialist man the entire
so-called history of the world is nothing but the begetting of man through human labor, nothing but the coming-to-be of
nature-for-man."39 As such, all history is socio-economically determined, for, as Engels remarked, "the ultimately determining element in history is the production and reproduction of real life," and "history is made in such a way that the final
result always arises from conflicts between many individual wills, of which each in turn has been made what it is by a host of
particular conditions of life."39a
"Marx discovered the law of evolution in human history: He discovered the simple fact, hitherto concealed by an
overgrowth of ideology, that mankind must first of all eat and drink, have shelter and clothing, before it can pursue politics,
science, religion, art, etc., and that therefore the production of the immediate material means of subsistence and
consequently the degree of economic development attained by a given people or during a given epoch, form the foundation
upon which the state institutions, the legal conceptions, the art, and even the religious ideas of the people concerned have
been evolved, and in the light of which these things must therefore be explained instead of vice versa as had hitherto been
the case."40
All social factors, then, are "to be sought not in the philosophy but in the economics of the epoch concerned."41 Primum
vivere, dein philosophari42-first live; then philosophize!
Perhaps the fullest and best statement of the Marxist theory of historical development is found in Marx's Preface to his
1859 Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, where he wrote:
My investigations led to the conclusion that legal relations as well as forms of State could not be understood from
themselves, nor from the socalled general development of the human mind, but, on the contrary, are rooted in the
material conditions of life, the aggregate of which Hegel, following the precedent of the English and French of the
eighteenth century, grouped under the name of "civil society"; but that the anatomy of civil society is to be found in
political economy [italics mine-N.L.]. My study of the latter, begun in Paris, was continued in Brussels, whither I
migrated in consequence of an expulsion order issued by M. Guizot. The general conclusion I arrived at-and once
reached, it served as the guiding thread in my studies-can be briefly formulated as follows:
In the social production of their means of existence men enter into definite, necessary relations which are
independent of their will, productive relationships which correspond to a definite stage of development of their material
productive forces. The aggregate of these productive relationships constitutes the economic structure of society, the
real basis on which a juridical and political superstructure arises, and to which definite forms of social consciousness
correspond. The mode of production of the material means of existence conditions the whole process of social, political
and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but, on the contrary, it is their
social existence that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of their development the material productive
forces of society come into contradiction with the existing productive relationships, or, what is but a legal expression for
this, with the property relationships within which they had moved before. From forms of development of the productive
forces these relationships are transformed into their fetters. Then an epoch of social revolution opens. With the change
in the economic foundation the whole vast superstructure is more or less rapidly transformed. In considering such
revolutions it is necessary always to distinguish between the material revolution in the economic conditions of
production, which can be determined with scientific accuracy, and the juridical, political, religious, aesthetic or
philosophic-in a word, ideological forms wherein men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out. Just as we cannot judge an individual on the basis of his own opinion of himself, so such a revolutionary epoch cannot be judged from
its own consciousness; but on the contrary this consciousness must be explained from the contradictions of material
life, from the existing conflict between social productive forces and productive relationships. A social system never
perishes before all the productive forces have developed for which it is wide enough; and their existence has been
brought into maturity within the womb of the old society itself. Therefore, mankind always sets itself only such problems
as it can solve; for when we look closer we will always find that the problem itself only arises when material conditions
for its solution are already present or at least in process of coming into being. In broad outline, the Asiatic, the ancient,
the feudal and the modern bourgeois modes of production can be indicated as progressive epochs in the form of the
social process of production-antagonistic in the sense not of individual antagonisms, but of an antagonism arising out
of the conditions of the social life of individuals; but the productive forces developing within the womb of bourgeois
society at the same time create the material conditions for the solution of this antagonism. With this social system,
therefore, the prehistory of human society comes to a close ... 43 [italics mine-N.L.].

-25-

According to Karl Marx, "history is thorough, and goes through many phases when carrying an old form to the grave."44
Man, he argues (as we have already seen above),43 has generally passed through (or, is still passing through, and in some
instances, still has to finish passing through) four historical stages, viz.: "the Asiatic, the ancient, the feudal, and the modern
bourgeois methods of production as so many epochs in the progress of the economic formation of society."45 And beyond
"the modern bourgeois" or capitalistic stage of society, lies the post-capitalistic period, which the mature Marx distinguished
into two successive stages, viz., socialism and (future) communism.46 Accordingly, Marx knew of six historical stages of
society altogether, viz.: the Asiatic, the ancient, the feudal, the modern bourgeois or capitalistic, the socialistic, and the
communistic;47 and modem communistic theory also upholds this sixfold division.48
Engels' division is similar, viz.: 1. "primitive communism" immediately subsequent to man's evolution from the ape,49
which corresponds to Marx's "Asiatic" stage; 2. "slavery," corresponding to Marx's "ancient" stage;50 3. feudalism;51 4.
capitalism;52 5. the socialistic "dictatorship of the proletariat";53 and 6. the future communistic "kingdom of freedom."54
And Lenin too distinguishes: 1. a primordial period immediately after a "herd of apes which grasp sticks" had evolved
into men;55 2. the "Ancient" period "from Democritus to Plato and Heraclitus' dialectics" ;56 3. the "Renaissance" period of
"Descartes versus Gassendi (Spinoza?)"; 56 4. the "Modern" or capitalistic period of "Holbach-Hegel through Berkeley, Hume,
Kant, Hegel-Feuerbach-Marx" ;56 5. post-capitalistic socialism,57 and 6. post-socialistic communism-for "from capitalism
mankind can only pass direcdy into socialism," and "socialism must develop gradually into communism."58
Each of these six periods of "primitive communism," "slavery," "feudalism," "capitalism," "socialism," and "communism"
is held to be characterized by the discovery and employment of an epoch-making tool of production. Engels' primitive
communism" is regarded as being characterized by the tool of "fire by friction," which "gave man for the first time control
over one of the forces of Nature, and thereby separated him for ever from the animal kingdom."59 "For the poets it is gold
and silver, for the philosophers iron and corn, which have civilized men and ruined the human race" and brought about the
stage of "slavery."60 According to Marx,61 "the hand-mill gives you society with the feudal lord; [and] the steam mill, society
with the industrial capitalist." The world is only now entering the socialistic stage, and the communistic stage is still future
everywhere (for, as Stalin remarked,62 it is only after all nations have gone socialist that any will be able to go communist).
But according to current Russian communistic thinking, socialism is being characterized by massive industrialization, and
communism will be characterized by massive automation 63
Dialectical laws, maintains communism, caused man to emerge through labor, and these same laws-now operating
histomatically through man's socio-economic environment-have caused him to develop still further. Dialectics in human
society imply class struggle, and, as Marx and Engels maintained about all previous stages of history except the first (viz.,
that of "primitive communism"): "the history of all previously existing society is the history of the class struggle."64
The above-mentioned six stages in the historical development of human society may perhaps be represented
diagrammatically (see diagram on the next page).
In the following pages we shall take a brief look at each of the six historical stages, for, as Lenin remarked,65 "thousands
of years have passed since the time when the idea was born of 'the connection of all things,' 'the chain of causes.' A
comparison of how these causes have been understood in the history of human thought would give an indisputably
conclusive theory of knowledge." And: "The development of all human societies for thousands of years, in all countries
without exception, reveals a general conformity to law, regularity, and consistency in this development, so that at first we
had a society. without classes-the original patriarchal, primitive society, in which there were no aristocrats; then we had a
society based on slavery-a slave-owning society... This form was followed in history by another, feudalism. In the great
majority of countries, slavery, in the course of its development, evolved into feudalism. ... Further, with the development "f
trade, the appearance of the world market, and the development of money circulation, a new class arose within feudal
society, the capitalist class This fundamental fact-the transition of society from primitive forms of slavery to serfdom and
finally to capitalism-must always be borne in mind."

-26-

A DIAGRAM ILLUSTRATING THE COMMUNISTIC VIEW OF THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIETY


STAGE OF SOCIETY

1. Primitive
Communism

2. Slavery
Communism

3. Feudalism

4. Capitalism

5. Socialism

6. Future

TOOLS

fire & stones

iron; boats

water and
water mills; books

steam;
factories

massive
industrialization

automation

LABOR

gathering; hunting;
livestock farming

weaving; pottery;
smelting

fertilizers; crafts; guilds


presses

Impersonal
Exploitation of labor

5-year plans; state


farms, etc.

work a pleasure; art


and culture

SOCIAL
ORGANI
ZATION

clans;
long houses

city
states;
slaves

lords and
serfs (serfs own their
tools, but not the land)

bourgeois
society and
proletarians

Communist Party
oppresses
bourgeoisie

universal
brotherhood
of man

GOVERNMENT

none

chieftains

monarchy

republican

dictatorship

statelessness

RELIGION

natural

Early
Christianity, etc.

Catholicism

Protestantism
(especially Calvinism)

"humanism"
(?!)

none

ECONOMY

poverty

surplus

exploitation

monopoly

"to each
according to his work"

to each
according to his needs"

MONEY

none

gold

loans

credit

Labor Certificates

moneylessness

EXAMPLE

Polynesia

Ancient Rome

Mediaeval Europe

United States

Russia and Red China

nowhere yet

DOMINANT CLASS

none

masters

lords

the rich

the Party

all mankind

-27-

4.

"Primitive Communism"

Primitive communism, then, is regarded by communists as being the first human era. Here men are regarded as having
lived and worked together in a communal herd, holding all their property in common. Lenin insisted that their use of sticks
and stone tools differentiated them from the apes,55 but it was nevertheless "the generation of fire by friction," wrote
Engels,5" that gave man for the first time control over one of the forces of Nature, and thereby separated him for ever from
the animal kingdom" (italics mine-N.L.). Then men hunted and gathered food together, "lived in bands in trees,"66 and later in
communal long-houses, practising a naturalistic form of worship, as do savages to this day, e.g., the primitive American
Indians."7
Originally, according to Engels, there was "a period of promiscuous [sexual] intercourse corresponding to the period of
transition from animality to humanity," which ultimately evolved into "group marriage, the form in which whole groups of men
and whole groups of women belong to one another, and which leaves but little scope for jealousy." "The study of the history
of primitive society reveals to us conditions in which men lived in polygamy and their wives simultaneously in polyandry, and
the common children are, therefore, regarded as being common to them all; in their turn, these conditions undergo a whole
series of modifications until they are ultimately dissolved in monogamy."88
"The first form of ownership," wrote Marx and Engels, 69 "is tribal ownership. It corresponds to the undeveloped stage of
production, at which a people lives by hunting and fishing, by the rearing of beasts or, in the highest stage, agriculture. In
the latter case it presupposes a great mass of uncultivated stretches of land. The division of labor is at this stage still very
elementary and is confined to a further extension of the natural division of labor imposed by the family. The social structure
is therefore limited to an extension of the family; patriarchal family chieftains; below them the members of the tribe; finally
slaves. The slavery latent in the family only develops gradually with the increase of population, the growth of wants, and with
the extension of external relations, of war or of trade."
When men multiplied on the face of the earth and drifted apart on account of economic factors, the various races,
nations and countries began to develop. "Man learned to live in any climate," wrote Engels,70 and "he spread over the whole
of the habitable world." As the productive forces of primitive man increased, "the increasing density of population creates at
one point a community of interests, at another, [dialectically!] conflicting interests, between the separate communities,"71
whereas "race is itself an economic factor."72
And so we find that "where nature is too lavish to man, she does not impose upon him any necessity of developing
himself"; for, wrote Marx,13 "it is not the tropics with their luxuriant vegetation, but the temperate zone, that is the mother
country of capital." And this then is the reason, according to Engels,74 why the aboriginal "Australians and many Polynesians
are to this day in the middle stage of savagery."
5.

Slavery

The development of new productive forces, maintains communism, ultimately terminated this initial period of "primitive
communism" by economically alienating man from woman, producer from owner, manual laborer from mental laborer, chief
from tribe, and priest from layman. But the apex of man's alienation from man was supposedly reached in the establishment
of man's private ownership of his fellow man in the institution known as slavery.
In time, slavery would in its own turn yield to feudalism, and feudalism to capitalism; but in each successive era,
progressive thinkers would plan to re-institute the communal property, communal labor, and communal social life of
"primitive communism," albeit at a higher level.
Slavery, then, is regarded as the second era in the history of mankind, after the dissolution of "primitive communism."
Slavery was supposedly produced and characterized by the discovery of new iron tools, by the accumulation of disposable
surpluses and handicrafts, by the development of the economic institution (first) of inter-tribal and (then) of intra-tribal
exchange, and, to facilitate the latter, by the development of money.
"The second form" of human society in its historical development, wrote Marx and Engels,75 "is the ancient communal
and State ownership which proceeds especially from the union of several tribes into a city by agreement or by conquest,
and which is still accompanied by slavery. Beside communal ownership we already find movable, and later also immovable,
private property developing."
As Engels elsewhere remarked: "The subjugation of man for menial work ... presupposes the possession of a certain
amount of property in excess of the average."76 "The working of metals and agriculture were the two arts the discovery of
which produced this great revolution,"77 for "gold and silver ... iron and corn ... ruined the human race,"60 and "greed and the
lust for power are the levers of historical development."78
"The lowest interests-base greed, brutal sensuality, sordid avarice, selfish plunder of common possessions-usher in the
new, civilized society, [slave] class society; [and] the most outrageous means-theft, rape, deceit and treachery-undermine
and topple the old, classless gentile society [of primitive communism]."79
Economic alienation between man and man supposedly started in friction between the sexes. Initially, "multiplication of
the population" went hand in hand with the "division of labor," which division of labor, according to Marx and Engels,80 was
"originally nothing else than the division of labor in the sexual act." Through the resulting alienation, woman became the first
slave known to humanity, and today man cannot be emancipated without the simultaneous emancipation of woman to a

-28-

position of complete equality with man, for "wife and children are the slaves of the husband. This latent slavery in the family,
though still very crude, is the first property "81
"Originally," wrote Marx,82 "there was less distinction between a burden-bearer and a philosopher than between a sleighdog and a greyhound," but, he and Engels declared,83 men "begin to distinguish themselves from animals as soon as they
begin to produce their means of subsistence." Ultimately, maintained Engels,84 the slave labor of women and children within
the family was supplemented by "the introduction of one or more strangers, as additional forces" of labor, which soon led to
what Marx and Engels term "the division of material and spiritual labor"85 and "the distinction between material and mental
labor."86
Thus arose the relationship between the owner and the producer, in which the producer or direct maker became
alienated from what he had made, the ownership of which became transferred to the owner or indirect maker.
As a result of the ever-increasing tension between past and present economic conditions, the state supposedly arose to
enforce the outmoded and therefore artificial laws of the past in the present, and the priesthood is regarded as having arisen
to enforce outmoded religion, for both law and religion are claimed to be but the unnatural reflection of man's present
economic alienation from his communal past.
According to Lenin,87 the state is "a machine for the oppression of one class by another" which only appears "when the
division into classes-when exploiters and exploited-appears," whereas "there was no state when there were no classes-no
exploiters, no exploited."
Religions and their gods, on the other hand, maintained Lenin,88 "are invented by the clergy ... [and] are products of a
diseased mind." "Religion is a sort of spiritual booze," he added,89 "in which the slaves of capital drown their human image,
their demand for a life more or less worthy of man."
6.

Feudalism

From the early Middle Ages of Western history onward, the second era of slavery, believe communists, began to be
replaced by the third era-that of feudalism.
Feudalism-derived from the Latin feodum (plural: feoda)-is regarded as having begun to develop as a result of the
invention of new tools, notably the hand-mill and later also the compass, gunpowder, and the printing frame.' 9' The king
distributed his feoda or lands to nobles in return for their military allegiance. The peasants worked on the lands not as slaves
but as serfs, working partly for the nobles and partly for them -selves as subtenants of the nobles, and hence began to look
after their own tools and to develop new ones. The old dialectical class tension between master and slave was now
replaced by that between lord and serf, and the serfs often rebelled in a series of "Peasant Wars" and "Communistic
Anabaptistic" uprisings.90
This authoritarian social relationship found its reflection in the feudal religions of late Greek Orthodoxy and Catholicism,
and held its sway in Eastern Europe right down into the middle of the nineteenth century. "The great international center of
feudalism was the Roman Catholic Church," wrote Engels.9' "It united the whole of feudalized Western Europe, in spite of all
internal wars, into one grand political system. ... Up to then science had but been the humble handmaid of the Church, had
not been allowed to overstep the limits set by faith, and for that reason had been no science at all."
Yet feudalism steadily led to the emancipation of the serfs, especially of those in and near the small villages; and as the
skills became more diversified the embryo of a new town class began to develop. Increasing division of labor into the
manual work of producers and the mental work of supervisors further alienated man's hand from his head, and ultimately
alienated the town from the country and one nation from the other, believe communists. "The division of labor inside a
nation," declared Marx and Engels,92 "leads at first to the separation of industrial and commercial from agricultural labor, and
hence to the separation of town and country and a clash of interests between them." Hence the urbanite becomes "a
narrow-minded town animal and the farmer becomes a narrow-minded rural animal."93 Yet the town gradually prevailed over
the country, and a new dominant class arose-the bourgeoisie.
7.

Capitalism

Thus developed the fourth stage of social history-the bourgeois or capitalistic stage. At first the bourgeoisie relied on
increasing trade as a result of the discovery of the new trade route to the East and the discovery of the Americas. But
particularly after steam power was invented, 94 there was a veritable stream of people from the rural areas to the new
factories in the towns and cities. The industrial revolution was underway.
The social dislocation caused by the massive inundation of everincreasing crowds in the cities was grave indeed. Totally
inadequate housing, impossible working conditions, severe dislocation of family life, female and child labor in mines and
factories for as much as fifteen hours per day, and chronic underpayment, were just a few of the factors involved." The
factory owners became richer and richer by economically exploiting the laborers, who became poorer and poorer until they
became proletarians-people who owned nothing but their proles or children."6 At least, thus did it appear to Marx and
Engels.
The selfishness of the exploiters, believe communists, was reflected by a new and highly individualistic religion tailormade to their own requirements-Protestantism in general and Calvinism in particular. "The Lutheran Reformation produced

-29-

a new creed indeed, a religion adapted to abstract monarchy. [But] no sooner were the peasants of northeast Europe
converted to Lutheranism than they were from free-men reduced to serfs," wrote Engels.'1
"But where Luther failed, Calvin won the day. Calvin's creed was one fit for the boldest of the bourgeoisie of his time.
His predestination doctrine was the religious expression of the fact that in the commercial world of competition, success or
failure does not depend upon a man's activity or cleverness, but upon circumstances uncontrollable by him. It is not of him
that willeth or of him that runneth [cf. Rom. 9:16!], but of the mercy of unknown superior economic powers; and this was
especially true when India and America were opened to the world. "98 And so Calvinistic capitalism began to demonstrate
"the divine power of money," as Marx termed it. "Money is the alienated ability of mankind."99
As Calvinism and then deism and then the capitalistic worship of money and indifference to one's fellow human beings
developed, Marx could only write that "the proletarian (= one who possesses nothing but his proles or children] is without
property; his relation to his wife and children has no longer anything in common with the bourgeois family relations; modern
industrial labor ... has stripped him of every trace of national character. Law, morality, religion are to him so many bourgeois
prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests."100
Ultimately, "a small section of the ruling class cuts itself adrift, and joins the revolutionary class,"101 as the capitalists
more and more exploit the proletariat and even one another. "What the bourgeoisie therefore produces above all, are its
own grave-diggers," wrote Marx.102 "Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable."
The progressive impoverishment of the proletarians drives them to despair; class clashes become more and more
violent, 101 until, as world capitalism now enters its last stage and its highest form, viz., that of neo-imperialism and colonial
exploitation of the under-developed nations,103 the working class, organized under the leadership of the Communist Party as
its vanguard,104 leaps into the realm of freedom by means of the revolutionary destruction of the capitalist regimes and their
way of life-by means of a communist takeover.
8.

Socialism

After the takeover, the post-capitalistic society of socialism begins. At first there is a "dictatorship of the proletariat"'05
whereby the previously exploited now exploit their previous exploiters. Here labor is regimented, all private property and
inheritances are abolished, banks are nationalized, salaries are standardized, industry is centralized and massively
expanded, and education is re-organized.'06
In this process, the proletarian dictatorship, freshly emerged from the womb of capitalism and still bearing its birth
marks, has to make use of the state machinery just as it received it.107 But in process of time, as one country after another
goes over to socialism,108 the worldwide zone of peace and socialism expands, and the various socialist nations draw closer
together in mutual friendship.109
As Marx put it: "Between the capitalistic and the communistic society lies the period of revolutionary transition from the
one to the other. This corresponds to a political transition period the status of which cannot be other than the revolutionary
dictatorship of the proletariat."110
And as Lenin remarked: "The socialist principle: 'He who does not work, neither shall he eat,' is already realized; the
other socialist principle: 'An equal amount of products for an equal amount of labor,' is also already realized. But this is not
yet communism."111
9.

Communism

Finally, when all the countries in the world have become socialist, 112 they all go forward to communism, the last
historical stage, more or less simultaneously.113 Under pure communism, the antithesis between the various forms of labor
disappears, and work becomes a pleasure and a necessity of life itself.'14 All private property will then have disappeared,
and with it, money too as a means of payment.'15 Through polytechnical mass education, man will fully develop his own
individuality and also become socially oriented communist man.1 16 The family as such will have been revolutionized in
practice,117 and man will have become by nature morally good.118 The nations will gradually have yielded to a one-world
society,119 and ultimately even the worldwide dictatorship of the proletariat of the World Socialist Republic will replace each
of thc national socialist republics, 120 and will then itself "die out" 121 or "wither away"122 into the One-World Commune'23-as will
even the Communist Party.124 Man's natural environment will then be completely controlled by him as the "lord over
Nature,"' 25 and all differences between the town and the country will have melted away through centralistic planning.'28
Religion and even atheism (as a denial of a non-existent god) will be unknown,127 and universally communistic man will be
one with universal naturel2' in his everincreasing kingdom of freedom.'29.
Pure communism, prophesied Engels,130 will be characterized by real "democracy in government, brotherhood in
society, equality in rights and privileges, and universal education, [which even today] foreshadows the next higher plane of
society to which experience, intelligence and knowledge are steadily tending. ft will be a revival, in a higher form, of the
liberty, equality and fraternity of the ancient gentes," of the ancient tribal structure characteristic of primitive communism"
prior to the rise of slavery.
Or as Karl Marx succinctly put it in his last important writing, The Critique of the Gotha Program 114 of 1875, cited with
complete approval by Vladimir Lenin in his last writing before the Russian Red Revolution, his (uncompleted) State and

-30-

Revolution131 of 1917: "In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the
division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become
not only a means of life, but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-round development
of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly-only then can the narrow horizon of
bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each
according to his needs!"
Or as Karl Marx had put it even earlier in his Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts132 of 1844: "Communism is the
positive abolition of human self-alienation, and thus, the real appropriation of human nature through and for man. ...
Communism as a complete naturalism is humanism, and as a complete humanism is naturalism. It is the definitive
resolution of the antagonism between man and Nature, and between man and man. It is the true solution of the conflict
between existence and essence, between objectification and self-affirmation, between freedom and necessity, between
individual and species. It is the solution of the riddle of history and knows itself to be this solution."
The above, then, is the Marxist-Leninist philosophy of history from the supposed emergence of man from the ape into
"primitive communism," through "slavery," "feudalism," "capitalism," and "socialism," to the kingdom of freedom tinder "pure
communism"-by which process history itself abolishes private property.133
Yet even pure communism is not the end of the development of history. Just as the universe is regarded as having
existed from all eternity, so too, it is believed, will the process of historical development continue for all eternity, ever
upward,134 always improving,135 with no repristination or return to or repetition of conditions in a previous historical period.136
For as Engels maintained in his 1880 mature writing, Socialism-Utopian and Scientific: "Only from that time will man himself
... make his own history."137 And as Karl Marx had already observed in 1844: "Communism is the position of the negation of
negation [i.e. communism is the negation of pre-socialist human alienation which in its turn had negated 'primitive
communism'-N.L.], and is hence the actual phase necessary for the next stage of historical development in the process of
human emancipation and recovery. Communism is the necessary pattern and the dynamic principle of the immediate
future,"138 but "communism as such is not the goal of human development,"139 for "only naturalism is capable of
comprehending the act of world history."140
10. Summary
Summarizing, it may be said that the communist philosophy of history is that of historical materialism. Nature and
society are believed to be governed by certain eternal dialectical laws, the operation of which makes the ultimate advent of
socialism and communism inevitable.
Eternal matter is thought to have evolved through simple forms of life via apes into man, whose original estate is
believed to have been one of "primitive communism," characterized amongst other things by community of property and of
wives. The division of labor, however, is supposed to have changed all this, to have produced classes, the state, law,
religion, the family and the various nations and races, and to have alienated man from his fellows in the successive stages
of slavery, feudalism and capitalism.
However, communists maintain that after the inevitable socialist revolution, capitalism is to be destroyed and
"communism" is to he restored-albeit at a higher level. Man and his present society, it is believed, can only be changed by a
violent and ultimately world-wide revolution, to be succeeded by the liquidation of all anti-communists, the abolition of
private property and the complete commun(al)ization of man. Thenceforth man's religion, the nations, etc., will all have
passed away forever, and man will live in ever-increasing happy harmony with his fellow-man and with nature of which he is
supposed to be part and parcel-albeit too its highest product.

-31-

Chapter III
THE HISTORICAL ROOTS OF MARXISM
The genius of Marx lies exactly in the fact that he provided the answers to questions which the leading thinkers of
mankind had already posed. His teaching arose as the direct and unbroken continuation of the teachings of the greatest
representatives of philosophy, political economy and socialism. ... The teaching of Marx is all powerful because it is true. It is
complete and systematic, giving to people an integrated world view incompatible with superstition, with reaction, or with the
defence of bourgeois oppression. It is the lawful successor of the best that mankind created in the nineteenth century in
German philosophy, English political economy and French Socialism... Materialism turned out to be the only consistent
philosophy true to all the teachings of natural science, inimical to superstitution, magic, etc. The enemies of democracy
endeavored therefore by every means to disprove, undercut, slander materialism, and defended various forms of
philosophical idealism, which always amount in the end to be a defence or support of religion."
-Lenin: Three Sources and Three Essenrial Elements of Marxism (1913)
Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it .under
circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the
past.
-Karl Marx1
The philosophy of history of Marxism-Leninism (outlined in the previous chapter), we are told by modern Soviet
philosophers,2 "did not appear out of thin air, for the philosophy of Marx and Engels is the culmination of a long process of
development of philosophical thought" after man's assumed evolution from the ape (ch. 2, n. 32 f., 55 f.).
Accordingly, in this chapter we will sucessively discuss: ancient materialism (600 B.C. ff.), early Christianity (A.D. 30 ff.),
mediaeval "communism" (1300 if.), science and Calvinism (1500 if.), the European "Enlightenment" (1700 if.), the French
Revoluti6n (1770 if.), and from Hegel to Marx (1800-20)-after which we shall close with a brief summary of the entire period.
1.

Ancient Materialism (600 B.C. ff.)

"Materialism arose about 2500 years ago in China, India and Greece. Materialist philosophical thought in these
countries was closely linked with the everyday experience of their peoples, with the first rudiments of the knowledge of
nature." "Many philosophers of ancient China, India, Greece and other countries held that the origin and existence of things
could only be explained by understanding what [dialectical and contradictory] opposites went to form them."3
This is precisely what Marx and Engels themselves claimed regarding the historical roots of their own philosophy, viz.:
"In direct contrast to German [idealistic] philosophy which descends from heaven to earth, here we ascend from earth to
heaven. That is to say, we do not set out from what men say, imagine, conceive, nor from men as narrated, thought of,
imagined, conceived, in order to arrive at men in the flesh. We set out from real, active men, and on the basis of their real
life process we demonstrate the development of the ideological reflexes and echoes of this life process."4
While there are no extant records of the socio-economic conditions in the pre-slave period of "primitive communism
immediately after man is believed to have evolved from the ape, communists maintain that a good idea of such conditions
can easily be gained by making a study of the records of now extinct communal societies such as the German Mark, of the
nineteenth-century Russian pre-capitalistic communal institution known as the Zadruga, Obshchina, or Mir, and also of
extant "primitive" communal societies of relatively modern times such as those of many Polynesians and Australians and
Asians and American Indians or Redskins, all of whom practise(d) community of property and frequently even community of
wives.5 As Engels remarked in 1884, the aboriginal "Australians and many Polynesians are to this day in the middle stage of
savagery."6
There are, however, many records of social conditions in the second period of historical development, viz., slavery. And
from these it is clear that "materialism and idealism arose in the slave societies of the Ancient East (China, India, Egypt, and
Babylon) and reached their apex in ancient Greece and Rome."7
Materialism and idealism, as Engels himself pointed out, 8 represent diiferent answers to "the great basic question of all
philosophy ... [viz.,] that concerning the relation of thinking and being," or the question: "Did God create the world or has the
world been in existence from eternity?" And Engels continued: "The answers which the philosophers gave to this question
split them into two great camps. Those that asserted the primacy of Spirit to nature and, therefore, in the last instance,
assumed world creation in some form or other ... comprised the camp of idealism. The others, who regarded nature as
primary, belong to the various schools of materialism."
What then are these "various schools of materialism"8 which "arose in the slave societies of the Ancient East (China,
India, Egypt and Babylon) and reached their apex in ancient Greece and Rome"? 7
Regarding the ancient Near East, it is maintained that even the ancient book of Judges in the Bible refers to the preslavery "primitive communistic" social conditions of the Near Eastern people of Laish who dwelt in carefree security without

-32-

any state authority and without engaging in business or trade perhaps as late as 1200 B.C. "For they dwelt careless, after
the manner of the Zidonians, quiet and secure; and there was no magistrate in the land, that might put them to shame in
anything; and they were far from the Zidonians, and had no business with any man.""
In the ancient Middle East, "it was the forces of nature," claimed Engels,' 0 that were reflected "in the Indian Vedas" (from
perhaps 1000 B.C.); and the materialistic system of Cavaka or Charvak (600 B.C.), and the empiricistic founder of Jainism
Vardhamana (524 B.C.), and the caste-condemning Buddha (500 B.C.)-and even the private-property-denying monastic
communism of later Buddhism-all protested against the dominant priestly class in India; and the later materialistic systems
of Sankhya evolutionism, Nyaya dialectical logic, and Vaisechika atomistic (meta)physics continued to prosecute the
intellectual class battle against religious idealism.11
And in the ancient Far East, a concern for the amelioration of this present world as opposed to speculation about the
possibility of future life after death had made itself felt in China and elsewhere ever since the time of the social ethics of
Confucius around 550 B.C. And both Confucius and the later dialectics of Taoism are quoted with approval in the writings of
the modern Chinese communist theoretician Liu Shao-chi.12
This sixth century B.C. was a particularly rich one in the development of philosophy in general and of materialistic
philosophy in particular, and from this time we may perhaps date the development of philosophy proper both in each major
civilization and in all the then known world. At this time, as already seen, Confucius was active in China-and the Charvak
system, Vardhamana, and Buddha were active in India. And from this time onward there also arose the three great schools
of Greek philosophy (Ionian materialism, Eleatic idealism, and Athenian epistemism), to which we must now turn.
It is, then, especially in ancient Greece and later also in Rome'3 that we encounter socio-economic class struggles and
the resultant rise of materialism, dialecticism, realism, and communism, for "Greek antiquity," wrote Engels,14 excelled in the
theoretical mastery of "... the general outlook on nature." And this was the case on the Greek mainland, particularly in
Sparta and in the Greek colonies in lonia in the East and in Italy and Sicily in the West, whence the latter ideas also
permeated into Italian and Roman society.'5
Engels cited Aristotle as authority for the proposition that "the basilcia [or 'kingship'] of the Heroic Age was a leadership
over freemen, and that the basileus was a military chief, judge, high priest," and hence "had no governmental power in the
later sense," while yet conceding that even "in the Heroic Age we already find women degraded owing to the predominance
of the man and the competition of the female slaves."16
From about 1000 B.C. onwards, the Dorian invasion of Greece from the north encouraged the emigration of many
Atticans to the lonian coast of what is now central western Turkey.'7 With the emergence of more settled times, trade
expanded both in lonia and the mainland, and inevitably resulted in the extension of slavery18 and the replacement of barter
by a money economy"' which in its turn led to socio-economic unrest. 20
In Sparta, on the mainland, this unrest was effectively countered around 800 B.C. by the progressive legislation of
Lycurgus (later to be followed by that of Agis and Cleomenes), which was essentially an attempt to repristinate primitive
communism" at a higher level. Lycurgus redistributed the land equally to all citizens, revoked gold and silver currency,
instituted communal meals, extended equal rights to women, encouraged sexual intercourse outside of wedlock, and
promoted community of property. Even though the helot slaves were kept in complete subjugation,21 this was, as Engels
pointed out, 22 nevertheless a form of "communism, ascetic, denouncing all the pleasures of life, Spartan"; for "in Sparta we
find a form of pairing marriage-modified by the state in accordance with the conceptions there prevailing-which still retain
many vestiges of group marriage."23
It was, however, particularly in lonia that materialism initially flourished, for, as Engels remarked,24 "a state of universal
dispersion of matter is said to have been the conception with which the Ionic philosophers began." About 600 B.C., the
philosopher Thales of Miletus claimed that all was basically that form of matter known as water. Around 575, his countryman Anaximander regarded the invisible apeiron (or boundless matter) as the eternally evolving substance which manifests
itself in different forms throughout the universe, believing that the first living being took shape out of sea slime, and that man
originated from the fish.24a And about 550, Anaximenes of Miletus claimed that all is basically air, which can be condensed
into water and solidified into denser objects, thus suggesting the production of qualitatively different things from merely
quantitative changes.25
"Thales," felt Engels,25 should be appreciated as "a geometrician," whereas Lenin agreed with Diogenes Laertius that
"Thales was the father of natural philosophy." 27 "Anaximander," continued Engels,28 should he commended as the first to
have "constructed a sun clock" and to have made "man come from a fish emerging from the water on to the land," whereas
"Anaximenes of Miletus takes air as principle and basic element, declaring it to be infinite." Here then are "the first
philosophers," and "here, therefore, is already the whole original natural materialism which at its beginning quite naturally
regards the unity of the infinite diversity of natural phenomena as a matter of course, and seeks it in some definite corporeal
principle, a special thing, as Thales did with water."26
"Aristotle already says that these more ancient philosophers put a primordial essence in a form of matter: air and water
(and perhaps Anaximander in a middle thing between both) "26
The greatest of all the lonian thinkers, however, was Heraclitus of Ephesus (c. 500 B.C.), who exerted a profound
influence on the Marxian communists, but particularly on Lassalle and Lenin, Lassalle writing a whole article on "Heraclitus
the Dark," and Lenin discussing Heraclitus in his own article "On the Question of Dialectics"21 in his post-humously
published Philosophical Notes (191 2-l6).

-33-

Heraclitus, a man of brilliant insights,28 was the father of dialectics, and "taught that 'everything happens through
struggle,' [and] that struggle is the source-the 'father'-of all things,"29 so that literally "everything proceeds through struggle
and out of necessity."30
"The. old Greek [lonian materialistic] philosophers were all born dialecticians," wrote Engels.31 That is to say, continued
Engels,32 they believed that "everything moves, changes, comes into being and passes away This primitive, naive but
intrinsically correct conception of the world is that of ancient Greek philosophy, and was first clearly formulated by
Heraclitus: everything is and is not, for everything is fluid, is constantly changing, constantly coming into being and passing
away." Panta rei, kai ouden menein-all flows, and nothing remains.83 And "Heraclitus," wrote Engels, 34 "put the primordial
essence ... in fire."
Heraclitus, in moderation, as one of the founders of dialectics, would be extremely useful," wrote Lenin.85 "The division
of the One and the knowledge of its contradictory parts," wrote Lenin, 38 "is the essence of dialectic and Aristotle in his
Metaphysics is always grappling with it and continually engages in a struggle with Heraclitus (respecting the ideas of
Heraclitus)."
And to this Stalin added: "Speaking of the materialist views of the ancient philosopher Heraclitus, who had held that 'the
world, all in one, was n6t created by any god or any man, but was, is and ever will be a living flame, systematically flaming
up and systematically dying down,' Lenin comments: 'A very good exposition of the rudiments of dialectical materialism.'37
If the lonian philosophers (of the Greek colonies in the East) in general with their scientific world outlook of dialectical
materialism prepared the way for the later advent of the views of Marx, Engels, and Lenin, the Greek colonists in the West,
and notably in Elea, were preparing the ground for mysticism and idealism. Yet even these idealists embraced some of the
doctrines of communism, as will now be shown. For communistic settlements were established in Lipara near Sicily (where
communal tillage, communal property, and communal meals were in vogue) and (even from the thirteenth century B.C.
onward) in Crete.88 And at Croton in Italy in the sixth century B.C., the philosopher Pythagoras, although an incurable
mystic, nevertheless founded a communistic brotherhood to which women too were admitted,39~whereas Engels has told
us40 that "the Pythagoreans" were those who had "the first inkling that the earth moves." Even though, added Engels,41
"Aristotle correctly reproaches the Pythagoreans also: with their numbers: [because] 'they do not say how motion comes into
being, and how, without motion and changing, there is coming into being and passing away, or states of activity of heavenly
things.'"
A contemporary of Pythagoras, Xenophanes, left his homeland after the Persian conquest of lonia in 545 and settled in
southern Italy at Elea to become the first of the so-called Eleatic philosophers. Xenophanes stressed the divinity of the
cosmos, rationalistically demonstrated the relativity of the various religious ideas, and advocated a theory of evolution to
account for unearthed fossils. 42
Wrote the communist philosopher Howard Selsam:43 "It is easy to see that this materialistic principle [viz., that 'all ideas
of right and wrong, justice and injustice, the good man and the good life, are human creations, made by men and reflecting
their nature and the conditions of life'] is the ethical counterpart of Xenophanes' statement in the sixth century B.C., that if
horses and oxen had hands and could paint as men do, 'horses would paint the form of the gods like horses and oxen like
oxen. Each would represent them with bodies according to the forms of each.'" And this is why Lenin himself regarded
Xenophanes with his idea that god is the image of man as a prototype and forerunner of the great nineteenth century (A.D.)
materialistic philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach, who regarded god as but a heavenly projection of man's own earthly image.44
In about 450 B.C., Zeno of Elea attempted to refute the Heraclitean contention that "all is flux" by arguing that a flying
arrow is at rest at each point of its path and that it therefore cannot be in motion.45 Yet Lenin agreed with Hegel the
dialectician that such movement still involved a (Heraclitean) contradiction in that the moving arrow is both in a "place and
not in it."46 In this way, as Selsam remarks,47 all that Zeno really achieved was "to prove that the very idea of motion was
full of contradictions," and thereby he simply vindicated Heraclitus the dialectical materialist he had sought to refute.
The older "Eleatic School applied its dialectics chiefly against motion," wrote Lenin.48 But the attempt clearly backfired
on them. For as is pointed out in a footnote in Lenin's Collected Works:49 "In contradistinction to the natural teachings of the
Milesian school, and of Heraclitus, regarding the changeable material nature of things, the Eleatic school believed in their
indivisible, immovable, unchangeable, homogeneous, continuous, eternal essence. At the same time, some of the
propositions of representatives of the Eleatic school, and particularly the proofs advanced by Zeno concerning the
contradictoriness of motion (the so-called 'Paradoxes of Zeno'), despite their metaphysical conclusions, played a positive
role in the development of ancient dialectics, having raised the problem of expressing in logical concept the contradictory
character of the processes of motion."
Other philosophers elsewhere sought other solutions. Empedocles (460 B.C.) asserted the primacy of fire alongside of
the other elements (viz., air, earth, and water). Everything in the cosmos consists of a mixture between two or more of these
elements and is conditioned by the dialectical struggle between the two principles of love and hatred inherent in the
cosmos.5 0 Empedocles also advocated the doctrine of human evolution, for man himself arose from the brutes.51 And it was
Empedocles' contemporary, a man "banished from Athens as an atheist,"52 viz., the philosopher "Anaxagoras [450 B.C.] with
his homoeomeria"53 or material "seeds," who, according to Marx and Engels, anticipated Francis Bacon's materialism, and
who, according to Lenin,54 also thought dialectically.
Coming now to the materialistic Atomists, Lenin himself5~ approved of Hegel's "very profound and correct, essentially
materialistic thought" concerning Leucippus (about 440 D.C.), but complained that "Democritus [420 D.C.] is treated by

-34-

Hegel in a very step-motherly fashion," thereby demonstrating that "the spirit of materialism is intolerable to the idealist,"
viz., to Hegel. 5' For Lenin asserted that "the struggle between materialism and idealism" was essentially "the struggle
between the tendencies or lines of Plato and Democritus in philosophy.57 Marx wrote his doctoral dissertation on "The
Difference between the Natural Philosophy of Democritus and the Natural Philosophy of Epicurus."58 And Marx and Engels
jointly asserted that "French and English materialism was always closely related to Democritus,"59 whereas ancient Greek
materialists like "Democritus with his atoms are often the authorities" that Bacon, "the real founder of English materialism ...
, refers to."60 Indeed, early materialism had reached its very zenith in Democritus' doctrine of immutable and eternal and
indivisible and impenetrable atoms,61 for this outstanding materialistic philosopher was in fact one of the founders of the
atomic theory of matter, and he utterly rejected divine intervention in nature and in human aifairs.62
An entirely different outlook, however, was found amongst the thinkers of Athens.
"Athenians federated (Theseus' constitution, in the Heroic age)," wrote Engels,63 and thereby destroyed primitive
communism. "This gave rise to a system of general Athenian popular law, which stood above the legal usages of the tribes
and the gentes. ... The rule of the nobility steadily increased until, round about 600 B.C., it became unbearable [cf. the
Draconian laws]. The principal means for stifling the liberty of the communality were-money and usury. ... From this point the
developing money system penetrated like a corroding acid into the traditional life of the rural communities founded on
natural economy."" In this process, it was especially Solon (594 B.C.) whose reforms introduced a new element into the
constitution private ownership, 65 and Cleisthenes (509 B.C.) who ignored the four old Tribes and introduced domicile
principles' 8 in respect of politico-economic life.
Under such apparently democratic but in actual fact plutocratic conditions, the only bright lights in sixth-century Athens,
from the Marxist viewpoint, were the playwrights and some of the sophists and sceptics. As Marx pointed out in his doctrinal
thesis,67 "the gods of Greece . . [were] already tragically wounded to death in Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound" (about 470
B.C.). And Marx further remarked that "Prometheus' admission: 'In truth, all gods I hate' ... is [directed] against all heavenly
and earthly gods which do not acknowledge human self-consciousness as the supreme divinity on a level with whom there
shall be no other gods," makes "Prometheus the foremost Saint and Martyr in the philosophical calendar." And although
Protagoras (who agnostically taught that "man is the measure of all things"68 and that "in regard to the gods I cannot know
that they exist, nor yet that they do not exist; for many things hinder such knowledge-the obscurity of the matter, and the
shortness of human life"89) was banished from Athens, at least Gorgias won fame as an ambassador at Athens for
promoting the war against Persia (500-431 B.C.), even though, as Lenin pointed out, 70 Gorgias' consciousness of the fact
that "Being and not-Being" were but "vanishing moments," could only be described as "a magnificent definition of dialectics!"
"The developed later scepticism extended it [dialectics] not only to the immediate socalled data of consciousness and
maxims of ordinary life, but also to all the concepts of science,"71 whereas the famous cynics Antisthenes and Diogenes
advocated a natural community of property and goods.
Even the great Athenian idealists, with their beliefs in supreme values and (the) Supreme Being, could not completely
escape the power of dialectical thought. For, even though one encounters "at the beginning of [Greek idealistic]
metaphysics the stubborn struggle against Heraclitus. against his idea of the identity of Being and not-Being," thereby
showing that these '4Greek philosophers [the metaphysicians] approached close to dialectic but could not cope with it,"
wrote Lenin,72 it should nevertheless not be forgotten that "Socrates (was the father) of moral philosophy" and did at least
approach "close to dialectic."78 And, continued Lenin74 on the "Socratic dialectic: Intelligent idealism is closer to intelligent
materialism than [is] stupid materialism. Dialectical idealism [is closer to intelligent materialism] than intelligent [idealism]."
And it is also perhaps significant that the aristocratic playwright Aristophanes (400 B.C.) not only satired Greek communism
in his plays Ecclesiazuses, Plutus, and A ves, but that in his Nubes he also ridiculed Socrates as a utopian dreamer with his
head in the clouds.7 4a
Even to the anti-democratic and anti-materialistic aristocrat Plato,71 that most idealistic of all the great philosophers, due
credit must be given. "Diogenes Laertius [the thirdcentury A.D. author of the important Lives and Opinions of Eminent
Philosophers] said of Plato that he was the father of dialectics," wrote Lenin,78 and "Plato frequently (applied ... dialectics)
against contemporary ideas and concepts (especially those of the Sophists), but also against pure categories and reflection
determinations."76a
As is well known, there is a communistic strain even in Plato, and which he developed especially in his Republic, where
he advocated community of property and of wives, an all-round education in music and gymnastics (cf. Communist Russia's
polytechnical education), communal dwellings and eating-places, and a community~centered social outlook. "We are all
agreed," he wrote,77 "that in a State which aims at perfection wives and children must be in common, and that all education,
and in like manner the pursuits of war and peace, are to be common." And even in his Laws, Plato regarded "the first and
highest form of the state and of the government" as "that in which there prevails most widely the ancient saying that 'friends
have all things common,'" where there are no large landowners and only enough money for daily exchange, and where the
possession of gold, or even silver, is forbidden.78 And even though "Plato's treatment of the division of labor as the
foundation on which the division of society into classes is based ... is merely the Athenian idealization of the Egyptian caste
system," wrote Marx, 79 nevertheless "Plato's presentation ... for his time," considered Marx and Engels, 80 "was full of genius[viz., Plato's presentation] of the division of labor as the natural basis of the city."
All this should not, however, be taken as communistic approval of Plato's idealism. Lenin clearly attempted to
demonstrate that there is also In Plato much "ultra-nonsensical mysticism, such as that 'triangles form the essence of

-35-

sensuous things,' ... and such mystic nonsense."81 For the most part, we have in "Plato a huge mass of mystical slush."81
The third great Athenian philosopher after Socrates and Plato, was the great realist Aristotle (384-322 B.C.), whom Marx
regarded as "the greatest thinker of antiquity,"82 and whom Marx and Engels called "the Alexander the Great of Greek
philosophy."83 It is true that Aristotle was not a communist. "It is clearly better that property should be private," he wrote;84
"but [nevertheless] the use of it [should be] common; and the special business of the legislator is to create in men this
benevolent disposition," for " 'friends,' as the proverb says, 'will have all things common.'"
Aristotle believed that matter was the prime source of everything existing, and that all nature was in constant motion and
coming into being in destruction and change, and that the various kinds of living beings have evolved from other lower
beings, and that the world is inherently knowable to man."85
Engels and Lenin in particular attached great importance to Aristotle's view of the pre-Socratics. Wrote Engels: "Aristotle
already says that these more ancient philosophers put the primordial essence in a form of matter: air and water (and
perhaps Anaximander in a middle thing between both), later Heraclitus in fire ... Aristotle correctly remarks of all of them that
they leave the origin of motion unexplained... Aristotle correctly reproaches the Pythagoreans also..."86 "The old Greek
philosophers were all born dialecticians, and Aristotle, the most encyclopaedic of them, had already analyzed the most
essential forms of dialectical thought."87 And Lenin had admiration for "Aristotle's critique of Zeno's paradoxes on motion"88
and for the way in which "Aristotle again returns to a criticism of Pythagoras' theory of numbers (and Plato's theory of ideas)
independent of sensible things,"89 even though Lenin was obviously disappointed in the way in which "Aristotle in his
Metaphysics continually grapples with it (dialectics) and combats Heraclitus (and Heraclitean ideas) "90
Yet Lenin was not blind to Aristotle's shortcomings. "Aristotle pitifully brings forward god against the materialist
Leucippus and the idealist Plato. There is eclecticism in Aristotle here," wrote Lenin. 91 "In Aristotle, objective logic is
everywhere confused with subjective logic," yet "Aristotle's logic is an inquiry, a searching, an approach to the logic of
Hegel-and it, the logic of Aristotle, ... at every step, raises precisely the question of dialectics."92
According to communism, Aristotle's great merit was his opposition to Platonic idealism. "Aristotle's criticism of Plato's
'ideas' is a criticism of idealism as idealism in general," wrote Lenin. 91 "In presenting Aristotle's polemic against Plato's
doctrine of ideas, Hegel suppresses its materialistic features," and "the idealist Hegel in cowardly fashion fights shy of the
undermining of the foundations of idealism by Aristotle (in his criticism of Plato's ideas)" so that "everything essential that he
(Aristotle) has to say against Plato's idealism is suppressed [by Hegel] "92a
Yet Aristotle is nearly a materialist, and a dialectical materialist at that. Lenin attributed his own eighth element of
dialectics [viz., "general interrelation"]93 to Aristotle, where he (Lenin) wrote: "Only in their connection are the individual limbs
of the body what they are. A hand, separated from the body, is a hand only in name (Aristotle)."94 In Aristotle there are no
doubts of the reality of the external world," he added. 95 "The 'difficulties' of the 'philosophy of mathematics,' " wrote Lenin,96
are considerable, "but Aristotle [in chapter 3 (cf. Bk. M [XIII] of his Metaphysics)] solves these difficulties excellently,
distinctly, clearly, materialistically (mathematics and other sciences abstract one of the aspects of a body, phenomenon,
life)." "Here already we have dialectics (as Hegel's genius recognized): the individual is the universal (cf. Aristotle's
Metaphysics, Bk. B, ch. 4, 4For evidently ... we could not suppose that there is a house [a house in general] besides the
particular houses.')."97 And "in his De anima, II, 5," asserted Lenin, 98 "Aristotle comes very close to materialism," so close, in
fact, that in Aristotle "we have the point of view of dialectical materialism, but accidentally, not consistently, not elaborated,
in passing." 99 The conclusion regarding the importance of Aristotle in the development of communist thought is admirably
stated by Karl Marx himself: 1"' "Modern philosophy has only continued a work already started by Heraclitus and Aristotle."
Coming now to the post-Aristotelian period of Greek philosophy, it is particularly the Stoics and more especially
Epicurus and the Epicureans that demand our attention.
The Stoical school was out and out internationalistic or rather cosmopolitan, and taught that all men are equal. Men are
worthy not on account of their class or nationality, but solely on the basis of their common humanity. Understandably the
Stoics were therefore also for equality, the abolition of slavery, community of property and one-world citizenship. But as
"Stoicism [was also] a combination of Heraclitian speculation regarding nature, of the Cynical life and world view regarding
morality, and somewhat also of Aristotelian logic" (thus Karl Marx), 101 it was also involved in dialectical logic and physics,
thus anticipating Engels' eternally recurring cycles of history,'02 and it thus prepared the way via Descartes and Rousseau in
particular for the advent of Marxist communism.103
But it was especially the ancient Greek materialist philosopher Epicurus, a disciple of Democritus, who sought to liberate
man from fear of god and to assert the validity of science.'04
As already pointed out, Marx wrote his doctoral dissertation on "The Difference between the Natural Philosophy of
Democritus and the Natural Philosophy of Epicurus, "105 and therein stated that "the Epicurean philosophy is a syncretistic
aggregate consisting of Democritian physics and Cyrenaical morals," while he elsewhere'08 approvingly stated that "(1) the
eternity of malter" and "(2) the doctrine that negation is not the negative of matter itself, but that it is there where matter is
not," "are of the essence of the natural philosophy of Epicurus." And Engels clearly stated that "Greek philosophy in its last
forms-particularly in the Epicurean school-led to atheistic materialism."107
Lenin for his part repudiated Hegel's "slander against materialism" where Hegel objected to the common sense" of the
Epicureans,108 and Lenin himself admired Epicurus' insistence on the existence of "objects outside us"1 09 and also "the
genius of Epicurus' conjecture ... on light and its velocity,"110 all of which Lenin found fully "compatible with materialism."11'
"The soul, according to Epicurus," continued Lenin,111 "is a 'certain' arrangement of atoms," and Epicurus' views are to Lenin

-36-

"the guess-work of genius and sign-posts for science, but not for clericalism."112 "The importance of Epicurus," maintained
Hegel, is seen in "the struggle against [the] Abergiouben [= superstitions] of the Greeks and Romans ..." -"and [the] modern
priests?? [I]," added Lenin.112 For "the gods, according to Epicurus, are 'das Algemeine' [= 'the universal'], and they are the
perfected type of man,'" wrote Lenin,113 comparing this statement [of Epicurus] with Feuerbach's: "'the god of man is nothing
but the deified being of man.'"
"As long a: phllosophy still has a drop of blood left in its world-conquering, absolutely free heart," wrote Karl Marx," 4 "it
will not cease to call to its opponents with Epicurus: 'Not he who rejects the gods of the crowd is impious, but he who
embraces the crowd's opinion of the gods!'"
From Greece, dialectical and materialistic thought now spread to Rome. Already from 300 B.C. onward, there had been
class struggles between the Patricians and the Plebeians, as Marx pointed out, 115 and Tiberius Graechus proposed in 134
B.C. that "communal goods shall be communally shared."115 Yet the first major communist uprising of the slave class only
occurred in 73 B.C., when Spartacus (after whom the "Spartacists" or twentieth-century A.D. German Communist Party
members were named117 and about whom a famous modern Russian communist ballet has been written118) "abolished the
use of gold and silver, fixed low prices for all the means of life, encouraged the simple Spartan mode of living, welded into a
brotherhood the refugees from the various nations who had lived under his protection, and educated them to a state of
military efficiency."119 But the forces of reaction were too strong. Marx agreed with the Epicurean materialist Lucretius that
nothing can be created out of nothing, but Lucretius' On the Nature of Things (60 B.C.) was opposed by the golden-tongued
reactionary orator' 20 Cicero in his clever reply, On the Nature of the Gods, whereas in his Against Cataline Cicero121 also
opposed the latter revolutionary conspirator.'32 A century later, all Seneca the Stoic (A.D. 65) could do was to pine away
longing for the good old days of yore, the primitive age [of "primitive communism"] "when the bounties of nature lay in
common and were used promiscuously."123
And a further century later only a few outspoken anti-religionists such as the thinker Lucian (A.D. 120-180), whom
Engels correctly called "the Voltaire of classic antiquity,"124 were offering effective intellectual opposition to the slow but
steady reactionary advance of "the early Christian(s) "124
Greek thought had now gone through some seven centuries of struggle between the scientific forces of materialism and
the religious forces of idealism. It had commenced with a materialistic hegemony in lonia, and it had come full circle back to
materialism after defeating the idealism of the Greek mainland. Science had triumphed over religion. Or, in the words of the
title of Marx's doctoral dissertation, "the natural philosophy of Democritus and the natural philosophy of Epicurus"105 had now
been able to demonstrate the victorious proto-Feuerbachian conclusion that "the God of man is nothing but the deified being
of man"113-that God is but the image of man.
However, the opposite view very much still prevailed in Palestine, where the Israelitic religion asserted that man is but
the image of God.124" And this view was now about to be developed further and exported throughout southern Europe by
"the early Christian(s)."125
2.

Early Christianity (A.D. 30 ff.)

This new, Christian religion of "the early Christian(s)"' 25 was not, however, entirely new. It had admittedly at least in part
evolved from more ancient primitive Israelitic and later Greek roots, believed the communists. "Monotheism," wrote
Engels,126 "was historically the first product of the vulgarized philosophy of the later Greeks [viz., Neo-Platonism] and [it also]
found its incarnation in the exclusively national god of the Jews, Jehovah," the tribal god of Israel. But particularly after the
beginning of the Alexandrian period ( 300 B.C. onward), Judaism came under Greek influence and began to broaden out
into a world-oriented religion, so that "this later rationally vulgarized Judaism in mixture and intercourse with aliens and halfJews ended by neglecting the ritual and transforming the former exclusively Jewish national god, Jahveh, into the one true
God, the creator of heaven and earth, and by adopting the idea of the immortality of the soul, which was alien to early
Judaism. This monotheistic vulgar philosophy came into contact with vulgar religion, which presented it with the readymade
and only God. Thus the ground was prepared on which the elaboration among the Jews of the likewise vulgarized philonic
notions could produce Christianity, which one produced would be acceptable to both Greeks and Romans," wrote Engels
elsewhere.127 And so, continued Engels,' 28 "the Alexandrine Jew Philo, who was still living about A.D. 40 but was already
very old, was the real father of Christianity, and ... the Roman Stoic Seneca was so to speak, its uncle. The numerous
writings attributed to Philo which have reached us originate indeed in a fusion of allegorically and rationalistically conceived
Jewish traditions with Greek, particularly Stoic philosophy. This conciliation of Western and Eastern outlooks already
contains all the essentially Christian ideas: The inborn sinfulness of man, the Logos, the Word which is with God and is God
and which becomes the mediator between God and man," cf. John 1:1, 14, 18.
And so it can be seen, Engels maintained,129 that "the new world religion, Christianity, had already quietly come into
being, out of a mixture of generalized Oriental, particularly Jewish, theology, and vulgarized, particularly Stoic philosophy."
On the one hand, then, there is the Jewish root of Christianity, but on the other hand, there is also the Greek
contribution. And although "the Greeks of the Alexandrian period [300 B.C.-A.D. 600]" were adept in "natural science and
historical research," wrote Engels,130 nevertheless, felt Lenin, the Hellenistic period of Neo-Platonism was a philosophical
period of 4'the relation to God," the "Christian religion," and "a mass of thin porridge" ladled out about God, whereas the
Gnostics and Alexandrians were "eclectics" and "either uncultured men, or cunning . -they take the good from every system,

-37-

but ... do not have 'consistency of thought, and consequently thought itself.'131'
But just as there were some redeeming features in Christianity's NeoPlatonic Greek root, viz., its intellectual strain, so
too were there also some redeeming features in Christianity's Jewish root, viz., the communalistic strain running
therethrough, believe the communists. For in spite of primitive religious and tribal superstition, especially the later prophets
of Israel like Amos, Hosea, Micah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Zephaniah, Ezekiel, Zechariah, and Malachi spoke out fearlessly in
favor of the necessity of social rights and prophesied the coming of the earthly kingdom of peace and freedom.'32 And these
principles of "communism" lived on even in later Jewish monastic communities like those of the Essenes, who possessed all
things in common and even enjoyed their meals in common, who accumulated neither silver nor gold, who abjured the
institution of slavery, and who had n o political authority in their communities.133 At least, so the Marxists maintain.
At the dawn of the Christian era, communists believe, one encounters largely mythical records of the life, death, and
significance of one Jesus of Nazareth. Lenin himself came to the conclusion "that Christ never existed" and that the "Christ
Myth" and its attendant "religious superstitions and fables" were all demonstrably refutable,' 34 and Lenin condemned Hegel's
"banal, clerical idealistic chatter about the greatness of Christianity (with quotations from the Gospels!!)" as "disgusting,
stinking!"135 For, as Engels himself had pointed out, "even the historical existence of a Jesus Christ can be questioned."136
Even in the New Testament book of Revelation, wrote Engels, "the Trinity is not only unknown, it is even impossible. Instead
of the one Holy Ghost of later, we have the 'seven Spirits of God' construed by the Rabbis from Isaiah XI, 2. Christ is [there
only] the son of God, the first and the last, the alpha and the omega, by no means God himself or equal to God, but on the
contrary, 'the beginning of the creation of God,' hence an emanation of God, existing from all eternity but subordinate to
God, like the above mentioned seven spirits."'37 Even as late as A.D. 68, wrote Engels, there was still "no trace of the Trinity
but, on the contrary, the old one and indivisible Jehovah of later Judaism who had exalted Him from the national god of the
Jews to the one and supreme God of heaven and earth,"' 38 and the Christian eschatology contained in Revelation chapters
thirteen to seventeen, held Engels, is only a purely historical account of the persecution of the early Christians by the nonChristian state.139
All this is not to say, however, maintain the communists, that primitive Christianity, built round the legends of Jesus, was
wholly corrupt. Indeed, something of the Essenian communistic tradition is presumed to have lived on even in Christianity,
as attested by the "Early Christian Communism" of the opening chapters of the New Testament book of Acts. There we read
that "all that believed were together, and had all things common, and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to
all men, as every man had need. ... And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said
any one of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things in common Neither was
there any of them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the
things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he
had need"140 (cf. too James 5: 1-4141). And this "Christian communism" sometimes even included community of women
(thus Engels).142
Gus Hall (alias: Arvo Halberg), general secretary of the Communist Party of the U.S.A., in 1964 pointed out the
usefulness of these New Testament texts for the purpose of promoting the expanding Catholic-communist dialogne.148
Wilhelm Weitling, the founder of the Communist League of which Marx and Engels became members, according to Engels,
in his On the History of Early Christianity,'44 said that "an idea of the early Christian communities"-which did contain a
"revolutionary element"-could be gained by taking a "look at a local section of the International Working Men's Association"
alias the First Communist International in the nineteenth century. And the socialist Beer, in his General History of Socialism,
has pointed to what he considers to be elements of communism in the writings of early Christian Church Fathers such as
Justin the Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Lactantius, Basil, and Ambrose.145 Yet, nevertheless, as Engels pointed
out, 145 "Chnstianity knew only one point in which all men were equal: that all were equally born in original sin-which
corresponded perfectly to its character as the religion of the slaves and the oppressed. Apart from this, it recognized, at the
most, the equality of the elect, which however was only stressed at the beginning [of Christianity]. The trades of common
ownership which are also found in the early stages of the new religion can be ascribed to solidarity among the proscribed
rather than to real equalitarian ideas." For essentially, Christianity is a reactionary religion, a tool of the rich to oppress the
poor and to perpetuate slavery, as indeed taught in the New Testament itself.147 Thus Marxism.
The real Christianity, believe the communists, is that described by the competent non-Christian observer Lucian,148 as
developed and standardized by churchmen like Bishop Augustine of Hippo, who defended private property 149 and perfected
the (to the communist) impossible doctrines of the deity of Christ and the Trinity of God,150 and who promised the poor "a pie
in the sky bye-and-bye" if they were but sufficiently obedient while here on earth.181 Thus the Christians of the fourth century,
"when their worship had become the State Religion," forgot, held Lenin,152 "the democratic revolutionary spirit of primitive
Christianity." And this is why Karl Marx could state that "the social principles of Christianity are sneakish, preach cowardice,
self-contempt, abasement, submission, dejection, and transfer ... all infamies to heaven and thus justify the further existence
of those infamies on earth," and "declare all vile acts of the oppressors against the oppressed to be either the just
punishment of original sin and other sins or trials that the Lord in his infinite wisdom imposes on those redeemed," whereas
only "the proletariat is revolutionary."'58 And this is also why Friedrich Engels could state that the Christian world view of
Western civilization, viz., that "the earth had remained the same without alteration from all eternity or, alternatively, from the
first day of creation,"154 as expressed "in the myths of the book of Genesis,"155 stood "far below Greek antiquity in the
theoretical mastery of ... the general outlook on nature.156

-38-

As Christianity conquered Greek and Roman civilization, it was only in the Christian monasteries of the early Middle
Ages where with their community of property something of Essenian practice and Greek learning survived and that anything
of communism was preserved inside the Christian world, notably in the cloistral-communistic colonies of Anthony and
Benedict of Nursia, as the communist Karl Kautsky pointed out in his book Predecessors of the New Socialism.156a
Outside of the Church, as Engels pointed out, it was left to heretics like the Carpocratian anarchistic communistic
Gnostics,157 Eriugena,158 and infidels like the revolutionary Persian communist Mazdak158" and the Arabs (cf. the Muslim
Muhabiyah sect with its community of women and the Arabian assassins),' 59 to keep alive the torch of freedom and
knowledge. And "communism" could only flare up here and there in mediaeval sects like the "Poor Men" of Lyons, the
Bogomils and the Cathari,1" the Patarines, and the conspiratorial "Confrrie de Ia Paix" or so-called "Brotherhood of Peace"
who eschatologically and messianically expected the advent of the communistic millennium in A.D. 1000.
But the communistic "millennium" never arrived. And the balance of power was maintained by the Roman Catholic
Church. As Engels pointed out, 151 "the great initial center of feudalism was the Roman Catholic Church. It united the whole
of feudalized Western Europe, in spite of all internal wars, into one grand political system."
As slavery developed into feudalism, philosophy became the "handmaid of theology," and materialism became
forgotten. Only in the non-Christian China, India, the Arab countries, and central Asia could philosophy and natural science
develop.162 European society became more and more sharply defined into the new soclo-economic classes of feudal lords
and their serfs-and this was soon reflected by scholasticism in general and-the Roman Catholic Church in particular. Thus
Marxism.
Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) was the greatest of all the scholastic philosophers, and he attempted to synthesize Aristotle
with the teachings of the Church. In so doing, wrote Lenin,163 "scholasticism and clericalism took what was dead in Aristotle,
but not what was living, the inquiries, the searchings, the labyrinth, in which man lost his way ... What the Greeks had was
precisely modes of framing questions, as it were tentative systems, a naive discordance of views, excellently reflected in
Aristotle." But what did Thomas do? He and "clericalism killed what was living in Aristotle [viz., dialectics164] and perpetuated
what was dead [viz., scholastics164]," concluded Lenin. 105 And what was particularly disturbing, added Lenin,166 was that "in
the last hundred years, the hourgeoisie, out of fear of the growth and increasing strength of the proletariat, is supporting
everything backward, moribund and medieval"-a reference to the rise of NeoThomism in bourgeois Roman Catholic
circles.166
3.

Mediaeval "Communism" (1300 ff.)

Yet even if Thomas (viewed from a communistic perspective) was little better than a reactionary defender of
feudalism,167 by desiring the best of both worlds (the present and the next, the secular and the sacred), he did at least help
restore Aristotelianism, and in this way he unwittingly helped promote the secularization of the natural sciences. For as
Selsam, the American communist philosopher, has stated: "In the thirteenth century the philosophy of Aristotle was banned
and his followers persecuted until Thomas Aquinas synthesized it with Christianity and made it safe."'68 Yet even if Aquinas
did reserve the "sacred sphere" for theology and heaven, he did at least deliver the "secular sphere" to the earthly and
earthy natural sciences, so that the British Fabian socialist R. H. Tawney could say with perfect candor: "The true
descendant of the doctrine of Aquinas is the labor theory of value. The last of the Schoolmen was Karl Marx."' 69
Even under feudalism, then, communism did not die out. In fact, the very word "communism" is derived from the word
"commune"-the name for the mediaeval small French feudal villages around 1300 which practised crop rotation and sharing
of land and tools.170
As Engels put it: "If, after the dark night of the Middle Ages was over, the sciences suddenly arose anew with undreamtof force, developing at a miraculous rate, once again we owe this miracle to-production. In the first place, following the
Crusades, industry developed enormously and brought to light a quantity of new mechanical (weaving, clock-making,
milling), chemical (dyeing, metallurgy, alcohol), and physical (lenses) facts, and this not only gave enormous material for
observation, but also itself provided quite other means for experimenting than previously existed, and allowed the
construction of new instruments; it can be said that really systematic experimental science had now become possible for the
first time. Secondly, the whole of West and Middle Europe, including Poland, now developed in a connected fashion, even
though Italy was still at the head in virtue of its old-inherited civilization. Thirdly, geographical discoveries-made purely on
behalf of gain and, therefore, in the last resort, of production-opened up an infinite and hitherto inaccessible amount of
material of a meteorological, zoological, botanical, and physiological (human) bearing. Fourthly, there was the printing
press.107a
Even as the new class of free burghers was preparing the way for the advent of capitalism, communistic ideas lived on
and developed further particularly amongst the serfs, and came to the fore in the feudal Peasant Wars and uprisings and in
the pre-Protestant sects. As Engels declared:' 71 "At the time when feudalism was at its zenith, there was little to choose
between this peasant-plebeian heresy amongst the Albigenses, for example, and the burgher opposition, but in the
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries it developed into a clearly defined party opinion and usually took an independent stand
alongside the heresy of the burghers. That was the case with John Ball, preacher of Wat Tyler's Rebellion in England, ...
and with the Taborites alongside the Calixtenes in Bohemia."
From the middle of the fourteenth century, we encounter one peasant rebellion after the other-the Jacquerie'72 in France

-39-

(1350); Wat Tyler's rebellion173 in England, also around 1350, accompanied by John Ball's "Christian 'primitive communistic'"
preaching around 1375, viz., "When Adam ploughed and Eve span, who was then the gentleman?";'74 the Taborite uprising
of 1420-36; the Russian uprisings of Bolotnikov and Razin in the seventeenth century and of Pugachev in the eighteenth;
and the Taiping Rebellion in China in the nineteenth century.'75 But of all the great peasant rebellions, the Peasant War in
Germany of the sixteenth century is perhaps by far the most important.
At the time of the Peasant War in Germany (1525), writes Engels,176 "the various estates that embraced or opposed
those ideas, concentrated the nation, painfully and only approximately, into three large camps-the reactionary or Catholic
camp, the Lutheran bourgeois reformist camp, and the revolutionary [or Anabaptist] camp." We must now proceed to say a
word or two about each of these "three large camps," if we are to gain an adequate understanding of the subsequent
history.
The Catholic camp had its left-wing in Renaissance thinkers like More, Rabelais, Montaigne, and Campanella. As a
result of the rise of natural science, starting in 1280 with Roger Bacon's nominalism 177 and the rediscovery of Greek art
and literature, the Renaissance was born-at first within the Catholic Church. Thus even within the Catholic camp, More's
1516 communistic Utopia (from eu-topos = "good place," or ou-topos = "no place") criticized existing society and advocated
a fabulous communistic society. More had been reading the namer of America Amerigo Vespucci's New World, in which the
famous explorer described his second voyage from Lisbon in 1501, and in which he stated that the men of the Canary
Islands "live in a natural fashion" so that "they may be called Epicureans rather than Stoics," as "they have no private
property, everything being in common," and who "exist without a king, without authorities, each being his own master." 178 So
in More's theoretical "Utopia" or kingdom of peace and liberty, we find village communities of about six thousand persons
each, all working a six-hour day and most eating in communal eating halls, with compulsory universal polytechnical
education, and no money or private property and only communal interests.179
More's Utopia was followed by Rabelais' The Abbey of Theleme. In Rabelais (1496-1553), the influence of the
Renaissance is even more marked. His "Utopia" bears on its gates the inscription "Our Earthly Paradise," and entrance is
forbidden to all "religious boobies, sots, imposters, snivelling hypocrites, bigots." It is a "monastic abbey" of pleasuregardens, theaters, parks, stables and halls, where "all the nuns are beautiful" and where not chastity, poverty and obedience
are praised, but where all may marry, be rich and live at liberty. "All their life was spent not in laws, statutes or rules, but
according to their own free will and pleasure. They rose out of their beds when they thought good; they did eat, drink, labor,
sleep, when they had a mind to it, and were disposed to it. ... In all their rule and strictest land to their order, there was but
this one clause to be observed: DO WHAT THOU WILT."180
If Rabelais portrayed an ideal future society which paved the way for the eschatological "kingdom of liberty" of MarxismLeninism, Montaigne (1533-92) would portray the ideal past and present society which paved the way for Rousseau's noble
savage and Engels' doctrine of "primitive communism" and (to some extent even of) future communism.
In his Des Cannibals, Montaigne, a great admirer of the Stoic Seneca,181 adversely contrasted sixteenth-century
Western Europe with the sixteenth-century primitive Indian society of South America, and strongly recalls Gonzalo's speech
in Shakespeare's The Tempest.181a Writes Montaigne of the natives of sixteenth-century Brazil: "This is a nation, I should
say as Plato, which has no manner of traffic; no knowledge of letters; no science of numbers; no name of magistrate or
statesman; no use for slaves; neither wealth nor poverty; no contracts; no successions; no partitions; no occupations but
that of idleness; only a general respect for parents; no clothing; no agriculture; no metals; no use of wine or corn: the very
words denoting falsehood, treachery, dissimilation, avarice, envy, detraction, pardon, unheard of."182
"The whole day is spent in dancing. The younger men hunt animals with bows183 The men there have several wives,
and the higher their reputation for valor the greater is the number of their wives. It is a remarkably beautiful feature in their
marriages, that the same jealousy that our wives have to keep us from the love and favors of other women, they have to an
equal degree to procure it. Being more solicitous for their husbands' honor than for anything else, they use their best
endeavors to have as many male companions as they can, seeing that that is a proof of their husbands' worth."184
On the whole, however, the Catholic camp was reactionary, believe the communists, and sought to preserve feudalism.
The second camp, the Lutheran, however, was reformist. While seeking to remove some of the abuses of feudalism, it
could not project a post-feudal future path for changing future society. Luther, in his 1525 writing, "An Admonition for Peace,
in answer to the Twelve Articles of the Peasants" 'who were then engaged in uprisings throughout Germany), did at least
quote Psalm 107:40 and admonish the princes and the (Roman Catholic) prelates for indirectly inciting the peasants to
violence by systematically expropriating them by excessive taxation. But having done this, Luther then admonished the
peasants for seeking a violent overthrowal of the status quo.185 All Luther really advocated was reformism-a simple return to
the good old days of a Bible-based rural economy and the mediaeval economic doctrine of the "just price"-whatever that
may mean. And Luther's intense preoccupation with the salvation of the soul of man as an individual strongly militated
against any concern he may otherwise have had for the salvation of the body of the individual and of the body of society as
a whole.186 As Engels remarked: "The Lutheran Reformation produced a new creed indeed, a religion adapted to absolute
monarchy. No sooner were the peasants of North East Germany converted to Lutheranism than they were from freemen
reduced to serfs."187
For the real revolutionaries were the third camp, the Anabaptistic peasants. Already in 1524, Thomas Mnzer of
Thuringia and Melchior Hoffmann of Swabia were advocating revolutionary communism. As Engels remarked,'88 "the
peasants and plebeians ... united in a revolutionary party whose demands and doctrines were most clearly expressed by

-40-

Mnzer."
"What with the Reformation and the general unrest of his time," continued Engels,189 "the millennium and the day of
judgement over the degenerated church and corrupted world proposed and described by the mystic, seemed to Mnzer
imminently close. ... Under the cloak of Christian forms he preached a kind of pantheism, ... and at times even approached
atheism. ... It is the task of believers to establish this Heaven, the kingdom of God, here on earth. Just as there is no
Heaven in the beyond, there is also no Hell and no damnation. Similarly, there is no devil but man's evil lusts and greed ...
Just as Mnzer's religious philosophy approached atheism, so his political program approached communism, and even on
the eve of the [1848] February Revolution, there was more than one modern communist sect that had not such a wellstocked theoretical arsenal as was 'Mnzer's' in the sixteenth century."
"By the kingdom of God," wrote Engels,190 "Mnzer understood a society in which there would be no class differences or
private property and ... (in which there would be no) authority independent of or foreign to the members of the society ... A
union was established to implement all this."
Mnzer summed up his principles in the words omnia simul communis ("all things in common together"), which he
elaborated as follows: All things shall be common, and occasionally they shall be distributed according to each one's
necessity; and whatever prince, count, or lord will not submit to this, and being forewarned, his head shall be stricken off or
he shall be hung."'1 91
"Mnzer set to work at once to organize the union," continued Engels.192 "His sermons became still more militant and
revolutionary He depicted the previous oppression in fiery colors, and countered it with his dream vision of the millennium
of social republican equality. He published one revolutionary pamphlet after another and sent emissaries in all directions."
"All the world must suffer a big jolt," proclaimed Mnzer.193 "There will be such a game that the ungodly will be thrown off
their seats and the downtrodden will rise."
When Mtinzer declared Christ to be a mere man and the power of the secular authorities to be ungodly, Luther
condemned him as "Satan stalking." Mnzer returned the compliment, denouncing Luther as "that spiritless, soft-soaping
flesh at Wittenberg,"194 and accusing him of flattering the princes and supporting the reactionary party through his insipid
moderation. "'But the people would free themselves nonetheless,' he wrote, 'and it would go with Luther as with a captive
fox,'" thus Engels.'195
Mnzer now collected together 8,000 peasants, ransacked the cloisters and the houses of the rich throughout Thuringia,
but was solidly defeated at the battle of Frankhausen in 1525, and beheaded shortly thereafter.196
However, the peasant revolt had nlready spread from Thuringia to Swabia, where the preaching of Meichoir Hoffmann,
who claimed to be the prophet Elijah, had inspired the peasants to make their demands as laid down in the Twelve Articles,
demanding liberty in hunting, fishing, wood-cutting, and from serfdom.197 The Fourth Article, for example, condemned the
"custom that no poor man hath the right to capture ground game, fowls, or fish in flowing water, which to us seemeth
unbecoming and unbrotherly. For when God the Lord created man He gave him power over all creatures: over the fowl in
the air, and over the fish in the water"198 (cf. Gen. 1:26-28).
Without waiting for the nobility to reply to their demands, the peasants revolted. In eight days, 179 castles and twentyeight cloisters were burnt down, and many of the nobility were butchered. But the princes finally arose against them, and the
revolt ended in the bloody death of nearly 100,000 peasants.109
The last episode in the Peasant Revolution was reached some ten years later in the town Mnster in Westphalia. In
1534 Dutch and German Anabaptists under the leadership of Bernt Rothmann, Jan Mathys(sen). Johann Bockelson (or
"John of Leyden"), and Bernhard Knipperdolling took over Mnster, proclaimed it to be the "New Jerusalem," and expelled
all the anti-Anabaptists. Private possessions and money were confiscated, community of property and community of wives
were introduced, and communal meals were instituted. Only after the bloodiest of battles did the anti-Anabaptists overthrow
the "New Jerusalem." And the leaders, including Knipperdolling (who had seventeen wives), were cruelly put to death.200
Thus ended the Peasant Wars in Germany at the time of the Reformation. As Engels has stated, "in every great
bourgeois movement there were independent outbursts of that class which was the forerunner, more or less developed, of
the modern proletariat. For example, at the time of the German Reformation, and the Peasants' War, the Anabaptists and
Thomas Mnzer."201 The "great bourgeois movement" which was then beginning to develop was, of course, the germ of
capitalism amongst the new middle class or bourgeoisie in the towns. And with this development, feudalism crumbled,
replete with its own moral corruption. 202 If Richard I Coeur-de-Lion had indulged in free trade instead of going on the
Crusades earlier in 1150, "we should have been spared five hundred years of misery," wrote Engels.203a But now the
ultimate destruction of feudalism was also to involve the destruction of the (Roman Catholic) Church. For as Engels
maintained in his essay, The Peasant War in Germany,204 all the generally voiced attacks against feudalism were above all
attacks against the Church, and all social and political, revolutionary doctrines were necessarily at the same time and mainly
theological heresies. The existing social conditions had to be stripped of their halo of sanctity before they could be
attacked."
With the discovery of new trade routes to the East and of the New World to the west, and with the rise of great trading
leagues in the towns, Europe was now ready to pass from feudalism into the next phase-that of capitalism.205
4.

Science and Calvinism (1500 ff.)

-41-

The advent of capitalism was prepared by two factors in particular-natural science and Calvinism.
Well into the period of feudalism, wrote Lenin, 206 "science had but been the humble handmaid of the church, had not
been allowed to overstep the limits set by faith, and for that reason had been no science at all. Science rebelled against the
Church, the bourgeoisie could not do without science, and therefore had to join in the rebellion."
"Modern natural science-the only one which can come into consideration qua science as against the brilliant intuitions of
the Greeks and the sporadic unconnected investigations of the Arabs-begins with the mighty epoch when feudalism was
smashed by the burghers. In the background of the struggle between the burghers of the towns and the feudal nobility, this
epoch showed the peasant in revolt, and behind the peasant the revolutionary beginnings of the modern proletariat, already
red flag in hand and with communism on its lips. It was the epoch which brought into being the great monarchies in Europe,
broke the spiritual dictatorship of the Pope, evoked the revival of Greek antiquity and with it the highest artistic development
of the new age, broke through the boundaries of the old world, and for the first time really discovered the world.
"It was the greatest revolution that the world has so far experienced. Natural science also flourished in this revolution,
was revolutionary through and through, advanced hand in hand with the awakening modern philosophy of the great
Italians."
At that time natural science also had its declaration of independence. "What Luther's burning of the Papal Bull was-in
the religious field, in the field of natural science was the great work of Copernicus in which he threw down a challenge to
ecclesiastical superstition. From then on natural science was in essence emancipated from religion ...
"The first breach: Kant and Laplace. The second: geology and palaeontology (Lyell, slow development). The third:
organic chemistry, which prepares organic bodies and shows the validity of chemical laws for living bodies. The fourth:
1842, mechanical [theory of] heat, Grove. The fifth: Darwin, Lamarck, the cell, etc. (struggle, Cuvier and Agassiz). The sixth:
the comparative element in anatomy and climatology (isotherms), animal and plant geography (scientific travel expeditions
since the middle of the eighteenth century), physical geography in general (Humboldt), the assembling of the material in its
interconnection. Morphology (embryology, Baer)
"The old teleology has gone to the devil ... God is nowhere treated worse than by natural scientists who believe in him.
Materialists simply explain the facts."
From these citations, it is clear that Engels believed that he and others like him had understood the facts of natural
science, and that these facts, clearly believed by Engels to be indisputable, had sent "the old teleology [and its God] to
the devil."
"God is nowhere treated worse than by natural scientists, who believe in him. Materialists simply explain the facts,
without making use of such phrases. They do this first when importunate pious believers try to force God upon them, and
then they answer curtly, either like Laplace: Sire, je n'avais pas, etc. ['Sir, I have no reason to employ that hypothesis' (=
Laplace's answer to Napoleon when the latter asked him why God did not appear in his book System of the World - N.L.)],
or more radically in the manner of the Dutch merchants who, when German commercial travellers press their shoddy goods
on them, are accustomed to turn away with the words: Ik kan die zaken niet gebruiken ['I have no use for the things'-N.L.],
and that is the end of the matter."207
"Real natural science," wrote Engels,208 "dates from the second half of the fifteenth century," and Copernicus' book
(erroneously claiming the heliocentricity of the universe but certainly proving the heliocentricity of the solar system, and
which he had finished writing in 1531) constituted what Kant could later so correctly only term "the Copernican revolution" in
natural science. As Engels remarked: "The revolutionary act by which natural science declared its independence and, as it
were, repeated Luther's burning of the Papal Bull, was the publication of the immortal work by which Copernicus ... threw
down the gauntlet to ecclesiastical authority in the affairs of nature. The emancipation of natural science from theology dates
from this [time]."209
It was only five years after the completion of Copernicus' book when Calvin the "bourgeois" theologian published the
first (1536) edition of his epoch-making Institutes of the Christian Religion.
If the "Copernican Revolution" constituted the first great bourgeois upheaval of oncoming capitalism, "in Calvinism,"
wrote Engels,210 "the second great bourgeois upheaval found its doctrine ready cut and dried." For "beside the German
Luther appeared the Frenchman Calvin," he wrote.'11 "With true French acuity he put the bourgeois character of the
Reformation in the forefront, republicanized and democratized the Church. While the Lutheran Reformation in Germany
degenerated and brought the country to rack and ruin, the Calvinist Reformation served as a banner for the republicans in
Geneva, in Holland and in Scotland, freed Holland from Spain and from the German Emperor and provided the ideological
costume for the second act of the bourgeois revolution, which was taking place in England. Here Calvinism justified itself as
the true religious disguise of the interests of the bourgeoisie of that time, and on this account did not attain full recognition
when the revolution ended in 1689 in a compromise between one part of the nobility and the bourgeoisie. The English state
church was re-established, not in its earlier form of a Catholicism which had the king for its pope, but instead, strongly
Calvinized. The old state church had celebrated the merry Catholic Sunday and had fought against the dull Calvinistic one.
The new, bourgeoisified church introduced the latter, which adorns England to this day [1888]."
And so, as Engels remarked,212 "where Luther failed, Calvin won the day. Calvin's creed was one fit for the boldest of
the bourgeoisie of his time. His predestination doctrine was the religious expression of the fact that in the commercial world
of competition success or failure does not depend upon a man's activity or cleverness but upon circumstances
uncontrollable by him. It is not of him that willeth or of him that runneth, but of the mercy of unknown superior economic

-42-

powers; and this was especially true ... when India and America were opened to the world ... Calvin's church constitution
was thoroughly democratic and republican; and where the kingdom of God was republicanized, could the kingdoms of this
world remain subject to monarchs, bishops and lords? While German Lutheranism became a willing tool in the hands of
princes, Calvinism founded a republic in Holland, and active republican parties in England, and above all, Switzerland."
It was Calvinism, then spreading out from Switzerland, which led to the bourgeois reaction (to Anabaptistic communism)
in the Netherlands (and later in South Africa, etc.) from the end of the sixteenth century, and in Britain and North America
from the middle of the seventeenth century.218 And under Calvinistic republicanism, natural scientific research and trade
developed more and more, as a strongly religiously oriented middle class emerged. Calvin permitted the usury which Rome
and Luther had prohibited to Christians, 214 and so the Calvinistic countries soon became the richest and most progressive in
the world.
Together with the spread of Calvinism, there was also a tremendous development in the fields of natural science and
philosophy, which would soon cause Europe to lapse first into deism and then into atheism, as materialism again increased.
In 1584, Bruno, a believer in the infinite perfectibility of knowledge, published his On the Infinite Universe and the World
- only to be burned in 1600 by the reactionary Catholic Inquisition. In 1596, Kepler published his Mysterium
Cosmographicum,215 showing the orbits of the planets - a great discovery, as Engels pointed out. 216 And as modern Soviet
philosophers maintain: "The great thinkers of the Renaissance-Copernicus, Bruno and Galileo-overthrew these false notions
(viz., of the earth being the center of the universe), shattered the glass dome of the cosmos and extended it to infinity."216a
The seventeenth century commenced with the epoch-making contributions of Francis Bacon. 217
As Marx stated: "Bacon of Verulam declared theological physics to be a virgin vowed to God and barren; he
emancipated physics from theology and she became fruitful."218 As Marx and Engels jointly remarked: "The real founder of
English materialism and all modern experimental science was Bacon. For him natural science was true science and physics
based on perception was the most excellent part of natural science."219 And as Lenin maintained: "Materialism is the son of
Great Britain," for "in Bacon, ... matter smiles at man as a whole with poetical sensuous brightness." 220
In 1620, Francis Bacon published his inductive logic, Novum Organum, and in 1624 his eschatological utopia, the New
Atlantis.
In the New Atlantis we see the application of science to accomplish the eschatological redemption of man from all his
troubles. 221 Here Bacon described a utopian society in which everyone is engaged in inductive research and, after
ascertaining the natural laws concerned, in practical application of the knowledge thus gained. The whole society is one in
which nothing is left to chance and is really just one huge laboratory containing incubators, submarines, flying-machines,
preservative apparatus, paradise water, oxygen tents, telescopes, microscopes, condensed food, and perpetual motion
machines.222 All of which is strongly prospective of the belief of modern Russian Leninists that true communism must have
an advanced technico-economic basis. 223
Perhaps even more interesting, and certainly so from the sociological point of view, is the utopia of Bacon's
contemporary, one of "the outstanding thinkers of those days" (thus modern Russian communist philosophers),224 Giovanni
Dominico (Tommaso) Campanella.
Campanella's City of the Son combines More's communism with Rabelais' luxury with Bacon's technology. The leader,
Hoh, is an encyclopaedist, well trained in many natural sciences (cf. Soviet polytechnical education). In that society, human
beings [are] bred scientifically like dogs and horses; children are educated and regulated by the rulers; there is community
of wives, property, honors, and pleasures; their magistrates regulate everything; there are no gross crimes; men and women
have dwellings and dormitories in common, and are rotated twice a year; both sexes must work; and there are no slaves.225
In More, Bacon, and Campanella, then, we have the "theoretical enuncialions corresponding with the[se] revolutionary
uprisings of a class not yet developed," as Engels put it, viz., "in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, utopian pictures of
ideal social conditions."226
The discoveries in natural science and the rapid development of a sophisticated philosophy continued. In 1632 Galilci,
the inventor of the telescope, publicized his Dialogue on the Two Greatest Systems of the Universe, viz., the heliocentric
Copernican and the earth-centered Ptolemaic, correctly limiting Copernicus' view of the heliocentricity of the universe to the
heliocentricity of the solar system.227 And Descartes, in his Discourse on Method (1644), drew the logical conclusion of
Aquinas' "schizocosmia"22~-the human mind may well be res cogitans, and subject to God's law; but everything else on
earth is res extensa, and basically mechanical.229 For Descartes was a materialist as regards his concept of nature,230 and
animals were to him simply complex machines whose activities were wholly explicable by means of mechanical causes.281
As such, Descartes must surely be regarded as the father of modern rationalism.232
According to Marx,233 Descartes was s6mething of a prophet: "Descartes, in defining animals as mere machines saw
with the eyes of the manufacturing period [of the future] ... That Descartes, like Bacon, anticipated an alteration in the form
of production, and the practical subjugation of Nature by Man, as a result of the altered methods of thought, is plain from his
'Discours de Ia Mthode ...' Descartes' method had begun to free Political Economy from the old fables and superstitious
notions of gold, trade, &c."
As Marx and Engels remarked: "Descartes in his physics endowed matter with self-creative power and conceived
mechanical motion as an act of its life. He completely separated his physics from his metaphysics. Within his physics is the
only substance, the only basis of being and of knowledge."234
It was, however, particularly Gassendi who began to draw the full consequences of Descartes' position. In the former's

-43-

The Philosophy of Epicurus (1649), crypto-materialism broke through naturalistically in his use of the scientific method.
"Metaphysics of the seventeenth century, represented in France by Descartes," wrote Marx and Engels,255 "had materialism
as its antagonist from its very birth. It personally opposed Descartes in Gassendi, the restorer of Epicurean naturalism.
French and English materialism was always closely related to Democritus and Epicurus." For it was "Gassendi, who freed
Epicurus from the interdict laid on him by the Pathers of the Church and the whole of the Middle Ages," wrote Karl Marx in
his doctoral dissertation.256 Consequently, one can with Lenin23~ in a certain sense even speak of "Descartes versus
Gassendi."
In Hobbes's Leviathan (1651), which advanced the mechanistic theory of man 2'8 (bodies = machines; heart = a spring;
nerves = strings), 239 matters were taken a step further. Originally man was an individualistic brute mistrustful of and hateful
toward all other men, but he acquired a measure of personal security by entering into a "social contract" "with other
individuals and delegating some of his own sovereign rights to the state in the interests of the maintenance of law and
order."240 As Marx and Engels remarked: "Hobbes was the one who systematized Bacon's materialism."241 And as Lenin
remarked: "Hobbes did away with the theistic prejudices of Bacon's materialism."242 And as Marx pointed out, Hobbes even
anticipated homo oeconomicus or economic man with his view that "the value or worth of a man, is as of all other things, his
price."243
Contemporary with Hobbes were the seventeenth-century British systems of communism, viz., Winstanley's Law of
Freedom, and Harrington's Oceana. Winstanley's system was that of the "Diggers" or the [true] "Levellers" with their
community of property.244 They were, as Engels pointed out,245 "forerunnerls] ... of the modern proletariat." Oceana, on the
other hand, was an ideal constitution where private property was limited to 3000 ($10,000) per landowner, and where
magistrates and legislators were required to rotate to prevent abuse of power. 246
In the person of the great Jewish philosopher Spinoza, Holland too made an important contribution to the development
of philosophy and science. His system is contained especially in his three books Principles of Philosophy (1663),
Theologico-Political Treatise (1670), and Ethics, Demonstrated in the Manner of Geometry (1677). In his motto "Deus sive
natura" (God or nature), Spinoza signified that nature is its own cause and is in no need of a Creator standing above it.
Nature is itself infinite and eternal and divine.247
As the modern Russian communist philosopher Afanasyev has stated,248 Spinoza "formulated the doctrine of the
material unity of the world. Overcoming the dualism of Descartes, he asserted that a single substance constitutes the basis
of all objects in the world. This substance-in pre-Marxist philosophy the immutable basis of everything existing-is nature,
eternal in time and infinite in space. Conscience does not exist outside this substance and like extension (corporality) is its
attribute. Nature, Spinoza asserted, develops according to its own laws; it is its own cause and requires no supernatural
forces.
"Spinoza was an outstanding atheist of the seventeenth century. He did not simply criticize religion, but sought
scientifically to prove its fallaciousness and expose its roots and reactionary role. His thesis that nature is its own cause
drove the concept of god from nature and, in effect, was a philosophical substantiation of atheism."
And as Marx and Engels wrote: "Sensuousness [cf. Bacon and Hobbes] lost its bloom and became the abstract
sensuousness of the geometncian [cf. Spinoza's more geometrico or Ethics, Demonstrated in the Manner of Geometry].
Physical motion was sacrificed to the mechanical or mathematical, geometry was proclaimed the principal science."249a And
Lenin too regarded Spinoza as the next step in the development of dialectical materialistic philosophy after Descartes and
Gassendi.250
After Spinoza, it was again England that came into the limelight. It was, as modern Russian communist philosophers
claim,251 "in particular, the mechanics of Isaac Newton" that gave impetus to the development of an ultimately materialistic
physics. In 1687 Newton's Principles of Natural Philosophy appeared. Newton was the discoverer of the Jaw of gravity and,
as Engels pointed out, 252 the laws of planetary movement, later discovered by Kepler, were also taken by "Newton [and]
formulated ... from the point of view of the general laws of the motion of matter." It is often said that Newton was a believer
in God. But this is rather academic. For, as Engels has shown,253 "Newton still allowed Him the 'first impulse' but forbade
Him any further interference in his solar system."
After Newton, continued Engels,253 natural science speedily developed into deism: "Father Secchi bows Him out of the
solar system altogether and he only allows Him a creative act as regards the primordial nebula. ... And finally Tyndall ...
totally forbids Him any entry into nature and relegates Him. ... What a distance from the old God-the Creator of heaven and
earth, the maintainer of all things-without whom not a hair can fall from the head!"
5.

The European "Enlightenment" (1700 ff.)

It was especially during the last decade of the seventeenth century that the stage was set for the next step in the
development of science toward Marxism-"the Enlightenment."
In 1690 Locke wrote his Two Treatises on Goveniment on democracy and his Essay Concerning Human Understanding
on empiricism, and in 1691 his Some Considerations on the Consequences of the Lowering of Interest-in which latter work,
anticipating Marx's doctrine of the use-value of things, he held that "the natural worth of anything consists in its fitness to
supply the necessities, or serve the conveniences of human life."254 Locke it was, claimed the modern Russian communist
philosopher Afanasyev, 255 who laid the groundwork for sensualism, claiming that all human knowledge stems only from

-44-

sensations and sensory data. But as Marx and Engels pointed out, 256 what was really needed was a positive, antimetaphysical system." To help develop this, "Locke's treatise on the origin of human reason came from [England] across
the channel [to the European Continent] as if in answer to a call ... [Hence] materialism is the native son of Great Britain.Even Britain's scholastic Duns Scotus [(c. 1270-1308) had already] wondered: 'Can matter think?'
Having arrived in Europe from across the British Channel, the new thought took root particularly in France and
Germany. In 1695 Pierre Bayle's Historical and Critical Dictionary appeared in which he sought to "do justice" to the views of
atheists and infidels. As Marx and Engels stated:25? "The man who deprived seventeenth century metaphysics of all credit
in the domain of theory, was Pierre Bayle. His weapon was scepticism ... Pierre Bayle did not only prepare the reception of
materialism and the philosophy of common sense in France by shattering metaphysics with his scepticism. He heralded
atheistic society." And as Lenin added: "Pierre Boyle, through his weapon of scepticism ... proclaimed atheism."258
A last important event at the very end of the seventeenth century was the appearance of John BelIer's books259 -College
of Industry (1696), advocating co-operative colonies and the abolition of money, and Essays about the Poor, Manufactures,
Trade, Plantations, and Immortality (1699). As Marx himself remarked: "John Bellers," the pre-Enlightenment communist,
was a very phenomenon in the history of Political Economy,"260 and he frequently quoted him with warm approval. 261
The eighteenth century began with fully fledged deism, soon to develop into the German Enlightenment and the French
Revolution.
As Marx and Engels remarked: "Just as Hobbes did away with the theistic prejudices in Bacon's materialism, so Collins,
Dodwall, Coward, Hartley, Priestley and others broke down the last bounds of Locke's sensualism. For materialists, at least,
deism is no more than a convenient and easy way of getting rid of religion."262 "The materialist philosophers regarded all
phenomena of nature and social life from the stand-point of mechanics and by its aid hoped to explain these phenomena,"
claim modern Soviet communist philosophers.283 "Hence their materialism came to be known as mechanical materialism. Its
exponents in the eighteenth century were John Toland [author of Christianity Not Mysterious] and Joseph Priestley [a
rationalistic Unitarian] in England [and the rationalistic and infidel materialists] Julien Ia Mettrie, Paul Holbach, ClaudeAdrien Helvetius and Denis Diderot in France."
The German Enlightenment itself, however, was more rationalistic (and even idealistic) than it was materialistic or
atheistic. Its first representative was Gottfried Leibniz, whose rationalistically mathematicistic Monadology appeared in 1714.
Yet even here, as Lenin pointed out, 264 "Leibniz is half-Christian, he is atheist, or Christian and a materialist. He limits the
goodness and power of God by wisdom, by the understanding," for in Leibniz "all opposites, all boundaries of space and
time, and kind, vanish in the face of the absolute continuity, the infinite interconnection of the universe," so that "here is
dialectics of a kind, and very profound, despite the idealism and clericalism"-a rationalism developed even further in Wolff's
Ralional Thoughts on God (1719).
In 1720, Meslier's Testament attacked the "Christian communism" advocated by the priests and sought to replace it with
pure communism.265 In 1740 Hume ridiculed miracles in his sceptical Treatise on Human Nature. And in 1748, against the
background of the dominant English deism of Priestley and others, Montesquica culled Locke's On Civil Government and
published his rendition thereof as his own L'Esprit de Lois (or "Spirit of the Laws"),28' while De Ia Mettrie published his
mechanistic Man a Machine.267
In Lamettrie's works, wrote Marx and Engels, 267a "we find a combination of Descartes' system and 'English materialism.
He makes use of Descartes' physics in detail. His Man a Machine is a treatise after the model of Descartes' beast-machine."
"As Cartesian materialism merges into material science proper, the other branch of French materialists leads direct to
socialism and cornmunism."268
From the middle of the eighteenth century, we encounter the French Enlightenment proper, with its strong emphasis on
mechanical materialism.
As Marx and Engels pointed out, 2"" "the French Enlightenment of the eighteenth century, in particular French
materialism, was not only a struggle against the existing political institutions and the existing religion and theology; it was
just as much an open struggle against the metaphysics of the seventeenth century, and against all metaphysics, in
particular that of Descartes, Malebranche, Spinoza and Leibniz ... Seventeenth-century metaphysics [werel beaten off the
field by the French Enlightenment, to be precise, by the French materialism of the eighteenth century ... Mechanical French
materialism followed Descartes' physics in opposition to his metaphysics. Its followers were by profession antimetaphysicists, i.e., physicists." This was also reflected in "the practical nature of French life at the time [... when] life was
turned to the immediate present, worldly enjoyment and worldly interests, the earthly world. Its anti-theological, antimetaphysical and materialistic practice demanded corresponding anti-theological, anti-metaphysical and materialistic
theories. [And] as Cartesian materialism merges into natural science proper, the other branch of French materialism leads
direct to socialism and communism."
As Lenin remarked: "The French 'civilized' the materialism of the English," and "nothing is easier than to derive
socialism from the premises of materialism."2'9~
In 1754, as Marx and Engels pointed out,270 "Locke's immediate follower, Condillac, who also translated him into
French, at once opposed Locke's sensualism to seventeenth-century metaphysics" in his own Treatise on Sensation;
whereas Diderot and D'Alembert worked almost for the next twenty years (1752-72) on their mammoth Encyclopaedia or
Dictionary of the Sciences and the Arts (28 volumes).271 And in 1753-5 appeared Morelly's "actual communistic theories," as
Engels212 termed them, viz., his Shipwreck of the Floating Isles and his Code of Nature.

-45-

The following year (1754) Rousseau published his Discourse on the Origin of Inequalily and Diderot his Interpretation of
Nature. In Diderot, claimed the modern Russian communist philosopher Afanasyev, 273 we find the development of
organisms, and the connection of plants and animals with the conditions of their existence. In one word, "teleology" is here
replaced by science.274 Engels and Lenin in particular had high regard for Diderot's encyclopaedistic materialism.275
In the following year (1755), an event of major importance took place in Germany-Immanuel Kant published his Natural
History and Theory of the Heavens, advocating the later widely accepted Kant-Laplace cosmology, viz., that the solar
system arose naturally from a nebula276-a cosmogony which does not need the "hypothesis" of a Creator God.216" For as
Engels277 has maintained: "Nature is the proof of dialectics Kant began his career by resolving the stable solar system of
Newton and its eternal duration ... into the result of a historictal] process, the formation of the sun and all its planets out of a
rotating nebular mass"The first breach in this petrified [static Newtonian] outlook," Engels elsewhere recorded,278 was
made by "Kant and Laplace."279 "The question of the first impulse tin "creation"-N.L.] was done away with; the earth and the
whole solar system appeared as something that had come into being in the course of time ... Kant's discovery contained the
point of departure for all further progress. If the earth was something that had come into being, then its present geological,
geographical, and climatic state, and its plants and animals likewise, must be something that had come into being; it must
have had a history, not only of co-existence in space but also of succession in time ... Kant's work remained without
immediate results until many years later Laplace and Herschel expounded its contents and gave them a deeper foundation,
thereby gradually bringing the 'nebular hypothesis' into favor."278 Even so, Kant's cosmogony, like his epistemology, can only
be described as bringing about nothing less than another "Copernican revolution" in natural science.
Back in France, the triumph of materialism and naturalism gained momentum in the writings of Helvetius, Voltaire, and
Rousseau.
In 1758 Helvetius' On the Mind appeared, defending the thesis that man is motivated basically by self-interest. "In
Helvetius, who also based himself on Locke, materialism became really French," wrote Marx and Engels.280 "Helvetius
conceived it immediately in its application to social life ... The natural equality of human intelligence, and the unity of
progress of reason and progress of industry, the natural goodness of man and the omnipotence of education are the main
points in his system."
The following year (1759) Voltaire's Candide appeared, advocating raw humanism and complete religious relativism.281
And three years later, in 1762, Rousseau's Social Contract on the ideal form of government and his Emile on naturalistic
education were published. Rousseau the deist282 is also Rousseau the naturalist. 283 And so, wrote Engels,284 "already in
Rousseau, therefore, we find not only a sequence of ideas which corresponds exactly with the sequence developed in
Marx's Capital, but we even find that the correspondence extends also to details, Rousseau using a whole series of the
same dialectical developments as Marx used," whereas "Rousseau's 'Contrat Social' (alias: mob rule)," wrote Engels,285
soon "found its realization in the Reign of Terror" of Robespierre [and in the Marxist-Leninist dictatorship of the proletariat!].
French communism as such at this time was carried forward in Mably's Doutes proposes aux philosophes conomistes,
in which he championed communistic natural law, praised the Lycurgean legislation and Plato's Republic and advocated
common property.286 As Engels remarked, 28' "the actual communistic theories [of] ... Mably"272 were "theoretical
emancipation corresponding with the[se] revolutionary uprisings of a class not yet developed."
Perhaps the acme of naturalistic materialism was reached in D'Holbach's System of Nature (1770). The universe, held
D'Holbach, is just one big colossal combination of everything existing, [and] presents to us only matter and motion
everywhere."288 Wrote Marx and Engels: "The physical part of Holbach's Systme de la nature, ou de lois du monde
physique et du monde moral is also a result of the combination of French and English materialism, while the moral part is
based substantially on the moral[s] of Helvetius."28~
In 1773 Monboddo asserted the social nature of language in his Origin and Progress of Language (cf. Stalin's 1950
Marxism and the Problems of Linguistics)' and from 1760 to 1790, as a result of the invention of the steam engine (1769),
the cotton-spinning frame (1769), and the power loom (1785) by Arkwright, Watt, and Cartwright, the great industrial
revolution with all its accompanying early social and economic miseries got underway in England and soon spread to
Europe.290
6.

The French Revolution (1770 ff.)

Against the background of the French Enlightenment and rapid industrial development, Europe was now ripe for
revolution. As Marx and Engels correctly remarked: "There is no need of any great penetration to see from the teaching of
materialism on the original goodness and equal intellectual endowment of men, the omnipotence of experience, habit, and
education, and the influence of environment on man, the great significance of industry, the justification of enjoyment, etc.,
how necessarily materialism is connected with communism and socialism. If man draws all his knowedge, sensation, etc.,
from the world of the senses and the experience gained in it, the empirical world must be arranged so that in it man
experiences and gets used to what is really human and that he becomes aware of himself as man. If correctly understood
[personal] interest is the principle of all morality, man's private interest must be made to coincide with the interest of
humanity. If man is unfree in the materialist sense, i.e. is free not through the negative power to avoid this or that, but
through the positive power to assert his true individuality, crime must not be punished in the individual, but the anti-social
source of crime must be destroyed, and each man must be given social scope for the vital manifestation of his being. If man

-46-

is social by nature, he will develop his true nature only in society, or the power of his nature must be measured not by the
power of separate individuals but by the power of society."291
And as Engels added years later: "While the [French] Revolution ensured the political triumph of the bourgeoisie in
France, in England Watt, Arkwright, Cartwright and others initiated an industrial revolution which completely shifted the
center of gravity of economic power.
"First, the Reform Act was pushed through, in spite of all resistance. under the impulse of the French Revolution of
1830. It gave to the bourgeoisie a recognized and powerful place in Parliament.
"Then the Repeal [in 1846 and 1849] of the Corn Laws [which restricted the importation of grain], which settled, once for
all, the supremacy of the bourgeoisie."2"1
"Materialism or deism," wrote Engels,292 now "became the creed of the whole, cultured youth of France; so much so
that, when the Great Revolution broke out, the doctrine hatched by English Royalists gave a theoretical flag to French
Republicans and terrorists, and furnished the text for the Declaration of the Rights of Man. The Great French Revolution
was the third uprising of the bourgeoisie, but the first that had entirely cast off the religious cloak."
As Lenin remarked: "There are two trends of French materialism: 1) from Descartes, 2) from Locke. The latter leads
directly to socialism .293 And as Marx has written, "the goddesses of Justice, Freedom, Equality and Fraternity"294 contained
the "concealed germs" of "materialistic-critical socialism" "within itself."295
The French Revolution had, then, been preceded by ideological factors such as those just mentioned, and also by the
classical economy of George Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations of 1776 (which heralded Marx's labor theory of value), by
Voltaire's 1776 The Ignorant Philosopher, by Helvetius' rationalistically and radically humanistic Treatise on Man (1777), by
Priestley's Free Dicussion of the Doctrines of Materialisrn (1778), by Monboddo's 1779 Ancient Metaphysics (championing
Greek materialistic philosophy and man's evolution from the ape), by Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (dichotomizing faith
and knowledge), by Cabani's 1788-98 Relation of the Physical and the Moral in Man (advocating radical materialism), 296
and by Bentham's 1789 utilitarian Introduction to the Principles oj Morals and Legislation.
As Marx remarked:297 "The principle of utility was no discovery of Bentham. He simply reproduced in his dull way what
Helvetius and other Frenchmen had said with esprit in the eighteenth century"; for, as Marx and Engels and Lenin all
maintained: "Bentham based his system of correctly understood [self-]interest on Helvetius' moral[sJ."298
As Lenin correctly stated, then: "Engels long ago advised the contemporary leaders of the proletariat to translate the
militant atheist literature of the late eighteenth century for mass distribution among the people"; and Lenin himself approved
of "the keen vivacious and talented writings of the old eighteenth-century atheists [who] wittingly and openly attacked the
prevailing clericalism."299
However, the French Revolution was not only preceded by ideological factors. It was equally immediately preceded by
other Western revolutions, such as Pugachev's Peasant Revolution in Russia in 1773, by the nationalistically inspired
American Revolution of 1776, but above all by the 1776 Bavarian Revolution of the Illuminati.
On May 1, 1776 (later known as "May Day" in Marxist-Leninist terminology), the revolutionary communist conspiracy of
the Illuminati (or "Enlightened Ones") was founded in Bavaria in Germany. The new group strongly resembled the
mediaeval communistic conspiracy known as the "Confrrie de Ia Paix" or "Brotherhood of the Peace," and there also had
been "Illuminati" groups in Spain in the sixteenth and seventeenth and in France in the seventeenth centuries.
The eighteenth-century German Illuminati group was, however, by far the most important, and was founded by Adam
Weishaupt (alias "Spartacus"), Freiherr von Knigge (alias "Philo"), Baron Anachar(s)is von Clootz (alias "Anarchasis
Cloots"), the Duke of Gotha, Herder, Goethe (and probably Lessing too). The new order was patterned after and supported
by French Freemasonry, and advocated anthropological evolutionism, social revolution, cosmopolitan internationalism,
sexual immorality, the "perfectability of man, and the abolition of all religion, the family, inheritance and private property,"300
as indeed did the later ten "measures" of the Manifesto of the Communist Party of Marx and Engels.301 In fact, Marx and
Engels even mention the Illuminati 302 and Von Knigge 303 by name.
As a result of their conspiratorial and violent revolutionary activities, the Illuminati were ordered dissolved by the
Bavarian government in 1784. But Weishaupt's Address to the Managing Illuminati30 4 was published in 1787, and there is
considerable evidence that the Illuminati (especially in the persons of Baron von Clootz, Count Mirabeau, Count Cagliostro,
Maximilien Robespierre, and the Englishman Tom Paine of American fame, and probably also the terrorist Franois
Babeuf)3 05 continued to operate and indeed even to play a leading role in engineering the French Revolution itself some two
years later.
The immediate beginnings of the French Revolution must be pinpointed to May 1789, when revolutionary developments
in France were enthusiastically greeted by internationally renowned politicians and thinkers such as Priestley, Bentham,
Paine, Clootz, Klopstock, Fichte, and Pestalozzi.306 One month later, the Jacobin club was established in Paris, which
included as its members such men as the Illuminati Mirabeau, Clootz, and Robes-pierre, the former being frequently
referred to with approval by Marx in his Capifal,307 and the actions of the Jacobins being approved by Lenin in July 1917
right before the Red Russian Revolution in November 1917.
"Proletarian historians," Lenin then wrote in his Can 'Jacobinism' Frighten the Working Class?,808 "see Jacobinism as
one of the highest peaks in the emancipation struggle of an oppressed class. The Jacobins gave France the best models of
a democratic revolution and of resistance to a coalition of monarchs against a republic ... 'Jacobinism' in Europe or in the
boundary line between Europe and Asia in the twentieth century would be the rule of the revolutionary class, of the

-47-

proletariat, which, supported by the peasant-poor and taking advantage of the existing material basis for advancing
socialism, could not only provide all the great, ineradicable, unforgettable things provided by the Jacobins in the eighteenth
century, but brings about a lasting, world-wide victory for the working people" (italics mine-N .L.).
"It is natural for the bourgeoisie to hate Jacobinism," continued Lenin.308 "It is natural for the petty bourgeoisie to dread
it. The class-conscious workers and working people generally put their trust in the transfer of power to the revolutionary,
oppressed class, for that is the essence of Jacobinism, the only way out of the present crisis, and the only remedy for
economic dislocation and war" (cf. further ch. 4, n. 54a-N.L.).
A further month later the Bastille was successfully stormed on July 14, 1789, and the French Revolution was completed
by the armed takeover of the government, and the confiscation of ecclesiastical property.809
In the seventeen-nineties, events in France moved with great rapidity. In 1791 the Jacobins Mirabeau, Robespierre, and
Cagliostro entered into correspondence with the Englishman Thomas Hardy, who established the first working class
movement, the "London Correspondence Society." In 1792, the French Revolutionists took over Paris and' suspended the
monarchy and proclaimed a French Republic with a universal franchise, while multitudes of priests were murdered, but, to
Clootz's regret, not all. From 1793 to 1794, France was governed by Robespierre's revolutionary dictatorship known as the
"Reign of Terror," during which Christianity and the Christian Sunday were abolished, Christian place names were changed,
and the names of the months were "naturalized," the term of address "Mister" was replaced by "Comrade," all "enemies of
the people" were liquidated, prostitutes were worshiped as goddesses of reason, and (by Clootz's orders) all churches were
closed.
In 1794, the year in which Fichte's dialectical socialistic Fundamental Principles of the Whole Sciences of Knowledge
was published, Robespierre was overthrown and beheaded. And in 1795, a counter-revolution succeeded, a Directorate
was established, and the universal vote was abolished and the franchise limited.
Inevitably, however, this caused a proletarian reaction-a reaction which took on the form of the revolutionary conspiracy
of Francois Babeuf.
In 1796, Babeuf, a disciple of Morelly (and later highly praised by Karl Marx), published his Analysis of Babeuf's
Doctrine (cf. Marx's and Engels' Manifesto of the Communist Party), advocating abolition of private property, the Church,
money, and the family, and prophesying another much more serious and last of all revolutions destined to result in the
establishment of a communist "Republic of Equals," in which children are to become state property, and in which the only
rulers should be a board of distributors, whose duty it should be to appoint each one to his labor and to distribute to the
communists the provisions gathered into the public warehouses. "Gracchus" Babeuf and his "Les Egaux" ("The Equals")
then conspired together with the terrorist Buonarroti's "Union of the Pantheon" to form a secret Directorate fashioned after
the pattern of the Illuminati, in order to seize power and to establish a communist regime. But their plot to take over France
was betrayed by the defector Grisel and thwarted by the timeous action of General Napoleon Bonaparte.310
If the Illuminati-Jacobin line was temporarily defeated in France, it now migrated to Italy in the form of the Carbonari,
thence to re-emerge in France under Buonarroti and Blanqui in the eighteen-thirties and -forties.3101
To Marx and Engels, Babeuf was a genuine communist. "In every great modern revolution," they wrote,all there are also
to be found those solid revolutionists who have "always given voice to the demands of the proletariat, such as in the writings
of Babeuf." At the time of the French Revolution, wrote Engels,812 "the proletariat cast a fateful shadow ... and drew its
conclusions (Babeuf)." And to Lenin, even though "the Babouvists were crude, immature materialists," nevertheless "the
French Revolution gave rise to the ideas of communism (Babeuf), which, consistently developed, contained the idea of a
new 'Weltzustand' ['World Condition']"313 (cf. further ch. 4, n. 54a and b-N.L.).
7.

From Hegel to Marx (1800-20)

With Napoleon's seizure of power (and the establishment of his Consulate in 1799), the forces of anti-communism took
power in France. Elsewhere, Maithus published his 1898 Essay on the Principle of Population as ft Affects the Future
Improvement of Society (often referred to by Marx) ;314 Fichte promoted his idealistic socialism in his 1800 Vocation of
Man; and Sismondi developed his liberal economics in his 1803 Concerning Commercial Riches. And although Sismondi
was, as Marx and Engels and Lenin maintained,3'5 a "reactionary" Swiss advocate of "petty-bourgeois socialism," he
nevertheless said something of value, "utopian" though his ideas were.
In 1804, Napoleon became emperor of France; but even Napoleon could not stop the march of the "Enlightenment."
Shocked he was when Laplace, whose Celestial Mechanics began to appear, 1799-1825. advocated the Kant-Laplace
cosmogony and told him that he did not need the "hypothesis" of God.alo But a much greater thinker was soon to make a
decisive contribution to the development of dialectical materialism and bring Fichte's developing dialectical idealism to its
zenith-Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel.
To Hegel, the real is the rational, and reality is the Self-unfolding of the Idea of Reason through a system of triads. The
non-material idea or the Idea-in-Itself is the thesis whose fundamental science is logic, which Idea objectifies and partially
materializes Itself in Nature or the Idea-outside-of-Itself-as the antithesis whose fundamental science is geometry. This
Nature now develops into Spirit, the Idea-in-and-for-Itself, into man as the synthesis between Idea and Nature and into
Jesus Christ as the acme of mankind in whose consciousness the Idea becomes Self-conscious through history as the
fundamental science of the Spirit, through history as the "autobiography of God." In this way, the Idea achieves Freedom

-48-

(through man)-achieves it also through religion, but particularly through philosophy.317


Hegel's idea of historical evolution by the thetic-antithetic clash and synthetic resolution of dialectical contradictions
inherent in the very scheme of things itself, although idealistic, linked up directly with Heraclitus, and prepared the way for
the advent of the dialectical materialism of the one-time Hegelian Karl Marx.
Hegel's major works began to appear just before and after the birth of Marx and Engels (in 1818 and 1820), and
exercised an enormous influence on them. In 1807 Hegel published his Phenomenology of the Spirit; in 1810 his
Philosophical Propadeutics and his Science of Logic; in 1815 his Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences; and in 1821
his Foundation of the Philosophy of Right.
Although an idealist, the influence of Hegel and his dialectics on the materialism of Marx and Engels and Lenin is very
profound.
Karl Marx studied at the Hegelian-dominated University of Berlin and acknowledged in an 1837 letter to his father. "I got
to know Hegel from beginning to end.318 And traces of the Hegelian outlook were very evident in Marx's first article for the
Rheiniscize Zeitung (Rhenish Newspaper) in 1842, in which he utilized the Hegelian view of the state.319
Engels was even more appreciative of Hegel:320 "Nature is the proof of dialectics And in this spirit the new German
philosophy has worked. Kant began his career by resolving the stable solar system of Newton and its eternal duration ... into
the result of a historic[al] process, the formation of the sun and all the planets out of a rotating nebulous mass This new
German philosophy culminated in the Hegelian system ... for (lie first lime the whole world, natural, historical, intellectual, is
represented as ,a process, i.e., as in constant motion, change, transformation, development; and the attempt is made to
trace out the internal connection that makes a continuous whole of all this movement and development Although Hegel
was-with St. Simon-the most encyclopaedic mind of his time, yet he was limited ... Hegel was an idealist. ... This way of
thinking turned anything upside down, and completely reversed ht e actual connection of things in the world. ... The
perception of the fundamental contradiction in German idealism [= Hegelianism] led necessarily back to materialism, but
nota bene, not to the simply metaphysical, exclusively mechanical materialism of the eighteenth century modern
materialism sees in it the process of evolution ... Nature as a whole, must still be said to move in recurrent cycles, these
cycles assume infinitely larger dimensions ... modern materialism is essentially dialectic, and no longer requires (lie
assistance of that sort of philosophy which, queen-like, pretended to rule the remaining mob of sciences."
As Engels remarked in an 1865 letter to the famous materialist Friedrich Albert Lange: "Hegel knew so much
mathematics that not one of his pupils was equal to the task of editing the numerous manuscripts he left behind. The only
man I know who understands enough mathematics and philosophy to do this is Marx. ... I am, of course, no longer a
Hegelian, but I still have a great feeling of piety and devotion towards the colossal old chap."321 After all, "Hegel is
materialism which has been stood on its head."322
Lenin's tribute to Hegel is even more glowing. Although '4the mysticidealist-spiritualist Hegel" was guilty of "the ultranonsensical mysticism of ideas,"3 23 and although Hegel's quotations from the Gospels were: "Disgusting, stinking!,"324 and
although "Hegel's logic cannot be applied in its given form [for:] one must separate out from it the logical (epistomological)
nuances, after purifying them from Ideenmystik [or 'the mystique of ideas']-[and] that is still a big job) ,"325 nevertheless
"Hegel is much more profound than Kant, and others, in tracing the reflection of the movement of the objective world in the
movement of notions,"326 for "in Kant, [the] 'Ding an sich' [or 'thing in itself'] is an empty abstraction, but Hegel demands
abstractions which correspond to der Sache ["the essence"]: 'der objective Begriff der Dinge die Sache selbst ausmacht'
["the objective concept of the thing which constitutes the essence itself,"] which correspond-speaking materialistically-to the
real deepening of our knowledge of the world."327
In fact, continued Lenin, Hegel "came very close to materialism by a zig-zag (and a somersault), [and] even partially
became transformed into it."328 "In general, the introduction to Section III ("The Idea") of Part II to the Logic ("Subjective
Logic") Vol. V, pp.236-243 [of Hegel's Works] and the corresponding sections of the Encyclopaedia (sections 213-215) ARE PERHAPS THE BEST EXPOSITION OF DIALECTICS."32" The Hegelian dialectic is "that gem in the rubbish of
Absolute Idealism," held Lenin,880 and is in fact "a work of genius."331 It penetrates the entire universe, so that even "oats
grow according to Hegel."332 And the truth is, he concluded, that "it is impossible completely to understand Marx's Capital
and especially its first chapter, without having thoroughly studied and understood the whole of Hegel's Logic."333
After the death of Hegel in 1831, his followers divided up on the basis of their political inclinations into respectively
"Right-Hegelians" and "Left-Hegelians." The latter included Strauss, Bauer, Stirner, and especially Feuerbach-all of whom
exerted important formative influence on Marx and En gels. As Engels has stated: "Strauss, Bauer, Stirner, Feuerbach-these
were offshoots of Hegelian philosophy ... Hegel was simply put aside. On the contrary, one started out from his revolutionary
side, from the dialectical method ... [and] the dialectic of Hegel was placed upon its head."884
David Friedrich Strauss's radically critical Life of Jesus (1835) was the book which started Engels' own process of
rationalistic criticism which ultimately led to his avowal of atheistic communism 335 Then "came [Max] Stirner, the prophet of
contemporary anarchism," from whom, stated Engels, 386 "the Russian master-anarchist Mikhail Bakunin has taken a great
deal," Stirner himself having "capped the sovereign 'self-consciousness' by his sovereign 'ego,'" after which he was strongly
attacked by Marx and Engels in their German Ideology. "Bruno Bauer," founder of the Tilbingen School of higher critical
theology, then came "with proof that a whole series of evangelic stories had been fabricated by the authors themselves,"336
so that Bauer ... thereby ... cleared the ground" so that "even the historical existence of a Jesus Christ can be
questioned." 337 Then came Ludwig Feuerbach. But Feuerbach is so important in an analysis of the roots of Marxism, that he

-49-

merits rather longer treatment.


If Marxism derived its dialectics immediately from Hegel, it certainly derived its materialism immediately from Feuerbach,
who severed himself from Hegel in 1839 in his Critique of the Hegelian Philosophy.
Anticipating Marx, Feuerbach turned Hegel onto his head, i.e., subsumed Hegel's primacy of the ideal world to his own
primacy of matter. Ideas, held Feuerbach, were but the reflection of the natural material world, and the idea of God is the
mere skyward projection of human impotence, from which idea man must be liberated by the 'religion of love' for his fellow
man. 338
When Feuerbach's Essence of Christianity appeared in 1841, Engels later stated339 that he and Marx and their
colleagues "all became at once Feuerbachians." Already in 1842, Marx was claiming that "there is no other way for you to
truth and freedom except through the bath of fire [German: 'Feuerbach' = 'Fire-bath']; Feuerbach is the purgatory of the
present."340 And soon thereafter Marx wrote to Feuerbach against the idealism of Schelling.841
In the year 1844, Marx wrote in his Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts that "Feuerbach's great achievement is: (1)
The proof that philosophy is nothing else but religion rendered into thoughts and thinkingly expounded, and that it has
therefore likewise to be condemned as another form and manner of existence of the estrangement of the essence of man;
(2) The establishment of true materialism and of real science, since Feuerbach also makes the social relationship 'of man to
man' the basic principle of the theory; (3) His opposing to the negation of the negation, which claims to be the absolute
positive, the self-supporting positive, positively grounded on itself."842
And in the same year, Marx and Engels jointly wrote in their The Holy Family that Feuerbach, in his first decisive attack
on Hegel, opposed sober philosophy to drunken speculation. ... As Feuerbach represented materialism in the theoretical
domain, French and English socialism and communism in the practical field represented materialism which coincided with
humanism."343
Nearly half a century later, in his Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy of 1888, Engels would
still acknowledge that "Feuerbach's Essence of Christianity [of 1841]... placed materialism on the throne again ... Nothing
exists outside nature and man, and the higher beings our religious fantasies have created are only the reflection of our own
essence."344 And Lenin would acknowledge a further two decades later in his Materialism and Empirio-Criticism of 1909 that
"Feuerbach ... [was] a materialist whose influence on Marx and Engels led from the idealism of Hegel to their materialist
philosophy."345
Expressing his own views further, Lenin wrote in one of his last writings that "Feuerbach was the first to bring to
completion and criticize Hegel from Hegel's point of view, by resolving the metaphysical Absolute Space into 'real men on
the basis of nature,' and the first to bring to completion the criticism of religion by sketching in a masterly manner the
general basic features of the Criticism of Hegel's speculation, and hence of every kind of metaphysics."346 Feuerbach's
statement that: "The secret of religion is 'the identity of the subjective and the objective,' i.e., the unity of the being of man
and nature, but as distinct from the real being of nature and mankind," was regarded by Lenin as being "an excellent
passage!" and "an excellent, philosophical (and at the same time simple and clear) explanation of the essence of
religion."347
But Hegel and Left-Hegelianism is not the only immediate root of the thought of Marx and Engels. Equally important is
the utopian socialism of nineteenth-century France, England, and Germany.
The decade prior to Marx's birth saw the English Luddites smash new factory machines for fear of losing their jobs as a
result of increasing mechanization, and the Frenchman Cuvier laying the foundations of comparative anatomy and
paleontology in 1810. Two years later, Clootz's Illuminism was again being advocated, and this tim e by the 'Tugendbund' (or
'Bond of Virtue') in Germany, at the time when Napoleon invaded and retreated from Russia, thereby communicating many
of the French Revolutionary ideas into a backward feudal society and preparing the seeds for the later (and unsuccessful)
1825 Russian Decembrist Uprising.348
Although the British utopian socialist Owen had already undertaken the direction of New Lanark in 1800, and the French
utopian socialist St. Simon's Geneva letters had appeared in 1802, and his fellow socialist Fourier had already published his
Quatre Mouvements in 1808, it was, however, particularly after Napoleon's Waterloo defeat and abdication in 1814 and the
Restoration of the reactionary Bourbon kings, that the thus dissatisfied (utopian) socialistic ideology really began to develop
in earnest. In that same year St. Simon's Reorganization of European Society and Owen's New View of Society (I-III) and in
the following year his Observations on the Influence of the Manufacturing System appeared; two years later, St. Simon's
Industry and the English liberal economist Ricardo's Principles of Political Economy and Taxation were published. Two
years later, Sismondi's New Principles of Political Economy appeared-one year after the birth of Marx and one year before
the birth of Engels; and in the year following the latter event, in 1821, Owen's Social System and St. Simon's Industrial
System appeared, to be followed by Fourier's Treatise on the Domestic Agricultural Association in 1822, and by St. Simon's
Industrial Catechism two years later in 1824-the year when young Karl Marx was baptized at the age of six and when young
Friedrich Engels was barely four.
Marx and Engels, then, grew up in a continent seething with industrial unrest and weird utopian socialistic panaceas.
And so arose those whom Marx and Engels would later call "the three great Utopians: Saint-Simon ; Fourier; and
Owen."349
Yet the advent of true communism was served even by such utopian socialism. For although "the Socialist and
Communist systems properly so called, those of St. Simon, Fourier and Owen sprang into existence in the early

-50-

undeveloped period," wrote Marx,350 nevertheless, wrote Engels, 851 "the major minds coming from the earlier socialists [were
the very same thinkers]-St. Simon, Fourier and Owen."352
Claude Henri de St. Simon, an apostate nobleman and centralistic socialist, was a strange combination of altruist and
speculator, believing that labor is the foundation of all value. He held to the necessity of a social philosophy and of
philosophical socialism, believing that the factory worker in the industrial age has become more important than all other
classes of society, and should accordingly be entrusted with the control of the government, technology and administration
being more important than political socialism. Private property was the root of all evil, and only the social and ethical
doctrines of Christianity should be preserved-for the rest, it should be replaced with a sensualistic pantheism.358
It is true, as stated by Engels,354 that "the middle-class movement, side by side with the proletarian, still had certain
significance" to St. Simon, yet it is equally true that "St. Simon was a son of the great French Revolution" and that "already
in his Geneva letters, St. Simon lays down the proposition that 'all men ought to work,'" whereas "in 1816, he declares that
politics is the science of production, and foretells the complete absorption of politics by economics ... Very plainly expressed
is the idea of the future conversion of political rule over man into an administration of things and a direction of the processes
of production-that is to say, the 'abolition of the state.'355 Consequently, continued Engels,356 "in St. Simon we find a
comprehensive breadth of view, by virtue of which all the ideas of later socialists that were not strictly economic are found in
him in embryo."
More communistic still, but also more utopian, was the theory of Charles Fourier. "Man's destiny is happiness," he held.
"This he can attain only by harmoniously satisfying all his inclinations." "Means are necessary to this end, wealth is
accordingly the source of all happiness. Wealth is attained by means of labor. But in order that labor may produce
happiness, an order of things must be introduced according to which all work together, and in such a manner that each one
engages in the work in which he delights. In order that this may be accomplished, the individual must be persuaded to give
his possessions into the hands of the society, for which he would then have a proportionate claim on the income of the
whole; and these persons, thus united, will then also give up their separate homes, families, and training."357
Fourier believed that human motives and passions were basically good, that commerce is morally evil, that hypocritical
and woman-enslaving marriage must be replaced by free love, and that society, having gone through a long and interesting
history to arrive at the present stage of civilization, is to be followed by two new stages [cf. Marx's "socialism" and
"communism"] respectively called "Guaranteeism" and "Sociantism." Under the latter stage, there will be complete harmony
and happiness, as men will dwell in "phalansteries" or large hotels, each containing free associations of 1,800 to 2,000
workers and entrepreneurs, where there would be free love, group education of the children, seven meals daily, opera and
drama, and the joys of life for all, "so that men might hope to attain an average age of 144 years and a height of seven
feet."358
The young Engels in particular had much appreciation for Fourier. In order to enable the critics of his own futuristic
dialectical and historical materialistic schemes "to pass a correct judgment on this [future] relationship ('of this productive
power to the mass of consumers') and on the increase in productive power to be expected from a rational state of affairs
within the community," wrote Engels, "I invite my readers to consult the writings of the English Socialists, and particularly
also those of Fourier. Subjective competition-the contrast of capital against capital, of labor against labor, etc.-will under
these circumstances be reduced to the spirit of emulation guarded in human nature [a concept tolerably developed so far
only by Fourier]."359
Marx and Engels were both, of course, opposed to those who "still dream of experimental realization of their social
Utopias, of building isolated 'phalanstres,' "360 and even the mature Engels himself, in commenting on "what unspeakable
horror was felt in the then 'pious nursery' of [ascetic] Germany at St. Simon's rhabilitation de Ia chair [rehabilitation of the
flesh] in the [eighteen] thirties," jokingly added: "If only those good people had been able to know Fourier, who contemplated
quite different pranks for the flesh!"861 But the youthful Marx and Engels both conceded that "Fourier proceeds immediately
from the teaching of the French materialists."362
Even the mature Engels had profound respect for Fourier. "We find in Fourier," wrote Engels,368 "a criticism of the
existing conditions of society ... Masterly is his criticism of the bourgeois form of the relations between the sexes, and the
position of woman in bourgeois society. He was the first to declare that in any given society the degree of woman's
emancipation is the material measure of the general emancipation. But Fourier is at his greatest in his conception of the
history of society. He divides its whole course, so far, into four stages of evolution-savagery, barbarism, the patriarchate,
civilization. This last is identical with the so-called civil, or bourgeois society of today ... Fourier ... uses the dialectical
method in the same masterly way as his contemporary, Hegel. Using these same dialectics, he argues against the talk
about illimitable human perfectibility." And elsewhere Engels refers to "the brilliant critique of civilization scattered through
the works of Fourier," finding "already in his works the deep appreciation of the fact that in all imperfect societies, those torn
by conflicting interests, the individual families (les familles incohrentes) are the economic units,"364 whereas Lenin
commented that "nothing is easier than to derive socialism from the premises of materialism, inasmuch as "Fourier
proceeds immediately from the teaching of the French materialists."365
It is, however, perhaps the Englishman Robert Owen who of all the utopian socialists most influenced Marx and Engels.
A wealthy and hum anitarian cotton4wist manufacturer, concerued about the dire conditions of many of the workingmen
at that time, he started a "model factory" in New Lanark in 1797, which employed 1,700 out of the 3,000 inhabitants of that
village. Unlike many of his contemporary colleagues, however, Owen refused to employ children under the age of ten or to

-51-

employ adults for more than 10 hours daily. He built schools and a soup store for his workers and provided them and their
families with the opportunity to enjoy music and physical training, believing that the evils of society were due to wrong
distribution of wealth and to over-production. In 1820 he established a socialist community in England and in 1825 in the
U.S.A., both of which miscarried. Yet his influence was very profound-it was Owen's followers who were the first to be called
"socialists" (in 1826), and he himself influenced much of the early British social legislation (e.g., the Corn Laws of 1832 and
the Ten-hour Bill of l847).366 As Engels remarked: "In order to find people who dared to use their own intellectual faculties
... you had to go amongst the uneducated, the 'great unwashed,' as they were then called, working people, especially the
Owenistic Socialists."367 (The word "socialist" was first used by the "Co-operative Magazine" in England in 1826 to describe
the Owenites; in 1832, the "Globe" in France used the same word to describe the St. Simonians; and the Owenites officially
adopted the name for themselves in 1841.)
Marx and especially Engels were full of praise for Owen. In their The Holy Family, they argued that "Owen proceeded
from Bentham's system to found English communism"368-as did Lenin too, many years later.889 In his Capital, Marx praised
Owen.for introducing the ten-hour working day into his factory at New Lanark [and] "his 'combination of children's education
with productive labor' and the Co-operative Societies of working-men, first called into being by him," all of which was then
"laughed at as a communistic Utopia."370 For "from the Factory system budded, as Robert Owen has shown us in details, the
germ of the education of the future"-a quotation from Marx371 (re)quoted with approval by Engels in his own Anuti-Dhring.372
In the latter book, Engels also remarked that "the abolition of the antithesis between town and country was demanded
by Fourier, as by Owen, as the first prerequisite for the abolition of the old division of labor as a whole. Both of them thought
that the population should be scattered through the country in groups of sixteen hundred to three thousand persons; each
group was to occupy a gigantic palace, run on communal lines, in the center of their area of land ... Both of them considered
that man should develop in every direction through universal practical activity and that labor should recover that
attractiveness of which the division of labor had deprived it, in the first place through this variation of occupation, and
through the correspondingly short duration of the 'session'-to usc Fourier's expression-devoted to each separate type of
work."873 And in Part III of the same work, Anti-Dhring (later published separately as Socialism-Utopian and Scienlific),
Engels remarked that "had Herr Dhring even fingered Owen's Book of the New Moral World, he would most assuredly
have found clearly expressed in it not only the most clear-cut communism possible, with equal obligation to labor and equal
rights in the product-according to age, as Owen always adds-but also the most comprehensive project of the future
community ... Owen did not preach "clear cut communism"; for five years (at the end of the 'thirties and beginning of the
'forties) he put it into practice in the Harmony Hall colony in Hampshire, whose communism left nothing to be desired in
definiteness."374
Engels' fullest appreciation is found in his Socialism-Utopian and Scientific, where he refers to "Owen, who in the
country where capitalist production was most developed, and under the influence of the antagonism begotten of this, worked
out his proposal for the removal of class distinction systematically and in direct relation to French materialism."375 "Robert
Owen," Engels continued,816
had adopted the teaching of the materialistic philosophers: that man's character is the product on the one hand, of
heredity; on the other of the environment of the individual during his lifetime ... From 1800 to 1829, he directed the
great cotton mill at New Lanark, in Scotland.
A population, originally consisting of the most diverse and, for the most part, very demoralized elements, a
population that gradually grew to 2,500, he turned into a model colony, in which drunkenness, police, magistrates,
lawsuits, poor laws, charity, were unknown.
In spite of all this, Owen was not content. The existence which he secured for his workers was in his eyes, still far
from being worthy of human beings. "The people were slaves at my mercy." The relatively favorable conditions in which
he had placed them were still far from allowing a rational development of the character and of the intellect in all
directions, much less of the free exercise of all their faculties
His advance in the direction of Communism was the turning-point in Owen's life Three great obstacles seemed
to him to block the path to social reform: private property, religion, the present form of marriage. [His opposition to
these things led to his being] banished from official society-ruined by his unsuccessful Communist experiments in
America ... He forced through in 1819, after "five years" fighting, the first law limiting the hours of labor of women and
children in factories. ... He introduced as transition measures to the complete communistic organization of society, on
the one hand, co-operative societies for retail trade and production. These have since that time, at least, given
practical proof that the merchant and the manufacturer are socially quite unnecessary. On the other hand, he
introduced labor bazaars for the exchanging of the products of labor through the medium of labor-notes, ... anticipating
Proudhon's bank of exchange of a much later period, and it did not claim to be the panacea for all social ills, but only
a first step towards a much more radical revolution of society.
As Lenin remarked, there was only one reason why "the plans of the old co-operators, from Robert Owen onwards
[were] fantastic. ... Because they dreamed of peacefully remodelling contemporary society into socialism without taking
account of such fundamental questions as the class struggle, the capture of political power by the working class, [and] the
overthrow of the rule of the exploiting class."377
That was to be left to the non-utopian, revolutionary communists-Marx and Engels, and especially Lenin.
But Marx and Engels and their revolutionary communists owe a huge debt of gratitude to the utopian socialists of the

-52-

beginning of the nineteenth century. As Engels himself declared: "In 1802 St. Simon's Geneva letters appeared; in 1808
appeared Fourier's first work. ... On January 1, 1800, Robert Owen undertook the direction of the New Lanark. ... For
ourselves, we delight in the stupendously grand thoughts and germs of thought that everywhere break out through their
phantastic covering."378 And although Marx and Engels criticized them with consummate sarcasm in the Manifesto of the
Communist Party, in that same document they also willingly conceded that "these Socialist and Communist publications
contain also a critical element. They attack every principle of existing society. Hence they are full of the most valuable
materials for the enlightenment of the working class. The practical measures proposed in them-such as the abolition of the
distinction between town and country, of the family, of the carrying on of industry for the account of private individuals, and
of the wage system; the proclamation of social harmony, the conversion of the function of the State into a mere
superintendence of production, all these proposals point solidly to the disappearance of class antagonisms."379
8. Summary
Summarizing, we may perhaps distinguish between the remote and the immediate major roots of Marxism.
The more remote major roots, as we have seen, are found especially in Greek philosophy in general, and in Milesian
materialism, Heraclitean dialectics, Democritean atomism, Spartan and Platonic communism, Aristotelian realism, Stoic
dialecticism and cosmopolitanism, and Epicurean hedonism in particular.
These more remote roots were revived and developed in the more immediate roots of Marxism in the Renaissance with
its fruits of British materialism (Bacon, Hobbes, Newton, locke, Tolland, and Priestley), German idealism (Kant, Fichte,
Hegel, and the Left-Hegelians), and especially French liberalism and socialism (Morelly, Mably, the Jacobins, Babeuf, St.
Simon, and Fourier) with their cross-currents from the Illuminati and the French Encyclopaedists and the socialistic
industrialist Owen-respectively the products of combinations of the German and French Enlightenments and the British
industrial revolution and its classical economics.
As Engels admitted: "We German socialists are proud of the fact that we are derived, not only from St. Simon, Fourier
and Owen, but also from Kant, Fichte, and Hegel," 880 and: "The German working-class movement is the inheritor of German
classical philosophy." 381 And as Lenin observed: "Marx's dialectic was taken from Hegelian German philosophy, his
economics from the classical British school, and his radical politics from the French Revolution,"882 so that "the doctrine of
Marx ... is the legitimate successor of the best that was created by humanity in the nineteenth century in the shape of
German philosophy, English political economy and French Socialism."383

-53-

Chapter IV
THE ADVENT OF MARXIST LENINIST REVOLUTIONISM
"The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by
forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The
proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win."
-Marx and Engels: Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848)
The Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order
of things. They labor everywhere for the union and agreement of the democratic parties of all countries.
-Marx and Engels1
In this chapter, we shall first discuss how Marx and Engels became communists (1818~42), and then discuss: the early
Marxist writings (1842-7), the period from the Communist Manifesto to Marx's Capital (1848~67), the "Paris Commune"
(1871), the last years of Marx and Engels (1872-95), and the rise of Leninism (1894-1917)-after which we shall summarize
the findings of the entire chapter.
1.

How Marx and Engels Became Communists (1818-42)

Karl Heinrich Marx, the son of Herschel Marx, a middle-class freethinking Jewish lawyer (and descendant of the rabbinic
family Marx Levi who had shortened their surname to "Marx"), was born in Trier in the German Rhineland on May 5, 1818.
Probably for social and business reasons, father Marx was baptized just before Karl's birth, and his children all became
nominal Christians by submitting to baptism in the Lutheran Church when young Karl was six years old, his mother only
submitting to baptism one year later, probably for fear of otherwise losing the affections of her husband and children. Hence
it is probably true to say that there was tension between his original Jewish background and his artificially induced nominally
Christian background, and that they both became relativized in young Karl's early thinking, and caused him to grow up as a
free-thinker rather than as either a Jew or a Christian2. For father Marx immersed himself in Voltaire, Rousseau, and Kant,
and sought to cultivate in young Karl similar interests, encouraging him to read Locke, Newton, and Leibniz. 3
Two years after Marx's birth, Friedrich Engels was born into a very different kind of home. His father was a wealthy and
orthodox-Protestant textile manufacturer, and his prohibition of all non-Christian and lighthearted literature and activities in
his house had a most repulsive effect on the fun-loving young Engels, who loved to read the atheistic Shelley, and who thus
grew up developing a life-long hostility to Christianity.4
We have already5 alluded to the strong Hegelian, Fourierist, St. Simonian, and Owenite ideas which had permeated
Western Europe at the time Marx and Engels were growing up. As Engels later wrote, the power of the ever-growing
numerous class "of manufacturing working people ... seized upon one branch of manufacturing after another ... This power
proved itself as early as 1824, by forcing a reluctant Parliament to repeal the act forbidding combination of workmen." 6
The childhood of Marx and Engels also saw: the takeover of St. Simon's magazine The Producer by the far more radical
St. Simonians Bazard, Enfantin, and Buchez;7 the unsuccessful French-Revolution-inspired "Decembrist" Revolution in
Tsarist Russia in 1825; the seven-year alliance from 1825 to 1832 between the English working and middle classes for the
extension of the franchise; and the publication of Bentham's Theory of Reward and Punishment in 1826 and of St. Simon's
New Christianity in 1828 and his New Industrial World in 1829.
When Marx and Engels were in their teens, however, events in Europe began to gain even more momentum.
The decade 1830-40 commenced with a revolution in France (under the leadership of (the bourgeois Lafayette, yet
incited by Buonarroti's conspiratorial socialists), which successfully removed the Bourbon king and installed King Louis
Philippe of the House of Orleans in his stead; 8 (the St. Simonians Bazard and Enfantin demanded the abolition of the right
of inheritance, and the introduction of community of property and women and the emancipation of the latter;9 De Lamennais,
the "Christian Socialist," [cf. later Charles Kingsley, F. D. Maurice, and Bishop von Ketteler] established his "General Agency
for the Defense of Religious Liberty" (and four years later wrote his famous Words of a Believer); Comte, a disciple of St.
Simon, wrote his positivistic The Course of Positive philosophy (ridiculed by Marx'0 [and subsequent communists] as
"positivistic rot" and "miserable, compared to Hegel," who is "infinitely greater as a whole"); French Fourierism continued to
grow; 11 Neo-Babeuvian "Egaliteurs" like those whom Marx and Engels later called "the more scientific French communists,
Dezamy, Gay and others, developed the teaching of materialism as the teaching of real humanism and the logical basis of
communism";'2 while in Germany, Feuerbach advocated atheistic materialism in his Thoughts on Death and Immortality.
In the year 1831, Hegel died, after having long dominated Church, state, and philosophy in Germany.13 Immediately his
followers split up into (politically) "Right-Hegelians" and "Left-Hegelians." Amongst the latter, as we have already seen,'4
were those who were destined to exert a great influence on Marx and Engels viz., Strauss, Bauer, Stirner, and especially
Feuerbach.
The year 1832 saw: the abolition of slaves throughout the British Empire (William Wilberforce); Lycil's uniformitarianistic

-54-

Principles of Geology, which was to prove so useful to Marxist anti-Christian cosmogony; 1' and the English Reform Act,
which was, as Engels later remarked,16 "pushed through, in spite of all resistance, under the impulse of the French
Revolution of 1830."
In 1834, German socialist refugees in France formed the "League of the Banished," and in 1835, Strauss's Life of Jesus
turned fifteen-year-old Engels into a complete atheist, 17 while the seventeen-year-old Marx to please his lawyer father
proceeded to Bonn University to study law.
The following year, 1836, however the year in which most of the "League of the Banished" even broke away from the
league to form the still more revolutionary proletarian "League of the Just," at a time when Sismondi was just starting to
publish his Studies in the Social Sciences Marx, in order to study history and philosophy, transferred to the University of
Berlin, then a hotbed of Left-Hegelianism, where he soon became involved in Bruno Bauer's critical circle; and by the next
year, 1837, the nineteen-year-old Marx could write to his father "I got to know Hegel from beginning to end."18
At the same time, Ruge, with whom Marx would later work, had started his Left-Hegelian Halle Annual; the humanistic
communist Moses Hess, a Jewish apocalyptic, published his Sacred History of Mankind; Fourier died, being succeeded by
the new Fourierist leader Victor Considerant, the author of Social Destiny, and who sought to create Fourierist
"phalansteries" in France; and the "League of the Just" became the "Communist League," under the leadership of Carl
Schapper and a very talented utopian Fourierist and tailor's apprentice named Wilhelm Weitling.11
Meanwhile, Feuerbach's materialistic Pierre Bayle appeared in Germany (1838), while Chartrism was reaching its height
in England. As Engels later wrote, "the working men [,who] constituted the Radical Wing of the Reform party, the [Reform]
Act of 1832 having excluded them from the suffrage, ... formulated their demands in the People's Charter, and constituted
themselves, in opposition to the great bourgeois Anti-Corn Law party, into an independent party, the Chartrists, the first
working-men's party of modern times." 20 This "People's Charter" of 1837-8 advocated universal franchise, secret ballots and
annual Parliaments. And from 1838 to 1855, "Chartrism" secured laws limiting the factory work of women and children, Corn
Laws, etc.
In 1839, Feuerbach's materialistic books On Philosophy and Christianity and Critique of the Hegelian Philosophy shook
philosophic circles in Germany. But the major event of the year was no doubt the (unsuccessful) Paris Uprising of the
dassconscious Bahouvists and their conspiratorial "Society of the Seasons" under the leadership of the Illuminati-Jacobin
French Carbonari proletarian revolutionists Barbs and Louis I Auguste Blanqui (whom Marx regarded as "the head and
heart of the proletarian party in France") 21 and, to a lesser extent, the Communist League's Weitling and Schapper, which
prepared the way for the speedy advent of Marxism.
But the failure of the Paris Uprising was first to encourage a last spate of Petty-bourgeois-socialistic thought. In the
following year, 1840, the reformist state-socialist Louis Blanc's Organization of Labor appeared, as did the utopian socialist
Proudhon's What Is Property? and the "moderate socialism" of Constantin Pecqueur and Victor Hugo. Only Cabet was
converted to communism, and his Voyage to icaria, though rather utopian, was nevertheless destined to exert much
influence in French and U.S. socialist circles.22
From this time onward, matters really started to move in Russia, where, encouraged by the (unsuccessful) FrenchRevolution-inspired 1825 "Decembrist" Uprising, the "Populism" or peaceful utopian socialism of Belinski, Herzen, and (at
first) Bakunin, prepared the way23 for the advent of Russian Marxism and Leninism.
In Germany, at the time when Strauss published his radically critical Christian Doctrine of Faith and Bauer his Critique of
the Evangelistic History of John, Marx, who had now become an ardent materialist and a contentious and revolutionary
student, 24 was deeply immersed in his philosophical studies of Aristotle, Spinoza, Leibniz, Hume, and Kant, 25 as he
proceeded with his research toward his Ph.D. dissertation.
The following year, 1841, Marx obtained his Doctorate in Philosophy on his thesis: The Difference beiween the Natural
Philosophy of Democritus and the Natural Philosophy of Epicurus at the University of Jena, in which he called for an
involvement of critical theory in practical issues a position which soon landed him in radical politics. He had hoped to gain
an academic appointment at the University of Bonn, but when he and Bauer were discovered to be the author of the
anonymous pamphlet, The Trump[et] of the Last Judgement on Hegel, attacking Hegel, the idol of German philosophy, Dr.
Bauer lost his professorship and Marx was academically ruined. Even his plan to start a Journal of Atheism, which the two
had intended publishing, now came to naught. 26
Meanwhile, Engels had gone to Berlin on military service, and joined a Left-Hegelian circle there, then proceeded to the
University of Berlin, where he wrote his Schelling on Revelation, opposing Hegel to Schelling. While there, Feuerbach's
Essence of Christianity appeared, immediately converting Marx and Engels from Hegelianism into Feuerbachian dialectical
materialists, as Engels later admitted.27 But the honor of converting Marx and Engels from Feuerbachian dialectical
materialism to communism (or rather: to communist dialectical materialism) according to both Engels himself28 and the
modern Marxist Garaudy 29 undoubtedly belongs to Moses Hess.
Hess was indeed the pioneer of socialism in the Rhineland. According to the socialist M. Beer, Moses Hess was raised
in orthodox Judaism, like Baruch de Spinoza whom he greatly admired, and had drifted into socialistic historicism until in his
1837 Sacred History of Mankind he was deifying the history of mankind and in his 1841 The European Triarchy he was
stating that the salvation of mankind depended upon the union of German philosophy and French revolutionary ideas and
English political reforms and in which book (according to Dagobert Runes) he also outlined a new order for (the then still
Christian) Europe consonant with human nature.30
It was Hess who introduced communism into the Left-Hegelian circle in Germany, and sought to present the bourgeois

-55-

Feuerbach in a profoundly socialistic light. Yet hereby Hess,' "the communist rabbi," as the circle called him,31 converted
Engels2' (and later Marx)29 to communism in 1842.
As Hess himself wrote in 1843: "Last year [1842], when I was about to start for Paris, Engels came to see me on his
way from Berlin. We discussed the questions of the day,-he, a revolutionist of the Year One, parted from me a convinced
communist. Thus did I spread devastation."28 And Engels himself admitted that Hess had been "the first to make
communism plausible to me and my circle."28
But the year 1842 was also highly significant in other respects. Rodbertus, the Feuerbachian and the first "Beatific" or
"Pure German" socialist, then wrote his A Contribution to the Understanding of Our Economic Conditions, advocating the
Smith-Ricardo labor theory of value.32 Weitling of the "Communist League" wrote his Guarantee of Harmony and Freedom,
'advocating revolution and the abolition of inheritance, class, and money.33 And at that time, Engels went to Manchester in
England and started a factory there and met the Chartrists and encountered classical English economics, while Marx
became chief editor of the new Cologne newspaper Rheinische Zeitung (Rhenish Times)-with Moses Hess as his assistant
editor!34 Moreover, it was probably at this time (according to Tucker and Wetter and Garaudy) that Hess succeeded in
converting Marx too to communism.29
2.

The Early Marxist Writings (1843-47)

It should not be thought, however, just because he was the "spiritual father" of the communism of Marx and Engels, that
Hess was the greatest of the three.
Even before meeting Hess, Engels had written that as "the Germans form a philosophical nation, they will not be able to
forsake communism as soon as it is based on sound philosophical principles," and that "all the philosophical efforts of the
German nation, from Kant to Hegel," will have to be regarded as "useless ... unless it comes to embrace communism." 35
Neither is there any doubt that Hess regarded the once communized Marx as his superior. After Marx had intelligently
discussed Hess's Socialism and Communism, Hess, in his Letter to Auerbach, described Marx as "the greatest, perhaps the
one genuine philosopher, now alive, who in the near future ... will draw the eyes of all Germany ... Dr. Marx that is my
idol's name is still quite a young man (about twenty-four at most) and will give mediaeval religion and politics their coup de
grace. He combines the deepest philosophical earnestness with the most biting wit. Imagine Rousseau, Voltaire, Holbach,
Lessing, Heine, and Hegel, united in one person ... and you have Dr. Marx."36
The Rheinische Zeitung, under the editorship of Marx and Hess, was destined to carry some forty-two articles of Marx,
including his Remarks About the Latest Prussian Censorship Instructions, his Luther as the Referee between Strauss and
Feuerbach, and his famous Leading Article Nr. 179 of the 'Klnische Zeitung.'
In 1843, while utopian communist settlements were growing up like mushrooms in the U.S.A.,37 in Germany Feuerbach
published his Preliminary Theses and his Outlines of the Philosophy of the Future, while Marx, after writing his first
communistic dialectical materialistic work, the Critique of the Hegelian Theory of Constitutional Law, in which he
materialistically inverted the idealistic Hegelian dialectic, married Jenny von Westphalen just before the German
government banned his newspaper for its revolutionism.
After this, Marx and his wife moved to Paris, where he wrote his Prometheus Bound-Allegory on the Prohibition of die
'Rheinische Zeitung, Marx and his wife then living together with Ruge and his wife in a "communist community"38 or
"commune." Paris was then teeming with local socialists such as the Fourierists, St. Simonians, and the followers of PierreJoseph Proudhon, and with refugee socialists and anarchists such as the Russian Bakunin and the German Heine and
"True German" socialists, all of whom he then met, was influenced by, and himself influenced.
Together with Ruge, Marx next started publishing the Deutsch-Franzsische Jahrbcher (German-French Annuals) in
which his own On the Jewish Question and his Critique of the Hegelian Philosophy of Law appeared (being reviews of two
works by Bauer). Meanwhile, the Manchester strikes had inspired the bourgeois Englishman Carlyle to write his Past and
Present, and Engels reviewed that work in his own The Condition of England's 'Past and Present' by Thomas Carlyle.
The year 1844 is perhaps the watershed dividing the immature Marx and Engels from their period of early maturity. Now
Marx wrote his Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 (alias the "Paris Manuscripts"), an examination of the
economic basis of the state, law, and morality, but which, however, were only first published in 1932, after the death of
Lenin.
Bagels had somehow gotten to hear about the Jahrbcher, and submitted his article Outline of a Critique of Political
Economy (later to be greatly praised by Lenin) from England for publication therein, later coming to Paris to discuss it with
editor Marx. From this their first meeting developed a lifelong friendship and working relationship which also led to the
writing of many important letters to one another, later collected and published as Marx's and Engels' Selected
Correspondence.
Marx also wrote his Letter to Feuerbach (against Schelling) at this time, requesting Feuerbach to contribute an article to
the Jahrbcher-but this was not to be, as the magazine only saw one issue, and Marx was subsequently obliged to secure a
new periodical for the publication of his articles, viz., Vorwrts (Forward).
But in 1845-the year in which Owen's Book of the New Moral World and Heine's communistic prologue to his Germany:
A Winter's Tale and Hess's Mirror of Society and Grn's True German Socialism were published-Engels gave his
eschatologically important First Elberfeld Address; and, after Marx expanded one of Engels' manuscripts and published it as

-56-

Marx's and Engels' The Holy Family, or Critique of the Critical Critique: Against Bruno Bauer and Co., explaining how the
class struggle dominates every aspect of society, just as he was getting acquainted with Weitling's "Communist Leaguc"Marx's vitriolic articles in Vorwrts led the German government to persuade the French government to banish him from
France.
Arriving in Belgium, refugee Marx settled down in Brussels and helped organize a "German Workers' Union," while
Engels, after publishing his The Conditions of the Working Class in England in 1844, traveled to Brussels, where he and
Marx permanently broke with Feuerbach and set ahout developing a radically communistic dialectical and historical materialism, Marx there and then distantiating himself from Feuerbach in his Theses on Feuerbach, which were only posthumously published as an appendix to Bagels' own 1888 disclaimer, Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German
Philosophy39-whereafter they both traveled together to Manchester to meet Chartrists and the leaders of the "League of
Rights."'40
In 1846 (and later in 1849), after the repeal of the Corn Laws,41 which once and for all settled the supremacy of the
bourgeoisie above the nobility, Bagels wrote his conspiratorial Letter to Hess and his historical materialistic Letter to P. V.
Annenkov, and Marx and Engels, with the help of Hess,42 wrote their The German Ideology: A Criticism of Recent German
Philosophy a, Represented by Feuerbach, Bauer and Stirner, and of [True] German Socialism in the Works of Its Various
Prophets (viz., Grn, Proudhon, Weitling, and the "agent provocateur" Georg Kuhlmann), first printed in 1932 in the German
and in 1933 in the Russian, after the death of Lenin. In this great work, Marx and Engels broke all ties with the above-named
Left-Hegelians (with the exception of Weitling), and henceforth developed their own radically communistic and atheistic
dialectical and historical materialism.
Proudhon himself got special attention. After Proudhon wrote his System of Economic Contradictions, or the Philosophy
of Poverty in 1846, Marx hit back at him in his own "dialectically-titled" 1847 rejoinder Economic Contradictions, or the
Poverty of Philosophy, in which he particularly applied his own doctrine of historical materialism. Marx's Poverty of
Philosophy dialectically defeated Proudhon's Philosophy of Poverty!
Events now began to move very quickly, as Europe hurtled toward the 1848 revolution. Marx attacked The
'Communism' of the 'Rheinische Beobachter' and idealistic socialism in his Moralizing Criticism and Critical Morality. Engels
attacked Louis Blanc's Address of 1847 and (with others) started the anonymous Communist Journal. But the zenith was
reached at the end of the year when (Secretary) Engels and (President) Schapper drew up the conspiratorial and secretive
Rules and Constitution of the Communist League, and when Engels enunciated his theoretical and eschatological Principles
of Communism therefor. Hereby the "Communist League" became the "Communist Party" (with Marx, Engels, Hess,
Weitling, B. von Westphalen, Weydemeyer, and others on the executive committee), Marx and Engels themselves being
asked to draw up a Manifesto of the Communist Party, which was published at the beginning of 1848, and promptly helped
to ignite the European continent.
3.

From the Manifesto to Capital (1848-67)

The Communist Manifesto, as it is usually called, first of all gives a survey of the development of society from slavery to
capitalism, and gives a reasonably detailed account of how bourgeois capitalism is digging its own grave and must
inevitably result in a revolutionary armed uprising of the proletariat which overthrows it and introduces socialism. Law,
morality, politics, etc., have all become just so many bourgeois prejudices under capitalism. But under future socialism,
property and rents will be abolished, a heavy graduated income tax will be introduced, credit will be centralized and
monopolized in the state bank, communication and transport will be taken over by the state, factories will be expanded and
waste lands cultivated, all will have to labor, agricultural and manufacturing industries will be combined, the distinction
between town and country will be abolished gradually, and free polytechnical education of all children in public schools will
be compulsory. 43 And hereafter the Manifesto (as the epitome of "Scientific Socialism") ends with a condemnation of the
"True German Socialism" of the Feuerbachians who with their "foul and ennervating literature" opposed the " 'brutally
destructive' tendency of communism"44 in the "nauseous fine writing and ecstasies of love typified by Herr Karl Gritn";4 of
the "Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism" with its "organizers of charity, members of societies for the prevention of cruelty
to animals, [and] temperance fanatics"46 who "wish for a bourgeoisie without a proletariat" and, without a revolt, desire "to
march straight away into the social New Jerusalem"; of Proudhon and of the "Critical-Utopian Socialism and Communism" of
St. Simon and Fourier and even Cabet with their utopias and phalansteries and Home Colonies and Little Icarias and "duo
decimo editions of the New Jerusalem and all these castles in the air."4 More realistically, the Manifesto itself calls for the
formation of a united (anti-bourgeois) front of communists and non-communistic groups4 8 and calls upon the proletariat
throughout the world to unite and bring about the revolutionary overthrow of the bourgeoisie.49
The year 1848 can be called "the Year of European Class Revolutions," as uprisings and clashes then broke out in Italy,
Germany, Austria, and Hungary, and especially France. And, as Lenin remarked, as France "exhausted the strength of the
proletariat, as it were, in two heroic working class risings against the bourgeoisie, very considerable contributions to the
world-historical development there took place in 1848 and 187l."50
The first "contribution" came about just after the appearance of Marx's Discourse on Free Trade and of Marx's and
Engels' German edition of the Manifesto of the Communist Party, Marx having returned to Brussels in Belgium while the
Manifesto of the Communist Party was being printed in England in February 1848.

-57-

In February 1848, there was a petty-bourgeois-socialist revolution in Paris under the leadership of Louis Blanc and
others, which led to the abdication of King Louis Philippe and to the establishment of the Republic of France and the
introduction of universal franchise. As a direct consequence of this French Revolution, the Belgian authorities, fearful of it
spreading to Belgium, deported Marx, who then proceeded to France.
The new French Cabinet (which included the state-socialist Louis Blanc, the Fourierist Considerant, and Constantin
Pecqueur) established "freedom of speech," thus encouraging socialists and communists to become more active. And when
Marx and Engels published The Demands of the Communist Party of Germany, a petty-bourgeois revolution broke out there
too, in March 1848, largely as a result of Moses Hess's participation therein (according to Runes and Zvi Cahn)."' 50a
Proceeding to Cologne in Germany, after Marx wrote his Letter to Cabet in April 1848, in which he encouraged him to
promote revolution, even while the Chartrists were being defeated in England, Marx and Engels started editing the Neue
Rheiniscile Zeitung (New Rhenish Times) in May. Therein they attacked the petty-bourgeois Frankfurt Constitutional
Assembly and published especially those of Marx's articles from May 1848 to May 1849 which later became known as his
Wage, Labor and Capital, as well as his On Carlyle's 'Latter Day Pamphlets' and his Review of G. Fr. Daumer's 'The
Religion of the New Age' (in which Marx referred to the Illuminati's Knigge),51 his Solution of the Accumulation of
Nationalities, and his Proudhon (whom he called "a poor economist").52
In May and June, a French Proletarian Revolution broke out under the leadership of the Babouvians Barbs and L. A.
Blanqui and others. Marx immediately went to Paris, joined the Revolution, and asked the Germans to join in too. But in
June the Proletarian Revolution was crushed, partly on account of the fact that the petty bourgeois state-socialist Louis
Blanc betrayed the proletariat to the bourgeoisie. As Lenin pointed out: "Louis Blanc, the French socialist, won unenviable
notoriety during the revolution of 1848 by changing his stand from that of the class struggle to that of petty-bourgeois
illusions," whereas "we are Marxists, we stand for proletarian class struggle against petty-bourgeois intoxication, against
chauvinism, defensism, phrase-mongering and dependence on the bourgeoisie," so that "we are not Blancist, we do not
stand for the seizure of power by a minority," viz., the petty-bourgeois-socialist class.53
Returning to Germany, Marx published his The 'Klnische Zeitung' on the June Revolution of 1848, while Engels went
soldiering in the uprisings in Bavaria and the Palatine in July.
At the end of 1848, however, Napoleon's reactionary nephew, Louis Bonaparte, became the president of the French
Republic, and early in 1849, the counter-revolutionary forces of reaction began to triumph in Italy, Hungary, and south
Germany, Moses Hess fleeing the country after being sentenced to death for his leading part in the now abortive 1848
German Revolution.50" In March 1849, on the anniversary of the beginning of the German Revolution of 1848, Marx,
however, was still pleading for an anti-parliamentary uprising of the people (cf. his The Cologne Revolution), but he was
promptly put on trial for inciting to sedition and, although found "not guilty" after giving his Testimony Before the Cologne
Jury, when the counter-revolution succeeded in Germany he was ordered to leave the country.
This he did at the beginning of June, after defiantly publishing part of the last edition of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung in
red ink, and after having been successfully invited by the American Fourierists Dana and Brisbane to become the European
correspondent of their New York Daily Times, in which he was soon to reveal himself as pro-German, pro-Turkish, antiSlavic, anti-Russian, and anti-Jewish.53a"
While Engels went off soldiering again (this time in the Baden uprising), Marx took refuge in Paris on June 3. However,
caught by the French authorities while participating in a street demonstration on June 13, Marx was banned from Paris, and
left France permanently in July, arriving in England in August, where he went to live in London for the rest of his life, where
he never held a job for more than a month, and where he and his family were prevented from starving to death only by the
regular handouts of generous friends such as the not so "petty-bourgeois" factory owner Friedrich Engels.54
Once settled in England, Marx wrote of the immediately past events in his Class Struggles in France, 1848-50, and
called for "permanent revolution" on the basis of the revolutionary program of the French Revolutionary Illuminati Jacobins
and Babouvian communist conspiracy54a [q.v.!] (so admired by Lenin)54b against the bourgeois parliamentarian Frankfurt
Constituent Assembly ("that 'cloud-cuckoo-land,' that 'Assembly of old women,' that 'Parliamentary cretinism' )55 in his
1850 Address to the International Communist League, cf. his 1850 The Class Struggles in France, 1848-1850, while Engels
published his The Peasant War in Germany, in which he supported the sixteenth-century Anabaptistic communists against
the Lutheran "reactionaries" and the Calvinistic "bourgeoisie." Meantime, Moleschott in Germany propagated his vulgar
materialism in his The Life Circle, and the economic word "capital" was coined for the first time-in France, by Louis Blanc.56
The forces of reaction unleashed in 1848 received a final boost at the end of 1851 when Louis Bonaparte brought off a
successful coup d'etat in France and shortly thereafter had himself proclaimed Emperor Napoleon III-cf. Marx's 1852
deceptively conspiratorial56a Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Germany in 1848 (written by Engels and edited by Marx)
and his The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (on France 1848-52 and in which he prophesied the ultimate smashing
of the bourgeois state by the proletariat). And the "Cologne Trials," in which seven communists were given severe
sentences, marked the end of communist activity in France and Germany (for a time), cf. Engels' The Communist Trial at
Cologne and Marx's Declaration at the End of the Cologne Communist Trial and his Revelations Concerning the Cologne
Trial of the Communists. As Engels stated51 (cf. his 1851-2 Germany: Revolution and Counter-Revolution, 1848-9), after the
mediocrity of the first half of the nineteenth century "came the Continental revolutions of February and March 1848, in which
the working people ... put forward demands. ... And then came the general reaction. First the defeat of the Chartrists on the
10th April 1848, then the crushing of the Paris working-men's insurrection in June of the same year, then the disasters of

-58-

1849 in Italy, Hungary, South Germany, and at last the victory of Louis Bonaparte over Paris, 2nd December, 1851."
But if a lull had now occurred in France and England, things now started warming up in Russia. There the socialists of
the 'fifties began to interpret Hegel's dialectic materialistically and to oppose revolutionary materialism to serfdom and
religious idealism; and they began to wonder whether the widespread Russian pre-capitalistic communal village (zadruga,
mir, obshchina) might not perhaps make it possible for Russia to jump straight from feudalism into socialism, thus
circumventing the necessity of a capitalistic interlude. Herzen called Hegel's dialectics "the algebra of the revolution," and
came to the very threshold of dialectical materialism and halted just before historical materialism. Chernyshevsky held that
every philosopher was always representative of a political party, and that matter was the basic common substance of all the
objects in the world. Herzen held that "consciousness is not something alien to nature, but the highest degree of its
development." Dobrolyubov maintained that "man evolves concepts not out of himself, but receives them from the outside
world." Chernyshevsky added that the correctness of the knowledge obtained "is tested by the practical experience of life"
itself. And Herzen, reminiscent of Heraclitus, held that nature is a "process ... stream, flow, motion." Esehatological optimism
appeared in Belinksky's statement that "to live means to develop, to move forward," the new emerging from the negation of
the old; and eschatological realism in his statement that future socialist society will be established "not by sugary and
enthusiastic phrases," but by the "double-edged sword of word and deed." 58
Meanwhile, Marx and Engels, while condemning The 'Big' Men of the Exile (Mazzini, Kossuth, Blanc, and Ruge),59
studied in history, politics, and especially economics. From 1852 to 1859 Marx wrote his articles on India; and in 1853 he
wrote his famous Letter to Engels on religion,60 and his article On the Death Penalty (in favor of its abolition), and from
1853 to 1856 his articles on The Crimean War.
In 1855, the year in which Bchner's vulgar materialistic Force and Matter appeared, and in which Weydemeyer, a cofounder of the (German) Communist Party in England in 1847, founded the Marxist U.S. "General Labor Union" which soon
became the "Amalgamated American Society of Workingmen," Engels wrote his Germany and Pan-Slavism (because "the
process of denaturalization of the Slavs adjacent to Germany and of the slow but uninterrupted advance of the Germans,
created a linguistic Babel"), and Marx wrote his Demonstration in Hyde Park, foreshadowing the coming great revolution,
and his The Irish Question, on the subject of colonial exploitation.
From 1856 to 1859, Marx wrote his series of articles on The Chartrists and The Chinese Opium Wars for the Fourieristic
New York Daily Times, but in 1859, on the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species, Marx and Engels again began to
publish their really major works.
The public's enthusiastic reception of Darwin's biological evolutionism made a major contribution to the ultimate
advance of communism. As Marx stated in his Letter to Engels in 1860, even though Darwin's book on natural selection was
"developed in the crude English style, this is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view."61 And as he
wrote in his Letter to Lassalle in 1861: "Darwin's book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the
class struggle in history ... Despite its deficiencies, not only is the death-blow dealt here for the first time to the teleological in
the natural sciences, but their rational meaning is empirically explained."62 And in his mastor work Capital, Marx refers to
"Darwin in his epoch-making work on the origin of specics." 63
Of course, Marx had been aware of thinkers like Fraas who had been a Darwinist before Darwin,"64 and Engels in
particular was quick to point out that K. F. Wolff's 1759 "attack on the fixity of species ... was victoriously carried through by
Darwin in 1859."65 But what made Darwin particularly potent, was, as Engels continued to point out, 64 that "simultaneously it
was established that protoplasm and the cell, which had already been shown to be the ultimate morphological constituents
of all organisms, occurred independently existing as the lowest form of organic life. This not only reduced the gulf between
inorganic and organic nature to a minimum but removed one of the most essential difficulties that had previously stood in
the way of the theory of descent of organisms. The new outlook on nature was complete in all its main features; all rigidity
was dissolved, all fixity dissipated, all particularity that had been regarded as eternal became transient, the whole of nature
was shown as moving in eternal flux and cyclic course" (cf. too the text at n. 207 in chapter three above).
Sarcastically did Engels write that "Darwin did not know what a bitter satire he wrote on mankind, and especially on his
countrymen, when he showed that free competition, the struggle for existence, which the economists celebrate as the
highest historical achievement, is the normal state of the animal kingdom. Only conscious organization of social production,
in which production and distribution are carried on in a planned way, can lift mankind above the rest of the animal world as
regards the social aspect, in the same way that production in general has done this for mankind in the specifically biological
aspect. Historical evolution makes such an organization daily more indispensable, but also with every day more possible.
For it will date a new epoch of history, in which mankind itself, and with mankind all branches of its activity, and particularly
natural science, will experience an advance that will put everything preceding it in the deepest shade."66 Small wonder then
that the great Viennese anthropologist Virchow, who had previously supported Darwinism, suggested in 1877 that the
teaching of Darwinism be prohibited, asserting that it was closely connected with the socialist movement and therefore
dangerous for the existing social system!67
In the same year as Darwin's Origin of Species, Engels published his Po and Rhine on politics and nationalities, and
Marx published his A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, the "Preface" of which (cited above)68 must be
regarded as the most classical statement of the Marxist doctrine of historical materialism of all time.
The eighteen-sixties opened with Spencer's pancosmic evolutionistic First Principles and Marx's anti-vulgar-materialistic
Herr Vogt and his articles on The U.S. Civil War. But the most important developments were undoubtedly in Russia, where
for the next decade the "nihilism" (of Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov, and Pisarev)-more revolutionary than "Populism," yet

-59-

agreeing with the latter in the viewpoint as to the transformability of the pre-capitalistic Russian serf communities directly
into socialistic communes-made great headway, especially after the abolition of serfdom in l861-in which year Bachofen
published his primo-matriarchal Mother Right (later taken over by Engels in his The Origin of the Family, Private Property
and the State) and in which the leftist socialist Lassalle published his The System of Acquired Rights.
Ferdinand Lassalle, a brilliant German Jewish socialist demagogue who founded the German Worker's Union in 1863
and who in 1858 had written a book on The Philosophy of Heraclitus the Dark which was much appreciated by Lenin,
nevertheless clung to the old theory of the iron law of wages (viz., the average amount necessary for the sustenance of the
laborer according to the custom of the given nation) rather than to the Marxist labor theory and surplus theory of value, and
he also favored the legal" overthrow of capitalism by means of pressure from co-operative associations or labor unions, and
was for this reason, especially after his co-operation with Bismarck and his Lassallean followers' role in the deviationistic
"Gotha Program" of 1875, ridiculed by Marx as "cynically oily, obtrusive, ducal."69
In 1863, Vogt's Lectures on Materialism promoted that ideology; Huxley's evolutionistic Man's Place in Nature bolstered
up the Marxist exploitation of Darwinism, and Helmholtz's theories of the conservation of force, sound, light, and color were
later incorporated into Engels' cosmogony and cosmological eschatology.70 But especially Chernyshevsky's socialistic What
Is to Be Done? is significant, for it later inspired Lenin to write a revolutionary book with the same tide in 1902.
In 1864, after the appearance of Moleschott's materialistic The Oneness of Life (which later induced the pre-Leninistic
Russian Marxist Plekhanov to write his famous In Defense of Materialism, alias the Development of the Monist View of
Society), the t'International Working Men's Association" (alias the "First International") was established in London, which
Engels believed resembled "the early Christian communities."71
Marx not only drew up the Provisional Rules for the I W.M.A., but he also gave his now famous Inaugural Address
thereat, followed by his Value, Price and Profit at the General International Congress the next year (September 1865),72 the
year in which Engels wrote about Hegel and Marx in his Letter to Lange (whose Spinozan History of Materialism appeared
the next year), the year in which the maverick socialist Dhring wrote his Natural Dialectics (later to be attacked by Engels in
his Dialectics of Nature and especially in his Anti-Dhring), and in which Chernyshevsky wrote his Outlines of Political
Economy According to Mill (which Marx regarded as "great" and the product of a "master mind") 73
The First Congress of the "First International" was held in Switzerland in 1866, in which year Marx wrote his Letter to
Engels (on nationality and the future of the state), and in which they both wrote their On the Polish Question (a treatise on
nationality, only first published in 1961). And in 1867 the Second Congress of the First International was held at Lausanne in
Switzerland, while Clausius developed his famous Second Law of Thermodynamics (later attacked by Engels in his attempt
to disprove the possibility of a theistic cosmogony and eschatology) .74
But the major event of 1867 was, of course, the publication of Marx's monumental Capital (vol. I). Constructed on the
basis of the labor theory of value and other classical economic theories of George Adam Smith and David Ricardo, and
developing Marx's own theory of surplus value, Marx's Capital is not only an economic work of great importance, but is also
a particularly valuable historical description and documentation of the shocking labor conditions of some of the working
classes of that time.75
Even before the German original was translated into English, Capital was translated into Russian in 1868 and promoted
in Russia in the 'seventies especially by Professor (of economics) Ziber of the University of Kiev76 and in the 'eighties
especially by Plekhanov who, with Axel'rod, Deutsch, and Zasulich, founded the Russian Social Democratic "Liberation of
Labor" group in 1883. And in that same year, 1868, Marx wrote his Letter to Kugelmann on the future of women, and the
Third Congress of the First International was held at Brussels in Belgium (and, in the following year, the. Fourth Congress at
Basle in Switzerland) with Hess, the first communistic dialectical materialist, present as one of the delegates.77
The Marxist Labor Union declared itself "for atheism" and demanded "the abolition of all religion,"75 and Marx's important
1869 Relations Between the IrIsh and English Working Classes dealt with the subject of international socialist co-operation.
But by far the most important work of the year was the independent communist Joseph Dietzgen's The Nature of Human
Brain Work. 79
Dietzgen, a tanner by trade and a self-taught thinker, was a realistic materialist who exercised considerable influence on
Marx, Engels, and Lenin, Marx calling him "our philosopher." That Marx was already on personal terms with Dietzgen8o
before the appearance of the latter's celebrated book, is clear from Marx's statement in his own 1868 Letter to Kugelmann
that the manuscript, which Dietzgen had sent him, "contains many excellent thoughts, and which as a product of the
independent thinking of a worker, is worthy of admiration";81 and after its publication, Engels wrote to Marx that Dietzgen
exhibited "on the whole, a remarkable instinct for arguing out so much correctly with such deficient preliminary training."82
Lenin too approved of the "'very clear materialistic propositions [of] Dietzgen";88 for "Dietzgen ... successfully defends the
'materialistic theory of knowledge and dialectical materialism,' "84 and "taking Dietzgen as a whole, he does not deserve to
be very much censured. He is nine-tenths materialist," for "Dietzgen was a Marxian," as evidenced by "the really great
things in Joseph Dietzgen (that worker-philosopher who developed dialectical materialism in his own way, which is great
enough) "85 Small wonder then, that the modern communistic philosophers Selsam and Martel also readily acknowledged
Dietzgen's greatness.86
4.

The "Paris Commune" (1871)

-60-

Although the new decade 1870-80 saw the growth of the "narod-nichestvo" terrorist movement in Russia, culminating in
the anonymous Revolutionary Catechism (of Netchaiev and/or Bakunin), which later strongly influenced Lenin, orthodox
Marxism was also beginning to take root in Russia at the time of the birth of Vladimir Ilyitch Ulyanov (alias Lenin) in April
1870-the son of an upper middle class Simbirsk school inspector.
But great events of crucial importance to the development of communism were also now about to take place in France.
After two quiet decades under Louis Bonaparte alias Napoleon III, the latter entered the Franco-Prussian War in July 1870
(discussed in Engels' August Letter to Marx) which ended with Louis's disastrous defeat in September. Paris then. rose,
overthrew the emperor, and declared France a Republic (as discussed in Marx's October Letter to Beesly), but the
revolutionary leader L. A. Blanqui failed in his October attempt to set up a proletarian government (thereby creating the
communist term "Blanquism," with the meaning of a premature revolutionary seizure of power).
In the February election of 1871, the reactionary Thiers was elected head of government, but his later announcement of
the humiliating terms of peace with Germany immediately precipitated the leftist takeover of the Paris Commune on March
18.
The Paris Commune lasted for but seventy days. But its importance to communist theory in general and communist
eschatology in particular is crucial. For the first time in history, a largely proletarian government had seized power. The
dissatisfied proletariat had risen, executed many enemies of the people, its Revolutionary Central Committee had
proclaimed Paris to be an autonomous Commune, the Bank of France "negotiating" the communards a "loan" of one million
francs.87
As Marx, Engels, and Lenin all attached great significance to the Paris Commune as an example of the (post-capitalistic
socialist) "dictatorship of the proletariat," it must now merit some considerable attention.
After the proletarian seizure of power on March 18 and the proclamation of a proletarian government on March 19, the
Revolutionary Central Committee made the fatal error of consulting the Paris voters and asking them for a mandate and a
constitution. The voters, however, gave Paris not a proletarian but a democratic constitution, so that as from March 26 to the
end of the Commune on May 28, in spite of the red flags which flew at the installation of the "Paris Commune" on March 28,
Paris was governed by a democratic coalition administration of seventeen Internationalists (i.e., Marxists, Bakuninists,
Proudhonians, and eight Blanquists), eight Central Committee members, officers of the national guard and advocates of a
military offensive against the bourgeois Versailles government, and thirty other members, including orthodox (1789-93)
French Revolutionists, Bourgeois Republicans, and various other groups88-instead of being ruled by a purely Marxist
dictatorship of the proletariat, as also noted by Marx in his April Letter to Kugelmann 89 one month before the fall of the
Commune.
As Engels remarked, "The members of the Commune were divided into a majority, the Blanquists, ... and a minority:
Members of the International Working Men's Association, chiefly consisting of adherents of the Proudhon school of
Socialism. The great majority of the Blanquists at that time were Socialists only by revolutionary and proletarian instinct; only
a few had attained greater clarity on the essential principles, through Vaillant, who was familiar with German scientific
socialism ... More astonishing is the correctness of so much that was actually done by the Commune, composed as it was of
Blanquists and Proudhonists... By far the most important decree of the Commune instituted an organization of large-scale
industry. ..; in short, an organization which as Marx quite rightly says in The Civil War must necessarily have led in the end
to Communism, that is to say the direct antithesis to the Proudhon doctrine ..96
So the communistic tendencies of the Paris Commune especially in respect of the later Marxist-Leninist doctrine of the
dictatorship of the proletariat must not be overlooked. Juries of accusation (cf. the modern communists' "peoples courts")
were instituted by decree on April 5. The decision to demolish the famous martial monument on the Place de Vendme was
taken on April 12th and 16th (and executed on May 16th)-for the millennium of international peace was thought to be at
hand.
On April 20, the Commune announced to the French nation its intention of consolidating the republic and inaugurating a
new period of practical and scientific politics, viz., the termination of the old governmental and clerical regime, of militarism,
of officialdom, and of the old system of privileges. Between May 5th and 11th, thirteen daily newspapers were forbidden. On
the 15th of May, all Parisians were required to produce their identity cards on demand of any member of the national guard.
And as the invading armies of the French Reactionary Government at Versailles entered the outskirts of Paris, and the
violent end of the Commune loomed into sight, thousands of "petroleurs" or incendiaries burnt down many of the most
historic parts of Paris on the banks of the Seine, and other communards massacred many of the clergy (including the
archbishop of Paris) and the hostages they were holding.90
Marx in particular welcomed the advent of the Paris Commune and considered it to be highly significant in the
development of communism.
In his Letter to Kugelmann of April 12, 1871, Marx applauded the communards' attempt "to smash" the "bureaucraticmilitary machine" by "storming heaven," but regretted that the communards had not marched against Versailles immediately
in order to take control of the whole of France, and that "the [proletarian] Central Committee surrendered its power too soon,
to make way for the [democratic] Commune,"-and that "from a too 'honorable' scrupulosity!"91
Two days after the fall of the Paris Commune on May 28, 1871, Marx gave his Address to the General Council of the
First International, in which he discussed the Paris Commune. This address is best reflected in his post-humously printed
1872 manuscripts The First Draft of the 'Civil War in France': The Commune: The Character of the Commune and his

-61-

Second Dra ft of the 'Civil War in France': Conclusion and his 1872 book The Civil War in France, 1871.
In his First Draft, Marx wrote that "the Commune is the political form of social emancipation, of the liberation of labor
from the usurpation (the slavery) of the monopolists of the means of labor which were created by the laborers them selves or
were gifts of nature ... But the truly 'social' character of their [Commune] Republic only consisted of the fact that workers
ruled the Paris Commune," for they were unfortunately necessarily obliged to devote most of their energies to the military
defense of Paris. "In actuality, they attempted to erect neither a phalanstere nor an Icaria in Paris. Wise men for their time!
... The utopian founders of sects who, in their criticism of present society, gave a complete description of the goal of the
social movement, used to attempt to compensate for the failure of the historical involvement of the movement by fantastic
portrayals and plans of a new society, in which propaganda they saw the true means of salvation, But from the moment that
the movement of the working class becomes a reality, the fantastic utopias disappear-not because the working class has
surrendered the goal for which these utopians strove [emphasis mine-N.L.], but because they had found the true means to
realize them, ... But the final goals of the movement as announced by the Utopians are also those of the final goals as
announced by both the Paris Revolution and the International. Only the means differ."92 For loudly announcing its
international tendencies ... Paris proclaimed as its basic rule the admission of foreigners in the commune, immediately
elected a foreign worker [Lev Frankel] (a member of the International) to its Executive Comrnittee, [and] decreed [the
removal of] the symbol of French chauvinism-the Vendme column!"
In his Second Draft-written like the first, before the fall of the Commune-Marx declared: "The Paris Commune may fall,
but the social revolution which induced it, shall triumph. Its birth places are everywhere.93
And in his 1872 Civil War in France itself, Marx gave his detailed evaluation of the Paris Commune: "The Commune was
formed of the municipal councillors chosen by universal suffrage in various wards of the town, responsible and revocable at
short terms. The majority of its members were naturally working men, as acknowledged representatives of the working class
The police was at once stripped of its political attributes, and turned into the respectable and at all times revocable agent
of the Commune. So were the officials of all other branches of the Administration. From the members of the Commune
downwards, the public services had to be done at workmen's wages,
Having once got rid of the standing army and the police, the physical force elements of the old Government, the
Commune was anxious to break the spiritual force of repression, the "parson-power," by the disestablishment and
disendowment of all churches as proprietory bodies All the educational institutions were opened to the people
gratuitowly, and at the same time cleared of all interference of Church and State, Thus not only was education made
accessible to all, but science itself freed from the fetters which class prejudice and governmental force had imposed
upon it.
The judicial functionings were to be divested of that sham independence which had but served to mask their
abject subserviency to all succeeding governments....
In a rough sketch of national organization which the Commune had not time to develop, it [the Commune's
regime] states clearly that the Commune was to be the political form of even he smallest country hamlet, and that in
the rural districts the standing army was to be replaced by a national militia, with an extremely short term of service.
The rural Communes of every district [cf. the later Russian "Soviets"-N.L.] were to administer their common affairs by
an assembly of delegates in the central town, and these district assemblies were again to send deputies to the
National Delegation in Paris, each delegate to be at any time revocable and bound by the mandat impratif (formal
instructions) of his constituents. The few but Important functions which still would remain for a central government
were not to be suppressed, as has been intentionally misstated, but were to be discharged by Communal and,
therefore, strictly responsible agents. The unity of the nation was not to be broken; but, on the contrary, to be
organized by the Communal constitution, and to become a reality by the destruction of the State power which claimed
to be the embodiment of that unity and independent of, and superior to, the nation itself, from which it was but a
parasitic excrescence ... It was essentially a working-class government.
If the Commune was thus truly representative of all the healthy elements of French society, and therefore the truly
national Government, it was, at the same time, a working men's Government, [and,] as the bold champion of the
emancipation of labor, emphatically international The Commune annexed to France the working people all over the
world.... The Commune admitted all foreigners to the honor of dying for the immortal cause. ... The bourgeoisie had
found the time to display their patriotism by organizing police-hunts upon the Germans in France. The Commune made
a German working man its Minister of Labor. ... The Commune honored the heroic sons of Poland by placing them at
the head of the defenders of paris.94 And its intention was to expropriate the expropriators.95
In the 1891 edition of Marx's 1872 Civil War in France, Engels, in his famous "Introduction" thereto, threw much further
light on the Commune.
"On April 1st [1871]," he wrote,96 "it was decided that the highest salary received by any employee of the Commune, and
therefore also by the members themselves, might not exceed 6000 francs. On the following day the Commune decreed the
... transformation of all Church property into national property; on April 8 this was followed up by a decree excluding from the
schools all religious symbols, pictures, dogmas, prayers-- and this decree was gradually applied

-62-

"Of late, the Social Democratic philistine has once more been filled with wholesome terror at the words: Dictatorship of
the proletariat. Well and good, gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris
Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat!"
Lenin too attached particular importance to the Commune, and used it as a model in planning his own revolutionary
communism in Russia.97 In his 1912 work, The Paris Commune,'8 Lenin remarked that even though the immediate object of
the Commune was not "a complete socialist revolution," and even though "the Commune was not called upon to realize at
once any utopias," and even though the working class "knows that for its emancipation and the attainment of higher forms of
social life ... it is necessary to pass through a whole series of historical processes, which must radically alter both the
environment and the nature of human beings," as Marx himself taught in his Manifesto of the General Council (of the First
International) on the [Paris] Commune, nevertheless "the cause of the Commune is the cause of social revolution, the cause
of the complete political and economic emancipation of the toilers. It is the cause of the proletariat of the whole world. And in
this sense it is immortal.
"But two errors robbed the brilliant victory of its fruit. The proletariat stopped half-way: Instead of proceeding with the
'expropriation of the expropriators,' it was carried away by dreams of establishing supreme justice in the country, based on
the common national task. For instance, such institutions as banks were not seized. ... The second error was the
unnecessary magnanimity of the proletariat: instead of annihilating its enemies, it endeavored to exercise moral influence on
them ... But with all its errors, the Commune is the greatest example of the greatest proletarian movement of the nineteenth
century. Marx valued very highly the historical importance of the Commune ... A lesson was taught the proletariat which it is
not likely to forget. The working class will make use of it, as was already the case in Russia during the December
insurrection [in Russia in 1905-N.L.] ... It was able to eradicate common national' and 'patriotic' aberrations in the ranks of
the young proletariat.
"There are times when the interests of the proletariat demanded ruthless annihilation of its enemies in open battle. The
French proletariat was the first to demonstrate this in the Commune, and it was brilliantly confirmed by the Russian
proletariat in the December insurrection.
"In September 1870 Marx said insurrection would be madness. But when the masses had once risen, Marx wants to
march with them, learn along with them in the struggle itself, but not preach sermons to them ... Marx looks at history from
the point of view of those who have to make history without any possibility of infallibly figuring out the odds in advance...
Marx was able to appreciate the fact that there are moments in history when a desperate struggle of the masses, even for a
hopeless cause, is essential for the further training of those masses and their preparation for the next struggle. 'You should
have marched immediately on Versailles!,' said Marx to the rebels who had begun the 'mad' work of 'storming Heaven.'"
In September 1917, right before the successful Red Revolution in Russia, Lenin repeated the premature Blanquistic
uprising and agreed with Marx: "I will not undertake to campaign for the Commune and I cannot promise beforehand to fight
in its ranks as every Bolshevik will do, but I must say that if the Commune does start in spite of my efforts, I shall rather help
its defender than its opponents."99 And two years after Lenin seized power he was still praising "the heroic workers of Parisof the celebrated Paris Commune... [and the Commune itself] as unforgettable," and as an event which "will remain for ever
in the history of the workers' struggle for their emancipation. It laid the foundation of the edifice of the world socialist republic
which it is now our good fortune to be building."100
Yet this "celebrated Paris Commune ... marked the end of this [First] International," as Lenin conceded.' 00 Marx's praise
of the Paris Commune (which was admittedly controlled by a non-Marxist [and even by a non-Internationalist] majority), and
his ignoring of the significance of the contemporaneous solidly socialistic Internationalistic Commune of the Lyon
Bakuninists,101 precipitated severe friction between Marxistic and Bakuninistic factions in the International,102 which came to
a head in the September 1872 Hague Conference of the First International in Holland, where Marx delivered his Civil War in
France, 1871 on the Paris Commune as his 1872 Address to the General Council of the First International, and shrewdly
manipulated the Council to banish his rival leader, whom he had recentlyl03 denounced as "Bakunin, a man devoid of
theoretical knowledge," and whose program he had described as "a superficially scraped together hash of Right and Left,"
and merely an "infant's rubbish." For Bakunin had been trying to "anarchize" the members of the International, rather than
to communize" them. As Marx wrote in his Letter to Theodor Cuno just before the Congress,104 Bakunin's policy was "to
conduct propaganda, abuse the state, organize, and when all the workers are won over, i.e., the majority, depose the
authorities, abolish the state and replace it by the organization of the International. This great act, with which the millennium
begins, is called social liquidation."
Small wonder then that the idealistic and anarchistic Bakuninists had not given their support to the Paris Commune!
5.

The Last Years of Marx and En gels (1872-95)

After getting rid of Bakunin from the faction-ridden First International, Marx transferred it to New York, after which it held
its penultimate Congress in Geneva in 1874, and its last in Philadelphia in 1876.
In the U.S.A. itself, the new headquarters of the First International, the Social Democratic Workingmen's Party of North
America was formed from the fusion of the U.S. J.W.M.A. (the First International) and various other socialist parties in 1874,
which, however, changed its name to "Socialist Labor Party of North America" and started to infiltrate the New York Central
Labor Union, the Knights of Labor, and the American Federation of Labor in 1877. Whereas the revisionist Dan de Leon

-63-

formed the Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance in 1894, and Eugene Debs formed the Social Democratic Party in 1897.
In Russia, the terrorism of the narodniks of Netchaiev and Tkachev increased during the 'seventies. Marx was writing to
the Russian Lavrov, whose 1875 Attempt at a History of Thought (on materialistic physical cosmogony and physical
eschatology) was later employed in Engels' 1882 Dialectics of Nature to counter Clausius' Second Law of
Thermodynamics,105 and whose speech on behalf of Russian socialists was delivered at Marx's graveside in 1883. Two
years later, in 1877, Russia's first socialist organization, "Land and Liberty," was organized, and Marx (cf. his Letter to
Zasulich and his Preface to the 1882 Russian Edition of Ihe Manifesto of the Communist Party) was writing his Letter to the
Editor of the 'Otyecestvenniye Zupisky' on the eschatological possibilities of the Russian village commune-two years before
the birth of the Ukrainian Jew Lev Bronstein (alias "Trotsky") and the Georgian Yossif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili (alias
"Stalin") and the birth of the ruthlessly terroristic off-split of "Land and Liberty" known as "Narodnaya Volya" or "The People's
Will."
In France, French socialism, bewildered by the events surrounding the rise and fall of the Paris Commune, soon split
into bourgeois socialists (under Millerand and Jaurs), revolutionary socialists (under Blanqui, Vaillant, and Sembat-Blanqui
editing his Ni dieu ni maitre ["Neither god nor master"] in 1879), and Marxian socialists (under Guesde), the latter
themselves embracing a Parlementarian (Brousse) an Underground (Allemandist), and a Personalist (Guesdeist) wing. Only
the German Jew Moses Hess, now permanently resident in France as a refugee from the German government, which had
sentenced him to death for his leading role in the 1848 German Revolution,50a stood firm.
For in the France of the eighteen-seventies, Moses Hess (apostle of socialism, and precursor of Zionism [according to
Dagobert Runes]105a) not only continued to support the First Communist International but now also began to start realizing
his plans for the future of Palestine as well. Hess, it will be remembered, after outlining his plan for the creation of a
(socialistic) "United States of Europe" (thus Max Dimont) ,106 had originally converted Marx and Engels to
Communisml106a and then together with them co-edited the newspaper Rheinische Zeitung106b and also co-authored
Marx's and Engels' German Ideology107 and helped them in their early conspiratorial activities.107a In 1862 he wrote his
famous book Rome and Jerusalem in which he championed the cause of Judaism in general and of the Jewish working
class !n particular.108 And, after being an important delegate at the 1868 Brussels Congress and the 1869 Basle Congress of
the Communist International, Hess began to spend less time in promoting international socialism for the people of all the
world and more time in promoting national socialism specifically for the Jewish people. Indeed, as explained by Zvi Cahn,
Hess was not just a modern socialist and the teacher of Karl Marx, but also a pioneer of modern Jewish nationalism too.108a
According to Cahn, Hess himself actually procured money for financing the pioneer agricultural school of modern Palestine,
the "Mikveh Israel," and influenced hundreds of Jews from Poland and Roumania to go to Palestine109 and start planning the
first communal settlements or "kibbutzim" there (the 1882 Rishon-le-Zion being founded as the first Zionist colony in
Palestine),110 on which early kibbutzim, based as they admittedly were on both socialism and Zionism, property and housing
and meals and bathrooms were all in common and (according to Spiro) marriage was succeeded by "pairing" (and, in some
cases, even informal "polygamy" and "polyandry" were practised) ,111 and which kibbutzim (according to Spiro) were
particularly inundated by emigrant communistic European Jews during the nineteen-twenties.111
Yet Hess's increasing interest in promoting national socialism for the Jewish people in Palestine should not be taken as
implying that he ceased supporting the international socialism of Karl Marx. For after Hess's death, Marx personally wrote
two letters to Hess's widow (an ex-prostitute, according to Cahn and Runeslila), thanking her for sending him her husband's
1877 The Doctrine ol Dynamic Matter, in which letters Marx wrote that this "writing of our immortalized friend has a very
important value and honors our Party," and that he (Marx) and Engels, "insofar as we have influence, will attempt to spread
it abroad," as "it contains genial viewpoints."112
In England, after their 1871-2 writings on the Paris Commune, the next works of Marx and Engels themselves were:
Engels' On the (Franco-German) War, in which he recounted the great events which had then just transpired in France; his
The Housing Question, in which Engels advocated the esehatological abolition of the antithesis between town and country;
his On Authonty, in which he dealt with the necessity for eschatological planning even after the withering away of the state;
and Marx's On the Nationalization of Ground and Land, in which he proposed the eschatological nationalization [and,
conceivably, the still later internationalization] of all land rather than its allocation to associations. But after the Eisenacher
Social Democrats (of Bebel and Liebknecht) had united with the German Workers' Union (of Von Schweitzer and the
Lassalleans) on the basis of the "Gotha Program" as the great "German Social Democratic Party," Marx wrote his last
important work-and his most systematic statement of communist esehatology-The Critique of ihe Gotha Program.
The Social Democratic '4Gotha Program" had held to an unorthodox view of labor as the source of all wealth and to an
unorthodox view of communist eschatology. Marx, in his Critique of the Gotha Program, corrected these views, and gave a
more detailed analysis of the orthodox communist eschatological doctrines of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the
differences between post-capitalistic socialism and the "pure" communism which, it was thought, would follow it at a later
stage: "What we have to deal with here [viz., under 'socialism'-N.L.1 is a communist society, not as it has developed on its
own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society: which is thus in every respect, economically,
morally and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges."112" However, "in
a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and
therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of
life, but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-round development of the individual,

-64-

and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly-only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be
crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his
needs!"112b
These matters were further elaborated in Marx's Letter to Bracke of May 8, 1875, whereas Marx and Engels in their
September 1879 Letter to Bracke, Liebknecht, Bebel and Others again emphasized the necessity of revolution-in the face of
growing anti-revolutionary socialist revisionism.
It was only as Marx was finishing writing his most important books, that Engels started writing his most significant works.
After his The Housing Question of 1872 and his On Authority of 1874 and his important Letter to Bebel of March 18-28,
1875-all three of which are of great importance for communist eschatology-Engels' 1 876f series of articles in Vorwrts
appeared in 1880 as his famous book on the history of historical materialism, his Socialism-Utopian and Scientific, and in
expanded form in 1878 as his greatest work, Anti-Dhring, in which he gave a polemical though systematic philosophy of
the communistic life and world view, and includes much human eschatology; whereas his unfinished Dialectics of Nature of
1878-82, including his explosive The Part Played by Labor in the Transition from Ape' to Man, represented the remnant of
his writings in the realm of natural science or dialectical materialism, and included a cosmic eschatology.
The eighteen-eighties and eighteen-nineties saw the rise of socialist revisionism, the final writings of Engels, and the
further increase of revolutionary activity in Russia.
We have already noted the revisionist tendency in socialist circles in the "Gotha Program" of the German Social
Democratic Party of 1875, where Marx's theory of labor and political eschatology were "revised." This tendency became
particularly strong in France (under Jaurs) and in Germany (under Bernstein); but by far the most important revisionist
tendency occurred in British Fabian Socialism.
Already in his 1880 Progress and Poverty, the American socialist Henry George, a man whom Marx regarded as
"theoretically ... utterly backward,113 was advocating the "single tax" and the naturalization of all land. Especially William
Morris, author of the utopian socialistic News From Nowhere, funnelled these ideas into British socialist circles, and
ultimately the Fabian Society was established in 1883.
The word "Fabian" is derived from the Roman general Fabius Cunctator, who defeated Hannibal the Carthaginian by
means of his delaying tactics. It was the thesis of the Fabian Society, then, that by outspoken revolutionism England could
not be socialized but could only be antagonized into resisting an outspokenly revolutionary Marxism, but that England could,
however, step by step, easily be surreptitiously led into socialism in small installments, a little at a time.
The founder members of the Fabian Society were such prominent socialists as George Bernard Shaw-the playwright;
William Morris, the utopian; Sidney and Beatrice (Potter) Webb, the later authors of the pro-communist work History of
Trade Unionism (which Lenin translated into Russian)114 and their pro-Leninist work The Truth About Soviet Russia; H. M.
Hyndman, the militant socialist; Havelock Ellis, the revolutionary sexologist; and later, Ramsay MacDonald and Harold
Wilson-both of whom subsequently became Labor Party prime ministers of Britain.
Of these persons, Hyndman was in personal correspondence with Marx,'15 and rather "un-Fabianistically" predicted that
the worldwide socialist revolution would take place on the hundredth anniversary of the fall of the Bastille during the French
Revolution, viz., on July 14, I889.116 And Shaw the playwright was (at the very least) a personal friend of Marx's socialistic
daughter Eleanor Marx (Aveling), clearly co-operated with Engels and Bebel,117 was considered by Engels as "very talented
and witty,"118 and gave a complimentary copy of his famous play Back to Methuselah to the post-revolutionary Lenin
inscribed: "to Nicolas Lenin, the only European ruler who is displaying the ability, character and knowledge proper to his
responsible position, from Bernard Shaw, 6th June, 1921."118
It is true that Engels accused the Fabians of "municipal socialism,"'19 and (according to Lenin) treated "Sidney Webb &
Co. as a gang of bourgeois rogues who would demoralize the workers, [and] influence them in a counter-revolutionary
spirit,"120 and as "a band of careerists who have understanding enough to realize the inevitability of the social revolution, but
who could not possibly entrust this gigantic task to the raw proletariat alone," because they were at heart only "clever lawyer
writers, and sentimental old women."' 21 And Lenin himself held that "the Fabian society is undoubtedly the most
consummate expression of opportunism and of Liberal-Labor policy," and "the Fabians are more sincere and honest than
[the nationalistic communists of World War I] Kautsky and Company, because they have not promised to stand for
revolution."122 Nor do modern communist thinkers view them differently.123
Yet Lansbury of the "pure socialist" Independent Labor Party got Lenin to admit in 1920 that Leninism was then in
practice Fabianism; Shaw told Stalin that the Fabian motto "the inevitability of gradualness" should be inscribed on Lenin's
tomb, and that Stalin too was advocating Fabianism in his time; the Fabian New Statesman excused Lenin of Cheka (secret
police) atrocities; and the Fabian Laski's Karl Marx and the Webbs' pro-Soviet Decay of Civilization sold steadily in the
Fabian Bookshop.124
Other prominent members of the Fabian Society included the occultist Annie Besant, the agitator Sarah Parkhurst, the
"Revs." S. D. Headlam and James Kerr and Arthur Henderson, the politicians Keir Hardy and Herbert Morrison and Philip
Noel Baker and Arthur Greenwood and Sir Stafford Cripps, the economists Laski (mentor of both President John F.
Kennedy and his brother Senator Robert R Kennedy) and Keynes, the writers 0. M. Trevelyan and Jerome K. Jerome, the
historians 0. D. H. Cole and R. H. Tawney, and the philosophers Bernard Bosanquet and C. M. Joad, and Bertrand Russell
(in Britain), and William James and John Dewey and Morris Cohen (in America)-and many, many others, as well as many
other socialists and/or socialistically inclined persons influenced thereby, such as Willy Brandt, Walter Reuther, Vice-

-65-

President Humphrey, etc., etc.125


Fabianism was introduced into the 1893 Independent Labor Party by Keir Hardy and Ramsey MacDonald, and later into
the British Labor Party (founded 1900), Whereas the Socialist Labor Party, founded in Scotland in 1903, openly joined the
Communist Party of Great Britain (founded August 1920) in January 1921. 126
Similar developments were taking place in the U.S.A. under De Leon and in France under Sorel and Jaurs, and
especially in Germany, surrounding the 1891 Erfurt Program, which split German socialism into the defeated Lassafleans,
the anarchistic socialists (the Mostians Werner and Auerbach), the orthodox Marxists (Bebel, Liebknecht, Kautsky, and
Mehring), and the revisionists (the gradualistic ameliorationist Von Vollmar and the anti-revolutionary Bernstein) 127
Engels himself not only strenuously opposed this revisionism (cf. His 1880 Letter to Becker condemning the German
Socialist Democratic Party, his 1881 The British Labor Movement, his 1883 Letter to Van Patten and Letter to Karl Kautsky,
his 1884 Letter to Bernstein, his 1885 On the History of the Communist League, his 1890 Letter to J. Bloch, his 1891 Letter
to Conrad Schmidt [in which he described Marxian historical materialism as a "guide for study"J,1271 his "Introduction" to the
1891 edition of Marx's Civil War in France, his Critique of the Social Democratic Draft [Erfurt] Program of 1891, and his 1
892-4 Letters to Sorge [and] go Starkenburg), but he also began to write much of an outspokenly anti-Christian
philosophical nature. In 1882, he published his Bruno Bauer and Early Christianity; in 1883, his radically critical The Book of
Revelation and his historical materialistic Speech at the Graveside of Karl Marx (on thc latter's death); in 1884, his radically
communistic Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, with its thesis of future communism as a "higher form" of
primitive communism; in 1885 his "Foreword" to and edition of Marx's Capital II; in 1888, his monumental history of the
development of the roots of Marxism-Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy; in 1894, his
"Foreword" to and edition of Marx's Capital III; and in 1895, the year of his own death, his important "Introduction" to the
1895 edition of Marx's Class Struggles in France, 1848-50, in which he mentions the possibility [not the inevitability!] of a
peaceful transition to socialism, in the light of the new then prevailing world conditions 128
An interesting feature of the last years of Marx and Engels was their increasing interest in developments in Russia. As
we have seen, the radical ideas of the French Revolution had influenced the 1825 "Decembrist" uprising in Russia, as well
as the I 840f "Populism" of Herzen, Belinski, and Dubrolyubov. Russian socialism became more radical after the middle of
the nineteenth century, especially under the influence of Chernysheysky, who was not only influenced by Marx's books, but
whose own books and ideas began to influence Marx, and, at a later stage, Lenin. The first translation of Marx's 1867
Capital into a foreign language 'was into Russian, and Marx was soon writing regularly to Chernyshevsky, to the editor of
the Otyecestvenniye Zupisky, to Lavrov, and to the Plekhanovian Zasulich. Engels too realized the growing importance of
Russia (cf. his letters to the pro-Leninistic Russian Marxist Plekhanov, whose writings converted Lenin to Marxism in
1893).129 After the publication of his 1875 Social Relations in Russia, Engels corresponded with the Russian socialist
Danielson (or Nicolai-on) right up to his death in 1895, and saw to it that future editions of Marx's books specifically catered
to the ever-increasing Russian audience.
Step by step the development of communist theory had begun to move ever closer-to Russia. It is to this milieu that we
must now turn.
6.

The Rise of Leninism (l89~l9l7)

Russian radicalism had progressed from the French Revolution via the Decembrists, through Herzen,130
Chcrnyshevsky, 131 and Netchaievs terrorism, to the more scientific viewpoint of the Marxists Lavrov and Plekhanov.
Georgi Plekhanov, the former narodnik and the first great Russian historical materialistic socialist leader, corresponded
with Engels, and became a Marxist with Paul Axel'rod and Vera Zasulich (who corresponded with Marx) during their Swiss
exile in 1882, where after he founded the "League for the Emancipation of Labor," and wrote his Socialism and the Political
Struggle (cf. too his Defense of Materialism alias the Development of the Monistic View of Society).
It was the latter book which converted Lenin to Marxism when he read it in 1893. Before that, however, Lenin's heart
had been prepared for some such step by the logic of the past events, the brief enumeration of which cannot but help us in
clarifying Lenin's general background.
Lenin was born in 1870, one year before the Paris Commune and only nine years after backward Russia had emerged
from serfdom. During his childhood, Netchaiev and Tkachev were terrorizing the country; Russias first socialist
organization, "Land and Liberty," was organized; and Marx was giving advice to Russian socialist leaders. The narodnik
Plekhanov fled from the Russian police to Switzerland, and three years later, when young Lenin was twelve years old, the
narodniks assassinated the tsar, and Plekhanov founded his "League for the Emancipation of Labor."
When Lenin's older brother Sasha was arrested, tried, and executed for attempting to assassinate the new tsar, all the
above now began to take on an existential meaning for the now seventeen-year-old Vladimir Lenin himself, who now began
to study his executed brother's radical books, including Marx's Capital. And it was at this early stage that Lenin himself was
first arrested for his own leftist activities.
In 1892-the year of the Yugoslavian communist dictator Tito's birth-the twenty-two-year-old Lenin started practising law
while continuing to study the various works of Marx. And the following year-the year of the birth of Mao Tse-tung-Lenin
became a Marxistic communist after reading Plekhanov's book In Defense of Materialism. Thereafter he sought to combine
Marxist social theory with Russian terroristic revolutionary technique, immediately joining and soon dominating Marxist

-66-

circles in St. Petersburg-two years prior to Engels' death, who was then corresponding with the Russian socialists Danielson
(Nicolai-on) and Plekhanov himself about ways and means of bringing communism to Russia.
The next year, 1894, saw Lenin's first publication, Who Are the 'Friends of the People,' and How Do They Fight the
Social Democrats?, in which he demolished those milder and non-communistic narodnik leftists known as "The Friends of
the People" (cf. the French bourgeois-socialist "Amis du peuple" of 1830-39). And shortly after this, Lenin attacked the
Russian "Legal-Marxist" Social Democrat Struve in his Marxism as Reflecied in Bourgeois Literature.132
After the 1895 death of Engels (whom he had never met), Lenin traveled to Switzerland to meet the Russian Marxist
leader Plekhanov (with whom Engels had copiously corresponded), and then returned to Russia, where he united
twenty Marxist groups in St. Petersburg into the Plekhanovistic "League of the Struggle for the Emancipation of the
Working Class," which soon spread to Moscow, Kiev, and Kharkov. And then-while the Georgian theological student
Stalin became a socialist after reading Victor Hugo on the French Revolution and Darwin on evolutionism133-Lenin
organized strikes, was arrested in December, and jailed for a year till the end of 1896 while awaiting his trial and
sentence, during which time he wrote his Development of Capitalism in Russia-while Plekhanov in Switzerland
published his own Essays on the History of Materialism.
After Lenin's trial, he was sentenced in 1897 to exile in Siberia (till 1900), where, however, he studied much philosophy
(Spinoza, Kant, Helvetius, Fichte, Schelling, Feuerbach, Lange, and Plekhanov) 134 and wrote his Draft Explanations of the
Program of the Socialist Democratic Party.
The next year, while Trotsky was also in Siberian exile for revolutionary activities (prior to his escape to London),
various Marxist organizations convened the First Congress of the Russian Social Democratic (Workers') Party in Minsk, in
the absence of Lenin and Trotsky. But Struve's theoretically unsound Manifesto of the Russian Social Democratic (Workers')
Party and the later arrests of the leaders soon brought about the Party's fragmentation.
Right at the end of the nineteenth century, as Stalin was expelled from the theological college for revolutionary activities,
Lenin was writing against the various Marxist "heresies"-against the "Legal Marxists" or "legalists" like Struve, who confined
all their activities to working within the law; against the "Neo-Kantian Marxists" or "Empiriocriticists" like Mach and
Avenarius, who had unmaterialistically lapsed into German phenomenology; and against the "God-builders" like
Lunacharsky, who attempted to make a formal religion of the deification of man. And when the Fabian socialists supported
Britain as a "civilizing element" in the Angl~Boer War (1899-1902), Lenin promptly condemned the British for their "imperial
ism."' 135(q.v.)
Marx, writing before the eighteen-seventies, had only hinted at the future development of imperialism. But with the
Anglo-Boer War, the world entered the twentieth century and the period of imperialism proper, much discussed by Lenin and
by later communists such as Khrushchev and especially Mao Tse-tung. As Lenin later remarked.136 "Firstly, monopoly arose
out of the concentration of (capitalist] production at a very high stage Secondly, monopolies have stimulated the seizure of
the most important sources of raw materials, ... Thirdly, monopoly has sprung from the banks ... [and] fourthly, monopoly
has grown out of colonial policy," so that "we must define . . . the economic essence of imperialism as capitalism in
transition, or, more precisely, as moribund capitalism."
This is why Stalin later stated that "Leninism is Marxism in the age of imperialism,"157 and added (quoting Lenin himself)
that "the West-European capitalist countries are accomplishing their development towards socialism not by the even
'ripening' of socialism, but by the exploitation of some countries by others, by the exploitation of the first of the countries to
be vanquished in the imperialist war combined with the exploitation of the whole of the East. On the other hand, precisely as
a result of the first imperialist war, the East has been finally drawn into a maelstrom of the world revolutionary movement."138
Even before the conclusion of the imperialistic Anglo-Boer War, the Boxer Rebellion had broken out in China in 1900,
and Lenin and his new lady companion Nadezhda Konstantinovna Krupskaya returned from Siberian exile and went to
Switzerland (till 1905), where Lenin started attacking the "Economists" (who wished to promote Marxism only in the
economic field) in his popular Iskra (="The Spark") and in his theoretical journal Zarya (="The Dawn"), advocating a
disciplined revolutionary Party [combining Marxist theory with Netchaiev's revolutionary technique] which would violently
overthrow the government.
In .1902, Lenin's What Is to Be Done? was published (cf. Chernyshevsky's 1863 book by that title), in which Lenin
opposed the "Legalists" and the "Economists," and advocated the reorganization of the Party under "democratic centralism."
And in 1903, this very issue came to a head in a violent clash between Lenin and Martov and others.
The clash occurred with the emergence of Bolshevism at the famous 1903 Second Congress of the Russian Social
Democratic Labor Party, which began in Brussels and later transferred to London. At the Congress, Lenin's and Stalin's
"Bolsheviks" (or "Majority Party") desired a small, secretive, centralized, iron-disciplined, ruthless, and revolutionary party
built on a coalition between the urban proletariat and the rural peasants. They clashed, however, with Martov's
"Mensheviks" (or "Minority Party"), which included Plekhanov on its left wing, who wanted a broader, democratic, less
revolutionary and more intellectualistic party. A middle position was adopted by Trotsky's revolutionistic "Mezhrayonka,"
which was, however, more internationalistic and less in favor of coalition with the rural peasants than were the
Bolsheviks.139 Karl Kautsky, the German socialist, could not, however, resist the temptation of declaring that "the
responsibility of this ill-fated discord rests directly with Lenin."'140
The results of the clash were far-reaching. Lenin emerged as the undisputed leader of the Bolshevik group, and after
having had to resign from the editorship of the now Menshevistic Iskra (controlled by Plekhanov) and from the Central

-67-

Committee of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party, he hit back at them with his Anti-Menshevistic 1904 One Step
Forward, Two Steps Back and his new journal Vpered or Vperyed (="Step"), which later became Proletary.
Events were, however, soon to begin to favor Lenin. In 1904-5, Russia's resources became strained as a result of the
Russo-Japanese War then in progress. Trouble started in earnest when the tsar's troops massacred crowds of the poor on
"Bloody Sunday" in January 1905, and this was followed by very much unrest in February and March and throughout the
rest of the year. Meanwhile, after the Third Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party in London in April and
May, Lenin in September repromulgated the useful Bolshevik thesis that the democratic revolution must precede the
socialist revolution in Russia, and called for an alliance between the proletariat and the peasantry.
After Russia's humiliating surrender to Japan, spontaneous and widespread strikes and uprisings occurred in Russia
from October to December. A monarchical Constitutional Democratic Party (="Cadets")141 was formed; workers' and
peasants' "Soviets" or councils sprang up in many places; and the shaky regime of the totalitarian tsar promised reforms,
including the creation of a "Duma" or Parliament.
It was at this time that the communists seized their opportunity. In October, Trotsky suddenly returned from exile and
organized the first communist Soviet in St. Petersburg. In November, Lenin returned to Russia, where he remained till
December 1907. But in December 1905 the St. Petersburg's communist Soviet-which Lenin considered to be similar to the
Paris Commune in that both were operated by the people142-was smashed by the reactionary government, and the
communists' barricades in Moscow were overthrown. Trotsky was exiled to Siberia (whence, however, he soon escaped
and fled Russia altogether).
In 1906, the first Russian Duma ever held was summoned. The Bolsheviks boycotted it; but the Mensheviks cooperated and sent their deputies as "Legalists," pleading as "Liquidators"143 for the "liquidation" of the illegal apparatuses of
the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party. The amazing thing is that Bolsheviks and Mensheviks were still able to patch up
a (temporary and uneasy) truce with one another at the Fourth ("Unity") Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labor
Party in Sweden.
The following year, at the 1907 Stuttgart Conference of the Second International, Lenin organized "a conference of the
Leftists in the International to counterbalance" the other factions,144 after which he left Russia for good (till April 1917), going
to live in Switzerland, where he opposed the (Anti-"Legalistic") "Otzovisty" or "Recallers" or Ultimatumists,145 who wished to
recall all the Social Democratic deputies from the Duma, and where he continued his fight against the epistemological
phenomenologists and also opposed the socialistic "God-seekers" Berdyaev and Bulgakov (who did at least "seek" a
transcendent God) and the "God-builders" Gorki and Lunacharsky (who attempted to "build" a new God, viz., man) 148 in his
famous 1909 book, Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, while also publishing his Socialism and Religion, in which he
declared his intention of supplanting especially the Christian religion by socialism.
In 1910, Lenin and Rosa Luxemburg, the Polish communist, formed a revolutionary leftist faction of the Second
International at the "Private Conference of the Leftists" at Copenhagen in Denmark, and Lenin started his weekly Zvezda
(="Star"). And in l912-after the overthrow of the Chinese Imperial Government, the declaration of independence of Tibet
from China, and the abdication of the Chinese emperor, all of which created a power vacuum ultimately to be filled by Mao
Tse-tung-Lenin wrote his book on The Paris Commune, started his daily newspaper Pravda, (= "Truth"), and declared the
independence of the Bolshevik Party at the 1912 Prague Conference of the Second International.
During this Prague Conference, the First Permanent Bolshevik Central Committee appointed a controlling "Bureau of
Four," including Lenin and the Leninistic Stalin (in the latter's absence-Stalin had become a Marxist in 1895, had been
introduced to Lenin by Trotsky's brother-in-law Kamenev at the Tammerf6rs Bolshevik Conference in Finland in 1905, had
published his own Anarchy or Socialism? in 1907, had been repeatedly arrested for revolutionary activities, and had
repeatedly escaped from jail from 1902 through 1913). All Mensheviks were expelled from the Central Committee and all of
the (1906) "Liquidators" were expelled from the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party.
After the Prague Conference, while Stalin was again arrested and jailed till March 1917, there began a very productive
period of Lenin's writings on nationalism, politics, economics, education, and religion, viz., his famous 1913 atheistic Letter
to Gorki; his Theses on the National Question, his The Nationalization of Jewish Schools, his Liberals and Democrats on the
Language Question; his Bourgeois Gentlemen on 'Family' Farming; his How Does Bishop Nikon Defend the Ukrainians?; his
Resolutions of the 1913 Conference of the Central Committee, Russian Social Democratic Labor Party; his 'Cultural
National' Autonomy; his Nationality of Pupils in Russian Schools; his The National Program of the Russian Social
Democratic Labor Party; his Once More on the Segregation of the Schools According to Nationality; his The Marx-Engels
Correspondence; his Critical Remarks on the National Question; his Is a Compulsory Official Language Needed?; his To
Camille Huysmans; his A Contribution to the History of the National Program in Austria and Russia; his More About
'Nationalism'; his The Peasantry and Hired Labor and his The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism-in
which latter work he triumphantly stated that "independent organizations of the proletariat are multiplying all over the world,
from America to Japan and from Sweden to South Africa." 146a
During the following year, the First World War (1914-18) broke out, and the repercussions thereof split the Second
International asunder. Kautsky and the Mensheviks called upon all socialists to fight for their respective countries-which
amounted to German socialists fighting Russian and French, etc., socialists. But other socialist leaders (such as Lenin the
Russian, Luxemburg the Pole, Liebknecht the German, Jaurs the Frenchman, and Debs the American) proposed that
socialists everywhere should rather commence hostilities against their own respective bourgeois governments. Not

-68-

surprisingly, the Second International collapsed. In Germany, however, a revolutionary anti-war-and-Kautsky faction, the
"Internationale Group," was founded under the leadership of the leftist Social-Democrats Liebknecht, Luxemburg, Franz
Mehring and Clara Zetkin,14? while Lenin in Switzerland launched his attack against the nationalistic socialists and
"Renegade Kautsky."
Notwithstanding the fact that Marx considered the admittedly Marxist Kautsky to be "a mediocrity with a small-minded
outlook,"148 Lenin in his 1909 Materialism and Empirio-Criticism had regarded him as one of "the socialist authorities."149 But
after his defection from socialist internationalism, Lenin could only equate Kautskyism with Fabianism 150-indeed the Fabians
even enjoyed "recognition" by Kautsky and Company.151 Of course, Lenin later admitted that "it is by no means easy to be
an internationalist in deed during a terrible imperialist war. Such people are rare, but it is on them that the future of Socialism
depends."152
In 1914, then, after Russia went to war against Germany, Lenin in Switzerland continued to pour out new publications,
viz., his Editorial Comment on Veteran's Article: 'The National Question and the Lettish Proletariat'; his The Teachings of
Karl Marx; his A Liberal Professor on Equality; his The Taylor System-Man's Enslavement by the Machine; his On the
Question of National Policy; his Book Review of N. A. Rubakin's 'Among Books'; his Liquidationism Defined; his The Rights
of Nations to Self-Determination; his Report of the Central Committee of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party to the
Brussels Conference and Instructions to the Central Committee Delegations; and his On the National Pride of the Great
Russians.
The following year, 1915, Lenin published his British Pacifism and the British Dislike of Theory and his On the Slogan
'For a United States of Europe,' while continuing to attack the "War Socialists" and accusing Kautsky of "castrating
Marxism."153 Lenin's pleas for the founding of a "New International" at the 1915 Zimmerwald International Conference [and
the 1916 Kienthal International Conference] finalized the breach between Lenin and Kautsky and prepared the way for the
ultimate formation of the 1919 (Leninist) "Third International" after the 1917 communist seizure of power in Russia.
Meanwhile, as the World War progressed, Lenin continued to produce various (chiefly philosophical) writings (from 1915
to 1917), including his On Dialectics; his Conspectus of Hegel's 'History of Philosophy'; his Notes on Plekhanov's
'Chernyshevsky'; his Conspectus of Hegel's 'Science of Logic'; his Conspectus of Lassalle's 'Heraclitus'; his Conspectus of
Aristotle's 'Metaphysics'; his Conspectus of Feuerbach's 'Leibni:'; and his Sismondi ALlAS a Characterization (all of which
were published posthumously in 1929-32 as Lenin's Philosophical Notes), and his In Memory of Herzen and The WorkingClasses and Neo-Malthusianism.
In 1916, the German "Internationale Group" became the communist "Spartacus Group" (which later organized the
German communist Revolution of 1918), and Trotsky (who after the smashing of his 1905 St. Petersburg Soviet and his
escape from subsequent imprisonment in Siberia had fled Russia and written his 1906 A Review and Some Perspectives,
laid low from 1908-12 in Vienna and thereafter in France) was expelled from France and went to New York, where he raised
funds for the coming Russian revolution of 1917.
Meantime, Lenin wrote his very important Imperialism the Highest Stage of Capitalism (already discussed above) ,154
and his A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism, in which he distinguished between "three different types of
countries ... when dealing with self determination," viz., the "first type: the advanced countries of Western Europe (and
America), where the national movement is a thing of the past. Second type: Eastern Europe, where it is a thing of the
present. Third type: semi-colonies and colonies, ""here it is largely a thing of the future."155 And in his The National
Liberation Movement in the East, he wrote: "Socialists must not only demand the unconditional and immediate liberation of
the colonies without compensation-and this demand in its political expression signifies nothing else but the recognition of the
right to self-determination-but they must render determined support to the more revolutionary elements in the bourgeoisdemocratic movements for national liberation in these countries and assist their uprising-and, if such be the case, their
revolutionary war-against the imperialist powers that oppress them." 155a
Other important 1916 writings of Lenin include his Opportunism and the Collapse of the Second International; his The
Socialist Revolution and the Rights of Nations of Self-Determination; his The Junius Pamphlet (versus Rosa Luxemburg);
his The National Liberation Movement in the East; his The Discussion of Self-Determination Summed Up; his To the
International Socialist Committee; his The Military Program of the Proletarian Revolution; and his The Youth International
(cf. the American revolutionist Jerry Rubin's modern "Youth International Party"-Y.I.P.-"Yippies").
The year 1917-in which Sun Yat-sen was elected Generalissimo of the Chinese Military Junta-was also the year of
communism's seizure of power in Russia. Accordingly, it will be necessary to give a 'very detailed account of the events of
the year.
Things had been going very badly for Russia for quite some time in World War I against Germany, and the Russian
population was getting very restless. On March 8, 1917, a Russian Women's Day Meeting demanded the immediate
cessation of the Russo-German War. On March 9, 200,000 workers went on strike, and street fights broke out in St.
Petersburg. On March 10, there was a general strike throughout the city, and a Soviet of Workingmen's Deputies was
elected. On March 11, the tsar ordered the dissolution of the Duma, and the Bolsheviks issued a ManlIesto on the formation
of a Provisional Government. On March 12, the tsar's regiments revolted, his cabinet was arrested, political prisoners
(including Stalin) were released, and a Provisional Revolutionary Committee was formed in Moscow under the leadership of
a coalition of Social Revolutionaries (or post-narodnikian revolutionary utopians) ,156 Social Democrats (the non-Bolshevik
factions thereof), Mensheviks, and Bolsheviks. On March 13, Moscow was paralyzed by a general strike; and on March 15,

-69-

the tsar was forced to abdicate, and a provisional government was formed under Prince Lvov. Lenin in Switzerland received
news of all this on March 16, and immediately wrote about its significance in his Letters from Afar, in which lie also laid out
his revolutionary strategy for the future.
An extraordinary piece of good luck occurred when the German government, anxious to have Lenin throw Russia into
even more confusion and thereby indirectly help Germany in the war, provided a special sealed train in which Lenin left
Switzerland on April 9 and arrived back in Russia from exile on April 16-together with 80,000,000 German golden marks for
furthering the revolution in Russia, given him by the German government! 157 Immediately after his arrival in Russia (at which
the communist reception committee played the French Revolutionary "Marseillaise" as his train steamed into the
station),157a Lenin publicized his The Tasks of the Proletariat in Our (Present) Revolution and prepared his Notes for an
Article or Speech in Defense of the April Theses, and on April 17 delivered his famous April theses, in which he repeated
the program of the 1848 Manifesto of the Communist Party (coupled with the Russian revolutionary technique of Netchaiev
and Lenin's own conception of the eschatological transition from capitalism to socialism and communism).
Meanwhile, Trotsky had left New York with money collected there'58 for the promotion of the Russian Revolution.
Arriving in Russia on May 17, just one day before the formation of the Russian coalition government, it is not surprising that
a Bolshevik revolution-which lasted for three days-broke out on June 4.
After the failure of this short uprising, Lenin fled to Finland on June 7, where he wrote his The Dual Power and his
Materials Relating to a Revision of the Party Program, and where he started to write his most famous work, State and
Revolution, in which-unfinished on account of the outbreak of the later and successful November Revolution-Lenin
elaborated the Marxist eschatological theory of the state and society, clearly distinguishing between the two different postcapitalistic stages, viz., first socialism and then communism.
While the First All-Russian Congress of Soviets was meeting in Russia from the end of June to the beginning of July
(and while Trotsky and his "Mezhrayonka Group" of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party joined the Bolsheviks),
Lenin remained in Finland, writing his Can 'Jacobinism' Frighten the Working Class?, in which the connection among the
eighteenth-century Jacobin French Revolution, nineteenth-century Marxist socialism, and twentieth-century Leninistic
Bolshevism was made very apparent. 159
From the middle of July, events in Russia began to pick up momentum. On July 16 to 17-the "July Days"-there was
another Bolshevik uprising, in St. Petersburg, the workers demanding the "overthrow of the capitalists," the "cessation of the
war," and the transfer of "all power to the soviets." But after the failure of the uprising, Lenin had to go underground and
remained in Finland, the provisional government ordering his arrest on July 20 and his arch-enemy the anti-Bolshevik
socialist Alexander Kerensky, "the Russian Louis Blanc,"160 becoming premier on July 21.
There was a brief lull for the next two months, during which the Sixth Congress of the Bolshevik Party was held, on
August 8-16, and Lenin wrote his On Compromises, in September. Then, from the end of September to the beginning of
October, as the Kerensky government began to fall apart at the seams, exhausted by both the war with Germany and the
breakdown of internal law and order and food supplies in Russia, Trotsky, now a fanatical Bolshevik, organized countrywide
uprisings and revolutions, the Bolsheviks gaining a majority in the St. Petersburg Soviet on October 8 and promptly electing
Trotsky as the chairman thereof.
The situation was now ripe for the coup de grace by means of a coup d'etat-for as Marx had said, "revolutions are the
locomotives of history,"160a and, as Lenin then wrote to the Russian Bolsheviks from Finland, the time to strike was now at
hand. "The insurrectionary career once entered upon, act with the greatest determination, and on the offensive The
defensive is the death of every armed rising; it is lost before it measures itself with its enemies. Surprise your antagonists
while their forces are scattering, prepare new successes, however small, but daily; keep up the moral ascendancy which the
first successful rising has given you; rally those vacillating elements to your side which always follow the strongest impulse,
and which always look out for the safer side; force your enemies to a retreat before they can collect their strength against
you; in the words of Danton, the greatest master of revolutionary policy yet known, de l'audace, de l'audace, encore de
l'audace!" ["Audacity, more audacity, and still more audacity!"] Thus wrote Engels; thus repealed Marx; and thus reendorsed Lenin right before the Russian Revolution.'160b
On October 20, Lenin-who had been writing his great (and, on account of the approaching revolution) unfinished work
on the communist eschatology of the state, State and Revolution-left Finland, reentered Russia, and went into hiding. On
October 23, the Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party decided on an armed uprising, and the germ of what later became
the Red (Revolutionary) Army began to unfold. And on November 6, at the commencement of the Second Congress of
Soviets in St. Petersburg, Lenin emerged from hiding, delivered his Letter to the Central Committee Members of die
Bolshevik Party, and demanded an immediate armed uprising throughout the land.
"History will not forgive revolutionaries for procrastinating when they could be victorious today (and they certainly will be
victorious today), while they risk losing much tomorrow, in fact, they risk losing everything," Lenin then wrote.161 "If we seize
power today, we seize it not in opposition to the Soviets but on their behalf ... The government is tottering. It must be given
the death blow at all costs. To delay action is fatal."
On the next day, November 7, 1917, the Bolsheviks seized power in Russia-permanently. Lenin had triumphed; Trotsky
proclaimed the fall of the provisional government; and Marxism came into its own. As Lenin declared: "From now on a new
phase in the history of Russia begins, and this revolution, the third Russian revolution, should in the end lead to the victory
of socialism."162

-70-

This was "The Day" that shook the world!163 The dark night of capitalism had ended! For the dawn of World Socialism
had now broken through in the eastern sky!
7.

Summary

Summarizing, then, we may say that the advent of Modern (Marxist-Engelsian-Leninistic) Socialism (1841-1917) came
about through a number of stages:
1.
philosophical humanism (cf. Marx's and Engels' The Holy Family, Marx's Economic and Philosophical
Manuscripts, Marx's and Engels' and Hess's The German Ideology, and Engels' Principles of Communism;
2.
dialectical revolutionism (cf. Marx's and Engels' Manifesto of the Communist Party, Marx's Address of
1850, and his Class-Struggles in France, etc.);
3.
classical economism (cf. Marx's A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, his Value, Price and
Profit, and his Capital, etc.);
4.
socialistic eschatology (cf. Engels' The Housing Question, his Socialism-Utopian and Scientific, and
Marx's Critique of the Gotha Program);
5.
dialectical materialism (cf. Engels' Anti-Dhring, and his Dialectics of Nature)
6.
materialistic' history of philosophy (cf. Engels' Ludwig Feuerbach and She End of Classical German
Philosophy, his The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, and his "Introduction" to Marx's Capital II
and III, etc.);
7.
epistemological realism (cf. Lenin's Marxism as Reflected in Bourgeois Literature, his Materialism and
Empirio-Criticism, and his Philosophical Notes);
8.
atheistic revolutionism (cf. Lenin's One Step Forward, Two Steps Back, his What Must Be Done? and
his The State and Revolution, etc.). 164
And after the successful revolution, Lenin would write other important documents, which subsequently became
authoritative communist classics, such as his various Decrees and Addresses, his Report on the Subbotniks, his Twentyone Conditions for Communist Organization, his Tasks of the Youth League, his Significance of Militant Materialism, etc.104
It is to a consideration of these documents and the practical implementation thereof in Lenin's Russia that we now turn.

-71-

Chapter V
LENIN'S IMPLEMENTATION OF SOCIALISM
"Communists can have no confidence in bourgeois laws. They should create everywhere a parallel illegal apparatus ...
Persistent and systematic propaganda and agitation must be carried on in the army... A systematic and regular propaganda
is necessary in the rural districts ... Every party desirous of affiliating to the Third International should renounce not only
avowed social patriotism, but also the falsehood and the hypocrisy of social pacifism.... Every party desirous of belonging to
the Third International should be bound to denounce without any reserve all the methods of 'its own' imperialists in the
colonies, supporting not in words only but practically a movement of liberation in the colonies. It should demand the
expulsion of its own imperialists from such colonies ... and carry on a systematic agitation in its own army against every kind
of oppression of the colonial population ... Every party desirous of belonging to the Communist International should be
bound to carry on systematic and persistent Communist work in the labor unions ... Each party desirous of affiliating to the
Communist International should be obliged to render every possible assistance to the Soviet Republics in their struggle
against all counter-revolutionary forces. The Communist parties should carry on a precise and definite propaganda to induce
the workers to refuse to transport any kind of military equipment intended for fighting against the Soviet Republics, and
should also by legal or illegal means carry on a propaganda amongst 'he troops sent against the workers' republics, etc ...
The Communist International has declared a decisive war against the entire bourgeois world, and all the yellow Social
Democratic parties."
-Lenin: Twenty-one Conditions for Communist Organization (1920)
The Bolsheviks have systematically advocated an alliance between the working class and the peasantry against
the liberal bourgeoisie and tsarism, never, however, refusing to support the bourgeoisie against tsarism ... At the very
moment of the October Revolution we entered into an informal but very important (and very successful) political bloc
with the petty-bourgeois peasantry by adopting the Socialist Revolutionary agrarian program in its entirety.
-Vladimir Lenin1
After Lenin's seizure of power, the period of the post-capitalistic dictatorship of the proletariat and socialistic eschatology
commenced. In Lenin's Russia 1917 through 1923, post-capitalistic socialism went through many phases, partly as a result
of the gradual evolution of post-capitalistic and pre-communistic revolutionary socialism, and partly as a result of anticommunistic outside interference and world events beyond the control of the Russians.
In this present chapter, then, we will successively discuss: the expansion of Leninism (1917ff.), Lenin's "Workers'
Control" (1917-18), Lenin's "War Communism" (1918-21), and Lenin's "New Economic Policy" (1921-23)-after which we will
summarize the whole chapter.
1.

The Expansion of Leninism (1917ff.)

Not only Russia, but certain other countries too have (after Russia) adopted Marxist-Leninist socialism and are now on
the road to communism.
After the Marxist-Leninist communists seized power permanently in Russia in 1917, they also seized power temporarily
in Finland and Estonia and Lithuania and Latvia in 1918; temporarily in Germany and Bavaria (twice) and Hungary and in
Johannesburg in South Afnca in 1919; temporarily in the Far East (Transbaikalia); and permanently in Byelorussia and
Azerbaidjzhan and Armenia and the Ukraine (1920); permanently in Outer Mongolia and (Tanna) Tuva and Daghestan and
Nagorny and (Asian) Georgia (1921); temporarily on the South African Witwatersrand and permanently in the Crimea and
Siberia and Yugo-Osetia and Transcaucasia and the Soviet Union in 1922.
After the demise of Lenin, the conquests continued. For communists then seized power. permanently in Uzbekia and
Turcomenia and temporarily in Saxony in 1924; permanently in Tadzhikistan (1929); temporarily in Spain (1936);
permanently in the formerly Finnish Karelia, the formerly Rumanian Bessarabia and northern Bukovina, and in Estonia,
Latvia, and Lithuania (1940); permanently in the formerly Finnish Petsano (1941); permanently in Hungary (1943f.) and East
Germany (1944f.); permanently in Yugoslavia, Rumania, the formerly German part of Prussia, the formerly Czechoslovakian
part of Ruthenia, the formerly Polish part of eastern Poland and the formerly Japanese southern Sakhalin and the Kurile
Islands (194Sf.); permanently in Albania, North Korea, and Bulgaria (1946); permanently in Poland (1947); permanently in
Czechoslovakia (1948); permanently in Red China (1949); temporarily in South Korea (1950) [and temporarily in Malaya
and Kerala, India]; permanently in North Vietnam and Tibet (1951); temporarily in Guatemala (1954); temporarily in British
Guiana (1957); permanently in Cuba (1960); permanently in Zanzibar (1964); temporarily in the Dominican Republic (1966);
and hopefully only temporarily in the Brazzaville Congo and Chile (1970)-while keeping up temporary and/or permanent
pressure throughout the last generation in much of Asia (Persia, Malaya, Burma, the Philippines, the Lebanon, South
Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Indonesia, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Aden, etc.), in South America (Brazil, Venezuela,
Bolivia, Uruguay, etc.), in Africa (Algeria, Egypt, Sudan, Mali, Guinea, Ghana, Congo Leopoldville [Zaire], Ruanda, Burundi,
Somalia, Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, and Zambia), in North America (Mexico, Guatemala, etc.), in Europe (Greece, Italy,
and France) and, to a lesser extent, in every other country on earth.

-72-

But all the communist activities in the above-mentioned countries ultimately largely proceeded from communist Russia
(and during the last fifteen years from Russia and Red China), so that a description of the historical realization of communist
eschatology during its socialistic stage-at least until Red China started to follow its own course in the late nineteen-fifties-is
very largely that of the history of the various historical periods of post-Revolutionary Russia and the Soviet Union as the
motherland of world communism, which we shall therefore now describe.
Perhaps the best way of describing the unfolding of post-capitalistic and pre-communistic revolutionary socialism in its
Russian motherland, then, is to divide it into purely historical periods. And these periods may perhaps be called Leninistic
socialism (1917-1923); "Stalinistic socialism" (1923-53); "Khrushchevian socialism" (1953-64); "Post-Khrushchevian or 'Reradicalization' socialism" (from 1964 up to the present time); and-still in the future-post-socialist "future communism."
Of these periods, we shall have to give a very detailed account of Leninistic socialism in this study on "Communist
eschatology-a Christian-philosophical analysis of the post-capitalistic views of Marx, Engels and Lenin." And this we shall do
in this present chapter.
Only in the next chapter, on the post-Leninist development of socialism, shall we give a relatively short account of the
Stalinist, Khrushchevian, and post-Khrushchevian (or "re-radicalization" or "re-Stalinization") phases of socialism-and even
then, we shall only touch on them not for their own sakes but solely in order to illustrate the post-Leninistic historical
explication of the eschatological principles inherent in Marxism-Leninism itself.
First, however, we must give a detailed description of Leninistic socialism between the time of Lenin's seizure of power
in 1917 and his third and incapacitating stroke in 1923 (some months prior to his death in 1924). And here again we may
perhaps respectively distinguish: 1, the period of "Workers' Control," from November 7, 1917, to July 16, 1918; 2, the period
of "War Communism," from July 17, 1918, to March 8, 1921; and 3, the "Restoration" period of the "New Economic Policy"
from March 9, 192110 1927) [which we will describe in this chapter up till Lenin's incapacitation in March 1923 ten months
before his death, and in the next chapter from the time of Lenin's incapacitation up to the advent of the first "Five Year Plan"
in 1928].2
2.

Lenin's "Workers' Control" (1917-18)

The period of "Workers' Control," from November 7, 1917, to July 16, 1918, was characterized by the ejection of the old
bosses from their jobs, which now were given to the "workers" and thus put under "workers' control."
This period of "Workers' Control" started with the termination of Russian capitalism and the commencement of Russian
socialism when the Bolsheviks seized power and inaugurated the dictatorship of the proletariat on November 7, 1917.
Henceforth Lenin would have but little time for the study of philosophy, though he did continue to read the philosophical
writings of Hegel, of (the Italian socialist) Labriola, and (the French socialist) Sorel. 8
It was soon evident that the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and "workers' control" were more than just fancy names. On
the very day of Lenin's seizure of power, November 7, he delivered his famous address To the Citizens of Russia, in which
he curtly announced: "The Provisional Government has been deposed. State power has passed into the hands of the organ
of the Petrograd [= St. Petersburg] Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies-the Revolutionary Military Committee, which
heads the Petrograd proletariat and garrison. The cause for which the people have fought, namely, the immediate offer of a
democratic peace, the abolition of landed proprietorship, workers' control over production, and the establishment of Soviet
power-this cause has been secured. Long live the revolution of workers, soldiers and peasants!"4
"The cause .. of a democratic peace, the abolition of landed proprietorship, workers' control over production, and the
establishment of Soviet power.. . has been secured."4 And to underscore this, Lenin the very same day issued his famous
Decree on Peace and War, Decree on Land, Decree on the Formation of the Soviet Government (including Trotsky and
Stalin), and organized his (Provisional) Council of People's Commissars at the meeting of the St. Petersburg Soviet of
Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies.
The next day, November 8, after the resolutions of the meeting of the St. Petersburg Soviet, Lenin issued his Draft
Regulations on Workers' Control-while Sun Yat-sen sent him a congratulatory telegram from China.
The following day, the successful St. Petersburg revolution took over Moscow, and the Soviet government was installed
with Lenin as chairman.
Two days later, on November 11, Lenin issued his dictatorial proletarian Decree Curtailing the Press (thereby silencing
even the Social Revolutionary and the Menshevik newspapers) ,5 and his Decree on the Eight-hour Working Day.
And on November 16, Lenin proclaimed the full equality of the country's nationalities in his Declaration of the Rights of
the Peoples of Russia, and the following day he moved against the bourgeois press.
Only ten days had elapsed since Lenin's seizure of power-but "Ten Days That Shook the Wodd."6 For in those ten days,
Lenin had in principle outlawed war, 'private property, chauvinism, and anti-socialist propaganda in the largest land on earth.
As Karl Marx had prophesied in 1845 in the eleventh of his Theses on Feuerbach: "The philosophers have only
interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it."7 And now, in 1917, in but ten days, Lenin had in
principle done just that-changed the world.
This is not to say, however, that everything then went smoothly. Far from it. Already by November 12, the antirevolutionary "White" reactionaries had started to mobilize resistance to the "Red" revolutionary regime, which marked the
beginning of the three years' civil war. And three days later, on November 15, Lenin denounced the treason of Kamenev,
Zinoviev and Company, right in the Central Committee of his own Bolshevik Party-for' they were in favor of a broadly leftist
-73-

coalition government as opposed to an exclusively Bolshevik one. And to crown it all, it was necessary for Lenin for to brand
even Nogin, Rykov, Milyutin and Teodorovich 7a-all of whom had served in Lenin's own Provisional Council of the Peoples'
Commissars from November 8 to November 18-as deserters and traitors as early as November 19.
But Lenin pressed on regardless. On the same date, November 19, he opened the St. Petersburg Public Library
(formerly the Imperial Library) to all, for fifteen hours per day and seven days per week. On November 25, elections were
held throughout Russia (the new Duma being scheduled to meet on January 19), and this was followed by Lenin's Decree
on the Institution of the Supreme Economic Council (December 1).
Meanwhile, disturbed non-communist powers (however half-heartedly nevertheless) started massing troops in Russia in
an attempt to support the White Counter-Revolutionaries and to overthrow the Bolsheviks. Ultimately Cossack, Ukrainian,
Polish, Turkish, Austrian, Rumanian, Czechoslovakian, British, French, American, Japanese, Finnish, and of course "White"
or anti-communist Russian troops were all involved; but to no avail.
For Lenin continued to press on with his socialistic measures. On December 14, he published his Draft Decree on the
Nationalization of the Banks and his Fear of the Collapse of the Old and the Fight for the New. On December 17, he
threatened the Ukrainian government with war if it did not help him fight the "White" troops, before the Ukrainian Soviet
government was formed nine days later to challenge the authority of the Ukrainian Rada (Parliament). On December 20,
Lenin organized the Cheka or secret police (which later became first the O.G.P.U., then the N.K.V.D., and then (he M.V.D.);
on December 28, he nationalized all banks and joint steel companies and reorganized the bourgeois army into the People's
"Red" Army, and the year ended-less than two months after Lenin's seizure of power-with the various communist parties of
the world calling for "immediate world revolution."
The year 1918 started with Lenin's How to Organize Competition, in which he laid down that: "The Soviets must set to
work more boldly and display greater initiative. Every 'commune,' every factory, every village, every consumers' society,
every committee of supplies, must compete with its neighbors as a practical organizer of accounting and control of labor and
distribution. The program of this accounting and control is simple, clear, and intelligible to all; it is: everyone to have bread,
everyone to have sound footwear and good clothing, everyone to have warm dwellings; everyone to work conscientiously;
not a single rogue (including those who shirk their work) should be allowed to be at liberty."8
On January 11 he gave his Report on the Activities of the Council of People's Commissars, in which he stated that he
had "no illusions about our having only just entered the period of transition to socialism, about not yet having reached
socialism. But if you say that our state is a socialist Republic of Soviets, you will be right."9
On January 16, he published his proposed Declaration of Rights of the Working Classes and declared Russia to be a
Federal Republic of Soviets (Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic-R.S.F.S.R.)
"The principal object of the Soviet Government was laid down in the Declaration as follows: 'The abolition of all
exploitation of man by man, the complete abolition of the division of society into classes, the ruthless suppression of the
exploiter and the establishment of a society organized on Socialist lines.'
"The Declaration also affirmed the termination of private ownership of land, the nationalization of banks, and workers'
control of industry as the initial steps towards the conversion of the said property into State property; it proclaimed the
principle of general compulsory labor, the complete disarming of the propertied classes and the formation of a Socialist red
army of workers and peasants as an instrument to guarantee the plenary authority of the workers and prevent the
restoration of the exploiting class to power."9a
On January 18, Lenin gave his Summing-Up Speech at the Third All-Russian Congress of Soviets, in which he
prophesied that "the time is not far off when the working people of all countries will unite into a single world-wide state and
join in a common effort to build a new socialist edifice," and unleash "the great forces of revolution, renascence and
renovation."'10
On January 19, Lenin dissolved the convention of the newly elected Conventional Assembly, on account of the
predominance of the non-communist deputies, thereby overcoming the weakness of the "Paris Commune.""
On January 21, he announced the annulment of all state loans of the tsarist government; on January 28, he gave his
Speech at a Meeting of the Land Committee Congress and the Peasant Section of the Third Congress of Soviets, in which
he advocated a "ruthless war against the Kulaks [or the richer peasants]" to "help us in our struggle for the people's better
future and for socialism" ;12 on January 28-29, largely as a result of Lenin's machinations, the communists seized power in
Finland (and held it for four months, until driven out by the Germans); and the action-packed first month of the new year
1918 ended with Lenin nationalizing the Russian merchant marine and all inland transport, without compensation.
On February 1, the Ukrainian government fell to the Ukrainian communists, and on February 5 Lenin issued his Decree
of Complete Separation Between Church and State and his Decree of Confiscation of Church Property, while he introduced
the Gregorian (modern Western) calendar on February 8. On February 19, Lenin's Decree on the Socialization of Land
organized state farms (sovkhoz), paying the peasants salaries like factory workers. 13 And on February 23 he published his
Decree of Obligatory Service in the Red Army.
In March, the Russo-German War terminated on the signing of the treaty of Brest-Litovsk, Lenin giving his Report on
War and Peace, and at the March 6-8 Seventh Congress of the Bolshevik Party, where the Party changed its name to the
Russian Communist Party (Bolshevik), Lenin described the "new type of government [which) has been formed here" as "a
step forward in the world development of socialism"14-after which U.S. President Woodrow Wilson sent a congratulatory
telegram to the Congress of Soviets on March 11!
This was followed by Lenin's Original Version of the Article 'The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government,' his The

-74-

Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government, and his Report on "The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government,' the
second of which stated that "without the guidance of experts in the various fields of knowledge, technology, and experience,
the transition to socialism will be impossible, because socialism calls for a conscious mass advance to greater productivity
of labor compared with capitalism." 15
In April, the month in which the Red Fleet was organized, Lenin wrote his anti-anti-Bolshevistic 'Left-Wing' Childishness
and the Petty Bourgeois Mentality, his Prophetic Words, his anti-kulak Comrade Workers, Forward to the Last Decisive
Fight!, his Decree on the Nationalization of Foreign Trade, and his Decree Concerning the Abolition of Inheritance.
In May, Lenin issued his Decree on the Organization of the Committee of Poor Peasants; in June, his Decree on the
Nationalization of Large Commercial Undertakings, Factories and Works; and in July, the socialistic period of "Workers'
Control" was terminated with the suppression of the Social-Revolutionary Party on July 7-8, the adoption of the Constitution
of the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic on July 10, and the execution of the tsar on July 16.
3.

Lenin': "War Communism" (1918-21)

The first socialistic period of "Workers' Control" in Russia was followed by the next socialistic period of "War
Communism," July 17, 1918, to March 8, 1921.
As the name implies, "War Communism" represents the period of Russian socialism during the emergency conditions of
the Russian civil war. During this harassing period, Lenin was to a large extent obliged to slow down in the implementation
of socialism in order to win the war, but in other respects he managed to achieve great advances on the road to socialism
even during this difficult period.
As a result of the war, during which industrial production sank to thirteen percent of its pre-war level, factory production
virtually ceased and agricultural production plummeted.16 There was increasing foreign intervention in Russia, exhaustion, a
nation-wide famine, intensive wartime requisitioning of kulak grain, the prohibition of selling and abolition of money, and
distribution of all available goods of necessity to the proletarian class alone.17
During July 1918, even with the increase of foreign intervention in the Russian civil war favorable to the "Whites," a
Ukrainian communist republican government was formed, which effectively controlled the Ukraine by 1920. During August,
after Lenin's Telegram to Yevgenia Bosch in which he stressed the essentialness of carrying out "a campaign of ruthless
mass terror against the kulaks, priests and white guards,"18 he was badly wounded by the Social Revolutionary Fanya
Kaplan in an assassination attempt. So in September, Lenin hit back at the conspirators when the Central Executive
Committee of the Communist Party instituted mass Red Terror and established the Revolutionary Military Council of the
Republic.
The following month, November, saw many happenings, particularly in Germany. After the 6th All-Russian Congress of
Soviets, the German Kaiser fell 'and the German Republic was proclaimed on November 9. The next day, Lenin's The
Proletarian Revolution and Renegade Kautsky appeared, asserting the necessity of the "suppression by force of the
exploiters" and of the "violation of 'pure democracy,'" and accusing Kautsky of "bootlicking towards opportunism" and of an
unexampled theoretical domination of Marxism." Armistice Day and the end of World War I occurred on November 11, and
two days later Lenin cancelled the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in order to promote the coming German revolution. For the
German Spartacists published their Revolutionary Program the very next day,19 even as communists were taking over
Estonia for fifteen months on November 29.
On December 9 Lenin gave his Speech to the Third Workers' Co-operative Congress, and on December 23 he had the
Red Army invade and establish the Lithuanian Soviet Republic and the Latvian Soviet Republic (each of which lasted for a
year), and he authorized the publication of the code of Latvian labor laws on December 30.
On January 1, 1919, the Spartacists (who had been semi-Menshevistic on imperialism, denying the right of secession
and the formation of independent states, denying the propriety of national liberation wars in the imperialistic era,
underestimating the role of the revolutionary party and overestimating the role of spontaneity)20 became the Communist
Party of Germany, which-with the exception of Rosa Luxemburg-organized an unsuccessful communist revolution during the
week of January 5-12, on which latter date the communist premier of Bavaria, Kurt Eisner, was assassinated.
Meanwhile, Lenin was not idle. On January 18, he gave his Speech at the Second All-Russia, Congress of
Internationalist Teachers, in which lie stressed the impossibility of separating politics from education.-" On February 20, he
got the Lithuanian Soviet Republic to join the R.S.F.S.R. And on March 6, lie engineered an event of very major importancethe convention of the First Congress of the Third (Communist) International (or "Comintern"), in order to take up a position
not only against Western capitalism but also against the Social Democratic "Second International"-Lenin in his inaugural
Speech there describing the "founding of the Third Communist International" as the "founding of the World Federative
Republic of Soviets."22
From March 7-17, Lenin's Draft Program of the Russia, Communist Party (Bolshevik) (for the Eighth Congress of the
Russian Communist Party March 18-23), provided for the division of large estates of the expropriated landowners between
the "middle peasants" and the "poor peasants," the development of Soviet government, the merging of the nations, the
polytechnization of education, the centralization of labor, the removal of the antithesis between town and country, the
abolition of money, the introduction of a graduated income and property tax, the completion of the abolition of private
property in land, the establishment of state farms, agricultural communes and collective co-operatives, the abolition of

-75-

bourgeois courts and their replacement with class courts of workers and peasants, and the complete destruction of
religion.23
After unsuccessful or only temporarily successful communist revolutions in Hungary (under Bela Kun), South Africa (in
Johannesburg), Bavaria, and Austria, Lenin, from June to September, wrote his retrospective The Third Communist
International and The Third International and his prospective The State and his The Tasks of the Working Women's
Movement in the Soviet Republic.
In his The Third Communist International, he argued that the Paris Commune had "laid the foundation of that edifice of
the world socialist republic which it is now our good fortune to be building."24 In his The Third International, he asserted that
"the new third, 'International Working Men's Association' has already begun to develop, to a certain extent, into a union of
Soviet Socialist Republics," so that "a new era in world history has begun," in which "man is for the first time advancing to
real freedom."25 In his The State, he asserted that "the state is a machine for the oppression of one class by another," and
that "we shall use this machine, or bludgeon, to destroy all exploitation. And when the possibility of exploitation no longer
exists anywhere in the world, when there are no longer owners of land and owners of factories, and when there is no longer
a situation in which some gorge while others starve, only when the possibility of this no longers exists shall we consign this
machine to the scrapheap. Then there will be no state and no exploitation. Such is the view of our Communist Party.26 And
in his The Tasks of the Working Women's Movement in the Soviet Republic, he asserted that "apart from Soviet Russia,
there is not a country in the world where women enjoy full equality and where women are not placed in the humiliating
position felt particularly in day-to-day family life," whereas in Russia women were then being liberated "from their position as
household slaves" by the "setting up [of] model institutions, dining-rooms and nurseries, that will emancipate women from
house-work "27
After the establishment of the American Communist Party in Chicago, Lenin wrote his Economics and Politics in tile Era
of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat; his Speech Delivered at the First All-Russian Conference on Party Work in the
Countryside; his Draft Resolution of the Central Committee, Russian Communist Party (Bolshevik) on Soviet Rule in the
Ukraine; his Speech Delivered at the First Congress of Agricultural Artels; his Report on the Subbotniks; his Letter to the
Workers and Peasants of the Ukraine Apropos of Victory over Denikin; and his Stop Spoiling the Russian Language! in
October through December 1918.
In his Economics and Politics in the Era of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, Lenin argued that the dictatorship of the
proletariat will continue until classes finally disappear. 28 In his Speech Delivered at the First All-Russian Conference on
Party Work in: the Countryside, he asserted that "the peasant who makes use of the surplus grain he possesses to exploit
others is our enemy," for the satisfaction of "the basic needs of a hungry country is a duty to the state.28 In his Draft
Resolution of the Central Committee, Russian Communist Party (Bolshevik), he stated that "the Russian Communist Party
holds consistently to the view that the independence of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic be recognized," and that "the
Russian Communist Party will work to establish federal relations between the R.S.F.S.R. and the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist
Republic."29
In his eschatologically vitally important Speech Delivered at the First Congress of Agricultural Communes and
Agricultural Artels, Lenin emphasized the "tremendous significance we attach to the communes, artels and all other
organizations generally that aim at transforming and at gradually assisting the transformation of small individual peasant
farming into socialized, co-operative, or artel farming." "Only when it has been proved in practice, by experience
comprehensible to the peasant, that the transition to the co-operative, artel farming is essential and possible, shall we be
entitled to say that in this vast peasant country, Russia, an important step towards socialist agriculture has been taken.
"A commune must be organized so that it will serve as a model, and the neighboring peasants will be attracted to it ...
The law requires the communes to render assistance to the surrounding peasant population "I would refer to what in our
cities has been called subbotniks. This is the name given to the several hours' unpaid voluntary work done by city workers
over and above the usual working day ... Nothing helped so much to enhance the prestige of the Communist Party in the
towns, to increase the respect of non-party workers for the Communists, as these subbotniks when they ceased to be
isolated instances and when non-party workers saw in practice that the members of the governing Communist Party have
obligations and duties, and that the Communists admit new members to the Party not in order that they may enjoy the
advantages connected with the position of a governing party, but that they may set an example of real communist labor, i.e.,
labor performed gratis. Communism is the highest state in the development of socialism, when people work because they
realize the necessity of working for the common good. We know that we cannot establish a socialist [i.e., a pure communistN.L.] order now-God grant that it may be established in our country in our children's time, or perhaps in our grandchildren's
time." 30
Equally vitally important for the study of communist eschatology is Lenin's Report on the Subbotniks. There he wrote: "If
we were to ask ourselves in what way communism differs from socialism, we should have to say that socialism is the society
that grows directly out of capitalism, it is the first form of the new society. Communism is a higher form of society, and can
only develop when socialism has become firmly established. Socialism implies work without the aid of the capitalist,
socialized labor with strict accounting, control and supervision by the organized vanguard, the advanced section of the
working people; the measure of labor and remuneration for it must be fixed. Ii is necessary to fix them because capitalist
society has left behind such survivals and such habits as the fragmentation of labor, no confidence in social economy, and
the old habits of the petty proprietor that dominate in all peasant countries. All this is contrary to real communist economy.

-76-

We give the name of communism to the system under which people form the habit of performing their social duties without
any special apparatus for coercion, and when unpaid work for the public good becomes a general phenomenon. It stands to
reason that the concept of 'Communism' is a far too distant one for those who are taking the first step towards complete
victory over capitalism the name 'Communist Party' were interpreted to mean that the communist system is being
introduced immediately, that would be a great distortion and would do practical harm since it would be nothing more than
empty boasting.
"That is why the word 'communist' must be treated with great caution, and that is why the communist subbotniks that
have begun to enter into our life are of particular value, because it is only in (his extremely tiny phenomenon that something
communist has begun to make its appearance. The expropriation of the landowners and capitalists enabled us to organize
only the most primitive forms of socialism, and there is not yet anything communist in it.
"There is, however, not yet anything communist in our economic system. The 'communist' begins when subbotniks (i.e.,
unpaid labor with no quota set by any authority or any state) make their appearance; they constitute the labor of individuals
on an extensive scale for the public good. ... It is work done to meet the needs of the country as a whole, and is organized
on a broad scale and is unpaid ... If there is anything communist at all in the prevailing system in Russia, it is only the
subbotniks, ... something that is much more lofty than the socialist society that is conquering capitalism ... The subbotniks
are the only manifestation we have to show that we do not only call ourselves Communists, that we do not merely want to
be Communists, but are actually doing something that is communist and not merely socialist."81
In his Letter to the Workers and Peasants of the Ukraine Apropos of the Victories over Denikin (the general of the
"White" forces), Lenin admitted that "we stand for the close union and the complete amalgamation of the workers and
peasants of all nations in a single World Soviet Republic," "for we are striving towards the complete abolition of
frontiers"32~ven though he had opposed the "bourgeois" use of "Frenchisms" in his Stop Spoiling the Russian Language! 33
After getting the Seventh All-Russian Congress of Soviets to propose peace to the Entente powers and their
discontinuing of the blockade against Red Russia (which they finally agreed to do on January 16, 1920), Lenin pleaded for
the complete emancipation of women in his 1920 Speech on. International Working Women's Day.
In the light of all the above events, it was not surprising that (Sir) Winston Churchill made the following important
allegation on February 8, 1920: "From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt, to those of Karl Marx, to those of Trotsky (Russia),
Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxemburg (Germany) and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the
overthrow of civilization and for the constitution of society on the basis of arrested development and envious malevolence
and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played a definitely recognizable role in the tragedy of the French
Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the nineteenth century; and now at last this
band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian
people by the hair of their heads and have become the undisputed masters of that enormous empire."34
As if to confirm Churchill's indictment, Lenin, in his Speech at the Ninth Congress of the Russian Communist Party on
March 29-and still operating under "War Communism"-realistically condemned freedom and equality and declared that the
workers must be compelled to be united, while condemning their kicking against the pricks of economic necessity.35
This did not mean, however, that he had for a moment lost sight of the ultimate eschatological goal. To the contrary, the
very next month, in his From the Destruction of the Old Social System to the Creation of the New, Lenin stated that
"Communist labor in the narrower and stricter sense of the term is labor performed gratis for the benefit of society, labor
performed not as a definite duty, not for the purpose of obtaining a right to certain products, not according to previously
established and legally fixed quotas, but voluntary labor, irrespective of quotas; it is labor performed without expectation of
reward, without reward as a condition, labor performed because it has become a habit to work for the common good, and
because of a conscious realization (that has become a habit) of the necessity of working for the common good-labor as the
requirement of a healthy organism. It will take many years, decades, to create a new labor discipline, new forms of social
ties between people, and new forms and methods of drawing people into labor. It is a most gratifying and noble work."36
And-after a further setback in the communist timetable on account of the outbreak of the Russo-Polish War (April 25October 12) and the outbreak and spread-of that non-Bolshevik socialist deviation condemned in Lenin's Left-Wing
'Communism'-An Infantile Disorder-Lenin succeeded in getting the Azerbaidjzhan Soviet Socialist Republic established on
April 23 and reasserted his goal of ultimate communism in his May Day speech From the First Subbotnik on the MoscowKazan Railway to the All-Russian May Day Subbotnik.
Following in the trend set by the May 1, 1776 establishment of the Illuminati and the leftists' 1914 appointment of "May
Day" for revolutionary agitation, Lenin now further proposed "the utilization of the great First of May festival for a mass-scale
attempt to introduce communist labor.
"This is the very first time since the overthrow of the tsar, the landowners or the capitalists that the ground is being
cleared for the actual building of socialism, for the development of new social links, a new discipline of work in common and
a new national (and later an international) system of economy of world-historical importance.
"Let us build a new society! We shall not be daunted by the gigantic difficulties and by the errors that are inevitable at
the outset of a most difficult task; the transformation of all labor habits and customs requires decades. We solemnly and
firmly promise one another that we shall make every sacrifice, that we shall hold out and win in this most arduous struggle the struggle against the force of habit-we shall work indefatigably for years and decades. We shall work to do away with the
accursed maxim: 'Every man for himself and the devil takes the hindmost,' the habit of looking upon work merely as a duty,

-77-

and of considering rightful only that work which is paid for at certain rates. We shall work to inculcate in people's minds, turn
into a habit, and bring into the day-by-day life of the masses, the rule: 'All for one and one for all,' the rule: 'From each
according to his ability, to each according to his needs'; we shall work for the gradual but steady introduction of communist
discipline and communist labor ... We shall work for years and decades, practicing subbotniks, developing them, spreading
them, improving them and converting them into a habit. We shall achieve the victory of communist labor." 37
At the Second Congress of the Comintern, July 19-August 7, 1920, Lenin laid down his famous Twenty-One Conditions
for Communist Organization, being his strategy that communists in non-communist lands (including China) should work with
all revolutionary anti-government groups, including revolutionary nationalists. These "Twenty-one Conditions" included plans
to "create everywhere a parallel illegal apparatus, which at the decisive moment should be of assistance to the party to do
its duty towards the revolution"; "persistent and systematic propaganda and agitation ... in the army"; denunciation of "all the
methods of imperialists in the colonies" and support for the "movement(s) of liberation in the colonies"; "systematic and
persistent Communist work in the labor unions"; the obligation "to render every possible assistance to the Soviet Republics
in their struggle against all counter-revolutionary forces"; and the waging of "a decisive war against the entire bourgeois
world."38 And Lenin concluded by pleading for the "establishment of an international proletarian Soviet Republic."
After the establishment of the Provisional International Council of Trade Unions (Profintern) on August 6 and the
establishment of the Byelorussian S.S.R. on August 11, Lenin delivered his famous The Tasks of the [Communist] Youth
League on October 2, concerning communist morality and communist education.
In this vital document, Lenin laid down that "only a precise knowledge and transformation of the culture created by the
entire development of mankind will enable us to create a proletarian culture.
"Communist society, as we know, cannot be built unless we restore industry and agriculture, and that, not in the old
way. They must be re-established on a modern basis, in accordance with the last word in science. You know that electricity
is that basis, and that only after electrification of the entire country, of all branches of industry and agriculture, only when you
have achieved that aim, will you be able to build for yourselves the communist society which the older generation will not be
able to build If he [the youth] does not acquire this education, communism will remain merely a pious wish. ...
"Communist morality is based on the struggle for the consolidation and completion of communism. That is also the basis
of communist training. education and teaching. That is the reply to the question of how communism should be learnt. We
could not believe in teaching, training and education if they were restricted only to the schoolroom and divorced [from] the
ferment of life... The Young Communist League will justify its name as the league of the young communist generation only
when every step in its teaching, training and education is linked up with participation in the common struggle of all working
people against the exploiters.
"What is a Communist? 'Communist' is a Latin word. Communis is the Latin for 'common.' Communist society in which
all things-the land, the factories-are owned in common and the people work in common. That is communism.
"The members of the League should use every spare hour to improve the vegetable gardens, or to organize the
education of young people at some factory, and so on.
"The generation of people who are now at the age of fifty cannot expect to see a communist society. This generation will
be gone before then. But the generation of those who are now fifteen will see a communist society, and will build this
society. This generation should know that the entire purpose of their lives is to build a communist society... The Young
Communist League should teach all young people to engage in conscious and disciplined labor from an early age."39
After the proclamation of the Far Eastern (Communist) Republic in Transbaikalia on November 1 and the defeat of the
last "White" forces on European soil on November 14, Lenin insisted on November 26 that "one or the other will triumph-a
funeral dirge will be sung over the Soviet Republic or over world capitalism."40 And after the establishment of the Armenian
S.S.R. on December 2, and the proclamation of the Ukrainian S.S.R. on December 11, and the December 22-29 Eighth
Congress of Soviets' decision to proceed with the full-scale electrification of Soviet Russia, it did not look as if it was
Russian communism that was about to be buried. And after the appearance of his major paedogogical writings (his futureoriented 1920 On Polytechnical Education, and his 1921 Instructions of the Central Committee to Communists Working in
the People's Commissariat for Education), the likelihood of the speedy funeral of Bolshevism looked still slimmer.
Lenin's Speech on International Working Women's Day, 1921 was even more radical and far-reaching. The most
important step in the realization of communism, he wrote, "is the abolition of the private ownership of land and the factories.
This and this alone opens up the way towards a complete and actual emancipation of woman, her liberation from 'household
bondage' through transition from petty individual housekeeping to large-scale socialized domestic services. This transition is
a difficult one, because it involves the remoulding of the most deep-rooted, inveterate, hidebound and rigid 'order'
(indecency and barbarity would be nearer the truth.)"41
But even if the civil war was now over, the period of "War Communism" had left a horrible aftermath. Famine stalked the
land, and even the triumphant establishment of the Outer Mongolian People's Republic, the Tanna-Tuvian Autonomous
Oblast, the Daghestan Autonomous S.S.R., the Nagorny Autonomous S.S.R., and the Georgian S.S.R. (in January and
February of 1921), and Lenin's encouraging memorandum To the Comrades and Communists of Azerbaidzhan, Georgia,
Armenia, Daghestan and the Mountaineer Republic, could not hide the stark reality of widespread hunger. This was brought
home in a decisive manner when, on February 28, 1921, hungry workers went on strike in St. Petersburg, and Kronstadt
sailors revolted and demanded free elections in Russia. This, more than anything else, precipitated the Russian Bolshevik
government's New Economic Policy or "N.E.P."- its next step in the historical realization of socialist eschatology.

-78-

4.

Lenin's "New Economic Policy" (1921-23)

The socialist period of "War Communism," then, was now to be followed by the socialist period of "the N.E.P. (alias the
period of the Restoration)," March 9, 1921, to Lenin's incapacitation in March 1923 (and thereafter, under Stalin, up to
1927).
As the revolt of the Kronstadt sailors spread and became more violent, the Tenth Party Congress, meeting March 8
through 10, proposed the N.E.P. ("New Economic Policy")-a change in the system of agricultural taxation.
Although the N.E.P. marked the beginning of a period of severe religious persecution and the rise of Stalin, it also
inaugurated the relaxation of some economic controls and allowed a degree of small free enterprise. Foreign capitalists in
particular had to be induced to invest capital and to come and run the state trusts and help restore the economy of warwracked Russia-so many taxes had to be eliminated. A new managerial class was in evidence by 1928, and the N.E.P. is
sometimes regarded as a retreat from the march toward communist eschatology.
But as Lenin (and later also Stalin) pointed out in a striking revolutionary application of the dialectical or contradictory
principle at the base of diamat and histomat: "Revolutionary parties must go on learning. They have learned how to attack.
Now it is time for them to realize that this knowledge must be supplemented by acquiring a knowledge of how best to
retreat. We have got to understand (and a revolutionary class learns this by bitter experience) that victory can only be won
by those who have learned the proper method both of advance and of retreat. To wage a war for the overthrow of the
international bourgeoisie, a war which is a hundred times more difficult, more prolonged, more complicated, than the most
bloodthirsty of wars between States, while renouncing beforehand the use of manoeuvering, of playing off (though for a time
only) the interests of one foe against another, of entering upon agreements and effecting compromises (even though these
may be of an unstable and temporary character)-would not such renunciation be the height of folly? We might as well, when
climbing a dangerous and hitherto unexplored mountain, refuse in advance to make the ascent in zig-zag, or to turn back for
a while, to give up the chosen direction in order to test another which may prove to be easier to negotiate."42
After Stalin-whose Marxism and the National Question had just been published-had been appointed party secretary at
the Tenth Party Congress, 43 Lenin proceeded to elaborate on the N.E.P. in his The Tax in Kind (The Significance of the
[Economic] Policy and Its Conditions).
Said Lenin: "The present system contains elements, particles, fragments of both capitalism and socialism," and
"socialism is inconceivable without large-scale capitalist engineering based on the latest discoveries of modern science. It is
inconceivable without planned state organizations which keep tens of millions of people to the strictest observance of a
unified standard in production and distribution ... Socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly
State-monopoly capitalism [under the initial implementation of socialism] is a complete material preparation for [the
achievement of actual] socialism, the threshold of socialism, a rung on the ladder of history between which and the rung
called socialism there are no intermediate rungs ... We must use the method of compromise, or of buying out the cultured
capitalists who agree to 'state capitalism,' who are capable of putting it into practice and who are useful to the proletariat as
intelligent and experienced organizers of the largest types of enterprises, which actually supply products to tens of millions
of people.
"Isn't it paradoxical that private capital should be helping socialism? Not at all. It is, indeed, an irrefutable economic fact.
Since this is a small-peasant country with transport in an extreme state of dislocation, a country emerging from war and
blockade 'under the political guidance of the proletariat-which controls the transport system and large-scale industry-it
inevitably follows, first, that at the present moment local exchanging acquires first-class significance, and second, that there
is a possibility of assisting socialism by means of private capitalism (not to speak of state capitalism) "44
Lenin also wrote the following about the role of the small traders during the N.E.P. period of socialism: "It should be
realized that it is not only imprudent to nationalize them, but that we must even make certain sacrifices in order to improve
their position and enable them to continue their small trade."45 And later communist philosophers have also pointed out the
absolute economic necessity of this N.E.P. period.40
After the crushing of the Kronstadt uprising on March 17 and the appearance of Stalin's New Features of the National
Question on May 8, Lenin called for "consolidation" at the Third Congress of the Comintern, June 22 through July 12-during
which time the Chinese Communist Party was being established by Mao Tse-tung in Shanghai on June 30, and just before
the establishment of the Communist Party of South Africa by the International Socialist League in Cape Town and its
affiliation with the Comintern on July 29, 1921.
The N.E.P. was officially adopted on August 11, after which Lenin sought to implement it as outlined in his Introduction
of the Council of Labor and Defense to Local Soviet Bodies (Regarding the New Economic Policy); his Encouragement of
Enterprise in Commodity Exchanging, and in Economic Development in General: his Methods of Combatting Bureaucratic
Practices and Red Tape; his The Revival of Industry; his Small, Handicraft, Domestic, etc. Industries; his Ideas about a
State Economic Plan; his Purging the Party; and his The Importance of Gold Now and After the Complete Victory of
Socialism.
Of these Leninist N.E.P. documents, the most important are the latter three.
In his Ideas about a State Economic Plan, Lenin roundly acknowledged: "The principal mistake we have all been making
up to now is too much optimism; as a result, we succumbed to bureaucratic utopias. Only a very small part of our plans has
been realized. Life, everyone, in fact, has laughed at our plans. This must be radically altered."47

-79-

In his Purging the Party, Lenin wrote that "the Party must be purged of rascals, of bureaucratic, dishonest or wavering
Communists, and of Mensheviks who have repainted their 'facade' but who have remained Menshevik at heart."48
And in his The Importance of Gold Now and After the Complete Victory of Socialism, Lenin wrote that "when we are
victorious on a world scale, I think we shall use gold for the purpose of building public lavatories in the streets of some of the
largest cities of the world
"But however 'just,' 'useful,' or 'human' it would be to utilize gold for this purpose, we nevertheless say that we must
work for another decade or two with the same intensity and with the same success as in the 1917-21 period, only in a much
wider field in order to reach this stage. Meanwhile, we must save the gold in the R.S.F.S.R., sell it at the highest price, buy
goods with it at the lowest price."49
After the establishment of the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic on October 18, in November, Lenin wrote
his Memo to J.V. Stalin with the Draft Decision of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee, Russian Communist Party
(Bolshevik), on the Formation of a Federation of Transcaucasian Republics, counselling Stalin to delay the establishment of
the federation until requested by all the autonomous republics concerned,50 and the year ended with Lenin's Speech at the
Ninth All-Russian Congress of Soviets, December 22-27, at which he announced the return to a real money economy by
making "every effort to secure the speediest reduction of the issue of paper money, eventually put a stop to it and establish
a sound currency backed by gold."51
The year 1922 was characterized by a further famine in Russia, as Lenin desperately attempted to overcome the
colossal heritage of hunger accumulated during the I9l4-l8 First World War and the 1918f. Russian Civil War. In his The
Significance of Militant Materialism, he pleaded for party bias in the realm of epistemology and for the mass distribution of
militant atheistic literature.52 And, after he re-organized the Cheka as the (O).G.P.U. on February 9, Lenin issued his Decree
on the Introduction of General Tar on February 11, in order to try to place the country on a sounder economic basis.
Meantime, right after the unsuccessful March 10 through 14 Red Revolution on the Witwatersrand in South Africa, Lenin
renewed his crusade against religion and against Left-Wing deviationism. In his Letter to I.I. Skvortsov-Stepanov of March
19, Lenin enjoined him to "write ... [a] book on the history of religion and against all religion (including the Kantian and other
subtly idealistic or subtly agnostic religion), with a survey of material on the history of atheism and on the links between the
church and the bourgeoisie."53 And at the Eleventh Congress of the R.C.P., after Lenin was attacked by the Mensheviks and
Social Revolutionaries as a "capitalistic deviationist" for having commanded the communists to be as businesslike as the
capitalists "or the Soviet regime will go under,"54 Lenin warned them: "Permit us to put you before a firing squad for saying
that. Either you refrain from expressing your views, or, if you insist on expressing your political views publicly, ... we shall
treat you as the worst and most pernicious White Guard elements." "For the public advocacy of Menshevism our
revolutionary courts must pass sentence of death."55
But with all these monumental undertakings, Lenin's health now began to fail, and, after the establishment of the YugoOsetian Autonomous S.S.R. on April 20, Lenin suffered his first stroke on May 26, 1922. Yet after the defeat of the "Whites"
in Asian Russia and the withdrawal of the hostile Japanese in the Far East on October 25, Lenin took new heart at the
November 13 Fourth Congress of the Comintern, in his Five Years of the Russian Revolution and the Prospects of the
World Revolution, admitting that "in 1918, I was of the opinion that with regard to the economic situation then prevailing in
the Soviet Republic, state capitalism would be a step forward. This sounds very strange, and perhaps even absurd, for
already at that time our republic was a socialist republic and we were every day hastily-perhaps too hastily-adopting various
new economic measures which could not be described as anything but socialist measures.
"The state capitalism that we have introduced in our country is of a peculiar kind. It does not resemble the usual
conception of state capitalism. We are in command of all the key positions. We hold the land; it belongs to the state."56
After annexing the Far Eastern Republic on November 19 and forming the Transcaucasian Socialist Federated Soviet
Republic on December 13, Lenin suffered a second stroke on December 16. On December 22, in his The Attribution of
Legislative Functions to the State Planning Commission, he was admitting that Trotsky had been right in this matter which
he, Lenin, had previously opposed.57 Feeling his strength ebb and knowing that his end was not too far off, Lenin drew up
his Letter to the Congress [alias his Testament], to which he appended an important Codicil a few days later in which he
warned against Stalin and praised Trotsky58 (but which Codicil was subsequently suppressed by the Stalinist triumvirate-the
ailing Lenin being helpless to prevent this-and only publicized by Khrushchev in 1956 in his anti-Stalinist campaign three
years after Stalin's death in 1953).
Even as Lenin was sinking, Stalin was already taking over. On December 26th at the Tenth Congress of Soviets of the
R.S.F.S.R., Stalin was describing the formation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a "step towards the
amalgamation of the peoples of the whole world into a single World Socialist Soviet Republic." On December 30 the
R.S.F.S.R., Ukrainian S.S.R., S.S.R. of Byclorussia and the Transcaucasian S.F.S.R. united as the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics (U.S.S.R.), Stalin so exploiting the occasion, that Lenin feebly warned against him again in his December 30-31
The Question of Nationalities or of "Automization."59 At the First Congress of the Soviets of the U.S.S.R., Lenin had intended
to remove Stalin from the position of general secretary of the Communist Party.50 But nothing ever came of this.
The year 1923 commenced with a lull in religious persecution in the Soviet Union, partly as a result of Lenin's fastsinking health, and partly in order to be able to float foreign loans under the N.E.P. State trusts boosted prices to eighty
percent over the pre-war level, but agriculture so revived that prices slumped to sixty percent of the pre-war level. So, in his
Pages from a Diary of January 2, Lenin suggested the temporary retarding of the application of communist ideas in the

-80-

conservative rural areas.61 Yet in his Our Revolution (Apropos of the Notes of N. Sukhanov) of January 16, Lenin pointed
out the strategic role of Russia as historical mediator between the civilized West and the Oriental, non-European countries
in the promotion of worldwide socialism.62 And in his On Co-operation of February 1923, Lenin championed the further
promotion of socialistic co-operatives.63
On March 2, in his last writing, Better Fewer, but Better, Lenin indicated that in the communists' worldwide struggle in
the age of imperialism, it was important "to ensure our existence until the next military conflict between the counterrevolutionary imperialist West and the revolutionary and nationalist East, between the most civilized countries of the world
and the Orientally backward countries which, however, comprise the majority, [and] this majority must become civilized."
"We too," he wrote,"' referring to the Russian communists, "lack enough civilization to enable us to pass straight on to
socialism, although we do have the political requisites for it." But the solution to this, felt Lenin, is even further centralization
of all the non-state functions into the hands of the state.
"The functions of the Workers' and Peasants' Inspectorate cover our machinery of state as a whole, and its activities
should affect all and every state institution without exception: local, central, commercial, purely administrative, educational,
archive, theoretical, etc.-in short, all without the slightest exception.
"Why then should not an institution whose activities have such wide scope, and which moreover require such
extraordinary flexibility of forms, be permitted to adopt this peculiar amalgamation of a Party control institution with a Soviet
control institution? I would see no obstacles to this. What is more, I think that such an amalgamation is the only guarantee of
success in our work.
"Is it expedient to combine educational activities with official activities? I think that it is not only expedient, but
necessary
"The general feature of our present life is the following: We have destroyed capitalist industry and have done our best to
raze to the ground the medieval institutions and landlordism, and thus created a small and very small peasantry, which is
following the lead of the proletariat because it believes in the results of its. revolutionary work. .
"The West European capitalist powers, partly deliberately and partly unconsciously, did everything they could to throw
us back, to utilize the elements of the civil war in Russia in order to spread as much ruin in the country as possible... They
failed to overthrow the new system created by the revolution, but they did prevent it from at once taking the step forward that
would have justified the forecasts of the socialists, that would have enabled the latter to develop the productive forces with
enormous speed, to develop all the potentialities which, taken together, would have produced socialism.
"Precisely as a result of the first imperialist war [= World War -I N.L.], the East has been definitely drawn into the
revolutionary movement, has been definitely drawn into the general maelstrom of the world revolutionary movement The
whole world is now passing to a movement that must give rise to a world socialist revolution.
"In the last analysis, the outcome of the struggle will be determined by the fact that Russia, India, China, etc., account
for the overwhelming majority of the population of the globe. And it is precisely this majority that, during the past few years,
has been drawn into the struggle for emancipation with extraordinary rapidity, so that in this respect there cannot be the
slightest doubt what the final outcome of the world struggle will be. In this sense, the complete victory of socialism is fully
and absolutely assured."65
Shortly after this, Lenin severed "all personal comradely relations with Stalin."66 But it was too late. On March 9, Lenin
suffered his third stroke and-even though his life lingered on for another ten months-his public career had ended.
And with the end of Lenin's public career, the era of Leninism had also ended. The future-at least until the arrival of
Khrushchev-belonged to Stalin.
5.

Summary

In summarizing Lenin's five-year implementation of socialism, one must distinguish between the successive periods of
"Workers' Control," "War Communism" and "Restoration (or the 'New Economic Policy')."
Under "Workers' Control," November 1917 through July 1918, in eight short months after the advent of the socialistic
dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia, Lenin had achieved: the transfer of production to "Workers' Control," the abolition of
private property in land, the curtailment of the non-Bolshevik press, the formal equalization of all the various nationalities of
Russia, the institution of a supreme economic council, the nationalization of all banks and joint stock companies, the
exportation of communism to the Ukraine and Finland, the abolition of the parliamentary opposition, the first purge of the
Bolshevik cabinet itself, the nationalization of the merchant marine and all inland transport without compensation, the
complete separation of church and state, the confiscation of church property, the reform of the calendar, the establishment
of state farms, compulsory conscription into the Red Army, the termination of the Russo-German (World) War, the
instruction of the working classes in their tasks, the determination of the immediate tasks of the Soviet government, the
official repudiation of all non-Bolshevik brands of socialism, the marshalling of opposition against the kulaks, the
organization of the poor peasants, the nationalization of foreign trade, large commercial undertakings and factories and
works, the suppression of the (modern narodnik) Social Revolutionary Party, the adoption of the constitution of the
R.S.F.S.R., and the execution of the tsar.
Under the subsequent period of "War Communism," July 1918 to March 1921, Lenin not only managed to defeat the
White armies, but also (temporarily) to implement eschatological communistic aims such as the abolition of money, the
institution of subbotnikism, the revolutionization of the family, the prosecution of polytechnical education, the energetic

-81-

development of the co-operatives, and the launching of the Communist International with its plans for a world-wide
communist take-over.
Under the last Leninist period-from the beginning of the New Economic Policy of the Restoration in March 1921 until
Lenin's political incapacitation in March 1923-by making temporary concessions to local and particularly to foreign private
enterprise investments in Russia, Lenin was able to boost markedly the gross national product, crush the dissident
elements, solve the nationalities' problem by establishing the Transcaucasian Federation and the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics, entrench materialistic partisan control of the arts and sciences, and plan further for a later and more successful
development of communist eschatology.
Lenin had laid the theoretical and practical groundwork. And now it was left to his Stalinist successor to pursue the
policy of socialistic reconstruction and thereby develop the material and technical basis necessary for the eschatological
advent of post-socialistic communism.

-82-

Chapter VI
THE POST-LENINISTIC HISTORY OF COMMUNISM
"'We are living not merely in a state, but in a system of states, and the existence of the Soviet Republic side by side with
imperialist states for a long time is unthinkable. One or the other must triumph in the end. And before that end supervenes, a
series of frightful collisions between the Soviet Republic and the bourgeois states will be inevitable. That means that if the
ruling class, the proletariat, wants to, and will, hold sway, it must prove its capacity to do so by military organization also,'
says Lenin.
What else is our country, 'the country that is building socialism,' if not the base of the world revolution? But can it be a
real base of the world revolution if it is incapable of completing the building of a socialist society?"
-Stalin: Problems of Leninism (1926)
Not only our descendants, comrades, but we as well, our generation of Soviet people, shall live under
communism! So let us, comrades, devote all our efforts, all our energies, to hastening the day when the sun of
communism will shine over our land [, for] the victory of socialism on a world scale is not far off.
-Nikita Khrushchev (1961)1
The Russian people are entrusted with a historical mission to lead all humanity to communism, the highest
civilization. They are fully resolved to fulfill that mission to the end.
-Leonid Brezhnev (1970)2
This chapter on the post-Leninistic history of communism will not attempt to give an exhaustive history of Russian
communism under Stalin, Khrushchev and the post-Khrushchevians, but a relatively short analysis of the extent to which the
eschatological views of Marx and Engels and Lenin have been put into practice in post-Leninistic Russia since 1923 and, to
a lesser extent, since 1948, also in Red China.
Here we will deal shortly with the rise of Stalinism (1923-27), the Reconstruction by Five-Year Plans (1928-39), the
World War II period (1939-45), post-war Stalinism (1945-53), the hegemony of Khrushchev (1953-64), modern reradicalization (1964-71), preparing for "communism" (1972-80), the transition to "communism" (1980ff.), the emergence of
"communism" (+2000?!), and the disappearance of communism (time unknown)-to be followed by a short summary of the
whole chapter.
1.

The Rise of Stalinism

On March 10, 1923, the day after Lenin's third stroke, which terminated his public career, Stalin and Zinoviev and
Kamenev established a triumvirate to rule the Soviet Union in Lenin's place. Already at the Twelfth Congress of the Russian
Communist Party-the first without Lenin-Trotsky was openly clashing with Stalin especially on the issue as to whether to go
all out for immediate world revolution (thus Trotsky), or whether first to consolidate communism in the Russian motherland
(thus Stalin)-a clash which ultimately led to Trotsky's being ousted, exiled, and then starting.his own "Fourth International."
After the ratification of the Constitution of the U.S.S.R. on July 6, Stalin often supported Sun Yat-sen and his proteg
Chiang Kal-shek even against Mao Tse-tung, from 1923 to 1927, in order to use Sun's Kuo Min-tang movement against the
"pro-imperialist" warlords of Peking, while (and perhaps because) the anti-Stalinist Trotsky stoutly supported Mao. On
October 5, German communists temporarily took over Saxony, and on December 28, the Russian Trade Union Congress'
agitation for job payment according to effort enabled Stalin to intensify the N.E.P.
The year 1924 commenced with the creation of Soviet Uzbekia and Tucomenia, and with a coalition between
nationalists and communists at the First National Congress of the Kuo Min-tang (Nationalist) Party in China. On the death of
Lenin, Stalin immediately exploited Trotsky's absence from Lenin's funeral on January 27, in order to enhance his own
image, had the Constitution of the U.S.S.R. approved on January 31, and thus effectively began to emerge as the sole
leader of Russia by gradually ousting Trotsky as well as the two other members of the ruling triumvirate, the more impulsive
Zinoviev and Kamenev, from their positions of power.
Major victories soon thereafter which enabled Stalin to consolidate his own position and that of socialism in Russia,
were the British de jure recognition of the Soviet government on February 2 (and the French recognition on October 28) and
the establishment of a stable Russian currency on February 22. Philosophically, however, by far the most important event of
the year was the appearance of Stalin's own Foundations of Leninism, which, as far as the Third International (and all the
later "Internationals") was concerned, effectively "canonized" Lenin's writings alongside of those of Marx and Engels. As
Stalin remarked: "Leninism is Marxism of the era of imperialism and of the proletarian revolution," 3 and hereby the views of
Marx and Engels and Lenin were fused into the now closed canon of the "religion" henceforth to be known as "MarxismLeninism."
But perhaps just as important as Stalin's book, was the decision of the CPSU at its 13th Congress, May 23-31, to give
priority to promoting socialism in one country, viz., the Soviet Union, rather than giving priority to promoting world revolution,
in which, of course, the Stalinistic communists also remained intensely interested. The internationalistic revolutionary

-83-

Trotsky, however, saw the priority as just the opposite, so that a showdown between Stalin and Trotsky on this very issue
could not be put off for very much longer.
In 1925, in Russia, Trotsky was removed as war commissar, and the Militant Atheists' League was formed to "nonviolently" oppose religion, while (in 1926) the Central Committee of the CPSU published its Problems and Methods of AntiReligious Propaganda.4 And the following year Stalin published his Problems of Leninism, in which he promised, inter alia,
to re-establish the Soviet communes in the future. Meantime, Chiang Kal-shek became an anti-communist and succeeded
Sun Yat-sen, which event marked the beginning of friction between China and communist Russia, particularly after the
break-up of the 1924 coalition between Chiang and Mao, which break-up led to civil war in China over the next forty odd
years.
And finally, in 1927, while the Jewish Federation of Kibbutzim (on the basis of both socialism and Zionism) was being
launched in Palestine (thus Spiro) ,5 in Russia, Stalin ousted Zinoviev and Kamenev and exiled Trotsky (who ultimately
settled in Mexico City until murdered by Stalinist agents in 1940), leading to Stalin's complete control of the C.P.S.U.
Thus the period of Lenin's New Economic Policy, the period of the Restoration, 1921-27, ended with the complete
triumph of Stalin.
2. (Re)construction by Five-Year Plans (1928-39)
During this period, trade unions were tolerated purely to enforce "labor discipline,"5 to "increase output," and to enter into
"collective contracts."
The first Five-Year Plan adopted in Russia, 1928-32, sought to expand heavy industry and to encourage Stakhanovism
[= piece-rate wages] and collectivization. Anti-religious propaganda increased, 6 and forced collectivization of peasant
holdings began in earnest in respect: first of the kulaks (or the richer peasants who hired others), then of the middle group
(who owned their own small farms), and finally of the poorest peasants (who had hired themselves out to the kulaks) .7
Under collectivization, millions fled to the cities and became proletarianized,8 and Stalin called for "the liquidation of the
kulaks as a class."8 All those that refused to be re-educated into socialist labor habits were eliminated9-5,000,000 were
starved to death, and 5,000,000 were exiled or exterminated. 10
Meanwhile, as the state farms also multiplied (ultimately amounting to forty-five percent of the total land crop by 1963),
the collective farms, which cost the government little or nothing, became a major source of state revenue during the
'thirties.11 And by socializing all means of production and production facilities (machinery, livestock, buildings, etc.) as
kolkhoz or collective farm property,12 it all became incapable of becoming repossessed by the former private property
owners; and as groups of kolkhozes became electrified by the same state-owned power grid, the way became prepared for
their transformation into sovkhozes (state farms) 13
After the admission of Tadzhikistan to the U.S.S.R. in 1929, by 1930 sixty percent of all peasant households had
already been collectivized into kolkhozes (on which, however, three percent of the total arable land remained under private
cultivation which produced half the total Soviet agricultural and livestock product!).14 Trade unions were ordered to form
"shock brigades" to accelerate production, and the foundation stone was laid of the first "socialist city" at "Stalingrad" (the
present Volgagrad). Then too, Stalin also introduced decrees for general compulsory primary education and tax reform,
thereby strengthening his hold over the Russian people.
The following year, Stalin un-Marxianly abolished all wage equalization in favor of Stakhanovism,15 and the U.S.A.
assisted the expansion of the struggling Soviet economy by lifting the embargo on the importation of Soviet goods. And
during the famine of the next two years, in which millions died, ninety-three percent of all peasant holdings were
collectivized, and Stalin tightened his control over the Russian masses by drafting socialistic electrification plans, moving
against speculation, and introducing an internal local passport system to restrict the movement of Soviet laborers.16
During the Second Five Year Plan, 1933-37, heavy industry and the collectivization of agriculture were intensified, yet
some consumer goods also were produced, and individual small-holdings were permitted on the kolkhozes (which greatly
helped the floundering Soviet economy)' especially during the great famine, when the tax in kind had to replace the quota
system on the kolkhozes.
In 1933, the U.S.A. again greatly helped the Soviet regime, this time by establishing diplomatic relations with the
U.S.S.R.-even as Stalin was starting to purge ultimately 1.5 million Communist Party members!
The next year marked the appearance of Stalin's Leninism, in which he made it clear that he had in no wise abandoned
the eschatological goals of Marxism-Leninism. For in this famous "Anatomy of Communist Society," he wrote: "The anatomy
of the communist society may be described as follows: it is a society in which: a) there will be no private ownership of the
means of production but social collective ownership; b) there will be no classes or state but workers in industry and
agriculture managing their economic affairs as a free association of toilers; c) national economy organized according to plan
will be based on the highest technique in both industry and agriculture; d) there is no antagonism between city and country,
between industrial and agricultural economy; e) the products will be distributed according to the principle of the old French
Communists, 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs'; f) science and art will enjoy conditions
conducive to their highest development; g) the individual freed from bread and butter cares and of the necessity of cringing
to the 'powers that be' will become really free."17
Stalin also: defended centralization as a necessary step in advancing toward communism; had the U.S.S.R. join the

-84-

League of Nations;18 consciously promoted the personality cult of Stalinism (=neo-religionism!) and provided special
concessions for Russian settlers in the Soviet Far East (= neo-colonialism!).
In 1936, the Soviet Union and other communists sent troops against Franco in Spain, and Stalin provided the U.S.S.R.
with a new constitution, claiming that the U.S.S.R. had by then become a "socialist state," as the building of socialism had
by then supposedly been completed in the Soviet Union. ("The principle applied in the U.S.S.R. is that of socialism: 'from
each according to his ability, to each according to his work' " [art. 12, 1936 constitution].) During the next year, however, the
Russian Yaroslavsky regrettably admitted that half of Russia was still sincerely religious, and tenaciously renewed his harsh
anti-religious campaign.19 And during the following year, Stalin's great purge swallowed up even Bukharin, the drafter of the
1936 Stalinist constitution, whom Lenin himself had called "the Party's most valuable theoretician" and "the favorite of the
entire Party."
Meantime, the clouds of World War II began to gather. In China, Mao and Chiang temporarily terminated their civil war
to unite against the Japanese invader (even after which, however, Chinese communist activity continued to be promoted-cf.
Mao's 1937 On Contradiction [on the political application of the dialectic]20 and Against Liberalism [in favor of militant
communism]21 and Liu Shao Chi's famous 1938 How to Be a Good Communist). And in Russia, the implementation of the
1938-42 Third Five-Year Plan (to "accomplish the gradual transition from socialism to communism") 22 was greatly hampered
by the necessity of preparing for and prosecuting and repairing the damage caused during the Second World War, 1939-45,
which broke out when Nazi Germany treacherously broke her August 1939 non-aggression pact with Russia (which had
divided Eastern Europe into German and Soviet "spheres of influence")23 by invading the territory of her Russian ally in June
1941.
3.

World War II (1939-45)

During this period, while Russia called off her anti-religious campaign24 and promoted raw patriotism in order to try to
gain the support of even non-communist Russians in the war effort, collectivized agriculture fell to beneath even the prerevolutionary level, in spite of a growing gross national product. The re-introduction of paid-for education evidenced the new
class nature of Soviet socialist society. And Stalin's Dialectical and Historical Materialism marked the high point of his own
independent doctrinal development.
Russia entered the war as Hitler's ally by invading Eastern Poland on September 17, 1939, followed by a Russian attack
on Finland on November 30. In 1940 Russia seized first Karelia from Finland, Bessarabia and northern Bukovina from
Roumania, and Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia in the Baltic, and permanently incorporated all these regions into the Soviet
Union-after which Stalin had his old rival Leon Trotsky assassinated in Mexico City, thereby strengthening his own personal
hold over Russia.
In 1941, Russia seized the Petsamo region from Finland, and ultimately halted the German advance into Russia at
Stalingrad, after Germany treacherously attacked her Russian ally. The war turned in 1942, after which Stalin (amply aided
by U.S. lend-lease) 25 gradually overcame and helped crush Hitler.
In a stronger position in 1943, Russia seized Tannu Tuva from (communist!) Outer Mongolia, even while dissolving the
Comintern-while the disparities in Russian salaries between low wage-earners and Stakhanovites and technicians continued
to grow. 26
From this time onwards, one country after the other fell first under the control of the advancing Red armies and then
under the control of semi-indigenous communist regimes-Hungary (1943), East Germany (1944), Yugoslavia, North
Vietnam, Roumania, southern Sakhalin, the Kurile Islands, part of Eastern Poland, part of Prussia, and Czechoslovakian
Ruthenia (1945), 50 that by the end of World War II (August 14, 1945), in spite of a war-weakened Soviet economy,
Marxism had expanded westward throughout Eastern Europe and eastward right to the very frontiers of Japan, and has
been seeking to overwhelm South Vietnam ever since.
4.

Post-war Stalinism (1945-53)

Right after the end of the Second World War in Asia, the Chinese civil war resumed, which ultimately ended in Chiang's
ejection by Mao from mainland China in 1949.
In 1946, communists took over Albania (which later became a Red Chinese satellite), North Korea, and Bulgaria, and
Stalin called for "a new mighty upsurge of the national economy, which will enable us to increase the level of our production
... threefold as compared with the pre-[World War II] level ... I have no doubt that if we render the necessary assistance to
our scientists they will be able ... to surpass the achievements of science outside ... our country."27
The following year, the year in which communism took over Poland, the Cominform was established by the various
communist governments in Belgrade in Yugoslavia to replace the previously dissolved Comintern and to counteract the pull
on Eastern Europe of U. S. Marshall Plan aid to Western Europe-only to expel Yugoslavia for nationalistic left-wing
deviationism the very next year, 1948.
But 1948-the centenary year of the publication of the 1848 Communist Manifesto and the immediately subsequent
(unsuccessful) 1848 communist revolutions in Europe-brought communism more gains than losses. The takeover was
completed in Roumania, and the communists took over Czechoslovakia by victory at the polls.

-85-

In 1949, things went even better for the communists. The German Democratic Republic was established by the
communists in East Germany; Mao drove Chiang into Taiwan and established the People's Republic of China, whereby a
further mass (itself numbering fully one-quarter) of the world's population came under the control of communism. And Stalin,
after renewing anti-religious propaganda in Russia, decided to encircle Western Europe by way of Asian and African anticolonialism: "By depriving the Western world of her colonial possessions, we reduce the profits of capitalism, lower the
standard of living of the worldly masses and create the situation needed by the revolutionary movements. But in more
military terms: where a direct attack on Europe is not possible, it is necessary to start an encirclement movement by way of
Asia and Africa."28
Over the next few years, while inspiring communist terrorism in Malaya and parts of India, the Red Chinese forced
through land reform, expropriating all landowners and liquidating all opponents of ht e regime. A Sino-Soviet treaty of
alliance was signed. Russia accused the "clerical feudalists" in (noncommunist) Tibet of "doping the consciousness of the
masses with the poison of Buddhism."29 And the invasion by communist North Korea of anti-communist South Korea led to
the Korean War (1950-53), which ultimately ended in the restoration of the status quo.
The Fifth Five-Year Plan (1951-55) was interrupted by Stalin's death in 1953. In the year 1951, communists completed
the takeover of North Vietnam and of Tibet, while (temporarily) permitting a degree of Tibetan autonomy; and in 1952, after
Mao condemned "bribery, fraud, profiteering, tax evasion and theft of state economic information" in his Five-Anti-Campaign
and "corruption, waste and bureaucracy" in his Three-Anti-Campaign30 and announced the First Red Chinese Five-Year
Plan, Stalin wrote his last writing, his Economic Problems in the U.S.S.R.. in which he advocated the eschatological
abolition of money in favor of "product exchange" and the advance toward "full communism" and proclaimed the "inevitability
of war" against "imperialism"31 (namely before the discovery of the H-bomb later that same year).
In describing the methods whereby communism was to be realized, Stalin declared: "In order to pave the way for a real,
and not declaratory transition to communism, at least three main preliminary conditions have to be satisfied. 1. It is
necessary, in the first place, to ensure, not a mythical 'rational organization' of the productive forces, but a continuous
expansion of all social production, with a relatively higher rate of expansion of the production of means of production. The
relatively higher rate of expansion of the production of means of production is necessary not only because it has to provide
the equipment both for its own plants and for all the other branches of the national economy, but also because reproduction
on an extended scale becomes altogether impossible without it.
"2. It is necessary, in (he second place, by means of gradual transitions carried out to the advantage of the collective
farms, and, hence, of all society, to raise collective farm property to the level of public property, and, also by means of
gradual transitions, to replace commodity circulation by a system of products-exchange, under which the central
Government, or some other socio-economic center, might control the whole product of social production in the interests of
society.
"3. It is necessary, in the third place, to ensure such a cultural advancement of society as will secure for all members of
society the all-round development of their physical and mental abilities, so that the members of society may be in a position
to receive an education sufficient to enable them to be active agents of social development, and in a position freely to
choose their occupations and not be tied all their lives, owing to the existing division of labor, to some one occupation"32
(Economic Problems of Socialism, 1952).
Hereafter, Stalin died in March 1953, marking the end of the Stalinist era.
5.

The Hegemony of Khrushciaev (1953-64)

After the death of Stalin, the new collective leadership of Malenkov and Bulgarin (with Khrushchev as acting first party
secretary started (temporarily!) to decentralize the Soviet government and to promote a consumer economy and to slacken
Soviet imperialism over her satellites.
The result, however, was unrest and liberalizing pressures in East Germany (1953) and later in Czechoslovakia, Poland,
and especially Hungary (1956), after which the above post-Stalinist tendencies were more or less frozen.
Meantime (1953), while Khrushchev was promising agricultural progress by developing the "virgin lands" in Siberia, Mao
became aggressively imperialistic, even while massive collectivization was changing the face of China. Communists
stepped up aggression in Vietnam and attacked Laos and Cambodia as part of Mao's five-phase plan for communisms
world takeover (viz.: 1. Southeast Asia, India, and Japan; 2. the Middle East and North Africa; 3. Africa south of the Sahara;
4. Europe and Australia; and 5. the Western hemisphere (including the U.S.A.).33
In 1954, after the communist takeover of the government of Guatemala for a few weeks and its overthrowal by anticommunists shortly thereafter, the U.S.S.R. agreed to surrender Soviet interests in joint stock companies in Sinkiang to Red
China, to return Port Arthur and Dairen to (Red) China, and to provide a loan and scientific and technical aid, including
assistance for Red Chinese nuclear research. And the next year, after the appearance of his A Serious Doctrine,34 Mao
accelerated the collectivization of Chinese farms, and was actually fortunate enough to achieve a bumper crop, which
prompted his later utopianistic eschatological plans such as the "Great Leap Forward" of l958~60.
From 1956 onwards the Sino-Soviet monolith, however, began to show some visible cracks. The friction was first
observed at the January summit conference, where the U.S.S.R. expressed concern about Red Chinese intentions, even
while Mao was predicting that socialism would lead to the gigantic development of industries and agricultural production.35

-86-

But the friction gathered momentum especially at the Twentieth Congress of the C.P.S.U., where Khrushchev, who had now
manoeuvered himself into the position of actual power in Russia, in a secret speech to the delegates, downgraded the
person of Mao's hero Stalin, while continuing to uphold Stalin's philosophy. Khrushchev proclaimed the inevitability of world
socialism and even of world communism, but he somewhat revisionistically added that this may be possible without war,
and that it was possible to defeat the West and to socialize the "Third World" (of uncommitted nations) by pursuing a policy
of "peaceful co-existence"-to the horror of the Red Chinese, 36 who maintained that Stalin's virtues "outweigh his faults" and
that the recent Russian criticism of Stalin "was wrong," inasmuch as "Stalin proved himself an outstanding Marxist-Leninist
"37
A perhaps unforeseen by-product of the softer Khrushchevian deStalinization approach to the nature and goals of
international communism was the dissolution of the Russian-dominated Cominform (but not of the Russian-dominated
communist bloc as such), followed by unrest in Czechoslovakia, the Polish riots, and particularly the Hungarian revolution of
1956. All these nati6nalistic excrescences, however, were carefully monitored, and after the bloody crushing of Hungary by
Soviet imperialist intervention, it was again clear that Russia was still very much interested in communist world takeover. At
a meeting of the world's Communist Parties in 1956, Mao pledged Chinese backing for Soviet leadership of the international
communist movement, in return for which support Red China's views about global strategy were written into the joint
declaration agreed on at the meeting. And in November, Khrushchev told Western diplomats at a Kremlin reception: "History
is on our side. We will bury you!" (="We will be present at your funeral.") 38
In his How to Handle Contradictions Among the People, Mao eschatologically yet un-Marxistically recognized the
possibility of conflicting group interests even under future socialism (viz., between people and government, between group
and group, individual and group, and group and state, on account of inadequate education),39 and in British Guyana, the
Communist Cheddi Jagan took over the government for the next seven years.
In 1957, the Meeting of Representatives of Communist and Workers' Parties issued a Declaration enumerating the
following principles embracing the whole period of the transition from capitalism to socialism:
"The working class with the Marxist-Leninist party as its core leads the masses of working people in carrying out the
proletarian revolution in one form or another and in establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat in one form or another;
"alliance of the working class with the bulk of the peasantry and the other sections of the working people;
"abolition of capitalist property and establishment of public ownership of the basic means of production;
"gradual socialist transformation of agriculture;
"planned development of the national economy aimed at building socialism and communism and at raising the living
standards of the working people;
"carrying out the socialist revolution in ideology and culture and creating a numerous intelligentsia devoted to the
working class, the working people and the cause of socialism;
"abolition of national oppression and establishment of equality and fraternal friendship among the peoples;
"defence of the gains of socialism from the encroachments of internal and external enemies;
"solidarity of the working class of the given country with the working class of the other countries, i.e., proletarian
internationalism."40
In October of that same year, after purging the "anti-Party" group (led by Molotov, Kaganovitch, Malenkov, and
Bulgarin), 41 Khrushchev for all practical purposes became sole leader of the Soviet Union, reaffirmed his faith in Marx and
Engels and Lenin, 42 and launched the U.S.S.R.'s (and the world's) first sputnik satellite.
In 1958, Khrushchev made the important observation that automation and a high degree of production constitutes the
necessary material-technical basis for the transition from socialism to communism. 'We must look into the future. It is
essential to prepare material and cultural conditions for the transition from socialism to communism. This problem is not
solved by magic: one cannot go to sleep under socialism and wake up under communism. Only naive people can have such
an idea of the process of transition to communism. In reality it is a gradual process. As production forces develop, man
ascends from one step to another and creates conditions in order that, on the basis of an unprecedented growth of labor
productivity, there will be an abundance of material and spiritual wealth and there will be a transition from socialist to
communist principles of distribution."43
Yet the slack-off in the Soviet econom y now became apparent, 44 even while Khrushchev was predicting that the
U.S.S.R. would overtake the U.S.A. by 1970, and giving the assurance that "there are no different points of view and never
have been between the C.P.S.U. and the C.P.C. (Communist Party of China) on the question of principle, because they
both proceed. from the single teaching of Marxism-Leninism, which they follow faithfully...43
In April 1958, the first model Chinese commune "Sputnik" was opened, to replace the communal farms and the "state
farms," which communes were previously promised by Stalin,46 and in June, at the Seventh Congress of the Bulgarian
Communist Party, Khrushchev stated that "the Communist and Workers' Parties are very touchy about theoretical problems
and irreconcilable towards any attempts to revise Marxism-Leninism."47 Consequently, Boris Pasternak, the non-conformist
Russian writer of Dr. Zhivago, who accepted the international Nobel Prize for Literature, was expelled from the Soviet
Writers' Union.48
The most important event of the year, however, was the beginning of the Red Chinese "Great Leap Forward" from
August 1958 onward, which called for "commune-ization," "tractor-ization," "iron-ization," and "devermin-ization" [of flies,
rats, sparrows, and dogs]. This was a bold attempt to proceed straight from a peasant economy into a future communist

-87-

society, without the intervening proletarian state, and involved 750,000 rural [and some urban] collectives combined into
26,000 hugh communes, each containing up to 50,000 people working in gangs, with no private possessions, and eating in
communal dining halls.49 Precisely after the bumper crop of 1955, Chinese communes [with their integrated nurseries and
eating-places]50 were ordered on a nation-wide scale by the Red Chinese Politburo, even though the Communist Party of
China passed a resolution in December ordering a slow-down in the establishment of communes in the large cities, yet an
improvement in the operation of the already existing 26,000 rural communes.
In 1959, Khrushchev declared that "socialism has triumphed [in the U.S.S.R.] fully and finally,"51 and announced that
"communism means that a man should have good clothing and a good place to live so that people can learn, work with selfdenial for the good of society, and make use of the achievements of science, culture and art."52 Meanwhile, in China,
communists invaded Tibet and overthrew the Dalai Lama, while Mao temporarily "retired" from active political life in order to
"make further studies of Marxism and Leninism, to meditate on doctrine," even as the communes were being (temporarily)
eased off, and a new emphasis was being laid on agriculture.53
As if stimulated by the Red Chinese activity, Khrushchev now called for a new Soviet advance toward "communism,"54
which ultimately led to the adoption of the New Party Program at the Twenty-second Congress of the C.P.S.U. in. 1961.
Meanwhile, at the Twenty-first Party Congress in 1959, Khrushchev had been insisting that "even before the complete
triumph of socialism on earth, while capitalism still exists in a part of the globe, a genuine possibility will arise of excluding
world war from the life of human society."55 Khrushchev advocated "peaceful co-existence" (alias victory without nuclear
war) with the West, and when Mao brashly insisted that the U.S. was only a docile "paper tiger," Khrushchev reminded him
that the U.S. was still a "paper tiger with nuclear teeth."
In the decade 1950-60, the U.S.S.R. doubled her industry and trebled her electricity production.56 China herself saw little
ideological development from 1959 to 1962 and a lull in the backyard iron industry and in the promotion of the communes on
account of bad harvests and bad weather during that time. But the U.S.A. saw the emergence of the S.D.S. ("Students for a
Democratic Society") as a youth arm of the Fabian L.I.D. ("League of Industrial Democracy"), and Cuba saw the successful
revolutionary Castro reveal that he was a communist and that Cuba had acquired a communist government by the
beginning of the sixties.
During the early years of the nineteen-sixties, not China but Russia was in the world communist limelight. In June 1960
Khrushchev advocated "creative Marxism-Leninism" as opposed to [Chinese!] "dogmatism,"57 and in August the U.S.S.R.
withdrew all aid to Red China.58 There was now an open rift between the two communist giants, and the battle for world
leadership of the international communist movement was on. Russia enjoyed (and still [1972] enjoys) a head start, though
the International Communist Conference predicted in November not only that the Soviet Union would become "the leading
industrial power in the world," but that Red China too would become one of the Great Powers, and that communists
everywhere would outproduce the West,"59 whereas Khrushchev, after successfully launching a space satellite, declared on
Christmas Day 1960 that "our rocket has passed the moon. It is already approaching the sun, and we still haven't
discovered a God. We have now snuffed out lights in the heavens which no man will be able to rekindle. We are engaged in
breaking the yoke of the Gospel, the opium of the masses. Let us only proceed, and Christ will speedily be relegated to
mythology!"60
In 1961, while the Communist Party of the U.S.A. was expelling its pro-Red Chinese members as "leftist deviationists"
(which latter then immediately formed the P.L.P. ["Progressive Labor Party"] as the U.S. branch of the "Chinese Communist
International"), the U.S.S.R. surpassed the U.S.A. in the manufacture of machine tools, and Khrushchev told U.S. President
Kennedy that the worldwide victory of communism would be achieved without war-unless the West tried to resist. 61
The highlight of 1961, however, was the New Party Program approved by the Twenty-second Congress of the C.P.S.U.,
where Khrushchev, in maintaining that "the socialist principle 'From each according to his abilities, to each according to his
work' has already been put into effect in the Soviet Union,"61a not only claimed that the "dictatorship of the proletariat" no
longer obtained in the U.S.S.R., but also that the Soviet Union had now become "a state of working people"62 characterized
by the "complete and final victory of socialism" in the U.S.S.R.63 and committed to the realization of full communism in
Russia and elsewhere at some time after 1980, with the emergence of "the new man [who] will ... combine spiritual wealth,
moral purity and a perfect physique."64
The New Party Program claimed that socialism had been achieved in the Soviet Union: "The socialist principle, "From
each according to his abilities, to each according to his work,' has been put into effect in the Soviet Union. This principle
ensures that the members of society have a natural interest in the fruits of their labor; it makes it possible to harmonize
personal and social interests in the most effective way and serves as a powerful stimulus for increasing productivity of labor,
developing the economy and raising the people's standard of living. The awareness that they work for themselves and their
society and not for exploiters inspires the working people with labor enthusiasm; it encourages their effort for innovation,
their creative initiative, and mass socialist emulation."65
During the nineteen-sixties, held the New Program, the task was to "create" the "material-technical basis" for (future)
communism [thus Khrushchev].66 During the decade 1961-70, everyone's basic needs were to be satisfied,67 the Soviet
national income was scheduled to rise nearly 2.5 times, and in the twenty years 1961-80 approximately 5 times.68
A few quotations from Khrushchev's 1961 Road to Communism will show that the Russians were [and are] in earnest
about the New Party Program:
"Bourgeois critics have shouted in chorus, as though in response to a command-the Program is not feasible. The
familiar incantations that we know since the first Soviet five-year plans have again appeared in the columns of the

-88-

reactionary newspapers-'utopia,' 'mirage,' 'illusion.' Every proposition in our Program is substantiated "69 "To our Party
has fallen the good fortune of translating into reality the first phase of communism, socialism, and of leading the Soviet
people to the higher phase of communism"70 "We firmly believe that the time will come when the children and
grandchildren of those who today do not understand and do not accept communism will live under communism ... There is
no doubt whatsoever that communism will be built in the Soviet Union, for such is the will of the Party, of the people."71 "Not
only our descendants, comrades, but we as well, our generation of Soviet people, shall live under communism! So let us,
comrades, devote all our efforts, all our energies, to hastening the day when the sun of communism will shine over our land,
[for] the victory of socialism on a world scale is not far off."72
During the nineteen-sixties, this grandiose plan was to be worked out in detail. As the famous Russian philosopher
Afanasyev remarked, commenting on the New Party Program:
"The building of the material and technical basis of communism serves as the foundation for the further development of
socialist production relations and their gradual transformation into communist relations, which will be the most perfect
relations between free people of high intelligence and all-round development ... Under communism instead of the two forms
of property-state and co-operative collective-farm-which exist under socialism, there will be one communist properly
belonging to all members of society ... [as a result of] the eventual merger of the two into one communist property. This
process is already under way. There is a growth of inalienable assets [= 'the communal assets of the collective farm which
are not divided among the members. They include inachinery, motors, farm buildings, livestock and money for investment in
the collective farm.'] ... There will be wider joint construction by several collective farms of electric power plants,
establishments for processing agricultural products, etc.[, and] ... rural electrification."73
"Only a few years ago the possibility of man's flight to other planets was abstract because the technical facilities were
lacking. Now this possibility has become real. The time is not far off when man will step onto the Moon and other planets of
the solar system. The dream of Utopian Socialists early in the nineteenth century about the possibility of transition to
socialism was abstract: at that time the forces necessary for socialism bad not yet matured, there was no sufficiently
organized revolutionary proletariat. But in the present epoch this possibility has become real and in a large part of the world
it has already been turned into reality."74
The Twenty-second Congress of the C.P.S.U. in 1961, however, not only planned the future "Road to Communism," but
it also condemned Stalin and therefore by implication the pro-Stalinistic Albanians and Red Chinese too. Thereafter, Stalin's
body was removed from Red Square and re-buried in a simple grave, and Stalingrad, the first socialist city. was renamed
Volgograd. The Sino-Soviet rift was wide open.
In 1962, Khrushchev advocated a working alliance between the eighty-eight (international) Marxist-Leninist Communist
Parties with their 40 million members and the thirty-eight (national) Marxian (non-Leninist) Socialist Parties with their 10.7
million members, against all pre-socialist regimes, 75 and Khrushchev also promised that the communistic socialist countries
would economically assist all "backward non-socialist countries" in their advance toward socialism.76
After the 1960-61 crop failure, Red China had now sufficiently recovered to try again to move from an agricultural to an
industrial base,77 so at the Tenth Plenum of the C.P.C. Mao relaunched the "revolution," burned old books, buildings, etc.,
and pointed out the "mistakes" even of (N.B.!) Stalinist Russia, 78 even while Khrushchev was re-organizing Soviet
agriculture.79
After communist terrorists almost succeeded in taking over the whole of the huge country of Zaire (the former Belgian
Congo), the U.S.-Soviet confrontation over the Cuban missiles, and the Indo-Chinese border war-fare in 1962, Mao, in his
1963 The Origin and Development of the Differences between the Leadership of the C.P.S.U. and Ourselves, branded
Khrushchev's doctrine of "peaceful co-existence" with the West as "Social Democratic" (i.e., as left-wing deviationistic and
revisionistic) ,80 and lampooned Khrushchev as a "Bible-reading, Psalm-singing servant of U.S. imperialism"81 -specially
after the August 1963 limited nuclear test-ban treaty between Russia and the U.S.A. and the other nuclear powers. China
had suffered huge famines, and although Russia had not yet overtaken the U.S. in meat production, sovkhozes
nevertheless then constituted forty-five percent of the total land crop (the rest of the land being under kolkhozes, with three
percent of the land worked as private plots yet producing fifty percent of the total agricultural Qutput), and seventy percent of
all new urban flat dwellings were built as "co-operatives."82
In 1964, after the Red Chinese inspired the bloody communization of Zanzibar, Mao's On Practice re-indorsed the
authority of Marx and Engels and Lenin.83 And, after further Russian 84 and Chinese 85 epistles attacking one another,
Khrushchev fell from power on October 15 -one day before Red China exploded the A-bomb!
6.

Modern Re-radicalization (1964-71)

From 1964-68, Russia was de-Khrushchevized; from 1966-68, Red China underwent the "Great Cultural Revolution";
and from 1968-70, Russia was re-radicalized.
Khrushchev was ousted in October 1964, inter alia on account of the Russian agricultural failure and his ultra-deStalinization which, after all, threatened the acceptability of the whole Stalinistic period which constituted thirty years of the
less than fifty years of Russian socialism. Just as after the fall of the dictator Lenin and later of the dictator Stalin, collective
leadership had followed, at least for a time, so too was the fallen Khrushchev succeeded by the middle-of-the-road yet
militaristic Brezhnev and Kosygin, the reformistic Podgorny and Polyansky, and the restorative Shepelin and Suslov. 86
After the fall of Khrushchev, there was stimulation of the consumer economy, although the consumer goods produced

-89-

were of junk quality.87 Yet centralized control was tightened, and Kosygin insisted that the new profit motive had nothing to
do with a capitalistic market economy. The Soviet military build-up was sharply stepped up, yet the still floundering Soviet
economy had to be bolstered up with $2 million wheat purchases from the West. 88 Nevertheless, the December 1964 edition
of U.S.S.R.-Soviet Life Today. the official Soviet publication, re-endorsed the eschatological aims of classical MarxismLeninism.
The following year, after the failure of Chinese communist putsches in Africa and Indonesia and of the unsuccessful
"Revolt of Liu (Shao-chi)" when Mao was forced to leave Peking temporarily, Red China began to prepare for the militantly
eschatological communistic Cultural Revolution of 1966-68. In the 1965 preparations, Chinese Vice-Chairman Lin Piao's
Long Live the Victory of the People's War! [cf. Trotsky's Permanent Revolution!] revolutionarily and successfully attacked Liu
and the conservativistic communists and swung the uncommitted Chou En -lai into line.89
Meantime, in Russia, amidst persecution of non-conformist Russian intellectuals and artists like Boris Pasternak and
Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Brezhnev admitted that twelve percent of the collectives had still not yet been electrified, that forty
percent of the collectives' machinery was of poor quality and inoperative during the peak seasons, and decreed that meat
shortages were to be solved by breeding rabbits.90
After the communist government of Yugoslavia pushed through its new economic reform toward the implementation of
decentralization and a market economy in July,91 Russia herself re-introduced the "profit motive" (but not a market economy)
and increased central planning in September92-in which month Lin Piao enunciated his doctrine of the world cities (or the
world's developed [= white] nations) versus the world villages (or the world's developing [+ non-white] nations) as the
modern counterpart of Marx's eschatological doctrine of the abolition of the distinction between town and country.
In 1966, after the only very tem porarily successful communist takeover of the Dominican Republic and the permanently
successful ousting of Sukarno's pro-communist government in Indonesia, the international unity of the communist countries
and of Russia's leadership thereof was severely tested. In Russia, the Soviet Union accused Red China with its "world
villages" doctrine of forsaking the leadership of the working class and of itself clandestinely trading with South Africa, of
making nuclear weapons with West German aid, of cornering the world opium market, and of selling steel to the U.S. for use
in Vietnam. In Red China, the Peking Review accused the Soviet leaders of being "betrayers of Lenin and Leninism and ...
Marx and Engels and Marxism."93 North Vietnam and North Korea took an independent communist line from both Russia
and Red China, and Roumania and Cuba voiced criticism of both Peking and Moscow (Roumania's Ceasescu rejecting the
imperialism of a greater communist power toward lesser communist powers, and re-asserting the national sovereignty of
individual communist states)94-as did the Communist Parties of Japan, Italy, France, and Great Britain. In West Germany,
the leftist Rudi Dutschke and in France the leftist Danny Cohn-Bendit whipped up the students against their regimes, and in
the U.S.A. the Freudian Marxist and 1918 Spartacist Prof. Herbert Marcuse extended his leftist influence at the expense of
orthodox Leninism. Students became "proletarians!"
At the Twenty-third Congress of the C.P.S.U. in April 1966, decisions were taken to improve the consumer goods
industry, to re-radicalize the application of Marxist-Leninist eschatological theory, to increase the Soviet military build-up,
and to re-Stalinize or neo-colonize Eastern Europe, in spite of increasing tension between the Soviet Union and Red China.
Brezhnev predicted the advent of a 41-hour work-week and of factory and office wages of $126 per month[!]. He advised
"peaceful co-existence" with the West, trade with the U.S., and international communist unity-if necessary, even against the
Red Chinese.95
On August 8, the Central Committee of the C.P.C. decided to implement the "Great Cultural Revolution." After four
years of good crops (l962-65), in 1966-68 Mao again decided to move China some distance toward the achievement of
communist eschatology. The "Cultural Revolution" was an attempt by Mao's young "Red Guards" to combat deradicalizing
and conservatizing tendencies in certain Chinese communist quarters. Mao and Lin Piao, desiring another "Great Leap
Forward," unleashed the "Red Guards" with their "Little Red Books" of the "Thoughts of Mao Tse-tung" against the
gradualist and pragmatist Liu Shao-chi and the "conservativists" and "revisionists"96 and the "traditionalists." Chaos
resulted. Red Guards took over Peking from the conservative Peng-chen, and then, encouraged by Mao, criticized all those
"vested interests" in authority in communist China in the fields of education, journalism, and the arts. These Red Guards
were university students and high school scholars who had been subjected to three months of radical Maoistic indoctrination
(Mao's Red Book), after which they criticized the old Party members and authorities (= teachers, etc.) .97
The "Cultural Revolution" set up "Paris Communes" in Shanghai, Peking, etc., to build up a new revolutionary regime de
novo. Targets of the "Cultural Revolution" included: I, schools and universities; 2, supporters of the ideas of Liberman [the
communist inventor of the post-Khrushchevian Russian "profit motive"] and 3, the Party apparatus [because the Party still
harbored bourgeois remnants and had produced a conservativistic new Party class].98
The objectives of the "Cultural Revolution" were: 1, the transformation of academic education into political education; 2,
the Maoization of economics; 3, the strengthening of the cult of Mao [= re-Stalinization]; 4, the development of a
"participating democracy" in 1967 imitating the Paris Commune of 1871; 5, the control of education by the local community
led by its poorer and rural members against the city-elite class: 6, the destruction of Liu's Libermanism;99 7, the reassertion
of the communes, so that the state will be at the service of the autonomous local communities developing and diversifying
their own economic life with their own funds and in their own way; and 8, the elimination of the new elite, which would lead
to the destruction of the three great differences, viz., those between town and country, industry and agriculture, and mental
and manual labor.
A few days later, on August 12, 1966, a Communiqu of the Eleventh Plenary Session of the Eighth Central Committee
-90-

of the C.P.C. re-endorsed Marxism-Leninism and elevated Mao's thought to canonicity. As Lin Piao put it (cf. Stalin's
description of Leninism!) :100 "Mao Tse-Tung's thought is Marxism-Leninism of the era in which imperialism is heading for
total collapse and socialism is advancing to world-wide victory."101 And the second edition of Mao's Red Book in December
1966 claimed that "our God is none other than the masses of the Chinese people," that "we must have faith in the masses
and we must have faith in the Party," and "the theory of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin is universally applicable."'02
During 1967, even while Russia was producing more consumer goods (cars, jazz, etc.), in China Liu was being
repudiated and Red Guards were quitting school, overthrowing the traditionalists, and mobbing the Soviet embassy in
Pekingl03-only a few months before Red China exploded her first H-bomb on June 17.
In November 1967, Brezhnev stated: "We have created a completely new world: a world of new, socialist relationships,
a world of the new, Soviet man. The spiritual horizons of the Soviet people have vastly expanded, their moral make-up has
changed, as has their attitude towards labor, society and one another. Our country, regenerated and transformed by
socialism, stands before the whole world in all its might and grandeur, in the full glory of the talent of its splendid people."104
In 1968, Russia allegedly surpassed the U.S.A. in over-all steel production, increased her religious persecution of local
Christians, militarily invaded and overthrew the liberalizing communist government of Czechoslovakia and replaced it with a
Stalin-type puppet regime, threatened Roumania not to deradicalize further, and re-affirmed the Soviet eschatological
program for the implementation of full communism.105
Meanwhile, Mao finally silenced his "Red Guards" in October 1968 by turning his army against them (after they had
purged the country and when they themselves had gotten out of hand and flaunted their "spiritual aristocracy superior to the
workers and peasants") and by inciting the workers to "transform the schools and the young intellectuals," and by replacing
the Red Guards with worker-peasant teams106 and expelling Liu first from the presidency and then from the Party as a
"scab" alias "China's Khrushchev."
In January through March 1969, China's schools and universities finally re-opened and 25 million urbanites were sent to
the rural areas to alleviate the agricultural crisis, and on April 9, the National Congress of the C.P.C. re-endorsed Lenin's
view that politics had precedence over economics and all things, and named Lin Piao as Mao's successor, even though
pragmatists like Chou En-lai were also strengthened.107
China's growing strength in the world's leftist circles was becoming more apparent. At the May 1969 International
Communist Conference, Red China was not condemned for deviationism or insubordinationism.108 Yet in June, Brezhnev
found it expedient to advocate the doctrine of only a "limited sovereignty" of the individual communist states (vis-a-vis the
international communist movement-cf. Dubeek's maverick Czechoslovakia), and attacked Red China for threatening to fight
Soviet revisionism with a conventional and a large nuclear war 109-just before the U.S. successfully executed her first moon
landing and Solzhenitsyn was expelled from the Soviet Writers' Union (which grimly augured the outbreak of neo-Stalinistic
re-radicalization of Soviet policy).
The year 1970 opened with Mao's army in complete control of Red China, and with China still solidly exporting
revolution, particularly to Tanzania, even as the world's Communist Parties' membership reached 50 million in 100
countries.
A highlight of the year was the celebration of the hundredth anniversary of Lenin's birth April 13, when Brezhnev and
Kosygin appealed to Lenin to endorse their internal and external policy line against Red China, even while Peking's Red
Flag article entitled "Long Live Leninism" was giving a different [Chinese] interpretation of the equally canonical Lenin, and
was claiming that Mao's thought carries Lenin's theories to a "higher and completely new stage" by integrating the universal
truth of Marxism-Leninism Mao Tse-tung thought."110 Brezhnev was quick to make the messianic reply on April 16, however,
"that the Russian people are entrusted with a historical mission to lead all humanity to communism, the highest civilization.
They are fully resolved to fulfil that mission to the end."111
But now there could no longer be any doubt as to the equally universally messianic importance of Red China. For on
April 26, Red China launched her first satellite, and in May 1970, the U.S. Time magazine 112 interpreted this as meaning that
Red China would be able to deliver nuclear warheads to Europe and the U.S.A. as early as 1973, and the demoted
Yugoslav communist Milovan Djilas (one-time Tito's heir apparent), prophesied that by 1990 China would know how to
throw the H-bomb at any Russian city and would only expand westward, which would force Russia to make a deal with the
West, so that the Soviet Union would become [communistically!-N.L.] democratic by the year 2000, because Solzhenitsyn
and Co. could not be stopped. 113
Be that as it may, Djilas' optimism was severely dented when in that same month of May 1970, the re-radicalized
communist Russian regime had their K.G.B. (or Secret Police) arrest the famous Andrei Amalric, author of Will the Soviet
Union Survive Until 1984? (a parody on the British ex-communist George Orwell's 1984,114 even as Mao's wife, the radical
theoretician Chiang Ch'ing, was calling for more younger radicals in the Chinese government, and even as Mao was calling
for worldwide "revolutionary struggle against U.S. imperialism and its lackeys,"115 all of which was soon reflected in the
permanent communistic takeover of the government of the Brazzaville Congo.
On September 28, 1970, Mendel Rivers, chairman of the U.S. Armed Services Committee, conceded that the Soviet
Union had overtaken the U.S.A. in the defense field.116 The next month, October, the communist leader Allende became
president of Chile and immediately moved against U.S. investments there. And Red China began consolidating her socialist
gains and successfully entered into diplomatic relations with Canada in a new psychological attack on the West.
In November 1970, a Russian court took the important ill-auguring step of sentencing AmaIric to three years hard labor
in a concentration camp for having "distributed fabrications defaming the Soviet State."117 And on December 28, 1970,

-91-

Pravda announced that vigilance would henceforth be exercised to "sweep away" Solzhenitsyn and other "wretched
renegades," ridiculing his banned Cancer Ward and The First Circle as "lampoons on the Soviet Union which blacken the
achievement of our fatherland and the dignity of the Soviet people."
Robert Conquest, British specialist on the Soviet purges of 1937-38, considered it likely that Solzhenitsyn too will be
tried. "Solzhenitsyn's arrest would be a major political decision, signifying war to the death against all opposition in Russia,
and a reversion to the tightest kind of totalitarian control." Solzhenitsyn, like Pasternak previously, won the international
Nobel Prize for Literature on December 10, 1970.118 Yet complete re-Stalinization (as opposed to re-radicalization of
modern communist theoretical and practical eschatology) was thought to be - unlikely, because Khrushchev had exposed
Stalin, and most Russians then knew this.119 Certainly, however, any further Russian de-Stalinization is taboo, and, on the
basis of Marxism-Leninism, Russia and Red China are now both preparing for the advent of communism.
At the beginning of the nineteen-seventies, friction between Russia and Red China continued to increase. In 1971,
Russia denounced Mao's thought as "an unprincipled mixture of utopian and egalitarian ideas of the peasants' uprising,
Confucianism, anarchism, Trotskyism, chauvinism, Chinese feudalism, national bourgeois ideas and other ideas contrary to
Marxist principles," and Red China replied by attacking "the colonial rule of Soviet social imperialism in Eastern Europe." 120
Yet it would be fatal for the West to interpret the continuing Sino-Soviet rift as meaning that co-operation between the
two red powers is impossible. For such cooperation between the various communist factions and even their uniting against
the common non-communist foe has in fact characterized the entire history of communism. Marx and Bakunin united in the
First International against the bourgeoisie. Lenin and Martov and Trotsky, who split asunder at the Russian Social
Democratic Labor Party Congress in 1903, later worked together and took over Russia, Trotsky even becoming Lenin's heir
apparent! The nationalistic socialist Stalin entered into a coalition with the national socialist Hitler against the harmless
Poland and Finland in 1939. Khrushchev largely healed the breach with Yugoslavia which Stalin had caused. And even as
late as April 1971, the C.P.S.U. resolved to "normalize the relations between Russia and Red China" and to encourage a
policy of "good neighborliness and friendship between the Russian and the Chinese peoples"121-a sentiment which Chou
En-lai reciprocated on October 6, 1971, and an aim by no means unattainable now that the post-Khrushchevian Soviet
Union is again re-radicalizing if not re-Stalinizing. 121a
Moreover, it should be pointed out that Russia and Red China are perhaps even more dangerous to the West when they
are hot working together with one another. For each is still fully committed to the total communization of the world, and
competition between the two makes each work harder at it than would perhaps be the case if they were visibly united.
Even as 2,000 hippie and revolutionary communes (each of 5-15 persons) sharing money, drugs, and concubines
spread across 34 states of the U.S.A.,122 Red China, on February 24, 1971, began making festive preparations for the
commemoration of the 1871 Paris Commune as an event which "preceded the most beautiful chapter in the history of the
world."123 And after Red China launched her second satellite on March 3, 1971 (eliciting Western concessions that China
would now be able to attack the U.S. with long-range inter-continental ballistic missiles by 1975), Russia [and Red China]
celebrated the Paris Commune on March 19, Moscow deciding to return to France the cremated ashes of the last Paris
Communard who died in Russia in l942..123
On.May 19, the New York Times reported that there were then no more churches in Red China, and that all old art and
literature treasures had been destroyed;124 yet on July 15 President Nixon was still able to bring himself to accept Chou Enlai's invitation to officially visit Peking-just before the Red Chinese chief-of-staff made it abundantly clear that Nixon's visit
would in no wise cause Peking to relinquish her proclaimed goal of conquering Formosa and promoting worldwide
communism. Nor did the snubbing of the anti-Stalinist Khrushchev's death by Moscow and its total ignoring by Peking on
September 12, 1971, evidence anything less than a dangerous re-radicalization (or even predictable future re-Stalinization?)
in both of the leading communist countries.
The very same month, the U.S. took the unprecedented step of totally reversing its previous China policy by proposing
that the representatives of Mao's radically communist regime replace Chiang Kai-shek's militant anti-communist delegates
on the U.N. Security Council. The vote came up on October 26 when, to the U.S.'s dismay, the U.N., while admitting Red
China to the U.N., also voted to expel Nationalist China, and on November 15, Kao Liang, the engineer of the Red 1964
takeover of Zanzibar, the first Chinese leader at the U.N., vowed to produce. A-bombs and promote even more Red
revolutions. So too the British Labor Party unsurprisingly promised to aid communist terrorists in Portugal's overseas
territories-proof that the communist Russian policy of co-operating75 with the non-communistic Socialist Parties was certainly
bearing fruit, even as Russia and Red China, on the basis of Marxist-Leninist theory, are now both preparing for
communism.
7.

Preparing for "Communism" (1972-80)

The international communist (and particularly the Russian communist) plans for the future can readily be learned from
the relevant documents. World conquest everywhere remains the goal! Yet American President Richard M. Nixon
nevertheless paid a state visit to both Red China and the Soviet Union in 1972 to explore the areas of common interest"
between the United States and the two communist superpowers, and, although conceding that "there were deep
philosophical differences" between them, nevertheless-announced a "new relationship between the two most powerful
nations in the world," having previously prophesied in July 1971 that the world would see five giant superpowers arise

-92-

between 1976 and 1986, viz., Western Europe (controlling forty percent of the world's trade already by January 1973),* the
United States, the Soviet Union, Mainland China, and Japan.
During the decade 1971-80, predicts the New Party Program, the basis for (future) communism will be finally
established.125 As the recognized modern Russian communist philosopher Afanasyev remarked: "the philosophy of Marxism
is now the prevailing world outlook in the socialist countries inhabited by more than 1000 million people. Dialectical
materialism is gradually winning the minds and hearts of the people in the capitalist countries and more and more honest
men and women the world over are siding with Marxism, having become convinced of the bankruptcy of idealism, its
incompatibility with social progress and with the development of science ... Dialectical materialism is gaining an ever firmer
place in contemporary natural science, being not only the outlook of natural scientists in the socialist countries, but also of
many scientists in capitalist states. The eminent French scientist Frederick Joliat Curie, the British scientist John Bernal, and
many others take up positions of dialectical materialism. Many other natural scientists are shedding their idealist illusions.
Our age is a witness to the triumph of materialism and the deep crisis and degradation of idealism. And although idealism is
still fighting materialist philosophy, the outcome of the battle is beyond all doubt: the future belongs to the scientific, MarxistLeninist world outlook."126
*For most important post-stop-press 1973 and early 1974 developments, see "chronologIcal Table" below (p. 358ff.,
especially under that table's "1973" and "1974").
As the famous and authoritative modern Soviet theoretician Kuusinen remarked about the New Party Program: The
Party sets the task of achieving in the second decade of the period covered by the program (1971-80) an abundance of
material and cultural benefits for the whole population. The Soviet Union will reach the communist principle of distribution
according to needs. The period of the transition to communism is simultaneously a period of the gradual elimination of
differences in the level of life of particular sections of the population. The prerequisites for the actual equality of people,
which is characteristic of developed communist society, are also being formed at this stage."127
Discussing this further, Afanasyev remarked in the early nineteen-sixties: "In twenty years [that is, by the end of the
nineteen-seventies or the beginning of the nineteen-eighties-N.L.], the public consumption funds will account for nearly half
of all the real incomes of the population. This will enable society to ensure the free maintenance of children in nurseries,
kindergartens, hoarding schools, to provide free education in all educational institutions, free medical service to all citizens,
including the provision of medicines and sanatorium treatment, rent-free housing, free public utilities, urban transport and
some other forms of service. Payment for holiday homes and tourist centers will be gradually reduced and become partly
free; free meals (dinners) at factories, offices and collective farms will be gradually introduced. The population will be given
allowances, privileges and scholarships on an ever wider scale. Society will fully assume material care of the disabled."128
And it will be remembered129 that Lenin himself regarded public catering, crches and kindergartens as the first shoots
of communism, and that "with the support of the proletarian state power, the young shoots of communism will not wither but
grow and develop into full communism."130
The New Party Program also predicted a three-and-a-half fold increase in agriculture (over the 1961 level) by 1980.131
"The material and technical basis of communism will be built up by the end of the second decade (1971-80), ensuring an
abundance of material and cultural values for the whole population; Soviet society will come close to a stage where it can
introduce the principle of distribution according to needs, and there will be a gradual transition to one form of ownershippublic ownership. Thus, a communist society will in the main be built in the U.S.S.R. The construction of communist society
will be fully completed in the subsequent period.132
8.

The Transition to "Communism" (1981ff.)

Even now, social clubs such as chess, hunting, and writing clubs are being promoted on a large scale in communist
lands in general and the Soviet Union in particular, in order to break down individuality even in the field of recreation and to
promote communistic group consciousness and tastes and property and to combat private consciousness and tastes and
property.133
As Afanasyev predicted: "Under communism, instead of the two forms of property-state and co-operative collectivefarm-which exist under socialism, there will be one communist property belonging to all members of society ... [as a result
of] the eventual merger of the two into one communist property. This process is already under way. There is a growth of
inalienable assets [= 'the communal assets of the collective farm which are not divided among the members. They include
machinery, motors, farm buildings, livestock and money for investment in the collective farm'] ... There will be wider joint
construction by several collective farms of electric power plants, establishments for processing agricultural products, etc.,
[and) ... rural electrification."134
Concerning this period, Kuusinen too predicted: "During the transition to communism, an ever-increasing part of
people's needs will be met from public funds" (e.g., public crches and public libraries) ,135 and agriculture and industry will
be merged. "In communist society, agricultural labor will become a variety of industrial labor; agriculture will be amply
provided with the most diverse up-to-date machines and will be based on the most advanced scientific methods. This will
bring about an unprecedented rise in its productivity and enable all members of society to have an abundance of healthy,
tasty, and varied food."136
As the New Party Program pointed out: "Communism accomplishes the historic mission of delivering all men from social
inequality, from every form of oppression and exploitation, from the horrors of war, and proclaims Peace, Labor, Freedom,

-93-

Equality, Fraternity and Happiness for all peoples of the earth."137


"Peace, Labor, Freedom, Equality, Fraternity and Happiness"!137 The"Liberty, Fraternity and Equality" of the French
Revolution develops logically to its communist conclusion!
"Peace, Labor, Freedom, Equality, Fraternity and Happiness"!137 As Karl Marx himself predicted, "a new society is
springing up, whose international rule will be Peace, because its national ruler will be everywhere the same-Labor!" 138
As Afanasyev beautifully explained: "Communism is the age-old dream of mankind. As early as the beginning of the
sixteenth century, in the dark days of the Middle Ages, the English scholar and humanist Sir Thomas More described in his
book Utopia a society in which there will be no exploitation of man by man, where people will create an abundance of the
means of livelihood and each will receive all of life's necessities according to his requirements. This society was also the
dream of the Italian philosopher Tommaso Campanella, the French Utopian Socialists Fourier and St. Simon, the Russian
writer and philosopher Chernyshevsky and many other intelligent minds [which explains why these and other thinkers are
dealt with by all students in the Soviet Union, cf. ch. I at n. 211 above-N.L.]. The Utopian Socialists made a scathing
criticism of capitalism and anticipated some of the features of communist society which must take the place of capitalism.
They were unable, however, to reveal the actual ways for building this society... Only Marx and Engels transformed
communism from a utopia into a science. Having discovered the laws of human history, they demonstrated that communism
is not a vain dream, but an inevitable result of social development. Lenin developed the Marxist teaching of communism a
step further. He made a more detailed and profound definition of the two phases of communist society which had been
mentioned by Marx and Engels, drew up a plan for building socialism and revealed the laws for the gradual development of
socialism into communism."139
Or as Kuusinen put it: "The ideal of communism goes back deep into history, into the very depths of the life of millions of
working people. Dreams of this ideal can already be found in folk tales about the 'Golden Age' that were composed at the
dawn of civilization. The liberation movements of the working masses in antiquity and the Middle Ages put forward many
demands which were communistic in their substance. At the boundary between the two epochs, feudal and capitalist, the
outstanding thinkers of those days, the utopian socialists Mo(o)re, Campanella, Saint-Simon, Fourier, Owen, and the
Russian revolutionary democrats Herzen, Chernyshevsky, Belinsky and Dobrolyubov [cf. the thinkers mentioned in the
previous paragraph and in ch. I at n. 211 above-N.L.], made the communist ideal the corner-stone of their doctrine of the
perfect society. True, those thinkers could not divine the secret of the laws of social development, could not give a scientific
justification of the real possibility and historic necessity of communism. Only Marxism turned communism from a utopia into
a science, while the merging of scientific communism with the growing working class movement created that irresistible
force which is moving society to the next stage of social progress. from capitalism to communism." 140
In fact, Kuusinen expected an accelerated rate of advance to communism after the construction of advanced socialism
with its rapid and universal cultural progress. "The rates of advance to communism are accelerated to a decisive degree by
the growing activities of the broadest masses, by the rapid rise of their cultural, technological and political level ... The
building of communism proceeds under different conditions from those obtaining during the building of socialism: the
exploiting classes have already been eliminated, all classes and social strata of society are vitally interested in the triumph
of communism and consciously seek to achieve it."141
Approaching full-scale communism, prophesies the Soviet 1961 New Party Program, "the nations will draw still closer
together until complete unity is achieved."141a
9.

The Emergence of "Communism (+ 2OOO?!)

Half a century ago, Lenin predicted that "socialism must inevitably develop gradually into communism."142 Yet "by what
stages, by what practical measures, mankind can arrive at this higher goal, we do not know and cannot know."143
As Kuusinen stated: "The fact that the transition to communism is gradual does not mean that it is a slow process. On
the contrary, it is distinguished by particularly high rates of development in all spheres of social life, from the growth of
production to the advance of culture and the political consciousness of people The gradual development of socialism into
communism is an objective law-governed process of social development. Socialism and communism are not two different
social formations but only two phases of one and the same formation, which differ from each other only in degree of
maturity."144
About future communist society, the authoritative modern Russian Marxist-Leninist philosopher Afanasyev ecstatically
declared in the nineteen-sixties: "Human culture will soar to unprecedented heights. The culture of communist society,
inheriting and developing all the best created by world culture, will represent a new and higher stage in mankind's cultural
development. It will incorporate all the diversity and wealth of aesthetic life, the lofty ideology and humanism of the new
society. This will be a classless, international culture of all mankind.
"Under communism there will be a new man, who will combine spiritual wealth with moral purity and physical perfection,
and who will have a high communist consciousness, including discipline and devotion to society's interests. The exceptional
organization and precision demanded of man by communist production will be ensured not by compulsion but by a profound
sense of civic duly. Man's development will be comprehensive and harmonious; his abilities and talent will be given full rein
and will blossom forth, his finest spiritual and physical qualities will be manifested to the full.
The building of communism will signify the attainment of the Communist Party's supreme goal of building a society on

-94-

whose banner will be inscribed: 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.' The Party's slogan
'Everything for the sake of Man, for the benefit of Man' will be applied in full measure."145
The New Party Program of 1961 gave the following extensive definition of future communism: "Communism is a
classless social system with one form of public ownership of the means of production and full social equality of all members
of society; under it, the all-round development of people will be accompanied by the growth of the productive forces through
continuous progress in science and technology; all the springs of co-operative wealth will flow more abundantly, and the
great principle 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs' will be implemented. Communism is a
highly organized society of free, socially conscious working people in which public self-government will be established, a
society in which labor for the good of society will become the prime vital requirement of everyone, a necessity recognized by
one and all,. and the ability of each person will be employed to the greatest benefit of the people.146
Or as the authoritative Soviet academician V. A. Obruchev dramatically declared in his Science and Youth:
It is necessary:
to prolong man's life to 150-200 years on the average, to wipe out infectious diseases, to reduce non-infectious
diseases to a minimum, to conquer old age and fatigue, to learn to restore life in case of untimely, accidental death;
to place at the service of man all forces of nature, the energy of the sun, the wind and subterranean heat, to apply
atomic energy in industry, transport and construction, to learn how to store energy and transmit it, without wires, to any
point;
to predict and render completely harmless natural calamities: floods, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes;
to produce in factories all the substances known on earth, up to most complex-protein-and also substances
unknown in nature: harder than diamonds, more heat-resistant than fire-brick, more refractory than tungsten and
osmium, more flexible than silk and more elastic than rubber;
to evolve new breeds of animals and varieties of plants that grow more swiftly and yield more meat, milk, wool,
grain, fruit, fibres, and wood for the needs of the national economy;
to reduce, adapt for the needs of life and conquer unpromising areas, marshes, mountains, deserts, taiga, tundra,
and perhaps even the sea bottom;
to learn to control the weather, regulate the wind and heat, just as rivers are regulated now, to shift clouds at will,
to arrange for rain or clear weather, snow or hot weather.147
Of course, this is an endless task. As Kuusinen stated: "It goes without saying that even after coping with these
magnificent and sweeping tasks, science will not have reached the limits of its potentialities. There is no limit, nor can there
be any, to the inquiring human mind, to the striving of man to put the forces of nature at his service, to divine all nature's
secrets."148 Or as Soviet experts officially declare4 in 1968: "How could there ever be an end to the struggle with nature, the
exploration and the possibility of the colonization of space, the development of physical science and social science as
well?"149 Or as Kuusinen elsewhere declared: "It should, of course, be borne in mind that the victory of communism does not
mean a halt in historical development: communist society will change and improve continuously. It is impossible therefore to
predict precisely what it will be like after a number of centuries, and still less after thousands of years."150
With the advent of future communism, wrote Engels, "when scientific memory will look back, the intellectual
immaturity and childishness of our [1878-N.L.] institutions will not be contested and will be a self-evident axiom in relation to
our own epoch, which will then be considered as primeval antiquity."151
Or as Karl Marx himself unforgettably predicted: "After the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of
labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a
means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-round development of the
individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly-only then can ... society inscribe on its banners:
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"152
Yet communism shall by no means have the last word in the history of the world. For even communist theory ultimately
predicts10. The Disappearance of Communism (time unknown)
Even Marx had predicted that "communism as such is not the goal of human development," for "only naturalism is
capable of comprehending the act of world history.153And in greater detail, Engels prophesied that "millions of years may
elapse, hundreds of thousands of generations be born and die, but inexorably the time will come when the declining warmth
of the sun will no longer suffice to melt the ice thrusting forward from the poles; when the human race, crowding more and
more about the equator, will finally no longer find even there enough heat for life; when gradually even the last trace of
organic life will vanish and the earth, an extinct frozen globe like the moon, will circle in deepest darkness and in an ever
narrower orbit about the equally extinct sun, and at last fall into it."154 And then Engels quite unempirically added that even
thereafter, "we have the certainty that matter remains eternally the same in all its transformations, that none of its attributes
can ever be lost, and therefore, also, that with the same iron necessity that it will exterminate on earth its highest creation,
the thinking mind, it must somewhere else and at another time again produce it."154
But the Christian Bible has an even more secure prophecy regarding the worldwide destruction of communism and all

-95-

other anti-Christian movements. For the Lord shall consume all unrighteousness and wickedness with the Spirit of His
mouth and destroy them with the brightness of His coming.155 This will mark the permanent overthrow of communism and all
other "isms" and the manifestation of the complete triumph of the Kingdom of the Triune God. Christ Who promises this,
declares: "Yea, I come quickly." And His waiting and working bride, the victory-oriented Christian Church, longingly replies:
"Amen! Even "so, come, Lord Jesus!" 156
11.Summary
In this chapter, we first traced the rise of Stalinism, 1923-27. Here we saw that, after using Lenin's funeral to entrench
his own position, Stalin, while helping both Chiang Kai-shek and Mao Tse-tung in their common battle against the Chinese
warlords, also intensified the N.E.P. in the Soviet Union, canonized the writings of Lenin alongside those of the already
canonized Marx and Engels, obtained de jure recognition of the Soviet Union from Britain and France, defeated his rivals
Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev, fiercely persecuted the Christian religion, and gave (temporary) priority to constructing
socialism in one country (the Soviet Union) rather than to prosecuting world revolution immediately.
During the following period, that of (Re)construction by Five-Year Plans, 1928-39, labor discipline was tightened up,
Stakhanovism [or piece-rate wages] was encouraged to boost production, the kulaks were liquidated as a class under the
large-scale (93%) collectivization of agriculture into kolkhozes and sovkhozes, massive "re-education" of all non-Party
members, and the elimination of all uneducable persons and large-scale urbanization or proletarianization was undertakenwhile the U.S. government greatly assisted the floundering Soviet regime by aiding it financially and recognizing it
diplomatically. The 1936 Stalinist Constitution claimed that Russia was already a socialist state-yet even thereafter, millions
of citizens (including Communist Party members) were liquidated, chronic food shortages raged, and anti-Christian
persecution continued (Yaroslavsky).
The next epoch, World War II, 1939-45, caught Russia rather unawares, and not only greatly hampered the
development of socialism during this period, but also demolished much of what had previously been achieved. To help the
war effort, Russia (temporarily) relaxed its persecution of Christians and its communization of Russia in favor of a broader
Soviet patriotism-while nevertheless incorporating many new territories into the Soviet Union by conquest, and establishing
many new communist regimes in Eastern Europe at the end of the Second World War, chiefly as a result of the Russian
war-time military occupation thereof.
The next stage, post-war Stalinism, 1945-53, was marked by Russian imperialism in Eastern Europe and elsewhere, the
establishment of the Cominform, and the Maoist takeover of Chiang's China in 1949. Anti-Christian persecution was
renewed in Russia, and Stalin decided to encircle Western Europe by way of Asian and African anti-colonialism. Mao
expropriated landowners in Red China, liquidated all opponents of the new regime, and started to move against Tibet.
After the death of Stalin, we witnessed the rise of Khrushchev, 1953-64, and the expansion of Russian and particularly
Red Chinese aggression especially in Asia, Africa, and South America, even while Mao was completing the process of
collectivization in China. Notably after Khrushchev's secret speech at the 1956 Congress of the CPSU denouncing Stalin,
however, the Sino-Soviet monolith began to show some visible cracks. Yet the rift was still not open, in spite of
Khrushchev's novel emphasis on "peaceful co-existence" or victory over the West even without (nuclear) war. China still
continued to follow the Russian leadership, especially after the launching of Russia's (and the world's) first "Sputnik"
satellite, and even called the first model Chinese commune of the 1958-60 "Great Leap Forward" by that name ("Sputnik"),
as China applied her policy of commune-ization, tractor-ization, iron-ization, and de-vermin-ization. Khrushchev.declared his
undying loyalty to the views of Marx and Engels and Lenin, and claimed that socialism had triumphed in the U.S.S.R., and,
perhaps stimulated by the Chinese "Leap," himself produced the still authoritative New Party Program which was approved
at the 1961 Congress of the CPSU and which called for a time-tabled advance to communism (on the basis of Soviet
"creative Marxism" rather than on the basis of Chinese "dogmatism"), the 1960's being employed to lay the "material and
technical basis" of (future) communism.
Even as Khrushchev fell from power in 1964, China exploded the A-bomb, and the Sino-Soviet rift became wide open.
Yet after the fall of Khrushchev, there followed the period of (Russian) re-radicalization, 1964-71, during which the U.S.S.R.
halted the process of de-Stalinization and began to overtake the U.S.A. in military power. Red China too re-radicalized, in
her 1966-68 "Cultural Revolution" with its "Paris Communes.' In both countries, cultural freedom was still further inhibited,
aggressive foreign policies were pursued, military power was vastly expanded, and religious persecution increased. Red
China began to aspire to the leadership of the (chiefly non-white) "have-not" nations or the "world villages" against the
(chiefly white) "have" nations or the "world cities" (including Russia), even as leftist students became powerful in Western
Europe and the U.S.A. (cf. Marcuse, SDS, SNCC, Dutschke, Cohn-Bendit, etc.). Brezhnevian Russia re-endorsed the
authority and eschatological program of Marx and Engels and Lenin, as too did contemporary Red China (the latter,
however, also canonizing first Stalin and then Mao as well), even before exploding her first H-bomb (and later launching her
first satellite). Although Sino-Soviet relations further deteriorated, it should not be thought that future co-operation between
the two red giants is impossible, even without which, however, they are perhaps doubly dangerous as energetic competitors
rather than as easier-going partners, as indeed evidenced by the subsequent communist takeovers of the Brazzaville Congo
and Chile during 1970, and by the competing Moscow and Peking centenary celebrations of the 1870 birth of Lenin in 1970
and of the 1871 Paris Commune in 1971, as well as by Russia's successful UN vote to admit Red China to and to expel
Nationalist China from the United Nations Organization, on October 26, 1971.

-96-

During this present decade, the nineteen-seventies, especially Russia is preparing for communism by laying down the
requisite basis, namely by trying to achieve an abundance of material and cultural benefits for the whole population, such as
free nurseries, kindergartens, boarding schools, education, libraries, medical services, housing, public utilities, factory
meals, urban transport, etc., which are indeed held to be "the first shoots of communism" (Lenin).
During the following two decades, l981-2O00+, it is believed that the transition to communism will be made. Then, firstly
state farms and collectives and secondly industry and agriculture are to be merged into one single communist property,
while widespread social clubs of every description will counter all individual tastes and accelerate the advance to
communism, even while the socialist nations will be drawn ever closer together, and the state will "wither away" and be
replaced everywhere by "public self-government."
Communism, it is believed, will finally emerge everywhere round about the year 2000, and will be marked by "a lofty,
aesthetic, classless, international, spiritual culture in which the Party's slogan 'Everything for the sake of Man, for the benefit
of Man' will be applied in full measure" (Afanasyev). Man will control the weather and conquer space, and look back on this
present age as one of "primeval antiquity" (Engels). Then will "all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly"
(thus Marx), and (thus too Lenin) then will "society inscribe on its banners: 'From each according to his ability, to each
according to his needs!'"
Yet even communism, concede the Marxists, will ultimately disappear. For "communism as such is not the goal of
human development," for "only naturalism is capable of comprehending the act of world history" (Marx). And naturalism
inexorably requires that even communist man will ultimately perish, as the earth freezes up and falls into the then frigid sunalbeit only to re-evolve and to be re-destroyed over and over again ad infinitum. Whereas according to Christianity, of
course, communism and all other "isms" will be destroyed by the Spirit of the Lord and the brightness of His coming.
So, then, both the communist and the Christian are agreed that the fall of communism is inevitable! Yet not only is its fall
inevitable. Even the rise and continued expansion of communism is not inevitable. For communism is not invincible, and
even contains the seeds of its own destruction. Communism was defeated in Finland and Estonia and Lithuania and Latvia
and Germany and Bavaria and Hungary and in Johannesburg in South Africa before 1920; in Saxony and on the South
African Witwatersrand in the nineteen-twenties and in Spain in the 'thirties; in Greece in the 'forties and in Malaya and
Guatemala and Kerala in India in the 'fifties; in (British) Guyana and the Leopoldville (Kinshasa) Congo Democratic Republic
(Zaire) and Indonesia and Ghana in the 'sixties; and in Uganda in the 'seventies.* Moreover, the Soviet economy in general
and agriculture in particular is in a perilous state. For example, the 1961 CPSU prediction that Russian agriculture would
have increased three and a half fold by 1980 is fast proving to be an idle dream and sheer fantasy.157
Worldwide communism, then, is not inevitable. But the universal triumph of Christianity,+ in God's good time, is.158
*-and in Chile in September, 19731 (Stop-the-press note-N.L.)
+Cf. the "Reference Section" below, especially the "Chronological Table" (at the very end, beyond A.D. 2000).

-97-

Communist Eschatology
A Christian Philosophical Analysis of the Post-Capitalistic Views of Marx, Engels and Lenin

FN Lee

PART TWO

-1-

Index Part Two


PART TWO DOCTRINAL SECTION ........................................................................................................................3
Chapter VII LABOR IN COMMUNIST ESCHATOLOGY ........................................................................................4
Chapter VIII VALUE IN COMMUNIST ESCHATOLOGY .....................................................................................23
Chapter IX PROPERTY IN COMMUNIST ESCRATOLOGY................................................................................38
Chapter X CLASS IN COMMUNIST ESCHATOLOGY.........................................................................................47
Chapter XI THE FAMILY IN COMMUNIST ESCHATOLOGY..............................................................................56
Chapter XII EDUCATION IN COMMUNIST ESCHATOLOGY .............................................................................67
Chapter XIII MORALITY IN COMMUNIST ESCHATOLOGY...............................................................................78
Chapter XIV LAW IN COMMUNIST ESCHATOLOGY .........................................................................................84
Chapter XV THE STATE IN COMMUNIST ESCHATOLOGY ..............................................................................91
Chapter XVI NATIONALITY IN COMMUNIST ESCHATOLOGY ......................................................................114
Chapter XVII THE ARTS IN COMMUNIST ESCHATOLOGY ............................................................................138
Chapter XVIII SCIENCE IN COMMUNIST ESCIIATOLOGY..............................................................................145
Chapter XIX RELIGION IN COMMUNIST ESCHATOLOGY..............................................................................163

-2-

PART TWO
DOCTRINAL SECTION
"One cannot know the world we live in today without knowing Marxist philosophy. The editors have sought to provide the
essential materials for such knowledge in the most cogent passages they could find in the writings of Marx, Engels and Lenin.
Only through first-hand acquaintance can one understand why this particular philosophy has become a world phenomenon
that is shaping the destinies of a third of mankind and influencing both intellectuals and unlettered people everywhere. It
safely can be said that no other philosophy has ever been studied so assiduously by so many people under such different
circumstances. It is studied in universities, in rice fields, in factory schools, and on sugar plantations. In one land it is an
authoritative creed; in another it is anathematized and persecuted. It arouses passionate loyalty or heated condemnation, but
it is recognized, even by opponents, to be one of the most significant developments in modern thought."
-Selsam and Martel: Reader in Marxist Philosophy (1964)

Survey
In the preceding HISTORICAL SECTION, we have sketched the historical background of the birth and development of
communist eschatology from ancient materialism through current Soviet practice and present plans for the future realization
of communism.
In this present DOCTRINAL SECTION, we shall present the authoritative communist attitude towards the essence and
eschatological development of a number of topics which communists consider to be of paramount importance.
In the next chapter (ch. 7), we shall deal with the classical communist (i.e., the Marxian-Engelsian-Leninistic) attitude to the
essence and eschatology of labor. This will be followed by chapters on their attitude towards the essence and eschatology of
value (ch. 8), property (ch. 9), class (ch. 10), the family (ch. 11), education (ch. 12), morality (ch. 13), law (ch. 14), the state
(ch. 15), nationality (ch. 16), art (ch. 17), science (ch. 18) and religion (ch. 19).
Each chapter will first discuss the classical communist attitude towards the nature of the topic concerned. Secondly, an
account will be given of the classical communist view of the topic during primitive communism (of which "future communism"
is believed to be "a revival, in a higher form"-thus Engels). Thirdly, a short account will be given of the classical communist
view of the alienated condition of the topic between the demise of "primitive communism" and the advent of post-capitalistic
socialism (which alienation future communism must overcome). Fourthly, this will be followed by a detailed discussion of how
the alienation is removed from the topic concerned during post-capitalistic socialism in the transition to future communism,
according to the classical communist view. Fifthly, a detailed description will be given of the state and nature of the topic
concerned under post-socialistic future communism-again according to the classical communist view. Sixthly, this will be
followed by a short account of the attitude of post-Leninislic communists (such as Stalin, Khrushchev and Mao Tse-tung)
towards the eschatological development of the topic concerned, merely in order to see how theoretical Marxism-Leninism has
been or can be applied in practice. And seventhly, a summary is given of the entire Marxist-Leninist doctrine of the
eschatological development of the topic concerned.

-3-

Chapter VII
LABOR IN COMMUNIST ESCHATOLOGY
"But life involves before everything else eating and drinking, an habitation, clothing and many other things. The first
historical act is thus the production of the means to satisfy these needs, the production of material life itself. And indeed this
is an historical act, a fundamental condition of all history, which today, as thousands of years ago, must daily and hourly be
fulfilled merely in order to sustain human life."
-Marx and Engels: The German Ideology (1846)
By work, man becomes himself. Work is the "becoming of self."
-Karl Marx'
Whereas in the last few chapters we have been dealing with the history of communist eschatology, it is appropriate that
this, the next chapter, should deal with the communist doctrine of labor. For the communist, the nexus between history and
labor is very close. As Marx remarked: "For socialist man, the whole social history of the world is nothing other than the
production of man by human labor."2
In this chapter, we shall deal with: first, the communist doctrine of the nature of labor, second, the communist doctrine of
labor under "primitive communism"; third, the communist doctrine of the alienation of labor; fourth, the communist doctrine of
labor under socialism; fifth, the communist belief regarding labor under future communism; sixth, the post-Leninistic
communistic statements on the future of labor. And seventh, we shall give a summary of the development and future destiny
of the communist doctrine of labor.
1.

The Nature of Labor

The doctrine of labor is absolutely basic to an understanding of communist thought in general and communist
eschatology in particular. On the fundamental doctrine of labor rest the closely related communist doctrines of value, class,
and property (which form the subjects of the following chapters), and, indeed, labor is also ultimately determinative of the
communist doctrine of the various societal structures to be dealt with later, such as the family, the nation, the state, etc.
Consequently, it will be necessary in this chapter to lay a rather solid foundation on which the subsequent chapters may be
erected hereafter.
The above considerations practically lead us straight into the necessity of attempting a definition of labor.
The best communist definition of labor is perhaps Marx's statement in his Capital I that "labor is a process going on
between man and nature, a process in which man, through his own activity, initiates, regulates, and controls the material
reactions between himself and nature. He confronts nature as one of her own forces, setting in motion arms and legs, head
and hands, in order to appropriate nature's products in a form suitable to his own wants. By thus acting on the external world
and changing it, he at the same time changes his own nature. He develops the potentialities that slumber within him, and
subjects these inner forces to his own control ... What from the very first distinguishes the most incompetent architect from
the best of bees, is that the architect has built a cell in his head before he constructs it in wax. The labor process ends in the
creation of something which, when the process began, already existed in the worker's imagination, already existed in an ideal
form. What happens is not merely that the worker brings about a change of form in natural objects; at the same time, in the
nature that exists apart from himself, he realizes his own purpose, the purpose which gives the law to his activities, the
purpose to which he has to subordinate his own will."3 And for Engels, labor "is the primary basic condition for all human
existence, and this to such an extent that, in a sense, we have to say that labor created man himself."4
But labor is not just a process. It is also a process which transforms nature. As Marx has pointed out: "Relative to nature
man himself plays the role of a natural power. The forces with which his body is endowed are set in operation by him to
assimilate material things by giving them a form useful for his life."5
Furthermore, labor is preeminently a social process. For all labor is social by nature. "In production," declared Marx,6
"men not only act on nature but also on one another. They produce only by co-operating in a certain way and mutually
exchange their activities. In order to produce. they enter into definite connections and relations with one another and only
within these social connections and relations does their action on nature, their production, take place." Or as he put it in his
Capital: "In a sort of way, it is with man as with commodities. Since he comes into the world neither with a looking glass in his
hand, nor as a Fichtean philosopher, to whom 'I am' is sufficient, man first sees and recognizes himself in other men. Peter
only establishes his own identity as a man by first comparing himself with Paul as being of like kind."7
More important still is the role of labor or production as the basis of the entire social order. For labor determines all social
relationships. Already reference has been made to the Preface of Marx's A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. 8
Engels himself argued more succinctly that "the materialist conception of history starts from the principle that production, and
with production the exchange of its products, is the basis of every social order, that in every society which has appeared in
history the distribution of the products, and with it the division of society into classes or estates, is determined by what is

-4-

produced and how it is produced, and how the product is exchanged. According to this conception, the ultimate causes of all
social changes and political revolutions are to be sought, not in the minds of men, in their increasing insight into eternal truth
and justice, but in changes in the mode of production and exchange; they are to be sought not in the philosophy but in the
economics of the epoch concerned."9 And Marx and Engels jointly stated that "morality, religion, metaphysics, all the rest of
ideology and their corresponding forms of consciousness, thus no longer retain the semblance of independence. They have
no history, no development; but men, developing their material production and their material intercourse, alter, along with this
their real existence, their thinking and the products of their thinking. Life is not determined by consciousness, but
consciousness by life."10
The best description of the nature of labor ever to come from a communist pen, however, is the following passage" from
Joseph Stalin's Dialectical and Historical Materialism, still authoritative everywhere in communist circles:
In order to live, people must have food, clothing, footwear, shelter, fuel, etc.; in order to have these material values,
people must produce them; and in order to produce them, people must have the instruments of production with which food,
clothing, footwear, shelter, fuel, etc., are produced; they must be able to produce those instruments and to use them.
The instruments of production with which material values are produced, the people who operate the instruments of
production and carry on the production of material values thanks to a certain production experience and labor skill-all these
elements jointly constitute the production forces of society.
But the productive forces are only one aspect of production, only one aspect of the mode of production, an aspect that
expresses the relation of men to the objects and forces of nature which they make use of for the production of material
values. Another aspect of the mode of production, is the relation of men to each other in the process of production, men's
relations of production. Men carry on a struggle against nature and utilize nature for the production of material values not in
isolation from each other, not as separate individuals, but in common, in groups, in societies. Production, therefore, is at all
times and under all conditions social production.
Here is a rough picture of the development of productive forces from ancient times to our day. The transition from crude
stone tools to the bow and arrow, and the accompanying transition from the life of hunters to the domestication of animals
and primitive pasturing; the transition from stone tools to metal tools (the iron axe, the wooden plough fitted with an iron
colter, etc.) with a corresponding transition to tilling and agriculture: a further improvement in metal tools for the working up of
materials, the introduction of the blacksmith's bellows, the introduction of pottery, with a corresponding development of
handicrafts, the separation of handicrafts from agriculture, the development of an independent handicraft ni dustry and,
subsequently, of manufacture; the transition from handicraft tools to machines and the transformation of handicraft and
manufacture into machine industry; the transition to the machine system and the rise of modern large-scale machine industrysuch is a general and far from complete picture of the development of the productive forces of society in the course of man's
history. It will be clear that the development and improvement of the instruments of production were effected by men who
were related to production, and not independently of men; and, consequently, the change and development of the institutions
of production were accompanied by a change and development of men, as the most important element of the productive
forces, by a change and development of their production experience, their labor skill, their ability to handle the instruments of
production.
In conformity with the changing and development of the productive forces of society in the course of history, men's
relations of production, their economic relations, also changed and developed.
Five main types of relations of production are known to history: primitive communal, slave, feudal, capitalist and socialist.
Labor, then, is that all-predeterminative socio-economic activity whereby man opposes himself to nature and produces
things.
2.

"Primitive Communist" Labor

As post-capitalistic socialistic and communistic labor will, according to Engels,12 "be a revival, in higher form" of labor
under primitive communism, it will be well to give an account of the latter before proceeding further.
It was labor that originally separated man forever from the animals. To Marx, "the use and fabrication of instruments of
labor, although existing in germ among certain species of animals, is especially characteristic of the human labor process,
and [Benjamin] Franklin therefore defines man as 'a tool-making animal.' "13
Perhaps the fullest statement in this regard is that given by Marx in his Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts: "The
animal is immediately identical with its life-activity. It does not distinguish itself from it. It is its life-activity. Man makes his lifeactivity itself the object of his will and of his consciousness. He has conscious life-activity...
"Animals also produce. They build themselves nests, dwellings, like the bees, beavers, ants, etc. But an animal only
produces what it immediately needs for itself or its young. It produces one-sidedly, while man produces universally. It

-5-

produces only under the dominion of immediate physical need, whilst man produces even when he is free from physical need
and only truly produces in freedom therefrom. An animal produces only itself, while man reproduces the whole of nature. An
animal's product belongs immediately to its physical body, whilst man freely confronts his product. An animal forms things in
accordance with the standard and the need of the species to which it belongs, whilst man knows how to produce in
accordance with the standard of every species, and knows how to apply everywhere the inherent standard to the object. Man
therefore also forms things in accordance with the laws of beauty."14
To Marx then, man is a "tool-making animal."13 To Engels, in his The Part Played by Labor in the Transition from Ape to
Man, "no simian (or ape-like) hand ever fashioned even the crudest of stone knives."15 And to Lenin, "the herd of apes which
grasped sticks"16 became the first men and the first laborers. Man is, then, a creature who grasps sticks as his primitive
implements, who makes stone knives, and who is, in short, a "tool-making animal.13
If tools were the first things made by primitive man the laborer, their use (upon part of man's environment) in its turn
brought about the further evolution of man's hand. to "perform hundreds of operations that no monkey's hand can imitate,"
held Engels.15 And tools, once manufactured, enabled man to advance technologically by making fish-hooks and arrows
and agricultural implements and housing and dwellings for his domesticated animals."15 Particularly man's discovery of fire
was important, for it led to man's development of cooking-utensils and metal-smelting so that fire "separates him forever from
the animal world," as Engels pointed out. 17 Man now became a producer, and, as Marx and Engels have demonstrated, men
"begin to differentiate themselves from animals as soon as they begin to produce their means of subsistence," when
"production first makes its appearance with the increase of population," and which increase "presupposes intercourse of
individuals among themselves."18
Man is self-created by his own labor, held Marx,19 and Marxism "seeks the ultimate cause of the great moving power of
all important historic events in the economic development of society, in the changes in the modes of production and
exchange, in the consequent division of society into distinct classes, and in the struggles of these classes against one
another," held Engels,20 so that it is the mode of production in material life which determines the social, political, and
intellectual life processes in general-thus Marx.21
But labor is never individual. It is and was and always will be social. This is the crux of both the primitive communist and
the eschatological communist doctrine of labor. "The individual and isolated hunter or fisher who forms the starting-point with
[George Adam] Smith and [David] Ricardo belongs to the inspired illusions of the eighteenth century," declared Marx. 22 Hence
the individuals "Adam" and "Robinson Crusoe" are illusions, asserted Marx23 'anti-Crusoe-istically.'24 And as Marx himself
mentioned, "My own existence is a social activity. For this reason, what I myself produce, I produce for society and with the
consciousness of activity as a social being."25
Labor in primitive communism, then, is undifferentiated and equal and social labor-the labor of an undifferentiated
communal "herd of apes which grasp sticks"16 as the first undifferentiated tools or means of labor. All men did all kinds of
work. And so held Marx, "originally there was less distinction between a porter and a philosopher than between a sleigh-dog
and a greyhound.25a
3.

Alienated Labor

Our next task is to look at the alienated labor which followed the dissolution of primitive communism-in order to see how
alienated labor differs from original labor under primitive communism, and how it needs to be corrected and eschatologically
re-communized under post-capitalistic socialism and communism.
The first alien step away from primitive communistic labor occurred with the advent of a progressive division of labor.
"The starting point of individuals," wrote Marx and Engels,26 "was always themselves, but of course themselves as they
were in their given historical conditions and relationships, not 'pure' individuals in the sense of the ideologists. But in the
course of historical development, and precisely as a result of the assumption of independence by social relationships, which
is (he inevitable outcome of the division of labor, there emerges a distinction between the personal life of the individual and
his life as it is determined by some branch of labor and the conditions pertaining to it."
Now this "division of labor," held Marx and Engels in their German Ideology,26a was "originally nothing else than the
division of labor in the sex(ual) act-or, as Engels re-iterated in his The Origin of the Family, Private Properly and the Slate of
1884: "The first division of labor is that between man and woman for child breeding." 27 Consequently, argued Eugels, even in
later barbarism or the period of primitive slavery, the "division of labor was a pure and simple outgrowth of nature; it existed
only between the sexes." 28
Soon, however, this division of labor in the sex act between man and woman led to "a natural division of labor within the
family cultivating the soil," wrote Engels in his Anti-Dhring,29 and this again led to another "division of labor which took place
of itself or 'naturally' as a result of natural aptitudes, e.g., bodily strength, needs, coincidence, etc. etc.," wrote Marx and
Engels in their German Ideology.30
Before very much longer, continued Engels in his Anti-Dhring," "the natural division of labor within the family cultivating
the soil made possible, at a certain level of well-being, the introduction of one or more strangers, as additional [labor] forces,"
especially after the production of man's first surplus,31a so that the division of labor henceforth developed no longer on a
merely natural basis, but also and even rather on a professional basis, the labor now being divided between various
professions and crafts,32 which professional "division of labor is a necessary division for the production of commodities," held

-6-

Marx in his Capital.33


The family economic unit (including "one or more strangers as additional [labor] forces"22) soon led to slavery. Indeed, as
Marx and Engels pointed out in their German Ideology,34 "wife and children are the slaves of the husband," so that the germ
of slavery is already to be found in the family itself.35
This in time soon led to the division of labor within the nation. Wrote Marx and Engels: "The division of labor inside a
nation leads at first to the separation of industrial and commercial from agricultural labor, and hence to the separation of town
and country and a clash of interests between them. Its further development leads to the separation of commercial from
industrial labor. At the same time, through the division of labor there develop further, inside these various branches, various
divisions among the individuals co-operating in definite kinds of labor. The relative position of these individual groups is
determined by the methods employed in agriculture, industry and commerce (patriarchalism, slavery, estates, classes).
These same conditions are to be seen (given a more developed intercourse) in the relations of different nations to one
another."36
"It was slavery [-the separation of the craftsman from the ownership of his own handwork and his subjugation to the
owner thereof who exploits the craftsman to make it for him-] that first made possible the division of labor between agriculture
and industry on a considerable scale," wrote Engels.:36a For it was only when man achieved "his first economic advance"
which "consisted in the increase and development of production by means of slave labor," that "the peoples made progress
themselves,"37 slavery creating an "immense increase of productive forces" which enabled power-wielders to arrange
employment for everyone and to enable the rich to have sufficient leisure to further the arts and the sciences and thereby
promote the development of society as a whole.38 But as regards the laborer, whether under slavery or under the subsequent
feudal or capitalistic stages of alienation, he has only his labor power to sell, which, held Marx, is either "purchased by buying
the laborer himself, as it is under the slave system, or where the laborer himself sells his labor-power, so that the production
process also appears as a process by which capital consumes his labor ... Exploitation, the appropriation of the unpaid labor
of others, has quite as often been represented as the reward justly due to the owner of capital for his work." 39
In the next social stage, that of feudal society, slave labor was replaced by serf labor, which existed in Russia right down
to 1860.
"Feudal production," declared Marx, "to be judged properly, must be considered as a mode of production founded on
antagonism. It must show how wealth was produced within this antagonism, how the productive forces were developed at the
same time as class antagonism, how one of the classes, the bad side, the drawback of society, went on growing until the
material conditions for its emancipation had attained full maturity. Is not this as good as saying that the mode of production,
the relations in which productive forces are developed, are anything but eternal laws, but that they correspond to a definite
development of men and of their productive forces, and that a change in men's productive forces necessarily brings about a
change in their production relations? As it is a matter of principal concern not to be deprived of the fruits of civilization, of the
acquired productive forces, the traditional forms in which they were produced must be smashed. From this moment the
revolutionary class becomes conservative."40
The next stage in the development of the communist doctrine of labor is that of capitalist or bourgeois labor.
Here, Marx continued, "the bourgeoisie begins as a proletariat which is itself a relic of the proletariat of feudal times. In
the course of its historical development, the bourgeoisie necessarily develops its antagonistic character, which at first is more
or less disguised, existing only in a latent state. As the bourgeoisie develops, there develops in its bosom a new proletariat, a
modern proletariat: there develops a struggle between the proletarian class and the bourgeois class, a struggle which, before
being felt, perceived, appreciated, understood, avowed and proclaimed aloud by the two sides, expresses itself, to start with,
merely in partial and momentary conflicts, in subversive acts. On the other hand, if all the members of the modern
bourgeoisie have the same interests in so far as they form a class as against another class, they have opposite, antagonistic
interests inasmuch as they stand face to face with one another. This opposition of interests results from the economic
conditions of their bourgeois life. From day to day it thus becomes clear that the production relations in which the bourgeoisie
moves have not a simple uniform character, but a dual character; that in the self-same relations in which wealth is produced,
misery is produced also; that in the self-same relations in which there is a development of the productive forces, there is also
a driving force of repression; that these relations produce bourgeois wealth, i.e., the wealth of the bourgeois class, only by
continually annihilating the wealth of individual members of this class and by producing an ever-growing proletariat."40
Thus was serf labor replaced by the labor of the proletariat-the alienated and impoverished laborers who ultimately
possess nothing but their labor-value and who have nothing to lose but their chains.41
"Even the division of labor in society at large entails some crippling both of mind and body," held Marx,42 but under the
high degree of specialization operating under capitalism, there emerged the "detail workers" who, for example, "do not make
a watch but only one part of a watch"-the "worker who carries out one and the same simple operation for a lifetime, [and thus]
converts his whole body into the automatic specialized instrument of that operation," requiring the "technical subordination of
the worker to the uniform working of the instrument of labor."43
For "the division of labor robs and decreases the ability of each person taken individually."44 And this, maintained Marx,
results in "the roughest expression of the subjugation of the individual through the division of labor, through a decisive activity
thrust upon him-a subjugation which reduces the one to a narrow-minded urban animal, and the other to a narrow-minded
rural animal, and which causes the clash of interests between them to gain momentum daily," 45 so that, as Engels stated,46 "in
the division of labor, man himself is divided."

-7-

Hence, believed Marx, proletarian labor is in conflict with "the integral development of the individual."41 Capitalism
transforms the wage-laborer "into a simple, monotonous means of production who need not use his bodily or spiritual abilities
intensively," 46 thereby reducing him to "a mere machine who produces foreign riches, broken in body and beastialized in
spirit."49
Under such working conditions, it is not surprising that labor becomes joyless. The laborer "works purely to exist," and
"his life [only] commences where this labor ceases-when eating, at the inn, in bed."50 Capitalism "transforms the worker into a
cripple, a monster, by forcing him to develop such highly specialized dexterity at the cost of a world of productive impulses
and faculties."51 "Human alienation, private property, and the division of labor are all aspects of the same detestable condition
of man in capitalist society."52 For the exploitation of labor under capitalism resembles "that hideous pagan idol, who would
not drink the nectar but from the skulls of the slain."53
"The worker puts his life into the object; but now his life no longer belongs to him, but to the object."54 "Even the need for
fresh air ceases for the worker. Man returns to living in a cave, which is now, however, contaminated with the mephitic breath
of plague given off by civilization, and which he continues to occupy only precariously, it being for him an alien habitation
which can be withdrawn from him any day-a place from which, if he does not pay, he can be thrown out any day."55
The division of labor has therefore divorced the individual from society, man from woman, owner from laborer, nation
from nation, town from country, mind from body, work from joy. Even the laborer's very air is threatened, as he devolves more
and more to the level of the beast. Only one remedy remains open to him-the collective organization of the proletarians into
strong labor unions under overt or covert Communist Party leadership, which facilitates the synchronized engineering of a
gigantic co-ordinated general labor strike, and which successfully brings about a violent revolution against the capitalists, and
the expropriation of the expropriators.
"What has now to be expropriated," wrote Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto, "is no longer the laborer working
on his account, but the capitalist who exploits many laborers.
"This expropriation is brought about by the operation of the immanent laws of capitalist production, by the centralization of
capital. One capitalist lays a number of his fellow capitalists low. Hand-in-hand with such centralization, concomitantly with
the expropriation of many capitalists by a few, the co-operative form of the labor process develops to an ever-increasing
degree; therewith we find a growing tendency towards the purposive application of science to the improvement of technique;
the land is more methodically cultivated; the instruments of labor tend to assume forms which are only utilizable by combined
effort; the means of production are economized through being turned to account only by joint, by social labor. All the peoples
of the world are enmeshed in the net of the world market, and therefore the capitalist regime tends more and more to assume
an international character. While there is thus a progressive diminution in the number of the capitalist magnates (who usurp
and monopolize all the advantages of this transformative process), there occurs a corresponding increase in the mass of
poverty, oppression, enslavement, degeneration, and exploitation; but at the same time there is a steady intensification of the
wrath of the working class-a class which grows ever more numerous, and is disciplined, unified, and organized by the very
mechanism of the capitalist method of production. Capitalist monopoly becomes a fetter upon the method of production which
has flourished with it and under it. The centralization of the means of production and the socialization of labor reach a point
where they prove incompatible with their capitalist husk. This bursts asunder. The knell of capitalist private property sounds.
The expropriators are expropriated."56
And with the expropriation of the exploiters, labor enters the era of post-capitalistic socialism.
4.

Socialist Labor

Even though socialism represents a new period of human endeavor, it does, though at a higher level, preserve the
positive labor gains made by humanity under capitalism. For under socialism, wrote Marx,57 "the expropriators shall
themselves be expropriated on the basis of the attainments achieved during the capitalist era, namely, the co-operation of
independent workingmen and the common ownership in land and in the means of production acquired by their labor."
Indeed, Marx had already pointed out in the Preface to his A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy that "a
social system never perishes before all the productive forces have developed for which it is wide enough; and new, higher
productive relationships never come into being before the material conditions for their existence have been brought to
maturity within the womb of the old society. Therefore, mankind always sets itself only such problems as it can solve; for
when we look closer we will always find that the problem itself only arises when the material conditions for its solution are
already present or at least in process of coming into being."58 And eight years later in his Capital he declared: "Large-scale
industry, indeed, compels society, under penalty of death, to replace the miserable reserve army of labor which capital keeps
at its disposal for its varying needs in the way of exploitation, by the complete adaptability of individuals to the changing
demands for different kinds of work. In this way, the detail-worker of today, the limited individual, the mere bearer of a
particular social function, will be replaced by the fully developed individual, for whom the different social functions he
performs are but so many alternative modes of activity."59
Marx was frankly very realistic about the severe limitations of socialism (as opposed to full communism, which he
believed would inevitably follow it). Even his most eschatological writing, his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program, exhibits
great sobriety when dealing with this initial period of socialism (which, however, he called "[the first phase of] communist
society," inasmuch as it bears only the embryo of full communism, just as capitalist society did of socialism. Wrote Marx, in a

-8-

rather lengthy though vitally important passage:


What we have to deal with here is a communist [read: "socialist"-N.L.] society, not as it has developed on its own
foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically,
morally and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the
individual producer receives back from society-after the deductions have been made-exactly what he contributes to it. What
he has contributed to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the
individual hours of work, the individual labor-time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by
him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such and such an amount of labor (after
deducting his labor for the common funds), and with this certificate he draws from the social stock of means of consumption
as much as costs the same amount of labor. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form he
receives back in another.
Here obviously the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is
exchange of equal values. Content and form are changed, because under the altered conditions no one can give anything
except his labor, and because on the other hand, nothing can pass into the ownership of individuals except individual means
of consumption. But, as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual producers is concerned, the same principle
prevails as in the exchange of commodity-equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount
of labor in another form.
Hence, equal right here is still in principle-bourgeois right, although principle and practice are no longer at loggerheads,
whereas the exchange of equivalents in commodity exchange only exists on the average and not in the individual case.
In spite of this advance, equal right is still burdened with bourgeois limitations. The right of the producers is proportional
to the labor they supply; the equality consists in the fact that measurement is made with an equal standard, labor.
But one man is superior to another physically or mentally and so supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a
longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a
standard or measurement. The equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because
everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus natural
privileges in respect of productive capacity. It is, therefore, in its content, a right of inequality, like every right. Right by its very
nature can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different
individuals if they were not unequal) can only be assessed by an equal standard in so far as they are regarded from a single
aspect, from one particular side only, as for instance, in the present case, they are regarded only as workers, and nothing
more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another not; one has more children than
another, and so on. Thus with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal share in the social consumption fund, one
individual will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right
instead of being equal would have to be unequal.
But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged
birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural
development conditioned thereby."60
And Lenin, commenting on the above passage right before the successful 1917 Red Revolution in Russia, wrote: "Hence
the first phase of communism cannot yet produce justice and equality: differences, and unjust differences, in wealth will still
exist, but the exploitation of man by man will have become impossible, because it will be impossible to seize the means of
production, the factories, machines, land, etc., as private property ... The socialist principle: 'He who does not work, neither
shall he eat,' is already realized; the other socialist principle: 'An equal amount of products for an equal amount of labor,' is
also already realized. But this is not yet communism.61
Marx and Lenin thus well realized that the development of communism would take a very long time. But they also
realized that it would be decades after the proletarian revolution even before pure socialism was reached. As Lenin wrote in
his Report on the Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government in March 1918: "Even the more developed generation of the
immediate future will hardly achieve the complete transition to socialism."62 And again, in his 1920 From the Destruction Of
the Old System to the Creation of tile New: "It will take many years, decades, to create a new labor discipline, new forms of
social ties between people, and new forms and methods of drawing people into labor."63
Meantime, the bridge between capitalism and pure socialism is to be built by the immediately post-revolutionary
dictatorship of the proletariat.
Under the dictatorship of the proletariat, all forms of labor are rigidly and centrally organized. Karl Marx had already
prophesied that under socialism: "Instead of a division of labor, necessarily ending in the exchange of exchange-value, we
would have an organization of labor, which results in the participation of the individual in communal consumption."64 And
Lenin insisted right before the 1917 Russian Revolution: "Until the 'higher' phase of communism arrives, the socialists

-9-

demand the strictest control, by society and by the stale, of the amount of labor and the amount of consumption; but this
control just starts with the expropriation of the capitalists, and must be carried out, not by a state of bureaucrats, but by a
state of armed workers.65
This dictatorship of the proletariat with its rigid control of labor prepares the way for the passage to socialist and then to
communist labor in various ways.
Firstly, the dictatorship of the proletariat will prohibit certain persons from performing certain categories of labor. Already
in their Manifesto of the Communist Party of 1848, Marx and Engels had announced their intention of engineering the
"abolition of children's factory labor in its present form,"66 and six months before the Red Revolution of 1917 Lenin made
provision in the 1917 Program of the Russian Communist Party for the "prohibition of the employment of children of age
(under sixteen), restriction of the working day of adolescents (from sixteen to twenty) to four hours, and prohibition of the
employment of adolescents on night-work in unhealthy industries and mines" and the "prohibition of female labor in all
branches of industry injurious to women's health; prohibition of night work for women; women to be released from work eight
weeks before and eight weeks after childbirth without loss of pay and with free medical and medicinal aid."67
Secondly, wherever possible and practical, corrective labor is to be prescribed for the previously unproductive classes in
an attempt to make them socio-economically useful. As Lenin remarked right after the 1917 Red Revolution, not a single
rogue (including those who shirk their work) [is] to be allowed to be at liberty, but kept in prison, or serve his sentence of
compulsory labor of the hardest kind; not a single rich man who violates (he laws and regulations of socialism [is] to be
allowed to escape the fate of the rogue, which shall, in justice, be the fate of the rich man.
"Variety is a guarantee of effectiveness here, a pledge of success in achieving the single common aim-to clean the land
of Russia of all vermin, of fleas-the rogues, of bugs-the rich, and so on and so forth. In one place half a score of rich, a dozen
rogues, half a dozen workers who shirk their work ... will be put in prison. In another place they will be put to cleaning latrines.
In a third place they will be provided with 'yellow tickets' after they have served their time, so that everyone shall keep an eye
on them, as harmful persons, until they reform." 68
"Thirdly, however, the dictatorship eliminates all brands of anti-socialist labor and all those who refuse to labor, and all
those who have in part been living off the labor of others. If before the dictatorship of the proletariat the capitalistic human
drones have been killing off the worker-bees, as Marx maintained,69 during the dictatorship of the proletariat the position is
now reversed. The expropriators are expropriated;56 and the remnants of petty bourgeois capitalists 70 and the owners of all
confiscated landed estates71 (including the royal entourage and the clergy)72 and persons such as company directors are all
either liquidated or (if possible) re-educated into more socially useful brands of labor. As Lenin remarked: "One must, firstly,
overthrow the landlords and capitalists [and] one must, secondly, abolish the difference between workingman and peasant,
one must make them all workers."73
Apart from this, however, the obligation of all to labor in socialist society is complete. Already in the Manifesto of the
Communist Party, Marx and Engels had come out in favor of "equal liability of all to labor" as one of their eschatological
aims.74 Immediately before the revolution, Lenin had laid down the socialist motto: "He who does not work, neither shall he
eat."61 And immediately after the revolution (on December 14, 1917), he proclaimed that "universal labor conscription is
introduced [throughout Russia]. All citizens of both sexes between the ages of sixteen and forty-five shall be obliged to
perform work assigned to them by the local Soviet of Workers' and Peasants' Deputies, or by other bodies of Soviet power." 75
Whereas still later he declared: "We shall pay the economists, statisticians, technicians, good money, but-we shall not give
them anything to eat unless they carry out this work honestly and entirely in the interests of the workers." 76
And still later Stalin had Lenin's famous motto ("He who does not work, neither shall he eat")"' incorporated into the 1936
Constitution of the Soviet Union.77
However, the dictatorship of the proletariat is not purely negative in its coercion. It also has positive ways of promoting
socialist labor.
For (fourthly,) the dictatorship of the proletariat promotes the propagation of social labor by means of proletarian labor
exchanges. As Lenin wrote just before the Revolution in his Materials Relating to the Revision of the Bolshevik Program:
"Labor exchanges [are] to be established for the proper organization of work-finding facilities. These labor exchanges must
be proletarian class organizations (organized on a non-party basis), and must be closely associated with the trade unions and
the other working-class organizations and financed by the communal self-governing bodies."78 And as he wrote on the very
day of the seizure of power: "The new workers' and peasants' government will institute workers' control over the
production and distribution of goods ... The Soviet expresses the conviction that the urban workers, in alliance with the poor
peasants, will display strict comradely discipline and establish the strictest revolutionary order, which is essential for the
victory of socialism."79
Fifthly, it is the labor goal under the dictatorship of the proletariat to promote competition even between one socialist and
another and between one socialistic co-operative and another. Argued Lenin right after the Revolution: "It is on these points
[viz.: suppression of the rich and the idle, feeding and housing the poor, etc.] that competition should develop between the
communes [= the early, radical co-operatives N.L.]... This is the work in which talented organizers should come to the fore in
practice and be promoted to work in state administration.80
Sixthly, and most importantly-and arising out of the previous point-socialist dictatorship of the proletariat promotes "socialism" by encouraging (socio-economically) co-operative labor. Marx had previously welcomed the advent of the co-operative
labor movement even under the capitalist economy: "The co-operative factories of the laborers themselves represent within

-10-

the old form the first sprouts of the new, although they naturally reproduce, and must reproduce, everywhere in their actual
organization all the shortcomings of the prevailing system. But the antithesis between capital and labor is overcome within
them, if at first only by way of making the associated laborers into their own capitalist, i.e., by enabling them to use the means
of production for the employment of their own labor. They show how a new mode of production naturally grows out of an old
one, when the development of the material forces of production and of the corresponding forms of social production have
reached a particular stage. Without the factory system arising out of the capitalist mode of production there could have been
no co-operative factories. Nor could these have developed without the credit system arising out of the same mode of
production. The credit system is not only the principal basis for the gradual transformation of capitalist private enterprise into
capitalist stock companies, but equally offers the means for the gradual extension of co-operative enterprises on a more or
less national scale. The capitalist stock companies, as much as the co-operative factories, should be considered as
transitional forms from the capitalist mode of production to the associated one [i.e., the socialist one-N.L.], with the only
distinction that the antagonism is resolved negatively in the one and positively in the other."81
And almost at the end of his public career, on June 6, 1923, Lenin again emphasized the importance of co-operative
labor enterprises in Russia even under the N.E.P. "By adopting the N.E.P.," he wrote, "we made a concession to the peasant
as a trader, to the principle of private trade; it is precisely for this reason (contrary to what some people think) that the cooperative movement is of such immense importance. In substance, all that we need under N.E.P. is to organize the
population of Russia in co-operative societies on a sufficiently large scale, for now we have found that degree of combination
of private interest, private commercial interest, with state supervision and control of this interest, that degree of its
subordination to the common interests which was formerly the stumbling-block for very many socialists.
"It is this very circumstance that many of our practical workers underrate. They look down upon our co-operative societies
and do not appreciate their exceptional importance, first, from the standpoint of principle (the means of production are. owned
by the state) and, second, from the standpoint of transition to the new order by means that are the simplest, easiest and most
acceptable for the peasant...
"Under [socialistic] state capitalism, co-operative enterprises [e.g., 'kolkhozes' or collective farms] differ from state
capitalist enterprises [e.g., 'sovkhozes' or state farms], firstly, in that they are private enterprises and, secondly, in that they
are collective enterprises. Under our present system, co-operative enterprises differ from private enterprises because they
are collective enterprises, but do not differ from socialist enterprises if the land on which they are situated and the means of
production belong to the state, i.e., the working class."82
Hence, he concluded, "our co-operative movement has become one of great significance. There is a lot of fantasy in the
dreams of the old [utopian socialistic] co-operators. Often they are ridiculously fantastic ... We have [now] overthrown the rule
of the exploiters, and much that was fantastic, even romantic, even banal in the dreams of the old co-operators, is now
becoming unvarnished reality.
"Why were the plans of the old co-operators, from Robert Owen onwards, fantastic? Because they dreamed of peacefully
remodelling contemporary society into socialism without taking account of such fundamental questions as the class struggle,
the capture of political power by the working class, the overthrow of the rule of the exploiting class. That is why we are right in
regarding as entirely fantastic this 'co-operative' socialism, and as romantic, and even banal, the dream of transforming class
enemies into class collaborators and class war into class peace (so-called class truce) by merely organizing the population in
co-operative societies. 83
Seventhly, there is the above-mentioned N.E.P. itself, the whole purpose of which was to lay the technical and material
basis necessary for the growth of socialist society. At this important juncture our quotations will have to be quite copious, in
order to thoroughly grasp the socio-economic motiviations for introducing the N.E.P. during the last two years of Lenin's
regime.
Already in 1918 under the initial socialist period of "Workers' Control," Lenin had insisted in his The Immediate Tasks of
the Soviet Government: "Without the guidance of experts in the various fields of knowledge, technology and experience, the
transition to socialism will be impossible, because socialism calls for a conscious mass advance to greater productivity of
labor compared with capitalism ... To conceal from the people the fact that the enlistment of bourgeois experts by means of
extremely high salaries is a retreat from the principles of the Paris Commune would be sinking to the level of bourgeois
politicians and deceiving people. Frankly explaining how and why we took this step backward, and then publicly discussing
what means are available for making up for lost time, means educating the people and learning from experience, learning
together with the people how to build socialism. There is hardly a single victorious military campaign in history in which the
victor did not commit certain mistakes, suffer reverses, temporarily yield something and in some places retreat."84
And in his 'Left-Wing' Childishness and the Petty Bourgeois Mentality, Lenin added that "socialism is inconceivable
without large-scale capitalist engineering based on the latest discoveries of modern science."85
During the subsequent socialist period of "War Communism," Lenin had called for a "streamlining of distribution."86 And
later, under the next socialist period of the "N.E.P.," Lenin called for the institution of "state capitalism" in order to bolster up
the national economy and prepare the way for the advent of socialism.
"Socialism," he declared in his 1921 The Tax in Kind, "is inconceivable without large-scale capitalist engineering based
on the latest discoveries of modern science. It is inconceivable without planned state organization which keeps tens of
millions of people to the strictest observance of a unified standard in production and distribution ... So cialism is merely the
next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly ... State-monopoly capitalism [under the initial implementation of socialism]

-11-

is a complete material preparation for [the achievement of actual] socialism, the threshold of socialism, a rung on the ladder
of history between which and the rung called socialism there are no intermediate rungs ... We must use the method of
compromise, or of buying out the cultured capitalists who agree to 'state capitalism,' who are capable of putting it into practice
and who are useful to the proletariat as intelligent and experienced organizers of the largest types of enterprises, which
actually supply products to tens of millions of people. Isn't it paradoxical that private capital should be helping socialism? Not
at all. It is indeed, an irrefutable economic fact. Since this is a small-peasant country with transport in an extreme state of
dislocation, a country emerging from war and blockade under the political guidance of the proletariat-which controls the
transport system and large-scale industry-it inevitably follows, first, that at the present moment local exchange acquires firstclass significance, and second, that there is a possibility of assisting socialism by means of private capitalism (not to speak of
state capitalism)." 87
And after giving instruction regarding the implementation of the N.E.P. in his Instructions of the Council of Labor and
Defense to Local Soviet Bodies, his Encouragement of Enterprise in Commodity Exchange, and in' Economic Development
in General, his Methods and Results of Combatting Bureaucratic Practices and Red Tape, his instructions regarding the
Revival of Industry (including Small, Handicraft, Domestic, etc. Industries), and his Ideas About a State Economic 'Plan-right
before the end of his public career in 1923 Lenin, in his Pages from a Diary, advised against the position "that we should
immediately propagate purely and strictly communist ideas in the countryside. [For] as long as our countryside lacks the
material basis for communism, it will be, I should say, harmful, in fact, I should say fatal, for communists to do so."88 And in
his very last written article, his Better Fewer, But Better, he admitted that Russian communists then "lack[ed] enough
civilization to enable us to pass straight on to socialism, although we have the political requisites for it."89
The advance toward socialist labor proper, however, is to be characterized especially by a saving of labor-time, an overall
increase in the productivity of labor, the complete centralization of production, the development of the all-round laborer, and
the increased comfort of general labor conditions.
Firstly, true socialist labor is economical labor-labor which does not waste labor-time. "The shortening of the workingday," wrote Marx,90 is the "basic prerequisite" for the advent of pure communism, and therefore also of true socialism as the
immediate predecessor thereof. And Lenin, in his 1914 The Teachings of Karl Marx, argued that the dictatorship of the
proletariat or the "'expropriation of the expropriators' ... will result directly in an immense increase in the productivity of labor,
a reduction of working hours."91
And right before the 1917 Revolution, Lenin campaigned for: "1) An eight-hour working day for all wage-workers,
including a break of not less than one hour for meals where work is continuous. In dangerous and unhealthy industries the
working-day to be reduced from fourteen to six hours. 2) A statutory weekly uninterrupted rest period of not less than fortytwo hours for all wage-earners of both sexes in all branches of the national economy. 3) Complete prohibition of overtime
work. 4) Prohibition of night work (from 8 p.m. to 6 a.m.) in all branches of the national economy except in cases where it is
absolutely necessary for technical reasons endorsed by labor organizations-provided, however, that night-work does not
exceed four hours. 5) Prohibition of the employment of children of age (under sixteen), restriction of the working day of
adolescents (from sixteen to twenty) to four hours, and prohibition of the employment of adolescents on night-work in
unhealthy industries and mines. 6)Prohibition of female labor in all branches of industry injurious to women's health;
prohibition of night work for women; women to be released from work eight weeks before and eight weeks after childbirth
without loss of pay and with free medical and medicinal aid. 7) Establishment of nurseries for infants and young children and
rooms for nursing mothers at all factories and other enterprises where women are employed; nursing mothers to be allowed
recesses of at least half-hour duration at intervals of not more than three hours; such mothers to receive nursing benefits and
their working day to be reduced to six hours."92
And right after the Revolution, on November 11, 1917, Lenin issued his Decree on the Eight-hour Working Day, even
though he found it necessary by the next March "to ensure that every toiler, having finished his eight hours 'task' in productive
labor, shall perform state duties without pay to ... guarantee the final consolidation of socialism."93
So then, as modern Soviet philosophers point out, as Marx had shown, the struggle for high productivity of labor can in
the last analysis be reduced to the saving of labor-time-both labor-time directly expended and that embodied in the material
elements of production.94
Secondly, true socialist labor is characterized by a large increase in the productivity of labor, and will, held Lenin in 1914,
result in "the replacement of the remnants, the ruins of small-scale primitive, disunited production, by collective and improved
labor. Capitalism finally snaps the bond between agriculture and industry; but at the same time, in its highest development, it
prepares new elements of this bond, of a union between industry and agriculture based on the conscious application of
science and the combination of collective labor, and on a redistribution of the human population (putting an end at one and
the same time to the rural remoteness, isolation and barbarism, and to the unnatural concentration of vast masses of people
in big cities)."95 "I say," he repeated four months after the Revolution, "that communism presupposes a productivity of labor
that we do not have at present."96
Thirdly, true socialist labor is labor in which production has been completely centralized. Two of the aims of the Manifesto
of the Communist Party of Marx and Engels were: "Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national
bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly," and "Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the
hands of the state."97 And Marx repeated in no uncertain terms some two decades later that: "Agriculture, forestry, industry, in
one word, all branches of production, will gradually be organized in the most profitable manner. The natural centralization of

-12-

the means of production will become the natural basis of a society composed of associations of free and equalized producers
consciously working according to a common and rational plan. That is the goal towards which the great economic movement
of the nineteenth century is striving."98
But fourthly, the development of the all-round laborer (by means of polytechnical education-to be dealt with later
below) 148~ is also one of the marks of socialist labor. For according to Lenin, only socialism makes provision for "actually
drawing the majority of toilers into an arena of such labor in which they can display their abilities, develop their capacities,
reveal their talents, of which there is an untapped spring among the people, and which capitalism crushed, suppressed and
strangled in thousands and millions."99
And fifthly, socialist labor always makes for comfortable working conditions. Marx's 1880 Enqute Ouvrire sought to
improve "the sanitary conditions in the workshop; size of rooms, space assigned to each worker; ventilation, temperature,
whitewashing of the walls, lavatories, general cleanliness," etc., including illumination, workmen's compensation, and medical
services.100
And right before the Revolution, Lenin advocated: "Full social insurance of workers: for all forms of wage-labor; for all
forms of disablement, namely sickness, injury, infirmity, old age, occupational disease, childbirth, widowhood, orphanhood,
and also unemployment, etc; all insurance institutions to be administered entirely by the insured themselves; the cost of
insurance to be borne by the capitalists; free medical and medicinal aid under the control of self-governing sick benefit
societies, the management bodies of which are to be elected by the workers; the establishment of a labor inspectorate
elected by the workers' organizations and covering all enterprises employing hired labor, as well as domestic servants;
women inspectors to be appointed in enterprises where female labor is employed; sanitary laws to be created for improving
hygenic conditions and protecting the life and health of workers in all enterprises where hired labor is employed; questions of
hygiene to be handled by the sanitary inspectorate elected by the workers' organizations. "101
5.

Labor under Future Communism

True communism develops from pure socialism, though that development is believed to be almost imperceptible. As
modern Soviet philosophers maintain: "The gradual development of socialism into communism is an objective law-governed
process of social development. Socialism and communism are not two different social formations but only two phases of one
and the same formation, which differ from each other only in degree of maturity."102 And as Engels stated: "Since the
emergence in history of the capitalist mode of production, the taking over of all means of production by society has often
been dreamed of by individuals as well as by whole sects, more or less vaguely and as an ideal of the future. But it could only
become possible, it could only become a historical necessity, when the material conditions for its realization had come into
existence." 103
"It should, of course," hold modern communist philosophers, "be borne in mind that the victory of communism does not
mean a halt in historical development: communist society will change and improve continuously. It is impossible therefore to
predict precisely what it will be like after a number of centuries, and still less after thousands of years. But to the question
what communism will look like to many of our contemporaries, what the communist system will be like in the first stages of its
development-to this question a quite definite answer can already be given. It is given by Marxist-Leninist theory."104
What, then, is the "Marxist-Leninist theory" of labor in communist society? Perhaps the fullest statement is that given by
Lenin after the Russian Revolution in his description of the "subbotniks"-unpaid socialist workers who render voluntary work
just for the joy of being able to make a contribution towards the construction of communist society.
In his 1919 Speed, Delivered at the First Congress of Agricultural Communes and Agricultural Artels, Lenin stated: "I
would refer to what in our cities has been called subbotniks. This is the name given to the several hours' unpaid voluntary
work done by city workers over and above the usual working day ... Nothing helped so much to enhance the prestige of the
Communist Party in the towns, to increase the respect of non-party workers for the Communists, as these subbotniks when
they ceased to be isolated instances and when non-party workers saw in practice that the members of the governing
Communist Party have obligations and duties and that the Communists admit new members to the Party not in order that
they may enjoy the advantages connected with the position of a governing party, but that they may set an example of real
communist labor, i.e., labor performed gratis. Communism is the highest stage in the development of socialism, when people
work because they realize the necessity of working for the common good. We know that we cannot establish a socialist [i.e.,
a pure communist-N.L.] order now-God grant that it may be established in our country in our children's time, or perhaps in our
grandchildren's time." 105
Just after that, in his Report on the Subbotniks, Lenin added: "The 'communist' begins when subbotniks (i.e., unpaid labor
with no quota set by any authority or any state) make their appearance; they constitute the labor of individuals on an
extensive scale for the public good It is work done to meet the needs of the country as a whole, and is organized on a
broad scale and is unpaid ... If there is anything communist at all in the prevailing system in Russia, it is only the subbotniks,
... something that is much more lofty than the socialist society that is conquering capitalism ... The subbotniks are the only
manifestation we have to show that we do not only call ourselves Communists, that we do not merely want to be
Communists, but are actually doing something that is communist and not merely socialist.106
And in his 1920 From the First Subbotnik on the Moscow-Kazan Railway to the All Russian May-Day Subbotnik, Lenin
spoke of "the utilization of the great First of May festival for a mass-scale attempt to introduce communist labor," and added:

-13-

"We shall not be daunted by the gigantic difficulties and by the errors that are inevitable at the outset of a most difficult task;
the transformation of all labor habits and customs requires decades. We solemnly and firmly promise one another that we
shall make every sacrifice, that we shall hold out and win in this most arduous struggle-the struggle against the force of habitthat we shall work indefatigably for years and decades. We shall work to do away with the accursed maxim: 'Every man for
himself and the devil take the hindmost,' the habit of looking upon work merely as a duty, and of considering rightful only that
work which is paid for at certain rates. We shall work to inculcate in people's minds, turn into a habit, and bring into the dayby-day life of the masses, the rule: 'All for one and one for all,' the rule: 'From each according to his ability, to each according
to his needs'; we shall work for the gradual but steady introduction of communist discipline and communist labor ... We shall
work for years and decades, practicing subbotniks, developing them, spreading them, improving them and converting them
into a habit. We shall achieve the victory of communist labor."107
How, then, is the transition from socialist labor to communist labor to be achieved?
Firstly, by massive expansion of production. As Engels stated in his 1878 Anti-Dhring, "the capitalist mode of
appropriation, in which the product enslaves first the producer, and then also the appropriator, will thereby be replaced by the
mode of appropriation of the products based on the nature of the modern means of production themselves,"108 and "the old
mode of production must therefore be revolutionized from top to bottom" so that "productive labor, instead of being a means
to the subjection of men will become a means to their emancipation."109
As Engels stated in his 1891 Introduction to Marx's Wage, Labor and Capital: "A new social order is possible ... through
the systematic use and further development of the enormous productive powers of society, which exist with us even now."110
And as Marx himself stated in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program: "In the higher phase of communist society ... the
productive forces will have increased."111
Secondly, communist labor is to be attained by large-scale technical development in general and by electrification in
particular. As Lenin remarked in his 1920 The Tasks of the Youth Leagues: "Communist society, as we know, cannot be built
unless we restore industry and agriculture, and that not in the old way. They must be re-established on a modern basis, in
accordance with the last word in science. You know that electricity is that basis, and that only after electrification of the entire
country, of all branches of industry and agriculture, only when you have achieved that aim, will you be able to build for
yourselves the communist society which the older generation will not be able to build."112
Thirdly, communist labor will be attained by universal employment. All will be obliged to work; and all will so desire. As
Engels wrote approvingly of the utopian communist John Owen in his own Anti-Dhring: "Had Herr Dhring even fingered
Owen's Book of the New Moral World, he would most assuredly have found clearly expressed in it not only the most clear-cut
communism possible, with equal obligation to labor and equal rights in the product ... but also the most comprehensive
project of the future community."113 And as he later declared in 1891: "A new social order is possible ... with equal obligation
upon all to work."114
Fourthly, universal employment will in itself lead to the further shortening of the working day. This makes "it possible to
distribute labor among all members of society without exception, and thereby to limit the labor-time of each individual member
to such an extent that all have enough free time left to take part in the general-both theoretical and practical-affairs of
society," held Engels. 115 And the utopian communists Fourier and Owen both considered "that labor should recover the
attractiveness of which the division of labor had deprived it, in the first place through this variation of occupations, and
through the correspondingly short duration of the 'session'-to use Fourier's expression-devoted to each separate type of
work."116 (See too the text of note 125 below.)
Fifthly, this "variation of occupations" accompanying "the correspondingly short duration of the 'session' ... devoted to
each type of work"117 is to be facilitated by polytechnical education. This will be dealt with more fully in a subsequent
chapter, 118 and here it will be sufficient to state that Marx agreed with Hegel that an educated man is one that can do
"everything that others can do," and that "when a watchmaker invented the steam engine (Watt), a barber, the spinning frame
(Arkwright), and a working jeweler, the steamship (Fulton), 'Let the cobbler stick to his last,' that ne plus ultra of handicraft
wisdom, became sheer nonsense."119
Sixthly, this in turn will lead to the disappearance of competition. As Engels had already pointed out in his Outlines of a
Critique of Political Economy: "The truth of the relationship of competition is the relationship of the power of consumption to
the power of production. In a world worthy of mankind there will be no other competition than this. The community will have to
calculate what it can produce with the means at its disposal; and in the light of the relationship of this production power to the
mass of consumers it will determine how far it has to rise or lower production, how far it has to give way to, or curtail, luxury.
But so that they may be able to pass a correct judgement on this relationship and on the increase in productive power to be
expected from a rational state of affairs within the community, I invite my readers to consult the writings of the English
Socialists, and particularly also those of Fourier.
"Subjective competition-the contest of capital against capital, of labor against labor, etc.-will under these conditions be
reduced to the spirit of emulation grounded in human nature (a concept tolerably developed so far only by Fourier), which
after the transcendence of opposing interests will be confined to its proper and rational sphere."120
And seventhly, all of this will affect the division of labor. Initially, as Engels pointed out, there will be a more "rational
division of labor among all, to produce not only enough for the plentiful consumption of all members of society and for an
abundant reserve fund, but also to leave each individual sufficient leisure so that what is really worth preserving in historically
inherited culture-science, art, human relations-is not only preserved. but converted from a monopoly of the ruling class into

-14-

the common property of the whole of society, and further developed."121 And at a later stage, "the servile subjection of
individuals to the division of labor will disappear" altogether (thus Marx).122 In fact, "the former division of labor must
disappear," held Engels,123 and "the abolition of the hitherto prevalent division of labor [is brought about] by means of
industrial education, by means of an alternation of employments, by means of the participation of all in the enjoyments
produced by common labor."124
This whole period of the transition of labor from socialism to communism was, in fact, beautifully paraphrased by Karl
Marx in his Capital III, where he stated that "the realm of freedom actually begins only where labor which is determined by
necessity and mundane considerations ceases; thus in the very nature of things it lies beyond the sphere of actual material
production. Just as the savage must wrestle with Nature to satisfy his wants, to maintain and reproduce life, so must civilized
man, and he must do so in all social formations and under all possible modes of production. With his development, this realm
of physical necessity expands as a result of his wants; but at the same time, the forces of production which satisfy these
wants also increase. Freedom in this field can only consist in socialized man, the associated producers, rationally regulating
their interchange with Nature, bringing it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by the blind forces of
Nature; and achieving this with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most favorable to, and worthy of, their
human nature. But it nonetheless still remains a realm of necessity. Beyond it begins that development of human energy
which is an end in itself, the true realm of freedom, which, however, can blossom forth only with this realm of necessity as its
basis. The shortening of the working-day is its basic prerequisite."125
Ultimately, however, the transition period will terminate, and man will arrive at this "realm of freedom," under "full
communism."
What then, will be the characteristics of fully communist labor? Firstly, communist labor is excellently defined by Lenin in
his 1920 From the Destruction of the Old Social System to the Creation of the New "Communist labor in the narrower and
stricter sense of the term is labor performed gratis for the benefit of society, labor performed not as a definite duty, not for the
purpose of obtaining a right to certain products, not according to previously established and legally fixed quotas, but voluntary
labor, irrespective of quotas; it is labor performed without expectation of reward, without reward as a condition, labor
performed because it has become a habit to work for the common good, and because of a conscious realization (that has
become a habit) of the necessity of working for the common good-labor as the requirement of a healthy organism." 126
Secondly, communist labor is labor which provides an adequate existence for all. As Engels remarked in his 1878 AntiDhring: "The possibility of giving all members of society, by social production, an existence which should be not merely
naturally adequate, increasing in wealth from day to day, but which should guarantee them also the complete freedom to
develop and practice their physical and mental abilities-this possibility now exists for the first time, but it exisis."127 For "society
cannot itself be free unless every individual is free. The old mode of production must therefore be revolutionized from top to
bottom, and in particular the former division of labor must disappear ... Productive labor, instead of being a means to the
subjection of men, will become a means to their emancipation, by giving each individual the opportunity to develop and
exercise all his faculties, physical and mental, in all directions; in which, therefore, productive labor will become a pleasure
instead of a burden."128
Thirdly, communist labor is labor in which the antagonism between manual and mental labor has been abolished. In his
1891 "Introduction" to Marx's Wage, Labor and Capital, Engels declared that "a new social order is possible, in which ... there
will be the means of life, of the enjoyment of life, and of the development and activity of all bodily and mental faculties."129 And
even though Lenin stressed that the intelligentsia will remain a special social stratum "which will persist until we have reached
the highest stage of development of communist society,"130 all tension between hand work and head work disappear.
According to Marx's and Engels' 1846 German Ideology, under full communism, each person does about as much
physical as intellectual work, and there is no tension between the manual and the mental.131 And in both Marx's 1875 Critique
of the Gotha Program and Lenin's 1917 The State and Revolution, it is claimed that "the enslaving subordination of the
individual to the division of labor and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished."132
Fourthly-and proceeding from the above point-under communist labor, workingmen will be polylaterally developed and
capable of all-round labor.
The young Marx remarked in his 1844 Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts that under communist labor, "not only
the five senses [hearing, seeing, touching, tasting, and smelling] but also the so-called mental senses-the practical senses
(will, love, etc. )-in a word, human sense-the humanness of senses, comes into being by virtue of its object, by virtue of
humanized nature. The forming of the five senses is a labor of the entire history of the world down to the present."133 Just as a
dealer in minerals sees only the market value of his merchandise, thereby exercising only his sense of possession (der Sinn
des Habens), but [sees] neither the beauty nor the unique character of the minerals,134 the abolition of such careers with "the
abolition of private property, is the complete emancipation of all human senses and attributes," when "need and enjoyment
both lose their egoistic character and nature loses its value, because usage has then become human usage," 135 and the
communist laborer becomes "the rich man richly endowed with all senses," and that "rich human being is at the same time a
human being who needs a totality of human life-activities."136 And young Engels maintained in his 1847 Principles of
Communism that "a communistically organized society will be able to provide opportunities for the cultivation of all-round
capacities."137
It should not be imagined, however, that these were merely the immature views of Marx and Engels in their youth. Even
in his 1867 Capital, Marx was still maintaining that under communism, the "fragmentary man" would be replaced by "the

-15-

completely developed individual, one for whom different social functions are but alternative forms of activity,"138 and that
evolution would then replace the "separate individual" by the "totally developed individual" and confer upon workingmen
"absolute availability for every kind of work."139 Furthermore, in Marx's 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program and Lenin's 1917
State and Revolution, reference is made to the "higher phase of communist society, ... with the all-round development of the
individual."140 And even in his 1878 Anti-Dhring, the mature Engels was still championing the communist "mode of
distribution which allows all members of society to develop, maintain and exert their capacities in all possible directions," by
"producing a race of producers with an all-round training who understand the scientific basis of industrial production as a
whole, and each of whom has practical experience in a whole series of branches of production from start to finish."141
Obviously, this would, fifthly, automatically lead to the disappearance of careers.
The classic statement is that of Marx and Engels in their 1846 German Ideology: "In communist society, where nobody
has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the
general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish
in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter,
fisherman, shepherd or critic.142 In a communist society there are no painters, but at the most people who engage in painting
among other activities."143 And in his 1847 Principles of Communism, Engels stated that under future communism, "the
division of labor, which [today under capitalism) compels one man to be a peasant, another a shoemaker, and another a
factory hand, another a broker on the stock exchange, will completely disappear."144
Lest these views too be dismissed as mere youthful utopianism which Marx and Engels later outgrew, it will be useful to
see how Marx re-employed them in his 1867 Capital and Engels in his 1878 Anti-Dhring.
In Capital, after stating that capitalistic "large-scale industry, indeed, compels society, under penalty of death, to replace
the miserable reserve army of labor which capital keeps at its disposal for its varying needs in the way of exploitation, by the
complete adaptability of individuals to the changing demands for different kinds of work," Marx prophesied that "in this way,
the detail-worker of today, the limited individual, the mere bearer of a particular social function, will be replaced by the fully
developed individual, for whom the different social functions he performs are but so many alternative modes of activity."145
And in the same work, Marx also referred approvingly to the case of a French worker who went to San Francisco and
associated with "adventurers who change their occupation as often as they do their shirt, [and who] did as the others" did,
and who, after going mining, successively "became typographer, slater, plumber, etc. In consequence of thus finding that I
am fit for any sort of work, I feel less of a mollusc and more of a man."146
And Engels solemnly prophesied in his Anti-Dhring that "in time to come there will no longer be any professional porters
or architects, and that the man who for half an hour gives instructions as an architect will also push a barrow for a period, until
his activity as an architect is once again required." And he said sarcastically that "it is a fine sort of [current capitalistic]
society which perpetuates the professional porter!"147
This state of "careerlessness," communists hold, can be achieved by means of the extension of: education,
mechanization, rotation, and regulation.
Education as a tool of communism will be dealt with in detail below. 148 Here we would only point out that Engels held that
in a communist society children will be trained to pass easily from job to job,149 in that "the young folk as they pass through
the schools will be taught the whole system of production as part of their education; they will be in a position to pass from one
branch of industry to another according as social needs shall require or their own inclinations impel."150
Mechanization too is necessary for the attainment of "careerlessness." Wrote Marx: "The employment of machinery does
away with the necessity of crystallizing this distribution after the manner of manufacture by the constant annexation of a
particular man to a particular function. Since the motion of the whole system does not proceed from the workman, but from
the machinery, a change of persons can take place at any time without an interruption of the work ... the quickness with which
machine work is learnt by young people does away with the necessity of bringing up for exclusive employment by machinery,
a special class of operators." 151 Engels added that modern industry, by its very nature, therefore necessitates variation by
labor, fluency of function, universal mobility of the laborer.152 And Lenin maintained that: "Large-scale production-machinery,
railways, telephones-all provide thousands of opportunities to cut by three-fourths the working-time of the organized workers
and make them four times better off than they are today."153
As regards rotation, this idea of the circulation of various kinds of labor was mooted by the communist August Bebel, the
personal friend and supporter of Marx and Engels. In his own work, Woman and Socialism, Bebel wrote that "at the stated
intervals, according to a fixed rotation, all members of a certain department, without distinction of sex, shall undertake all
functions."154
But it is especially regulation of labor which is an essential prerequisite for a careerless society. We have already seen
above that Marx and Engels held in their German Ideology that under pure communism "society regulates the general
production and thus makes it possible for men to do one thing today and another tomorrow."142 In his Principles of
Communism, Engels explained that future industry would be managed according to a plan.149 And in his Capital, Marx
remarked that the material life-process of society is destined to become "a process promoted by a free association of
producers, under their conscious and purposeful guidance."155
Sixthly, then, pure communist labor requires an association to organize it. "The working class, in the course of its
development," Marx wrote in his The Poverty of Philosophy, "will substitute for the old civil society an association which will
exclude classes and their antagonism, and there will no longer be any political power, properly so-called."156 "Communist

-16-

society," wrote Marx and Engels in the Manifesto of the Communist Party. is "an association in which the free development of
each is the condition for the free development of all."157 Communism, acknowledged Marx in his 1871 Civil War in France on
the Paris Commune, is a system in which "united, co-operative associations regulate the national product according to a
communal plan."158 But in his On the Nationalization of Ground and Land, Marx emphasized that such an association would
not be allowed to possess (national) land and thereby become a new class: "To hand over land to associated farmers, would
be to surrender the entire society to a particular class. The nationalization of ground and land will bring with it a complete
alteration in the relationship between labor and capital... Only then will class differences and privileges disappear, together
with the economic basis which gave rise to them, and will society be changed into an association of free 'producers.' "159
Seventhly, associated or organized work under true communism necessarily implies that communist labor is preeminently
social. And not only is all labor essentially social, but communist labor is labor which is progressively more and more
socialized. "Man," remarked Marx in his A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, "is in the most radical sense a
social animal, not just a sociable animal, but an animal who can only individuate himself in society."160
The progressive socialization of labor can already be seen amongst the workers even under capitalist conditions. Wrote
Marx in his Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts: "When communist workmen associate with one another, theory,
propaganda, etc., is their first end, But at the same time, as a result of this association, they acquire a new need-the need for
society-and what appears as a means becomes an end, You can observe this practical process in its most splendid results
whenever you see French socialist workers together. Such things as smoking, drinking, eating, etc., are no longer means of
contact or means that bring together, Company, association and conversation, which again has society as its end, are
enough for them; the brotherhood of man is no mere phrase with them, but a fact of life; and the nobility of man shines upon
us from their work-hardened bodies."161
In this way, then, essentially social man becomes under communism so much further socialized, that "the general"
actually comprehends everything and totally saturates "the individual," so that every individual completely becomes "ein
Allgemeiner," "der sozialisierte Mensch"-general, socialized man.162 As Marx exclaimed: "Communism as the positive
transcendance of private property, as human self-estrangement, and therefore as the real appropriation of the human
essence by and for man; communism therefore as the complete return of man to himself as a social (i.e., human) being-a
return become conscious, and accomplished within the entire wealth of previous development. 163 Activity and consumption,
both in their content and in their mode of existence are social: social activity and social consumption; the human essence of
nature first exists only for social man; for only here does nature exist for him as a bond with man-as his existence for the
other and the other's existence for him-as the life-element of the human world; only here does nature exist as the foundation
of his own human existence. Only here has what is to him his natural existence, become his human existence, and nature
become human for him. Thus society is the consummated oneness in substance of man and nature-the true resurrection of
nature-the naturalism of man and the humanism of nature both brought to fulfilment."164
This, however, can be achieved fully only when communist labor has, eighthly, become worldwide. Then laborers
everywhere will have become finally freed from local and national limitations as part of a universal and all-embracing
economic production scheme, where they will produce and consume everything the earth can yield and man can create.165
As Marx and Engels put it in their German Ideology, the "development of productive forces (which itself implies the actual
empirical existence of men in their world-historical, instead of local, being) is absolutely necessary as a practical premise ...
because only with this universal development of productive forces is a universal intercourse between men established, which
produces in all nations simultaneously the phenomenon of the 'property-less' mass (universal competition), makes each
nation dependent on the revolutions of the others, and finally has put world-historical, empirically universal individuals in
place of local ones. Without this, (1) Communism could only exist as a local event; (2) The forces of intercourse themselves
could not have developed as universal, hence international powers: they would have remained homebred superstitious
conditions; and (3) Each extension of intercourse would abolish local communism. Empirically, communism is only possible
as the act of the dominant people 'all at once' or simultaneously, which presupposes the universal development of productive
forces and the world-intercourse bound up with them. "The proletariat can thus only exist world-historically, just as
communism, its movement, can only have a 'world-historical' existence... In history up to the present it is certainly an
empirical fact that separate individuals have, with the broadening of their activity into world-historical activity, become more
and more enslaved under a power alien to them But it is just as empirically established that, by the overthrow of the
existing state of society by the communist revolution ... and the abolition of private property which is identical with it, this
power, which so baffles the German [bourgeois] theoreticians, will be dissolved; and that then the liberation of each single
individual will be accomplished in the measure in which history becomes transformed into world-history. From the above it is
clear that the real intellectual wealth of the individual depends entirely on the wealth of his real connections. Only then will the
separate individuals be liberated from the various national and local barriers, be brought into practical connection with the
material and intellectual production of the whole world and be put in a position to acquire the capacity to enjoy this all-sided
production of the whole earth (the creations of man). Universal dependence, this natural form of the world-historical cooperation of individuals, will be transformed by this communist revolution into the control and conscious mastery of these
powers.
"When all nations are drawn into the competitive struggle, ... the permanence of the acquired productive forces [is]
assured."186
Universally co-ordinated production is also presupposed in Engels' 1847 Principles of Communism, where he wrote that

-17-

"the communist revolution will not be national only but will take place simultaneously in all civilized countries, i.e., at any rate
in Britain, America, France, and Germany."167 And in the I848 Manifesto of the Communist Party of Marx and Engels, the
conviction was stated that the communist revolution would occur initially in "the leading civilized countries at least,"168 whence
the Manifesto ended on the note: "The proletarians ... have a world to win. Working-men of all countries, unite!"169
With reference to Marx's eschatological Critique of the Gotha Program of 1875, Lenin's 1917 State and Revolution
predicted that under communism "the whole of society will have become a single factory, with equality of labor and equality of
pay."170 After the Revolution, he wrote in his December 1918 Speech to the Third Workers' Co-operative Congress that:
"Capitalism deliberately splits the population. This split must disappear once and for all, and the whole of society must
become a single workers' co-operative. There can be no question of any kind of independence for individual groups. To
establish this type of co-operative I was speaking about just now is the condition for the victory of socialism. Now all we need
is a single will to enter with an open heart that single world co-operative. What the Soviet government and the co-operatives
have done up to now must be merged. That is the substance of the latest decree passed by the Soviet government ... All
sections of the population fighting for their freedom must be merged in a single strong organization."171 And in 1920, Lenin
warmly promoted the "tendency towards the creation of a single world economy, regulated by the proletariat of all nations as
an integral whole and according to a common plan. This tendency is already quite clearly revealed under capitalism and
should certainly be further developed and fully consummated under socialism."172
It is only then, namely, after communist labor will have been fully realized and spread worldwide, that, ninthly, "individual"
labor will have come into its own. For even though Marx held that under capitalism "individuals only seek ... their own
particular (interests)," 173 he also held that communism implied "the alteration of labor into self-activity," at which "stage selfactivity agrees with material life and corresponds to the development of individuals to complete individuals and to the
rejection of all natural limitations."174 For "the capitalistic mode of appropriation which proceeds from the capitalistic mode of
production (that is, capitalistic private property), is the first negation of private property grounded on one's own individual
labor. But the capitalistic negation produces its own negation as of material necessity. It is the negation of the negation. This
restores not private property but individual property on the basis of the results obtained from the capitalistic era, from the cooperation, from the communal possession of the earth, and from means of production produced by labor itself."175
Tenthly, however, communist "individual" labor is never individualistic labor, but always "socio-individual" labor-labor in
which the secondarily important individual is perfectly harmonized with the primarily important society as a whole. For society
is the actual essence of the individual, and the individual is born of, through and for society, of which he is but a function, 178
for man's historical environment and "sensual external world is a materialization of all the unfolded productive activity of the
human race," and is "a historical product, the result of the activity of a whole series of generations."177
Consequently, wrote Marx: "Above all, one must avoid again fixing 'society' as an abstraction opposed to the individual.
The individual is the communal being. The expression of his life-estrangement-even if it does not appear in the immediate
form of the communal expression of life simultaneously consummated with others-is hence an expression and confirmation of
communal life. Individual and species life are not different, so much so-and that necessarily-[that] the mode of existence of
individual life is a more particular or more general mode of species life, or the more species life is a more particular and
general individual life."178
For the individual needs society. Under capitalism, "the care-worn, needy man has no means of sensing [Sinn] the most
beautiful drama," he merely desires to "possess." He has no fully human relationship to his environment. But once man has
been fully "socialized,"179 "all objects become for him the objectification of himself, become objects which confirm and
actualize his individuality, become his objects, that is, he himself becomes the object... Thus man becomes confirmed in the
objective world, not only in the act of his thought, but with all his senses," held Marx.180 And, added Engels in his mature
Ludwig Feuerbach: "Only very exceptionally, and in no case to his and other people's profit, can an individual satisfy his urge
towards happiness by preoccupation with himself. Rather it requires preoccupation with the outside world, means to satisfy
his needs, that is to say means of subsistence, an individual of the opposite sex, books, conversation, argument, activities for
use and working up."181
Engels insisted in his Anti-Dhring that "society cannot free itself unless every individual is freed."182 "Only in the
community does the individual possess the means of expressing his aptitudes in all directions; only in the community does
personal freedom therefore become possible"-thus Marx and Engels in their German Ideology.183 Or, as Marx put it rather
later in his Capital: "In a later and more perfect period [of communism], individual labor will exist as an integral part of the total
work ... Each one according to his abilities, to each one according to his needs."184
Marx agreed with Bentham that the good of the greatest number of people does not necessarily involve sacrificing the
interests of the individual,185 for even the abolition of the individual-enslaving division of labor "is not possible without a
community. Only in association with others has each individual the means of cultivating his talents in all directions. Only in a
community, therefore, is personal freedom possible ... In a genuine community individuals gain their freedom in and through
their association," 186 held Marx and Engels, adding that "the abolition of private property and of the division of labor is itself
the union of individuals on the basis created by modern productive forces and world intercourse. With communist society, the
only society in which the original and free development of individuals ceases to be a mere phrase, this development is
determined precisely by the connection of individuals, a connection which consists partly in the economic prerequisites and
partly in the necessary solidarity of the free development of all, and, finally, in the universal character of the activity of
individuals on the basis of the existing productive forces."187

-18-

Even Lenin felt no necessary clash between the true interests of society and of the individual. "The idea of historical
necessity," he wrote, "does not in the least undermine the role of the individual in history: all history is made up of the actions
of individuals, who are undoubtedly active figures."188 And although "socialism, living, constructive, is created by the masses
themselves,"189 it is precisely under socialism that "for the first time after centuries of working for others, of working in
subjection to the exploiter, [that] it has become possible to work for oneself and moreover to employ all the achievements of
modern technique and culture in one's work."190
But eleventhly, communist "labor" is not merely simultaneously social and individual-it is also essential, belonging as it
does to the very essence of man (homo faber, homo laborans) 191
"'In the sweat of thy face shalt thou labor!' was Jehova's curse, which he gave to Adam," Marx remarked with supreme
sarcasm, and added that "it is thus as curse that A(dam) Smith [-the last Adam!-] regards labor. 'Rest' appears as the
adequate condition, as identical with 'freedom' and 'happiness.' [But] A. Smith seems far from seeing that the individual, 'in
his normal condition of health, strength, activity, capacity and skill,' has also the need for a normal portion of work; for an end
of rest."192 For "in a higher phase of communist society," Marx disclosed in his Critique of the Gotha Program, "labor has
become not only a means of life but life's prime want,"193 the first need of life itself194-a conviction later reaffirmed in 1917 by
Lenin too.195
However, if communist labor is essential, it is, twelfthly, also most enjoyable. In fact, it can hardly still be called "labor," for
"the communist revolution," held Marx, "is directed against the thereto precedent manner of activity," and it "abolishes labor
and together with the classes themselves, the rule of all classes."196 "Labor" now becomes enjoyable, because communist
work is voluntary, pleasurable, and beautiful.
Communist work is voluntary. In their German Ideology, Marx and Engels remarked that in pre-communist society
"activity is not voluntary," but "in communist society, ... each can become accomplished in any branch [of activity] he wishes,
[and] society ... makes it possible for me to do one thing to-day and another tomorrow ... just as I have a mind."197 Of course,
because communist man has been educated into socialist attitudes toward labor, he automatically wishes to do only what is
socially productive.
But communist work is also pleasurable. In his Anti-Dhring, Engels forecast that under communism, "productive labor
will become a pleasure instead of a burden"128 and result in "on the one hand direct social appropriation as a means to the
maintenance and extension of production, and on the other hand direct individual appropriation as a means to life and
pleasure."198 Creative labor, wrote Engels,227 is "the highest enjoyment known to us."
But preeminently, communist work is also beautiful-it exhibits a deeply aesthetic quality. This has almost been suggested
in other Marxian quotations already cited above,199 and Marx elsewhere pointed out that "an animal's product belongs
immediately to its physical body, whilst man freely confronts his product. An animal forms things in accordance with the
standard and the need of the species to which it belongs, whilst man knows how to produce in accordance with the standard
of every species, and knows how to apply everywhere the inherent standard to the object. Man therefore also forms things in
accordance with the laws of beauty."200
Under advanced technology, Marx wrote in his Capital, machine-operators become very versatile and freely productive
on account of the "almost artistic nature of their occupation,"201 and co-operative labor in factories, for example, "necessarily
requires for the inter-connection and unity of the process one mandatory will which fulfils a function which has nothing to do
with fragmentary acts, but only with the combined labor of the place of work, in the same manner as the will of the conductor
of an orchestra";202 and "free labor, for example the labor of the composer, is at the same time a devilishly serious matter, a
most intensive strain"-a viewpoint re-emphasized with great approval in 1963 by modern communist philosophers.203
Communist labor, then, is not only voluntary and enjoyable. It is also a fine art. 204
Finally, communist labor is also characterized by the creation of an ever-increasing abundance. The communist worker,
held Marx, will be "the rich man richly endowed with all feelings" and "the rich human being who needs a totality of human
life activities."205 The united labor of communism, wrote Marx (and Engels) in the Manifesto of the Communist Party, will
become "merely a means to enlarge the existence and to enrich and to improve the existence of the worker." 206 And in his
1875 Critique of the Gotha Program, Marx prophesied (and Lenin in his 1917 State and Revolution reiterated) that "in a
higher phase of communist society, all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly."207
No different was the view of the mature Engels. In an 1878 essay on Marx, Engels wrote that the productive powers
developed under capitalism "are only waiting for the associated proletariat to take possession of them in order to bring about
a state of things in which every member of society will be enabled to participate not only in production but also in the
distribution and administration of social wealth, and which so increases the social productive forces and their yield by planned
operation of the whole of production, that the satisfaction of all reasonable needs will be assured to everyone in an everincreasing measure."208 In his Anti-Dhring of the same year, he maintained that communism would produce "an
uninterrupted, ever-quickening development of the productive powers, and through a particularly unlimited increase in
production itself."209 And in his 1880 Socialism-Utopian and Scientific, he maintained that communist labor would be
characterized by the "securing for every member of society, by means of socialized production, an existence ... fully sufficient
materially, and becoming day by day more full."210
6.

Post-Leninistic Communists on Future Labor

-19-

It remains to see how faithful the post-Leninistic communists have been in seeking to continue with the implementation of
socialism and to strive in the direction of the eventual implementation of these ideals of labor under distant pure communism.
In 1940, Stalin stated: "The basis of the relations of production under the socialist system, which so far has been
established only in the U.S.S.R., is the social ownership of the means of production. Here there are no longer exploiters and
exploited, the goods produced are distributed according to labor performed, on the principle: 'He who does not work, neither
shall he eat.' Here the mutual relations of people in the process of production are marked by comradely co-operation and the
socialist mutual assistance of workers who are free from exploitation. Here the relations of production fully correspond to the
state of productive forces, for the social character of the process of production is reinforced by the social ownership of the
means of production." 211
Stalin, in his pamphlet On Lenin, also claimed that the latter "showed by deeds to the oppressed masses of the whole
world that hope of salvation is not lost, ... that the kingdom of labor can be invented by the efforts of the toilers themselves,
that the kingdom of labor must be created on earth and not in heaven."212
And in 1953, the year of Stalin's death, it is noteworthy that the Soviet Gross National Product had reached 137.5 million
roubles (cf. to 17 million in 1917), and that as from 1928 coal production had risen from 30 million to 300 million tons and
electric power production from 6 million to 192 million kilowatt hours.213 And according to the U.S. News & World Report,
between 1913 and 1966 the total industrial output of the Soviet Union increased by more than 50 times-the output of steel 22
times, of pig iron 16 times, coal 20 times, cement 44 times, oil 25 times, electric power 272 times, and gas 7250 times.214
Khrushchev himself declared that under communism: all must work for all work is honorable;215 that communist work will
be cultured and interesting; 216 that communist work will become the first necessity of life itself; 217 and that "amateur art which
is spreading widely, offers a great medium for the emergence and development of popular talents and gifts."218
Under Khrushchev, the 1961 Twenty-second Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union approved the New
Party Program whereby it decided that "each communist must be a model in his communist attitude to labor, adherence to
communist ideas, uncompromising attitude to short-comings, money-grubbing and parasites," and that "farm labor will turn
into a variety of industrial labor."219 Furthermore, the Congress clearly decided to follow the road to pure communism:

Communism is a highly organized society of free, socially conscious working people in which public selfgovernment will be established, a society in which labor for the good of society will become life's prime want of
everyone, a necessity recognized by one and all, and the ability of each person will be employed to the greatest
benefit of the people.

People will be equipped with the best and mightiest technology, man's power over nature will be raised to
tremendous heights, enabling him to control its spontaneous forces

Communism, however, will not be a society of anarchy, idleness and indolence. Labor will be the chief source
of the material and spiritual wealth of communist society. Under communism everyone will voluntarily work
according to his ability, multiplying the wealth and reinforcing the might of society. The very nature of work will
change. Labor will cease to be merely a means of subsistence and turn into life's prime want, into genuine
creative endeavor, into a source of joy and happiness

Communism will put an end to the division of society into classes and social groups ... Manual workers will
attain the cultural and technical level of intellectuals ... Each member of society will engage in mental and
manual labor, and in work mental and physical efforts will be organically combined.

All members of communist society ... enjoy equal conditions of work. ... Harmonious relations between the
individual and society will become the rule because social and personal interests will be fully combined.

The building of communism will signify the attainment of the Communist Party's supreme goal of building a
society on whose banner will be inscribed: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."
The Party's slogan "Everything for the sake of Man, for the benefit of Man" will be applied in full measure. 220

Labor for the benefit of society is the sacred duty of all. Any labor for society whether physical or mental, is
honorable and commands respect

Anyone who received any benefits from society without doing his share of work, would be a parasite living at
the expense of others.

It is impossible for a man in communist society not to work, for neither his social consciousness, nor public
opinion would permit it. Work according to one's ability will become a habit, a prime necessity of life, for every
member of society 221

-20-

The transition to communism implies training that will make people communist-minded and highly cultured, people fitted
for both physical and mental labor, and this would be the solution of a cardinal social problem, namely, the elimination of
substantial distinctions between mental and physical labor."222
In 1963, Russian communist philosophers declared that under future communism: "people work 20-25 hours a week (i.e.,
approximately 4-5 hours a day) and, in time, even less; each person can choose an occupation in conformity with his or her
inclinations and abilities and change it at will; all talents and abilities inherent in people are fully developed and applied either
in their production activities or in their free time";223 there will be "gradual obliteration of distinctions between physical and
mental labor";224 agriculture and industry will reach new heights, and there will be very great wealth for all;225 the production
and trade of the whole world will be co-ordinated in one great system;226 work becomes an enjoyable and happy urge, and
expanded leisure time will develop each communist worker into an aesthetic all-round man.227
In the December 1964 edition of the official communist periodical U.S.S.R. Soviet Life Today (later: Soviet Life)-under the
post-Khrushchevian regime of Brezhnev and Kosygin-Soviet experts declared that "it is no simple business to make every job
creative, to set up a working environment in which every man feels that his contribution is really vital to the general welfare.
But we believe that this is a problem we will eventually solve." 228
In 1968, Soviet experts denied that the "profit motive" economic reform of 1965 represented a return to capitalism any
more than the N.E.P. did,229 and emphasized that the Soviet Union would continue with "the Eighth (1966-70) Five-Year Plan"
and "also draw up more general long-perspective [socio-economic] plans" which may cover "ten-, fifteen-or even twenty-year
periods" until "true communism develops."230 And when communism arrives, labor will be reduced to "maybe only four, three,
two hours a day, perhaps even less. ... Under communism the attitude towards work will be completely different [than it is
today]. People will be able to work at what they like most, and when a man does what he loves to do-inventing, creating,
building, making things grow, or using his muscles out in the open, or leading or teaching others, he gives freely of his time
and can hardly say where obligation ends and pleasure begins."231
And in Red China, Mao announced even after the 1966-9 "Cultural Revolution" that after the completion of the
communization of China (cf. the 1871 Paris Commune and the German Ideology of Marx and Engels), 142 "the man of
authority will not be the expert or the administrator, but the all-round Maoist man-the farmer and machine-minded worker, the
traditional guerilla fighter, political activist, and articulate speaker and writer."232
7.

Summary

We have seen from the above that the nature of labor is fundamental to the whole of Marxism. Labor is basic to all the
other communist doctrines; it is essentially human and social; it alters nature; and it predetermines all socio-economic
relationships (such as law, morality, religion, etc.).
Under "primitive communism," all men did all kinds of work, so that there was originally less difference between a porter
and a philosopher than between a sleigh-dog and a greyhound. And as man evolved from the apes, labor distinguished him
from them as he made his transition to humanity and became a tool-making animal. His first tools were of sticks and stones,
but the invention of fire enabled him to cook food and melt metal and thereby become a producer. In this way, man produced
things, produced himself, and produced socio-economic attitudes toward and labor relations with his fellow-man.
Apart from the division of labor inherent in the sex act and also in the family, and apart from the steady effect of human
differences in bodily strength, needs, and coincidence, etc., it was especially the first surplus ever produced that really
promoted the division of labor by encouraging the absorption of one or more strangers into the family economy-and as the
laborer-employee began to become progressively more and more alienated from his product, the division of labor within the
nation progressed until slavery resulted. Over the centuries, slavery ripened into feudalism, and feudalism into capitalism,
where mechanization in the factories now leads to the crippling of the laborer's body and mind and his transformation into a
monster on account of over-specialization, and where friction between capitalist-owners and the organized laborer-producers
leads to strikes and ultimately to the destruction of capitalism as such by means of a violent socio-economic revolution.
Revolutionary socialism begins with the dictatorship of the proletariat, during which labor remains unequal. For here we
find the prohibition of strenuous labor for women and children, the expropriation of the expropriators, the correction of the
offenders (or, if necessary, their liquidation), and the elimination of all unproductive occupations. Henceforth, all will work-or
not be able to eat; proletarian labor exchanges will control the production and distribution of goods; healthy competition will
be fostered; co-operatives will be promoted; and state-capitalistic schemes such as the N.E.P. will boost overall production.
And, as the dictatorship of the proletariat ripens into the full-scale construction of a socialist society, labor will be
characterized by a progressive shortening of labor-time, an overall increase in the productivity of labor, ht e complete
centralization of production, the development of the all-round laborerer, and the increased comfort of good labor conditions.
It is believed that socialist labor will gradually ripen into communist labor, the first step of which can be seen in the
attitude of the "subbotniks"-unpaid volunteers who work for the sheer joy of making a contribution toward the ultimate advent
of communist society. The transition from socialist to communist labor itself will be achieved by a massive expansion of
production; by large-scale technological development and electrification; by universal work. and desire to work; by reduction
of the length of the working-day and extension of the length of the daily time available for other pursuits; by means of the
extension of polytechnical education which also cultivates interests and abilities in other fields; and by the disappearance of
the division of labor itself.

-21-

After the termination of the transition from socialism to communism, under full communism itself labor will exhibit the
following characteristics: it will be the unpaid, voluntary, habitual requirement of every healthy person; it will provide an
adequate existence for all; it will have overcome all antagonism between manual and mental labor; and it will have produced
the polylateral or all-round laborer. There will be no careerism, and even specific careers will have disappeared as a result of
extensive and polylateral education, mechanization, rotation, and regulation of the laborers especially by labor "associations."
Consequently, communist labor is preeminendy "social"; its co-ordination is on a worldwide scale, with the "whole of society
... a single factory" (Lenin); only under communized labor can the "individual" flourish-as an integral part of the communal
whole; only under communism does labor become "normal" for man and even "life's prime want" (Marx); only under
communism does labor become voluntary and intensely pleasurable and aesthetic and abundantly "rich."
In post-Leninistic times, the above views were specifically upheld by Stalin and Khrushchev, by the 1961 Twenty-second
Congress of the C.P.S.U. and its important New Party Program, and by post-Khrushchevian Soviet experts as well as by Mao
Tse-tung in the late nineteen-sixties. Consequently, it must be concluded that the classical communist position on the
eschatology of labor as outlined above is still very much upheld by modern communists.

-22-

Chapter VIII
VALUE IN COMMUNIST ESCHATOLOGY
"What is the common social substance of all goods? It is labor. To produce an article, a certain quantity of labor must be
devoted thereto or realized therein. This is why I speak not just of labor, but of social labor. He who produces articles for his
own immediate use to consume them himself, indeed makes products, but not goods. As an independent producer he has
nothing to do with society. But to produce goods, the articles produced by him must not only satisfy some or other social
need, but his labor itself must constitute an ingredient and be a portion of the total quantity of labor performed by society...
When we regard goods as wares, we regard them exclusively from the sole perspective of concretized. visibilized, or, if you
wish, centralized social labor.
-Marx: Value, Price, Profit (1865)
We know that the value of each commodity is determined by the quantity of labor expended on and materialized in it, by
the working-time necessary, under given social conditions for its production.
-Karl Marx1
Whereas the last chapter dealt with the communist doctrine of labor, it is appropriate that this, the following chapter, will
deal with values, for value, claim the communists, is nothing but the immediate result of labor, nothing but crystallized or
congealed labor. As Marx remarked: "Human labor-power in motion, or human labor, creates value, but is not itself value. It
becomes value only in its congealed state, when embodied in the form of some object."2
In this chapter, we shall deal with: first, the communist doctrine of the nature of value; second, the communist doctrine of
value under "primitive communism"; third, the communist doctrine of the alienation of value; fourth, the communist doctrine of
value under socialism; fifth, the communist belief regarding value under future communism; sixth, the post-Leninistic
communistic statements on the future of value; and seventh, we shall give a summary of the development and future destiny
of the communist doctrine of value.
1.

The Nature of Value

According to Marx in his Capital I, it is vital to distinguish between use-value, labor-value, exchange-value, and moneyvalue.
"The utility of a thing," he declared, "makes it a use-value. But this utility ... [is] limited by the physical properties of the
commodity, it has no existence apart from that commodity. A commodity, such as iron, corn, or diamond, is therefore, so far
as it is a material thing, a use-value, something useful. This property [viz., the use-value-N.L.] of a commodity [a commodity
being an exchangeable thing useful not only to oneself, but particularly to others-N.L.]3a is independent of the amount of labor
required to appropriate its useful qualities.3b This is what seventeenth-century English economists meant by "worth."4
But a thing with use-value not necessarily has any exchange-value, any real commercial value. To have commercial
value, a thing must also possess a labor-value, i.e., it must embody a certain measurable amount of human labor which has
been spent on it to render it commercially valuable. "A use-value, or useful article, therefore has value only because human
labor in the abstract has been embodied or materialized in it. How, then, is the magnitude of this value to be measured?
Plainly, by the quantity of the value-creating substance, the labor, contained in the article. The quantity of labor, however, is
measured by its duration, and labor-time in its turn finds its standard in weeks, days, and hours."5
Exchange-value, then, is rather different from use-value. Marx remarked that "the exchange of commodities is evidently
an act characterized by a total abstraction from use-value... If then we leave out of consideration the use-value of
commodities, they have only one common property left, that of being products of labor. But even the product of labor itself
has undergone a change in our hands. If we make abstraction from its use-value, we make abstraction at the same time from
the material elements and shapes that make the product a use-value; we see in it no longer a table, a house, yarn, or any
other useful thing ... Let us now consider the residue of each of these products; it consists of the same unsubstantial reality in
each, a mere congelation of homogeneous human labor, of labor-power expended without regard to the mode of its
expenditure All that these things now tell us is, that human labor-power has been expended in their production, that human
labor is embodied in them. When looked at as crystals of this social substance, common to them all, they are-Values [i.e.,
labor-values-N.L.]... We have seen that when commodities are exchanged, their exchange-value manifests itself as
something totally independent of their use-value. But if we abstract from their use-value, there remains their Value as defined
above. Therefore, the common substance that manifests itself in the exchange-value of commodities, whenever they are
exchanged, is their value. The progress of our investigation will show that exchange-value is the only form in which the value
of commodities can manifest itself or be expressed." 6
By value, then, Marx primarily and generally meant exchange-value, commercial value. And "that which determines the
magnitude of the value of any article is the amount of labor socially necessary, or the labor-time socially necessary for its
production." "The labor-time socially necessary is that required to produce an article under the normal conditions of

-23-

production and with the average degree of skill and intensity prevalent at the time." "The labor, however, that forms the
substance of value, is homogeneous human labor, expenditure of one uniform labor-power." "Commodities, therefore, in
which equal quantities of labor arc embodied, or which can be produced in the same time, have the same value."7 "The value
of a commodity would therefore remain constant, if the labor-time required for its production also remained constant. But the
latter changes with every variation in the productiveness of labor. This productiveness is determined by various
circumstances, amongst others, by the average amount of skill of the workmen, the state of science, and the degree of its
practical application, the social organization of production, the extent and capabilities of the means of production, and by
physical conditions."8
But since the time of man's alienation, value is invariably expressed in money. "Every one knows," maintained Marx, "that
commodities have a value-form common to them all, and presenting a marked contrast with the varied bodily forms of their
use-values. I mean their money-form."' So in itself, the money-form is only the reflection, in a single commodity [money], of
the value relations between all commodities.10 "Money is a crystal formed of necessity in the course of the exchanges,
whereby different products of labor are practically equated to one another and thus by practice converted into commodities.
The historical progress and extension of exchanges develops the contrast, latent in commodities, between use-value and
value. The necessity for giving an external expression to this contrast for the purposes of commercial intercourse, urges on
the establishment of an independent form of value, and finds no rest until it is once for all satisfied by the differentiation of
commodities into commodities and money. At the same rate, then, as the conversion of products into commodities is being
accomplished, so also is the conversion of one special commodity into money."11"Money as a measure of value, is the
phenomenal form that must of necessity be assumed by that measure of value which is immanent in commodities, labortime." 12 "As measure of value, and as standard of price, money has two entirely distinct functions to perform. It is the measure
of value inasmuch as it is the socially recognized incarnation of human labor; it is the standard of price inasmuch as it is a
fixed weight of metal But only in so far as it is itself a product of labor, and, therefore, potentially variable in value, can gold
serve as a measure of value.13
The nature of value, then, is preeminently labor-value-the amount of labor or the labor-time socially necessary for its
production.
2. "Primitive Communist" Value
Under primitive communism, there was no exchange-value and therefore no money, for originally there was no
exchanging. Intra-tribal communal labor of the (whole) tribe was the only form of labor, and that was the measure of all value.
All things were then either used in common (thus having a merely tribal use-value) or produced in common (thus having a
merely tribal labor-value) and held in communal ownership by the communal tribe-hence exchange was unknown. Only
things socially useful to the tribe, things with an exclusive and communal value to the tribe, were then used or produced, and
exchangeable commodities3a were therefore unknown.
"Every product of labor is, in all stages of society, a use-value," wrote Marx, "but it is only al a definite historical epoch in
a society's development that such a product becomes a commodity, viz., at the epoch when the labor spent on the production
of a useful article becomes expressed as one of the objective qualities of that article, i.e., as its value. It therefore follows that
the elementary value-form is also the primitive form under which a product of labor appears historically as a commodity, and
that the gradual transformation of such products into commodities, proceeds pari passu with the development of the valueform."14 Only then do men (and the things they then start to privately "own") become independent of one another, "but such a
state of reciprocal independence has no existence in a primitive society based on property in common, whether such a
society takes the form of a patriarchal family, an ancient Indian community, or a Peruvian Inca state. The exchange of
commodities, therefore, first begins on the boundaries of such communities, at their points of contact with other similar
communities, or with members of the latter. So soon; however, as products once become commodities in the external
relations of a community, they also, by reaction, become so in its internal intercourse."15 Or, as Engels stated, private
property "developed even within these communes, at first through barter with strangers, till it reached the form of
commodities."16
Under "primitive communism," then, there was no private property-no commodities, no exchange and no money. Value
(whether use-value or labor-value) was always tribal. Non-tribal (i.e., non-communal) values just did not exist.
3.

Alienated Value

This then automatically brings us to the alienation of value. For as barter or exchange first between tribes (in inter-tribal
commerce) and thereafter by way of reaction amongst members of the same tribe (in intra-tribal commerce) began to
develop, craftsmen were alienated from their use of things which they themselves had produced, which things thereby
became commercial commodities with an exchange-value. And as soon as exchange-value developed and goods became
commodities (or wares), 3a a "mystification" or "idealization" occurred. 17 Whence Marx called a commodity "a queer thing,
abounding in metaphysical subtleties and theological niceties."18 And the transition from goods to commodities is an
alienation from their use-value, which alienation is completed in money as their "prosaically real mystification."17
The process of increasing alienation of value may be stated in the progressive formula: labor - value - use - surplus -

-24-

exchange - alienation - commodities - slavery - precious metals - pure metal coins -deliberately debased coinage - paper
money - capital - wages exploitation - credit - imperialism - crisis - revolution - socialism.19
Of these items mentioned in the above formula, surplus, slavery and particularly money (in its various manifestations and
perversions) and imperialism, are perhaps the most important elements in the communist doctrine of value.
The "formation of a surplus of products" is a most important factor in the de-socialization of value, according to Engels in
his Anti-Dhring. 20 "The whole development of human society beyond the stage of brute savagery begins from the day when
the labor of the family created more products than were necessary for its maintenance, from the day when one portion of
labor could be devoted to the production no longer of the mere means of subsistence, but of means of production. A surplus
of the products of labor over and above the cost of the maintenance of labor was and is the basis of all social, political, and
intellectual progress."21 And surplus production resulted in surplus labor, and "surplus labor, labor beyond the time required
for the laborer's own maintenance, and appropriation by others of the product of this surplus labor, the exploitation of labor, is
therefore common to all past forms of society, in so far as these moved in class antagonism."22
Slavery too greatly promoted the production and exchange of commodities. Whereas prisoners of war had formerly been
put to death, subsequently, by the institution of their enslavement as a cheap labor force, "the division of labor between
agriculture and industry on a considerable scale" was facilitated, so that the "introduction of slavery was a great step
forward" in the promotion of commerce. Indeed, "without the slavery of antiquity, no modern socialism," for it was by "the
increase and development of production by means of slave labor" that "the peoples made progress of themselves."23
It was, however, especially the invention of money which facilitated commerce and promoted exchange value-and man's
alienation. For as Engels remarked: "It is gold and silver ... which have civilized men and ruined the human race."24
The development and increasingly sophisticated use of money and its derivatives is therefore of prime importance in the
study of the communist doctrine of value. And Marx remarked that "a task is set us, the performance of which has never yet
even been attempted by bourgeois economy, the task of tracing the genesis of this money-form, of developing the expression
of value implied in the value-relation of commodities, from its simplest, almost imperceptible outline, to the dazzling moneyform. By doing this we shall, at the same time, solve the riddle presented by money."25
The first step in this development leading to the introduction of monetary value, is "A. elementary or accidental form of
value."20 Here the use-value of one kind of thing produced by labor serves as the initial guide in computing its exchange-value
as a commodity for a different kind of thing-e.g., "20 yards of linen are worth 1 coat."26 This is soon followed by "B. Total or
expanded form of value," where "the value of a single commodity ... is now expressed in terms of numberless other elements
of the world of commodities," e.g., "20 yards of linen = 1 coat or = 10 lbs. tea or = 40 lbs. coffee or = I quarter corn or = 2
ounces gold or = ton iron or = &c."27 Presently, this develops into "C. The general form of value," where "all commodities
now express their value (1) in an elementary form, because in a single commodity; (2) with unity, because in one and the
same commodity. This form of value is elementary, and the same for all, therefore general," e.g.: "1 coat [or] 10 lbs. of tea [or]
40 lbs. of coffee [or] 1 quarter of corn [or] 2 ounces of gold [or] a ton of iron [or] x com.[modity] A., etc. = 20 yards of
linen."28 In this case, linen has now become the general form of value and the generally accepted means of exchange. In
other words, linen has now itself become a primitive form of money.
In fact, in some economies, linen may well have been used as primitive money, as indeed have other different objects
such as salt, cattle and women.29 Indeed, as Marx pointed out: "The money-form attaches itself either to the most important
articles of exchange from outside, and these in fact are primitive and natural forms in which the exchange-value of home
products finds expression; or else it attaches itself to the object of utility that forms, like cattle, the chief portion of indigenous
alienable wealth," and: "Man has often made man himself, under the form of slaves, serve as the primitive material of
money."30 However, to be really acceptable as a general means of exchange, money must meet the five important
requirements of uniformity, durability, transportability, divisibility and scarcity.31 Only a few objects meet all these
requirements, such as the precious metals in general (e.g., copper and especially silver), and gold in particular.32
Finally, then, we get "D. The money-form," in which "20 yards of linen [and] I coat [and] 10 lbs. of tea [and] 40 lbs. of
coffee [and] 1 qr. of corn [and] a ton of iron [and] x commodity A = 2 ounces of gold."32
As Marx remarked: "In passing from form A to form B, and from the latter to form C, the changes are fundamental. On the
other hand, there is no difference between forms C and D, except that, in the latter, gold has assumed the equivalent form in
the place of linen. Gold is in form D, what linen was in form C-the universal equivalent. The progress consists in this alone,
that the character of direct and universal exchangeability -in other words, that the universal equivalent form-has now, by
social custom, become finally identified with the substance, gold."33
The value of gold, however, remains rooted in its initial labor-value. As Marx declared: "Money, like every other
commodity, cannot express the magnitude of its value except relatively in other commodities. This value is determined by the
labor-time required for its production 34 "The same labor extracts from rich mines more metal than from poor mines.
Diamonds are of very rare occurrence on the earth's surface, and hence their discovery costs, on an average, a great deal of
labor-time." 35 "Gold, as we saw, became ideal money, or a measure of values, in consequence of all commodities measuring
their values by it, and thus contrasting it ideally with their natural shape as useful objects, and making it the shape of their
value. It became real money, by the general alienation of commodities, by actually changing places with their natural forms
as useful objects, and thus becoming in reality the embodiment of their values. When they assume this money-shape,
commodities strip off every trace of their natural use-value, and of the particular kind of labor to which they owe their creation,
in order to transform themselves into the uniform, socially recognized incarnation of homogeneous human labor.35a

-25-

Now money originated "at the source of its production by means of barter,"38 especially barter between different tribes.
Hence, held Marx: "Nomad races are the first to develop the money-form, because all their worldly goods consist of moveable
objects and are therefore directly alienable; and because their mode of life, by continually bringing them into contact with
foreign communities, solicits the exchange of products."37
Gold (and, to a lesser extent, silver), held Marx, are by nature fitted to perform the social function of a universally
recognized means of exchange. For "in proportion as exchange bursts its local bonds, and the value of commodities more
and more expands into an embodiment of human labor in the abstract, in the same proportion the character of money
attaches itself to commodities that are by Nature fitted to perform the social function of a universal equivalent. Those
commodities are the precious metals. The truth of the proposition that, 'although gold and silver are not by Nature money,
money is by Nature gold and silver,' is shown by the fitness of the physical properties of these metals for the functions of
money... An adequate form of manifestation of value, a fit embodiment of abstract, undifferentiated, and therefore equal
human labor, that material alone can be whose every sample exhibits the same uniform qualities. On the other hand, since
the difference between the magnitudes of value is purely quantitative, the money-commodity must be susceptible of merely
quantitative differences, must therefore be divisible at will, and equally capable of being re-united. Gold and silver possess
these properties by Nature."38 Gold is stable. And no changes in the value of gold affect its function as a standard of price or
as a measure of value.39
In time, precious metal (or bullion) is minted by the various states as coinage. Originally, "the only difference between
coin and bullion, is one of shape, and gold can at any time pass from one form to the other,"40 for gold coins were originally of
the same weight as the weight-value of the gold of which they consisted. However, a discrepancy between the face value of
the coin and its weight-value inevitably occurs, as, "during their currency, coins wear away, some more, others less." 40 This in
turn encouraged deliberate coinage debasement on the part of dishonest governments, as "the natural tendency of
circulation to convert coins into a mere semblance of what they profess to be, into a symbol of the weight of metal they are
officially supposed to contain, is recognized by modern legislation, which fixes the loss of weight sufficient to demonetize a
gold coin, or to make it no longer legal tender," 41 until the debasing of money [is] carried on for centuries by kings and princes
to such an extent, that, of the original weights of the coins, nothing in fact remained but the names." 42
The next step is to largely replace debased coinage with even more worthless paper money. Wrote Marx: "The fact that
the currency of coins itself effects a separation between their nominal and their real weight, creating a distinction between
them as mere pieces of metal on the one hand, and as coins with a definite function on the other-this fact implies the latent
possibility of replacing metallic coins by tokens of some other material, by symbols serving the same purposes as coins." And
as "the function of gold as coin becomes completely independent of the metallic value of that gold," it is discovered that
"things that are relatively without value, such as paper notes, can serve as coins in its place," as "inconvertible paper money
issued by the State and having compulsory circulation," as mere "bits of paper on which their various denominations, say I,
5, &c., are pnnted."43
But even paper money is not the end of the alienation of value. Soon this was partly replaced (in Europe, from about A.D.
1200 onwards) by paper credit notes (such as promissory notes), which later developed into checking accounts, and which
actually largely replaced even paper money, especially in banking circles. According to Marx, "just as true paper money takes
its rise in the function of money as the circulating medium, so money based upon credit takes root spontaneously in the
function of money as the means of payment."44 "Credit-money springs directly out of the function of money as a means of
payment. Certificates of the debts owing for the purchased commodities circulate for the purpose of transferring those debts
to otbers."45
Here one can clearly see the miraculous alienating power of money. For "money has the power of turning idea into
reality, and of making reality (i.e., a genuine human power) remain a mere idea." 46 There is, in fact, a "magic of money," for
"in the [capitalist] form of society, ... the behavior of men in the social process of production is purely atomic. Hence their
relations to each other in production assume a material character independent of their control and conscious individual
action."47
As Marx stated in his Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts. "the power to confuse and invert all human and natural
qualities, ... the divine power of money, resides in its essence as the alienated and exteriorized social life of men. It is the
alienated power of humanity."48 "In its form as the means of circulation, ... it is circumcised, and immediately superficialized as
merely symbolical paper rags. For a slave, it becomes the lord. For a mere accomplice, it becomes the God of
commodities."49 "Money is the jealous God of Israel, before Whom there may be no other God. Money humiliates all human
gods-and changes them into a commodity ... Money is the alienated being of man's labor and existence, and this foreign
being controls him and he worships it."50 "It is the general whore, the general go-between of people and nations." By money,
the general relationship of man to his fellow man has become: have or have not. 51
Small wonder then, that "the ancients therefore denounced money as subversive of the economic and moral order of
things." The greater the shame, then, that "modern society, which, soon after its birth, pulled Plutus by the hair of his head
from the bowels of the earth; greets gold as its Holy Grail,"52 worshiping it as the supreme good, which thereby makes its
possessor good, giving the lamest twenty-four feet, and enabling the ugliest of men to buy the most beautiful of women.53
Well did Marx agree with Shakespeare's famous indictment regarding the corrupting power of gold, which Marx himself
quoted with approval in his own Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts:

-26-

Gold, yellow, glittering, precious gold? No gods,


I am no idle votarist. Roots, you clear heavens!
That much of this, will make black, white; foul, fair;
Wrong, right; base, noble; old, young; coward, valiant.
Ha, you gods! Why this? What this, you gods? Why this
Will lug your priests and servants from your sides;
Pluck stout men's pillows from below their heads:
This yellow slave
Will knit and break religions; bless the accurs'd;
Make the hoar leprosy ador'd; place thieves,
And give them title, knee, and appr obation,
With senators on the bench: this is it,
That makes the wappen'd widow wed again;
She, whom the spital-house, and ulcerous sores
Would cast the gorge at, this embalms and spices
To the April day again. Come, damned earth,
Thou common whore of mankind, that put'st odds
Among the rout of nations ...
O thou sweet king-killer, and dear divorce
'Twixt natural son and sire! thou bright defiler
Of Hymen's purest bed! thou valiant Mars!
Thou ever young, fresh, lov'd and delicate wooer,
Whose blush doth thaw the consecrated snow
That lies on Dian's lap! thou visible god,
That solder'st close impossibilities,
And mak'st them kiss! that speak'st with every tongue,
To every purpose! 0 thou touch of hearts!
Think, thy slave man rebels; and by thy virtue
Set them into confounding odds, that beasts
May have the world in empire!54
"Shakespeare," declared Marx, here "stresses especially two properties of money:
"(1) It is the visible divinity-the transformation of all human and natural properties into their contraries, the universal
confounding and overturning of things: it makes brothers of impossibilities. (2) It is the common whore, and common principle
of people and nations.
"The overturning and confounding of all human and natural qualities, the fraternization of impossibilities-the divine power
of money-lies in its character as men's estranged, alienating and self-disposing species-nature. Money is the alienated ability
of mankind." 55
In such circumstances, it is not surprising that men began to hoard money. "Gold and silver thus become of themselves
social expressions for superfluity or wealth. This naive form of hoarding becomes perpetuated in those communities in which
the traditional mode of production is carried on for the supply of a fixed and limited circle of home wants With the possibility
of holding and storing up exchange-value in the shape of a particular commodity, arises also the greed for gold. Along with
the extension of circulation, increases the power of money, that absolutely social form of wealth ever ready for use. 'Gold is a
wonderful thing! Whoever possesses it is lord of all he wants. By means of gold one can even get souls into Paradise.' "56
This hoarding takes on its best-known appearance under the form of capital. Engels' definition in his Housing Question
("Capital is the command over the unpaid labor of others"), 57 was stated more elaborately by Marx as follows:
"The simplest form of the circulation of commodities is C - M - C, the transformation of commodities into money, and the
change of the money back again into commodities; or selling in order to buy. But alongside of this form we find another
specifically different form: M - C - M, the transformation of money into commodities, and the change of commodities back
again into money; or buying in order to sell. Money that circulates in the latter manner is thereby transformed into, becomes
capital, and is already potentially capital58 It is under the form of money that value begins and ends, and begins again,
every act of its own spontaneous generation. It began by being 100, it is now 110, and so on... The capitalist knows that all
commodities, however scurvy they may look, or however badly they may smell, are in faith and in truth money, inwardly
circumcised Jews, and what is more, a wonderful means whereby out of money to make more money."59
Capital, however, is amassed by the production of surplus-value and the exploitation of surplus labor60 and the
conversion of surplus-value into capital.61 To this end, (minimum) wages are invented to extract the maximum labor-value
from the laborer in order to turn it into (maximum) capital for the employer, who thereby becomes a capitalist.
As Engels remarked: "Let us assume ht at these means of subsistence represent six hours of labor-time daily. Our
incipient capitalist, who buys labor-power for carrying on his business, i.e., hires a laborer, consequently pays this laborer the
full value of his day's labor-power if he pays him a sum of money which also represents six hours of labor. And as soon as

-27-

the laborer has worked six hours in the employment of the incipient capitalist, he has fully reimbursed the latter for his outlay,
for the value of the day's labor-power which he had paid. But so far the money would not have been converted into capital, it
would not have produced any surplus-value. And for this reason the buyer of labor-power has quite a different notion of the
nature of the transaction he has carried out. The fact that only six hours' labor is necessary to keep the laborer alive for
twenty-four hours, does not in any way prevent him from working twelve hours out of the twenty-four. The value of the laborpower, and the value which that labor-power creates in the labor-process, are two different magnitudes ... On our
assumption, therefore, the laborer each day costs the owner of money the value of the product of six hours' labor, but he
hands over to him each day the value of the product of twelve hours' labor. The difference in favor of the owner of the money
is-six hours of unpaid surplus-labor, a surplus-product for which he does not pay and in which six hours' labor is embodied.
The trick has been performed. Surplus-value has been produced; money has been converted into capital."62
Wages, or the economic "rewards" given to exploited employees in return for their labor, have been unforgettably
described by Marx in his Capital and in his Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts.
In his Capital, Marx declared: "The value of labor power, like that of every other commodity, is determined by the labor
time necessary for the production, and consequently for the reproduction as well, of this specific article ... Labor power only
exists as a capacity of the living individual Now the living individual requires for his maintenance a certain amount of the
means of subsistence. This leads us to the conclusion that the labor time necessary for the production of labor power is the
labor time necessary for the production of these means of subsistence ... The amount of the means of subsistence must be
sufficient to maintain the working individual as a working individual in his normal state of life The comprehensiveness of
what are called 'needs,' and the methods of their satisfaction, are ... historical products, depending in large measure upon the
stage of civilization a country has reached, and depending, moreover, to a very considerable extent, upon under what
conditions, and therefore with what habits and claims, the class of free workers has come into existence. Thus the value of
labor power includes, in contradistinction to the value of other commodities, a historical and a moral factor. Still, for any
specific country, in any specific epoch, the average comprehensiveness of the necessaries of life may be regarded as a fixed
quantity. The subsistence of the worker's wife and children must also be included to take account of the wear and tear of
death."63
And in his Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts. Marx succinctly stated: "We also understand, that wages and private
property are identical where the product, the object of labor, pays for labor itself, (and that] the wage is but a necessary
consequence of labor's estrangement," and "the needs of the worker are thus reduced to the need to maintain him during
work, so that the race of workers does not die out. Consequently, wages have exactly the same significance as the
maintenance of any other productive instrument, and as the consumption of capital in general, so that it can reproduce itself
with interest. They [wages] are like oil which is applied to a wheel [production] to keep it running."64 There is, then, a "real
connection" between the "whole system of alienation-private property, acquisitiveness, the separation of labor, capital and
land, exchange and competition, valuation and devaluation of man, monopoly and competition-and the system of money."65
However, according to the iron laws of dialectics, the increasing quantitative discrepancy between capital and the
capitalists on the one hand and wages and the wage-earners on the other ultimately gives rise to a sudden qualitative
change-a revolution. In a last-minute attempt to stave off the socialist takeover, and the institution of the dictatorship of the
proletariat, capitalism feverishly enters its final stage-imperialism or colonialism, viz., an attempt to placate the European
proletariat at the expense of their colleagues in the colonies.
This theme was already touched on in the last chapter of Marx's Capital. but far more graphically articulated in Lenin's
1916 Imperialism-the Highest Stage of Capitalism. Imperialism prolongs the life of the imperialist power, but its fall is
nonetheless inevitable. Finally, wrote Marx, there comes a great financial crisis, "a crisis, [in which] the antithesis between
commodities and their value-form, money, becomes heightened into an absolute contradiction ... The money famine
continues, whether payments have to be made in gold or in credit money such as bank notes."66 The "conduits of circulation"
are filled with paper money"; there is "no longer ... any standard"; and the economy falls into "general disrepute "66a
As a result of the ever-increasing capitalist exploitation of the workers by the capitalists, of cutthroat competition between
one capitalist and another resulting in monopolies, and of the organization of the workers into trade unions resulting in
powerful economic pressure groups, a monetary crisis develops as a result of the increasing "centralization of capital. One
capitalist always kills many. Hand in band with this centralization. or this expropriation of many capitalists by few, develops,
on an ever-extending scale, the co-operative form of the labor-process ... Along with the constantly diminishing number of the
magnates of capital, who usurp and monopolize all advantages of this process of transformation, grows the mass of misery,
oppression, slavery, degradation, exploitation; but with this too grows the revolt of the working-class, a class always
increasing in numbers, and disciplined, united, organized by the very mechanism of the process of capitalist production itself.
The monopoly of capital becomes a fetter upon the mode of production, which has sprung up and flourished along with, and
under it. Centralization of the means of production and socialization of labor at last reach a point where they become
incompatible with their capitalist integument. This integument is burst asunder. The knell of capitalist private property sounds.
The expropriators are expropriated.66b
And thus, suddenly, the proletarian revolution is at hand. Communal values are re-asserted, and capitalistic values are
destroyed.

-28-

4.

Socialist Value

Already in the 1871 Paris Commune, Marx and Engels saw something of a breakthrough of socialism, and Marx
remarked that "from the [executive] members of the Commune downwards, the public service had to be done at workmen's
wages."67 "On April 1" 1871, wrote Engels, "it was decided that the highest salary reward by any employee of the Commune,
and therefore also by the members themselves, might not exceed 6000 francs,"67a "and that was the dictatorship of the
proletariat!"68
From Marx's Critique of the Gotha Program and Engels' 1875 Letter to Bebel and Lenin's pre-revolutionary 1917 State
and Revolution, it is also clear that Marx and Engels as the two founders of modern communism believed in controlled and
modest salaries under socialism, but not in the payment of absolutely equal salaries and still less in the abolition of money at
this early eschatological stage. As opposed to communism, where each is rewarded according to his needs, under socialism,
all workers are remunerated according to their labors-thus unequally-and the motto is "from each according to his ability, to
each according to his work."
In his Critique of the Gotha Program, Marx therefore made the following famous yet vitally important if lengthy remarks
concerning value in socialist society:
What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the
contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually still
stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives
back from society-after the deductions have been made-exactly what he contributes to it. What he has contributed to it is his
individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the
individual labor-time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He
receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such and such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the
common funds), and with this certificate he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as costs the same
amount of labor. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form he receives back in another.
Here obviously the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities as far as this is
exchange of equal values. Content and form are changed, because under the altered conditions no one can give anything
except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass into the ownership of individuals except individual means
of consumption. But, as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual producers is concerned, the same principle
prevails as in the exchange of commodity-equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount
of labor in another form.
Hence, equal right here is still in principle-bourgeois right, although principle and practice are no longer at loggerheads,
;whereas the exchange of equivalents in commodity exchange only exists on the average and not in the individual case.
In spite of this advance, equal right is still burdened with bourgeois limitations. The right of the producers is proportional
to the labor they supply; the equality consists in the fact that measurement is made with an equal standard, labor.
But one man is superior to another physically or mentally and so supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a
longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a
standard of measurement. The equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class difference, because
everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus natural
privileges in respect of productive capacity. It is, therefore, in its content, a right of inequality. like every right. Right, by its
very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different
individuals if they were not unequal) can only be assessed by an equal standard in so far as they are regarded from a single
aspect, from one particular side only, as for instance, in the present case, they are regarded only as workers, and nothing
more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another not; one has more children than
another, and so on. Thus with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal share in the social consumption fund, one
individual will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right,
instead of being equal, would have to be unequal ... But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society
as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the
econom ic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.69
Just before the writing of the above article of Marx, Engels wrote his 1875 Letter to Bebel, in which he stated that
socialism would be characterized by more equal, but not absolutely equal, pay and living conditions,70 and both these
documents were re-quoted with approval by Lenin in his 1917 State and Revolution (written just before the victorious Russian
Revolution).
In the latter book, Lenin also himself elaborated that under socialism:

-29-

Every member of society, performing a certain part of the socially-necessary work, receives a certificate from society to
the effect that he has done such and such an amount of work. And with this certificate he receives from the public store of
articles of consumption a corresponding quantity of products. After a deduction is made of the amount of labor which goes to
the public fund, every worker, therefore, receives from society as much as he has given to it.
"Equal right," says Marx, we indeed have here; but it is still a "bourgeois right," which, like every right, presupposes
inequality. Every right is an application of an equal measure to different people who in fact are not alike, are not equal to one
another; that is why "equal right" is really a violation of equality and an injustice. Indeed, every man, having performed as
much social labor as another, receives an equal share of the social product (after the above-mentioned deductions).
Hence, the first phase of communism [that is, "socialism"-N.L.] cannot yet produce justice and equality: differences, and
unjust differences, in wealth will still exist, but the exploitation of man by man will have become impossible, because it will be
impossible to seize the means of production, the factories, machines, land, etc., as private property.
The socialist principle: "He who does not work, neither shall he eat," is already realized; the other socialist principle: "An
equal amount of products for an equal amount of labor," is also already realized. But this is not yet communism. [For] to
organize the whole national economy on the lines of the postal service, so that the technicians, foremen, bookkeepers, as
well as all officials, should receive salaries no higher than "a workman's wage," all under the control and leadership of the
armed proletariat-this is our immediate aim.71
With the advent of the Russian Revolution of November 1917 itself, the new era of socialism was fully and permanently
inaugurated. Wrote Lenin: "A new era in world history has begun. Mankind is throwing off the last form of slavery: capitalist,
or wage, slavery. By emancipating himself from slavery, man is for the first time advancing to real freedom."72
This new era of socialism under Lenin was distinguished into three successive periods: Workers' Control, War
Communism, and the N.E.P., under each of which slightly different economic policies as a result of pressing circumstances
necessarily had to be followed.
Under Workers' Control, 1917-18, Lenin (temporarily) abolished all buying and selling, (permanently) nationalized the
banks, sought to raise revenue by introducing the graduated tax, insisted on rigid accounting and bookkeeping throughout the
national economy, encouraged every worker (over and above his daily labor) to render extra work without pay, and
confiscated all available money (especially from the kulaks or richer peasants).
Firstly, Lenin abolished all buying and selling. This had already been adumbrated in the 1848 Manifesto of the
Communist Party of Marx and Engels,73 and now in this early stage of Workers' Control (and even more so under the
subsequent stage of War Communism) in Russia, it was put into effect. As Lenin decreed one or two days after the
communist takeover of Russia: "Workers' Control over the production, storage, purchase and sale of all products and raw
materials should be introduced in all industrial, commercial, banking, agriculture and other enterprises."74
Secondly, Lenin nationalized all the banks. Here again, the 1848 Manifesto of the Communist Party of Marx and Engels
had already called for "centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank, with state capital and
exclusive monopoly."75 And seven months before the Russian Revolution, in his April 17, 1917, The Task of the Proletariat in
Our Revolution, Lenin advocated the reintroduction of "such measures as the nationalization of the land, of all banks and
capitalist syndicates or, at least, the establishment of immediate control of the Soviets of Workers' Deputies over them," while
conceding that even such measures should be regarded as "by no means signifying the 'introduction' of Socialism," but
merely as "only steps towards Socialism."76
Indeed, held Lenin, this called for "the immediate amalgamation of all banks in the country into a single national bank,
and the institution of control over it by the Soviet of Workers' Deputies."76 And in his June 1917 Materials Relating to the
Revision of the Party Program, he added: "The high level of development of capitalism already achieved in banking and in
the trustified branches of industry, on the one hand, and the economic disruption caused by the imperialist war, everywhere
evoking a demand for state and public control of the production and distribution of all staple products, on the other, induce the
Party to demand the nationalization of the banks, syndicates (trusts), etc."77
In October 1917, right before the successful Russian Red Revolution, Lenin wrote in his Will the Bolsheviks Retain State
Power? that "this machinery [viz., of banking and finance-N.L.] cannot and must not be broken up. It must be forcibly freed
from subjection to the capitalists; the latter must be cut off, broken, chopped away from it with the threads transmitting their
influence; it must be subjected to the proletarian Soviets; it must be made wider, more all-embracing, more popular. And this
can be done by relying on the achievements already attained by large-scale capital (as, indeed, the proletarian revolution in
general can only attain its aim by taking these achievements as its basis).
"Capitalism created the apparatus for accounting: the banks, syndicates, post offices, consumers' societies, unions of
employees. Without the big banks Socialism could not be realized.
"The big banks arc the 'state apparatus' which we need for the realization of Socialism and which we take ready-made
from capitalism. Our problem here is only to chop off that which capitalistically disfigures this otherwise excellent apparatus
and to make it even larger, more democratic, more all-embracing. Quantity will change into quality. One state bank as huge
as possible, with branches in every township, in every factory-this is already nine-tenths of the Socialist apparatus. This is

-30-

general state accounting, general state accounting of production and distribution of goods, this is, so to speak, something in
the nature of the skeleton of Socialist society."77a
And one month after seizing power, Lenin issued his Draft Decree on the Nationalization of Banks, in which he stated that
"all great stock companies are proclaimed the property of the state."78
Thirdly, Lenin sought to raise revenue by introducing the graduated tax. Already Marx and Engels in their 1848 Manifesto
of the Communist Party had advocated introduction of "a heavy progressive or graduated income tax,"79 and five months
before the 1917 Russian Revolution Lenin had declared that "as a basic condition for the democratization of our country's
national economy, the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party demands the abolition of all indirect taxes and the
establishment of a progressive tax on incomes and inheritances."80 And fifteen months after the Revolution in March 1919
Lenin stressed that one of the main aims of the Russian communists was to "introduce a graduated income and property
tax."81
Fourthly, Lenin confiscated all available money from private persons, and sought to control all income and expenditure by
means of accounting. In his 1918 Speech at the Meeting of the Land Committee Congress and the Peasant Section of the
Third Congress of Soviets, he declared: "One thing that we suffer from, that makes our country weak, is the lack of money.
The big kulaks in town and country still have lots of money, which is evidence of their exploitation of the people's labor, and
which must belong to the people. We are sure that the working peasants will declare a ruthless war against the kulaks, their
oppressors, and will help us in our struggle for the people's better future and for socialism."82 And in his 1918 Report on the
Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government, he added: "Accounting and control-that is mainly what is needed for the proper
functioning of communist society."83
This mention of accounting and control brings us, fifthly, to Lenin's insistence on rigid bookkeeping throughout Russia.
Already in his Capital III, Marx had prophesied that "after the abolition of the capitalist mode of production, but still retaining
social production, the determination of value continues to prevail in the sense that the regulation of labor-time and the
distribution of social labor among the various production groups, ultimately the book-keeping encompassing all this, become
more essential than ever."84 And just before the 1917 Russian Revolution, Lenin declared: "Accounting and control-that is the
main thing required for 'arranging' the smooth working, the correct functioning of the first phase of communist society. All
citizens are transformed here into hired employees of the state ... When the majority of the people begin independently and
everywhere to keep such accounts and maintain such control over the capitalists (now converted into employees) and over
the intellectual gentry who preserve their capitalist habits, this control will really become universal, general, popular; and there
will be no getting away from it, there will be 'nowhere to go' "85-an opinion which, as already seen above, 83 he also regarded
as necessary "for the proper functioning of communist society" after the Revolution. And by March 1918, he had already
achieved a measure of success in this respect: "The organization of accounting, of the control of large enterprises, the
transformation of the whole of the State economic mechanism into a single huge machine, into an economic organism that
will work in such a way as to enable hundreds of millions of people to be guided by a single plan-such was the enormous
organizational problem that rested on our shoulders."86
But, sixthly, even under the short period of Workers' Control, Lenin was already insisting that every toiler should render
extra work without pay: "Our aim is to ensure that every toiler, having finished his eight hours 'task' in productive labor, shall
perform state duties without pay; the transition to this is particularly difficult, but this transition alone can guarantee the final
consolidation of socialism."87
Under War Communism, 1918-21, dire socio-economic conditions caused by the First World War and especially by the
succeeding civil war led to the premature introduction of a moneyless economy (an ultimate aim of communism) over a large
part of Russia.88 As pointed out above,89 only the prohibition of trading-particularly grain trading-and the distribution of
goods largely to the proletarians alone on the basis of the class principle-saved the Soviet Union from collapse.
As Lenin repeatedly indicated, the rural areas had to exchange their grain and foodstuffs in return for the products of
socialist industry, which undertaking was neither a surplus appropriation system nor a tax but "the exchange of products of
big ('socialized') industry for peasant products [-and] that is the economic essence of socialism, its base."90
The best summary of the economic implications of War Communism is perhaps that given by modern Russian
Communist philosophers in their 1963 Fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism:
"Free trade was forbidden. The basic foodstuffs and manufactures were strictly rationed, according to the class principle.
All surplus produce in the countryside was taken under the 'surplus appropriation system,' also according to the class
principle: nothing from the poor peasant, a moderate amount from the middle peasant, and much from the kulak. Industry
was fully centralized and wholly subordinated to the needs of the battle fronts. The industrial enterprises received raw
materials, equipment, etc., from government bodies and turned in all they produced to them, getting coupons instead of cash
in return. Money ceased to play any important role. Economic life was regulated by purely administrative methods.
"'War Communism' was a policy imposed by the exceptionally difficult conditions of the Civil War. It helped to mobilize the
then scanty resources of Russia for victory over the enemy, and therein lay its indisputable significanee." 91
Yet even under War Communism, something of the ultimate communist economic order peeped through in the activities
of the subbotniks (for which see below, at notes 110 and 146-7)-unpaid Party workers who worked for the sheer joy of
bringing about the victory of socialism in the Soviet Union.
However, after War Communism had accomplished its historical task by 1921, it was followed by the period of the N.E.P.,
in which money and trade were re-instituted, and in which the Communist Party controlled state industry and developed

-31-

"state capitalism" and allowed private entrepreneurs (under rigid state supervision) to develop the various sectors of the
Russian economy for the benefit of the regime.92
As Lenin wrote, "War Communism" had now accomplished its historical task.92 And as modern Russian communist
philosophers wrote: " 'War Communism was not and could not be a policy making for a closer economic bond with the
peasantry. As soon as the conditions changed, the dictatorship of the proletariat switched to the 'New Economic Policy'
(N.E.P.). It was under this name that it went down in history, although it was new only with regard to 'War Communism' and
was in essence the same policy which Lenin had already outlined early in 1918. The ban on private trade was lifted after the
introduction of the New Economic Policy. The peasants began to sell their surplus produce in the market. Capitalists were
given access to both retail and wholesale trade; they were allowed to open small industrial enterprises. What is more, part of
the state enterprises were denationalized and leased to the capitalists. The enterprises in the socialist sector were put on a
self-supporting basis: henceforth they bought their raw materials and sold their products. The rationing of foodstuffs was
replaced by open sales. Lenin urged the Communists to 'learn to trade' in order to oust private traders and replace private
trade by state and co-operative trade."93
Under the N.E.P., then, 1921 to 1927, money was re-introduced and personal incentive was encouraged.
As Lenin remarked regarding money at the Ninth All-Russian Congress of Soviets, the regime now began to make "every
effort to secure the speediest reduction of the issue of paper money, eventually put a stop to it, and establish a sound
currency backed by gold."94 And even though ultimately "when we are victorious on a world scale, I think we shall use gold for
the purpose of building public lavatories," for the moment "we nevertheless say that we must work for another decade or two
with the same intensity and with the same success as in the 1917-21 period, only in a much wider field, in order to reach this
stage ... Meanwhile, we must save the gold in the R.S.F.S.R. [Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic], sell it at the
highest price, buy goods with it at the lowest price." 95
As regards the related matter of paid jobs and personal incentive, Lenin wrote in 1919: "Although our ultimate aim is to
achieve full communism and equal remuneration for all kinds of work, we cannot introduce this equality straightaway, at the
present time, when only the first steps of the transition from capitalism to communism are being taken ... In the period of
transition from capitalism to communism, bonuses are indispensable ... [We] must strive patiently to arouse in people
possessing scientific knowledge a consciousness of how loathsome it is to use science for personal enrichment and for the
exploitation of man by man, a consciousness of the more lofty aim of using science for the purpose of making it known to the
working people "It is impossible to abolish money at one stroke in the first period of transition from capitalism to
communism. ... the Russian Communist Party will strive as speedily as possible to introduce the most radical measures to
pave the way for the abolition of money, first and foremost to replace it by savings-bank books, checks, short-term notes
entitling holders to receive goods from the public stores, and so forth."96
The latter is reminiscent of what Marx in his Critique of the Gotha Program had to say about "labor certificates" under
socialism."97 But this, however, is still "money," and not yet communism.98 For as Lenin pointed out: "Socialism implies work
without the aid of the capitalists, socialized labor with strict accounting, control and supervision by the organized vanguard,
the advanced section of the working people; the measure of labor and remuneration for it must be fixed. It is necessary to fix
them because capitalist society has left behind such survivals and such habits as the fragmentation of labor, no confidence in
social economy, and the old habits of the petty proprietor that dominate in all peasant countries."99
Under the N.E.P., then, state capitalism and state control of private foreign capitalism operating in Russia is used to
construct the technical and economic basis for the promotion of socialism. As Lenin remarked on the institution of the N.E.P.
in March 1921: "State-monopoly capitalism [under the initial implementation of socialism] is a complete material preparation
for [the achievement of actual] socialism, the threshold of socialism, a rung on the ladder of history between which and the
rung called socialism there are no intermediate rungs." And "we must use the method of compromise, or of buying out the
cultured capitalists who agree to 'state capitalism,' who are capable of putting it into practice and who are useful to the
proletariat as intelligent and experienced organizers of the largest types of enterprises, which actually supply products to tens
of millions of people."
Of course, it may be asked: "Isn't it paradoxical that private capital should be helping socialism?" To which Lenin replied:
"Not at all. It is indeed, an irrefutable economic fact. Since this is a small-peasant country with transport in an extreme state of
dislocation, a country emerging from war and blockade under the political guidance of the proletariat-which controls the
transport system and large-scale industry-it inevitably follows, first, that at the present moment local exchange acquires first
class significance, and second, that there is a possibility of assisting socialism by means of private capitalism (not to speak of
state capitalism)."100 And as he remarked eight months later: "Not on enthusiasm alone, but with the help of the enthusiasm
generated by the great revolution, by means of personal interestedness, by economic accounting, you will have first to build
firm bridges leading in a country of small peasants ... to socialism; there is no other way to come nearer to communism; there
is no other way to lead millions of people to communism ... Personal self-interestedness increases production; we have to
increase production first of all and under all circumstances ... We shall cover the entire 'course' although the circumstances of
the world economy and world politics make it much longer and more difficult than we would have liked it."101
There can be no doubt, however, that Lenin regarded all this only as a tactical manouever. Even while the N.E.P. was
being introduced, he was already stating: "The task that we are now tackling, for the time being-temporarily alone, looks like a
purely Russian task, but in actual fact it is a task which will confront all the socialists ... The new society, built on the basis of
the alliance of workers and peasants, is inevitable. Sooner or later, twenty years earlier or twenty years later, it will come, and

-32-

it is for it, for this society, that we are helping to elaborate forms of alliance between workers and peasants when we work to
implement our New Economic Policy." 102
However, Lenin's public career was terminated before he could completely bring all this to pass. But this was done (at
least in Russia) after his death at the termination of the N.E.P. and the institution of the first Five-Year Plan at the beginning
of the period of Socialist "Reconstruction,"103 in 1928. And there cannot be any doubt that the modern Soviet theoreticians
who drew up the historic 1961 Program of the C.P.S.U. with Khrushchev's full approval were determined to fully realize
socialist value and then proceed to the attainment of communist value. For as Afanasyev has written: "The C.P.S.U. has set a
task of historic significance-to achieve in the Soviet Union a standard of living higher than in all capitalist countries. ... When
the Soviet people will enjoy the blessings of communism, new hundreds of millions of people on earth will say: 'We are for
communism.' "104
5. Value under "Future Communism"
What, then, will be the characteristics of pure communist value, when it finally arrives?
Firstly-and only in the initial stages of "pure communism"-there will be equal pay for equal labor-time, even for unequal
work. As Lenin remarked: "The whole of society will have become a single factory, with equality of labor and equality of pay.
But this 'factory' discipline is by no means our ideal, our ultimate goal "105 For as Engels points out, the slogan, "'Equal
wages for equal labor time!,'" as an ultimate goal, is merely a Dhringian utopian socialist idea. The truly Marxist communist
(initial) goal, is equal pay for unequal work (for workers are of unequal ability), but the ultimate goal (see below) 106 is no pay
for universal work.
This appears from the following considerations, held by Engels in his Anti--Dhring: "If we have two workers, even in the
same branch of industry, the value they produce in one hour of labor time will always vary with the intensity of their labor and
their skill-and not even an economic commune, at any rate not on our globe, can remedy this inconvenience What then
remains of the complete equality of value of any and every labor? Nothing but the purely braggart phrase, which has no other
economic foundation than Herr Dhring's incapacity to distinguish between the determination of labor by labor and the
determination of value by wages-nothing but the ukase, the basic law of the new economic commune: 'Equal wages for equal
labor time!'
"In a society of private producers, private individuals or their families pay the costs of training the skilled worker ... The
clever slave is sold for a higher price, and the clever wage earner is paid higher wages. In a socialistically organized society,
these costs are borne by society, and to it therefore belong also the fruits, the greater values, produced by skilled labor. The
laborer himself has no claim to extra payment. And from this, incidentally, also follows the moral that there is frequently a
drawback to the popular demand of the workers for 'the full proceeds of labor.' "107
And as Lenin maintained, after the Russian Revolution: "Our ultimate aim is to achieve full communism and equal
remuneration for all kinds of work."108
Secondly-and flowing from the above-real communist society is society in which wages have been (ultimately) abolished.
Just as Engels combatted the utopian socialism of Dhring,107 so too did Marx oppose the utopian socialism of preDhringians who advocated "equality of wages" as the ultimate ideal, and who held that "the community is only a community
of labor," and who advocated "an equality of wages paid out by the communal capital." For here, argued Marx, they
erroneously regarded "the community as the universal capitalist. Both sides of the relationship are raised to an imagined
universality-labor as a state in which every person is put, and capital as the acknowledged universality and power of the
community."109
The communist position, however, is that of ultimate wagelessness, as so clearly set out in Lenin's doctrine of the
subbotniks (which see below),110 and as already adumbrated by Lenin right after the Revolution in his The Immediate Tasks
of the Soviet Government where he clearly declared: "Our aim is to ensure that every toiler, having finished his eight hours
'task' and productive labor, should perform state duties without pay; the transition to this is particularly difficult, but this
transition alone can guarantee the final consolidation of socialism."111
Thirdly, it is not only wages which are abolished, but also money as such, which vanishes under pure communism,
becoming superfluous. As the Leninist 1919 Program of the Communist Party of Russia stated: "Upon the basis of the
nationalization of banking, the Russian Communist Party endeavors to promote a series of measures favoring a moneyless
system of account keeping, and paving the way for the abolition of money."112 Wages having been dispensed with, money
itself becomes superfluous as production has so expanded that man's economic habits will now have been changed, and
unpaid work for the public good becomes a general phenomenon.113
This is the tendency of the teaching of Marx's and Engels' Holy Family and their German Ideology, and particularly of
Marx's Capital II and On the Jewish Question. In the latter work, he announced that in "the emancipation from huckstering
and from money, and thus from real and practical Judaism, our age would emancipate itself,"114 and in his Capital II he flatly
stated: "If we conceive society as being not capitalistic but communistic, there will be no money-capital at all"115 and: "In the
case of socialized production, the money-capital is eliminated."116 And even after the Revolution, Lenin got the Russian
Communist Party in its 1919 Draft Program to advocate the "abolition of money,"117 and to declare that "the Russian
Communist Party will strive as speedily as possible to introduce the most radical measures to pave the way for the abolition
of money, first and foremost to replace it by savings-bank books, checks, short-term notes entitling the holders to receive

-33-

goods from the public stores, and so forth."118


But it is especially in Engels' Anti-Dhring and Marx's Poverty of Philosophy that the money-free nature of communist
society is adumbrated. In his Anti-Dhring, Engels insisted that under future communism, money will be superfluous, for one
"can simply calculate how many hours of labor are contained in a steam-engine, a bushel of wheat of the last harvest, or a
hundred square yards of cloth of a certain quality. It therefore could never occur to [such a future communist society] still to
express the quantities of labor put into products-quantities which it will then know directly in their absolute amounts-in a third
product [viz., in money, or in gold and silver as the basis thereof]; in a measure moreover which is only relative, fluctuating
[and] inadequate, though formerly unavoidable for lack of a better [one], rather than express them in natural adequate and
absolute measure-time [i.e., labor-time-N.L.]."118a Or as Marx remarked in his Poverty of Philosophy: "The usage will no
longer be determined according to the minimum production-time: but the social production-time devoted to different objects
will be determined according to their degree of social activity." This means that even Russian caviar and vodka will no longer
be valued according to their cost, but according to their essential benefit to the workers.118b
Fourthly, with the disappearance of money, there is a corresponding drop in the value of precious metals previously used
for coinage, notably of silver and gold. Already in 1867, Marx was prophesying that "it is apparent that the labor expended ...
on silver production has decidedly decreased, which quite naturally explains the drop in the value of the latter," so that it is
"likely that silver will forfeit its money function more and more in the markets of the world,119 for "as wealth increases, the
less precious metal is thrust out by the more precious from its place as a measure of value, copper by silver, silver by
gold." 120 But even gold money will ultimately disappear. For, declared Lenin in his 1921 The Importance of Gold Now and
After the Complete Victory of Socialism, "when we are victorious on a worldwide scale, I think we shall use gold for the
purpose of building public lavatories in the streets of some of the largest cities of the world," even though it is moot point
precisely how "'just' 'useful,' or humane it would be to utilize gold for this purpose."121
The disappearance of money will, fifthly, necessarily result in the disappearance of trade as we now know it. There are to
be no more buyers and sellers, and the Manifesto of the Communist Party's "communistic abolition of buying and selling" as
(temporarily) applied by Lenin after the Revolution and before the N.E.P.122 is now applied permanently and in full, as "the
whole of society will have become a single factory."123 As Marx had prophesied in his 1847 The Poverty of Philosophy: "It lies
in the nature of big industry that labor-time must be the same for all. That which is today effected by capital and the
competition of laborers against one another, will tomorrow-when the relationship of labor and capital is terminated-become
the result of an agreement resting on the relationship between the sum of the productive forces to the needs at hand."124
Of course, there will still be controlled interchange between the various communes and between each commune and its
members, but this will, sixthly, be on the basis not of trade but of accounting and calculation. Under pure communism, wrote
Marx in his Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, "there can no longer be any question of exchange as it exists at
present. The practical application of the concept of value will then be increasingly confined to the decision about production,
and that is its proper sphere."125 In a moneyless society, a "society ... being not capitalistic but communistic," he continued in
his Capital II, "the question then comes down to the need of society to calculate beforehand how much labor, means of
production, and means of subsistence it can invest, without detriment, in such lines of business as for instance the building of
railways, which do not furnish any means of production or subsistence, nor produce any useful effect for a long time, a year
or more, while they extract labor, means of production and means of subsistence from the total annual production." 126
"Society distributes labor-power and means of production to the different branches of production. The producers may, for all it
matters, receive paper vouchers entitling them to withdraw from the social supplies of consumer goods a quantity
corresponding to their labor-time. These vouchers are not money. They do not circulate."127
Engels too maintains in his Anti-Dhring, that "in trading between the commune and its members the money is not money
at all, it does not in any way function as money. It serves as a mere labor certificate ... It can therefore be replaced by any
other token, just as Weitling replaces it by a "ledger," in which the labor hours worked are entered on the one side and the
enjoyments taken as compensation on the other." And "mere bookkeeping would suffice which would effect the exchange of
products of equal labor against products of equal labor far more simply if it used the actual measure of labor-time, with the
labor-hour as unit-than if it first converted the labor-hours into money ... If a commune should really have a deficit in its
dealings with other communes, all 'the gold present in the universe,' 'natural money' though it be, could not save this
commune from the fate of having to make good this deficit by increasing the quantity of Its own labor, if it does not want to fall
into a position of dependence on other communities through its debt."128
Small wander, then, that Lenin too pronounced: "Accounting and control-that is mainly what is needed for the proper
functioning of communist society."129
But with Marx and Engels and Lenin-as indeed previously with the utopian socialist Robert Owen130-even these "labor
certificates are merely a transitional form to complete communism and the free utilization of the resources of society."131 For,
seventhly, all such certificates will become unnecessary when man has become moral by nature and thereby adopted truly
human values. "The socialist principle: 'He who does not work, neither shall he eat' is already realized," wrote Lenin, referring
to the socialistic period; "the other socialist principle: 'An equal amount of products for an equal amount of labor,' is also
already realized. But this is not yet communism," for "we must not think that having overthrown capitalism, people will at once
learn to work for society without any standard of right," as under pure communism,132 when man will be moral by custom and
by habit. 133
For under pure communism, no "standard of right" will be needed. And neither will labor certificates, yielding their

-34-

possessors the "right" to have access to social products, be necessary. Society's storehouses will remain unguarded and
their products there for the taking. For theft will then be unknown. As Engels prophesied: "In a society in which the motive for
stealing has been done away with, in which therefore at the very most only lunatics would ever steal, how the teacher of
morals would be laughed at who tried solemnly to proclaim the eternal truth: 'Thou shalt not steal!' "134
When this point is reached, eighthly, Marx's renowned communist motto: "From each according to his ability, to each
according to his needs!" will be fully applicable, 135 and poverty and scarcity will be unknown.136 This was already implied in
the German Ideology, 137 and especially elaborated by Engels in his Anti-Dhring.
In that latter work, Engels argued that "socialism ... will emancipate human labor power from its position as a commodity,
the discovery that labor has no value and can have none is of great importance. With this discovery all attempts ... to regulate
the future distribution of the necessaries of life as a kind of more exalted wages, necessarily fall to the ground," 138 and that
"distribution, in so far as it is governed by purely economic considerations, will be regulated by the interests of production,
and that production is most encouraged by a mode of distribution which allows all members of society to develop, maintain
and exercise their capacities with maximum universality."139
In communist society, even though "society will be able to give people with an inordinate appetite ... a double measure,"
wrote Engels,141 seeing man will then be moral by nature, they will not desire to be capricious, and so communism will be
able to cater to "the satisfaction of the reasonable needs of people in an ever-increasing measure."141 And as Lenin
remarked, pure communism "presupposes not the present productivity of labor and not the present ordinary run of people,
who ... are capable of damaging the stocks of public wealth 'just for the fun,' and of demanding the impossible"; 142 for "when
society adopts the rule 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,' ... people become so accustomed
to observing the fundamental rules of social intercourse and ... their labor becomes so productive that they will voluntarily
work according to their ability."143
This will mark the emergence, ninthly, of universal communist man with universal communist values-communist man who
loves communist laborers and his fellow communist man and who neither needs nor asks for incentives. As the Marxist Burns
put it: "Above all, the self-seeking individualist outlook bred by capitalism will have been replaced by a really social outlook, a
sense of responsibility to society ... In that stage of society, Communist society, there will no longer be any need for
incentives or inducements to work, because the men and women of that day will have no other outlook than playing their part
in the further development of society."144 Work will have now become the first necessity of life, and people will work without
incentives.145
That this is also the actual expectation of Lenin is clear from his 1919 description of the subbotniks. "This is the name,"
he wrote, "given to the several hours' unpaid voluntary work done by city workers over and above the usual working day ...
Nothing helped so much to enhance the prestige of the Communist Party in the towns, to increase the respect of non-party
workers for the Communists, as these subbotniks when they ceased to be isolated instances and when non-party workers
saw in practice that members of the governing Communist Party have obligations and duties, and that the Communists admit
new members to the Party not in order that they may enjoy the advantages connected with the position of a governing party,
but that they may set an example of real communist labor, i.e., labor performed gratis. Communism is the highest stage in the
development of socialism, when people work because they realize the necessity of working for the common good." 146
"We give the name of communism to the system under which people form the habit of performing their social duties
without any special apparatus for coercion, and when unpaid work for the public good becomes a general phenomenon ...
The 'communist' begins when subbotniks (i.e., unpaid labor with no quota set by any authority or any state) make their
appearance; they constitute the labor of individuals on an extensive scale for the public good ... It is work done to meet the
needs of the country as a whole, and is organized on a broad scale and is unpaid If there is anything communist at all in
the prevailing system in Russia, it is only the subbotniks, ... something that is much more lofty than the socialist society that is
conquering capitalism."147
At that time, tenthly, wealth will be abundant and at the disposal of man, for communist man will be "the rich man richly
endowed with all feelings," and richly endowed with developed artistic tastes and aesthetic values.147a Under communism,
wrote Marx in his 1867 Capital I, "material riches exist to further the worker's need for development,"148 and under
communism, he wrote in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program, "the production forces and all the springs of social wealth
will pour forth a full flow."149
Finally, communist society will be a society without values-except for human values. Already in his 1844 Economic and
Philosophical Manuscripts, Marx placed an optimum on humanity 150 and spurned the "power of money in bourgeois society"
as the "alienated ability of mankind."151 "Money is the alienated essence of man's work and existence."152 Yet, he added:
"Even when exchange-value has disappeared, [human] labor-time will always remain the creative essence of wealth and the
standard of the cost required to produce it."153
The mature Engels (in his 1878 Anti-Dhring and 1878f. Dialectics of Nature) was in full agreement with Marx that only
"matter's highest creation, the thinking mind," 154 has ultimate value. For "society will also not assign values to products ...
People will be able to manage everything very simply, without the intervention of the famous 'values.' As long ago as 1844 I
stated (Deutsch-Franzsische Jahrbcher, p. 95) that the above-mentioned balancing of useful effects and expenditure of
labor would be all that would be left, in a communist society, of the concept of value as it appears in political economy."155
No different are the views of Lenin: "[We] must strive patiently to arouse in people possessing scientific knowledge a
consciousness of how loathsome it is to use science for personal enrichment and for the exploitation of man by man, a

-35-

consciousness of the more lofty aim of using science for the purpose of making it known to the working people." 156
"Communist labor in the narrower and stricter sense of the term is labor performed gratis for the benefit of society, labor
performed not as a definite duty, not for the purpose of obtaining a right to certain products, not according to previously
established and legally fixed quotas, but voluntary labor, irrespective of quotas; it is labor performed without expectation of
reward, without rewards as a condition."157 "We should work to do away with the accursed maxim: 'Every man for himself and
the devil take the hindmost,' the habit of looking upon work merely as a duty, and of considering rightful only that work which
is paid for at certain rates. We shall work to inculcate in people's minds, turn into a habit, and bring into the day-by-day life of
the masses, the rule: 'All for one and one for all,' the rule: 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs';
we shall work for the gradual but steady introduction of communist discipline and communist labor ... We shall work for years
and decades, practising subbotniks, developing them, spreading them, improving them and converting them into a habit. We
shall achieve the victory of communist labor."158
6. Post-Leninistic Communists on Future Value
It only remains to establish whether post-Leninist Russian communist thought has adhered to the above Marxist-Leninist
doctrine of value, or not.
We have already referred in passing to the 1961 New Party Program of the C.P.S.U. above. 104 That famous document
claims, inter alia, that in Russia: "In the next ten years (1961-70) the national income will rise nearly 2.5 times, and in 20
years (1961-80) it will rise approximately 5 times
"The main way to advance the standard of living is to raise wages in accordance with the quantity and quality of work and
to reduce retail prices and abolish taxes.
"Socialist society ... is still unable to fully satisfy all the requirements of its citizens. That is why the Communist Party calls
for the further strict application and improvement of the socialist principle of distribution according to work, combining material
and moral stimuli. ... Account is taken of the need to gradually narrow down the difference in workers' earnings in the higherpaid and lower-paid groups...
"[Future plans include] greatly extending the public funds distributed among the members of society independent of the
quantity and quality of work, i.e., free allotments (for education, medical service, maintenance of children in nurseries,
kindergartens, and so on).
"In 20 years [i.e., by 1981-N.L.] the public consumption funds will account for nearly half of all the real incomes of the
population. This will enable society to ensure the free maintenance of children in nurseries, kindergartens, boarding schools,
to provide free education in all educational institutions, free medical service to all citizens, including the provision of
medicines and sanatorium treatment, rent-free housing, free public utilities, urban transport and some other forms of service.
Payment for holiday homes and tourist centers will be gradually reduced and become partly free; free meals (dinners) at
factories, offices and collective farms will be gradually introduced. The population will be given allowances, privileges and
scholarships on an ever wider scale. Society will fully assume material care of the disabled.
"It is in this way [that socialism] will be gradually transformed into the communist principle of distribution according to
needs ... The more effort Soviet people put into their work, the sooner this time will arrive."104
Further, we would only point out that the actions and the words of modern Russians since then certainly evidence that
they still intend to implement this program in full.
In 1963, for example, modern Russian communist philosophers maintained that mutual incentives would gradually give
way to moral slimuli,159 that money would ultimately be abolished and all things would be obtainable gratis from the public
stocks,160 and that man's ever new needs-such as his needs for transport, rest homes, public dining rooms, crches and
libraries, etc.-would all be met from public funds, in order to ease and beautify his life.161
In 1967, at the Expo World Fair in Montreal in Canada, the writer personally inspected the huge copper sickle in front of
the (post-Khrushchevian) Soviet pavilion, which sickle was inscribed with the words: "Everything for the sake of man." And in
1968, Soviet experts re-emphasized "the communist ideal of free distribution of goods and services,"162 and stated that under
communism "everything will be free, yet nothing will be a gift," and that "as the country moves from socialism to communism,
the people's attitude toward work is changing; they are finding satisfaction in work other than good pay." 163
Summary
From the above, it has been seen that according to Marxism-Leninism, value is nothing but crystallized or congealed
labor. All things have a use-value (their naturally inherent utility), but only some have labor-value and exchange-value (their
commercial worth, determined by the amount of socially necessary labor-time involved in their production), and, since man's
alienation, this exchange-value has been expressed in (easily negotiable) money-value. Only labor-value, however, is of
permanent social significance to communism, for use-value is a non-social and individual value, and money-value is the
product of man's alienation from "primitive communism" and is destined to disappear at the advent of future communism.
Under "primitive communism," there was no exchanging and therefore no exchange-value, and all value (whether usevalue or labor-value) was exclusively tribal, so that non-tribal or non-communal value just did not exist. But when tribes began
to trade with one another, inter-tribal exchange-value developed and, by reaction, ultimately led to the development of private

-36-

property and exchange-value even within each tribe, soon to be typically expressed in the commodity known as money and
especially in surplus money or capital. This brought about the de-socialization of value, best expressed in the following
formula explaining the progressive alienation of value: labor - value - use - surplus - exchange -alienation - slavery commodities - precious metals - pure metal coins - deliberately debased coinage - paper money - capital -wages exploitation - credit - imperialism - crisis revolution - socialism (the latter progression being engineered by the proletariat
under the leadership of the Communist Party).
Socialism was already foreshadowed by the 1871 Paris Commune when even the executives were paid only workmen's
wages. Yet "workmen's wages' does not mean equal wages, held Marx and Engels and Lenin, for socialism is not yet
communism, and under socialism all are paid according to their abilities, not according to their needs.
In the first historical stage of Leninist socialism, "Workers' Control," all buying and selling was abolished, all banks were
nationalized, the graduated tax was introduced, all available money from private persons was confiscated, all income and
expenditures were controlled by means of accounting and rigid bookkeeping throughout the land, and every worker was
enjoined to render extra work without pay.
In the second phase of Leninist socialism, "War Communism," money was (prematurely) abolished, trade prohibited, and
grain distributed on the basis of (proletarian) class preference, in order to win the civil war against the "Whites," and postsocialistic communistic values were clearly adumbrated in the institution of the "subbotniks."
And in the third stage of Leninist socialism, the "New Economic Policy," in order to boost rapid economic development,
after the depletions of the civil war, money and trade was re-introduced, the gold standard was upheld, personal incentive
and foreign investment was encouraged-but all under the strict socialistic governmental control of "state capitalism," in order
to lay the technical and economic basis for the promotion of socialism and, ultimately, to embark on the transition to
communism.
When worldwide communism ultimately arrives, it is believed that man's values will have changed. In the initial stages of
pure communism, there will be equal pay for equal labor time, even for unequal work. But at a subsequent stage: wages are
abolished; money vanishes; the values of precious metals drop so that "we shall use gold for the purpose of building public
lavatories in the streets of some of the largest cities of the world" (Lenin); trade (by buying and selling) disappears as "the
whole of society will have become a single factory" (Lenin); exchange withers away and mere agreement suffices on the
basis of accounting and control.
Ultimately, when man becomes moral by habit, and theft unknown, even labor certificates for work performed will fall
away; then society's motto will be: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!" (Marx); even labor
itself will cease to have (exchange-)value-will cease to be a commodity; the high level of productivity will make every man rich
in social wealth-especially aesthetically; universal communist man will love communist work and his fellow communist man
without any material incentive whatsoever (cf. the subbotniks); and the only values under communism will be human laborvalue and the humanist values as by-products thereof.
In post-Leninistic times, it was seen that the above views were particularly re-endorsed in the 1961 New Party Program of
the C.P.S.U., by the Russian Pavilion at the 1967 Expo World Fair in Montreal in Canada, and in subsequent 1968 writings of
authoritative Soviet experts. Accordingly, it must be concluded that, in spite of practical problems, there has been no
significant modification by the modern Soviet regime of the classical Marxist-Leninist theory of the eschalological
development of value.

-37-

Chapter IX
PROPERTY IN COMMUNIST ESCRATOLOGY
In order to live, people must have food, clothing, footwear, shelter, fuel, etc.; in order to have these material values,
people must produce them; and in order to produce them, people must have the instruments of production with which
food, clothing, footwear, shelter, fuel, etc., are produced; they must he able to produce these instruments and to use
them ... Men carry on a struggle against nature and utilize nature for the production of material values not in isolation
from each other, not as separate individuals, but in common, in groups, in societies. Production, therefore, is at all times
and under all conditions social production. The basis of the relations of production under the socialist system, which so
far has been established only in the U.S.S.R., is the social ownership of the means of production. Here there are no
longer exploiters and exploited, the goods produced are distributed according to labor performed, on the principle: He
who does not work, neither shall he eat.' Here the mutual relations of people in the process of production are marked by
comradely co-operation and the socialist mutual assistance of workers who are free from exploitation. Here the relations
of production fully correspond to the state of productive forces, for the social character of the process of production is
reinforced by the social ownership of the means of production.
-Stalin: Dialectical and Historical Materialism (1940)
Through estranged, alienated labor, then, the worker produces the relationship to this labor of a man alien to labor and
standing outside it. The relationship of the worker to labor engenders the relation to it of the capitalist, or whatever one
chooses to call the master of labor. Private Property is thus the product, the result, the necessary consequence, of
alienated labor, of the external relation of the worker to nature and to himself. Private property thus results by analysis
from the concept of alienated labor-i.e., of alienated man, of estranged labor, of estranged life, of estranged man.
-Karl Marx1
Whereas the last chapter but one dealt with the communist doctrine of labor, and the last chapter with value (as the worth
of labor), it will be well to deal in this the next chapter with property (which, in part or in whole, is usually the result of labor).
In this chapter, then, we shall deal with: first, the communist doctrine of the nature of property; second, the communist
doctrine of property under "primitive communism"; third, the communist doctrine of the alienation of property; fourth, the
communist doctrine of property under socialism; fifth, the communist belief regarding property under future communism;
sixth, the post-Leninistic communistic statements on the future of property; and seventh, we shall give a summary of the
development and future destiny of the communist doctrine of property.
1.

Nature of Property

In order to establish the nature of property, it is first of all necessary to distinguish among natural property, cultivated or
semi-manufactured property, and manufactured property.
Property is natural "whenever its utility is not due to labor," suggested Marx.2 "Such are air, virgin soil, natural meadows,
&c."
Such "natural property" can, of course, be processed by man. Air may be processed into compressed air, virgin soil into tilled
soil, and natural meadows into cultivated pasture-lands. Such property then becomes cultivated or semi-manufactured
property.
Finally, property may he "fully" manufactured, albeit from natural raw materials. Such property may be "the product of the
labor of the joiner, the mason, the spinner, or of any other definite kind of productive labor" such as a chair or a roll of linen,
wrote Marx.3 Such entities are thus constituted by "a mere congelation of homogeneous human labor expended in their
production [as] human labor ... embodied in them as crystals of ... social substance,"3 and as "human labor in its congealed
state, when embodied in the form of some object."4
Now all these forms of property-natural property, cultivated or semi-manufactured property, and manufactured property-may
have both a use-value5 and an exchange-value.6 "A thing can be useful, and the product of human labor, without being a
commodity," a thing useful not only to oneself but particularly to others, wrote Marx. "Whoever directly satisfied his wants with
the produce of his own labor, creates, indeed, use-values, but not commodities. In order to produce the latter, he must not
only produce use-values, but use-values for others, social use-values."7
Property may then perhaps be defined as a natural or semi-manufactured or manufactured thing or things which can be
possessed and used (and exchanged) by a man or men. If owned by (all) men, it is communal property, as communists
believe all property was originally and will be eschatologically. If owned by (one) man [or one group of men], it is private
property; and property became "private" instead of public as a result of alienated labor.
It is to a consideration of the historical development of these two kinds of property-communal property and private property-to
which we must now turn.

-38-

2.

"Primitive Communist" Property

"The first form of ownership is tribal ownership," declared Marx and Engels in their 1846 German Ideology. "It corresponds to
the undeveloped stage of production, at which a people lives hunting and fishing, by the rearing of beasts, or, in the highest
stage, agriculture. In the latter case it presupposes a great mass of uncultivated stretches of land. The division of labor is at
this stage still very elementary and is confined to a further extension of the natural division of labor imposed by the family.
The social structure is therefore limited to an extension of the family; patriarchal family chieftains; below them the members of
the tribe; finally slaves. The slavery latent in the family develops only gradually with the increase of population, the growth of
wants, and with the extension of external relations, of war or of trade.
"The second form is the ancient communal and state ownership which proceeds especially from the union of several tribes
into a city by agreement or by conquest, and which is still accompanied by slavery. Besides communal ownership we already
find movable, and later also immovable, private property developing."8
Now this communal ownership of property under primitive communism at the beginning of history9 prevailed from Ireland to
India10 right down to the time of that germ of capitalism, the Protestant Reformation.11 The widespread nature of primordial
communal property is immediately suggested by the fact that the nature of the ancient Russian commune, "down to the
smallest detail, is absolutely identical with the primitive German communal system." 12 And regardless of whether the products
were transformed into commodities or not, work was everywhere distributed according to requirements and traditions, and
woodlands and pastures were always used in common, as is indeed also the position under modern socialism.' 13
The locus classicus of the modern communist doctrine of primitive communist property is, of course, the famous book,
The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, in which Engels argued that all primitive peoples possessed
property in common, including their wives and their houses, and that it was only as a result of man's alienation and the
growth of slavery that this was destroyed as some men produced and accumulated more things than did others, thereby
creating surplus items which they started to exchange as commodities for other commodities which they needed. 14
Now this, Engels explained in his 1878 Anti-Dhring, necessarily implies "an original common ownership of land [even]
among all civilized peoples,"15 and also a common use of all instruments of production; for originally, held Engels (quoting
from Marx's Capital with approval), property and labor were identical; but with their separation from one another, "property
turns out to be the right, on the part of the capitalist, to appropriate the unpaid labor of others or its product, and, on the part
of the laborer, the impossibility of appropriating his own product," so that "the separation of property from labor has become
the necessary consequence of a law that apparently originated in their identity."16
As Marx said in his 1844 Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts: "Society produces man as man ... Activity and mind
are social in their content as well as in their origin.17 And he added in his 1867 Capital I that "co-operation, such as we
find at the dawn of hum an development," consists in that "each individual has no more torn himself off from the navelstring of his tribe or community, than each bee has freed itself from the hive,"18 all the bees thus possessing their honey in
common.
Communal property, then, previously obtained everywhere, and still lingered on in the middle of the 19th century even in
parts of Europe amongst the peasants.19
3.

Alienated Property

At length, however, as a result of the advent of the division of labor, communal property became alienated from its
original possessor(s) and/or producer(s). As Marx stated in his 1844 Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts: "If the product
of labor does not belong to the worker, if it confronts him as an alien power, this can only be because it belongs to some
other man than the worker." Thus arose that greatest of all perils-private property. "Private property is thus the product, the
result, the necessary consequence, of alienated labor, of the external relation of the worker to nature and to himself." "Only at
the very culmination of the development of private property does this, its secret, re-emerge, namely, that on the one hand it is
the product of alienated labor, and that secondly it is the means by which labor alienates itself, the realization of this
alienation."20
This culmination is reached in capitalism. And this is only reached via the development of slavery as the first stage of
alienation through the intermediate stage of feudalism. But as remarked in the German Ideology, all "the various stages of
development in the division of labor are just so many different forms of ownership; i.e., the existing stage in the division of
labor determines also the relations of individuals to one another with reference to the material, instrument, and product of
labor."21
The first stage in the development of private properly, then, as pointed out above,16 is the "separation of property from
labor." But this is already seen in the family, for "wife and children are the slaves of the husband. This latent slavery in the
family, though still very crude, is the first property."22
The next step, perhaps contemporaneous with the first, is the transformation of usable things into exchangeable
commodities. "A commodity," wrote Marx in his Capital I, "is a thing that by its properties satisfies human wants of some sort
or another ... As values, all commodities are only definite masses of congealed labor-time ... A thing can be useful, and the
product of human labor, without being a commodity. Whoever directly satisfies his wants with the produce of his own labor,
creates, indeed, use-values, but not commodities. In order to produce the latter, he must not only produce use-values, but

-39-

use-values for others, social use-values ... Every product of labor is, in all states of society, a use-value; but it is only at a
definite historical epoch in a society's development that such a product becomes a commodity, viz., at the epoch when the
labor spent on the production of a useful article becomes expressed as one of the objective qualities of that article, i.e., as its
value. It therefore follows that the elementary value-form is also the primitive form under which a product of labor appears
historically as a commodity, and that the gradual transformation of such products into commodities, proceeds pan passu with
the development of the value-form ... Every one knows, that commodities have a value-form common to them all, and
presenting a marked contrast with the varied bodily forms of their use-values, I mean their money-form."23
Coupled with the rise of commodities, thirdly, is the increase of trade by the exchange of commodities, the introduction of
money as the measure of value, and the facilitation of the transfer (or alienation) of property thereby. Wrote Marx in his
Capital I: "The exchange of commodities first begins on the boundaries of such communities, at their points of contact with
similar communities, or with members of the latter. So soon, however, as products once become commodities in the external
relations of a community, they also, by reaction, become so in its internal intercourse."24 And Engels added in his AntiDhring that inter-communal trade soon stimulated intra-communal trade, so that private property then "developed even
within these communes, at first through barter with strangers, till it reached the form of commodities."25
Fourthly, the development of the private property of moveable goods and commodities ultimately led to the development of
private property in land. Originally, when land was freely available, the whole tribe would occupy it and simply move on to
new or surplus land when the old land was exhausted. But with the increase in population, "when this surplus land was
exhausted, common ownership declined," leading to the creation of propertied and propertyless classes, and to the
stabilization of private property in land, wrote Engels.26 This, however, took a long time. For "the genesis of the farmer," wrote
Marx, "is a slow process evolving through many centuries."27
Now with the transition from primary needs to commodities and from manual to mental labor, "the more the products of
the commune assumed the commodity form, that is, the less they were produced for their producers' own use and the more
for the purpose of exchange, the more the original primitive division of labor was replaced by exchange also within the
commune, the more did inequality develop in the property of the individual members of the commune, the more deeply was
the ancient ownership of the land undermined, and the more rapidly did the commune move towards its dissolution and
transformation into a village of small peasants," wrote Engels. 26
Fifthly, and in the wake of the genesis of the farmer, followed the "genesis of the industrial capitalist,"29 where "property turns
out to be the right on the part of the capitalist, to appropriate the unpaid labor of others or its product, and on the part of the
laborers, the impossibility of appropriating his own product," held Marx and Engels.30 As Marx stated, under capitalism, "the
object which labor produces-labor's product-confronts it as something alien, as a power independent of the producer," for
now the worker is related to the product of his labor as to an alien object. For on this premise it is clear that the more the
worker spends himself, the more powerful the alien objective world becomes which he creates over against himself, the
poorer he himself-his inner world-becomes, the less belongs to him as his own."31
Two of the "cardinal facts of capitalist production," held Marx in his Capital III,32 are:
"1) Concentration of means of production in few hands, whereby they cease to appear as the property of the immediate
laborers and turn into social production capacities. Even if initially they are the private property of capitalists. These are the
trustees of bourgeois society, but they pocket all the proceeds of this trusteeship," and
"2) Organization of labor itself into social labor: through co-operation, division of labor, and the uniting of labor with the
natural sciences.
"In these two senses, the capitalist mode of production abolishes private property and private labor, even though in
contradictory forms"
Sixthly, under capitalism the worker himself has become totally alienated from the product of his labors and has now
become a proletarian-one who possesses nothing but his proles or children. As Marx already remarked in his Economic and
Philosophical Manuscripts: "The worker has become a commodity, and it is a bit of luck for him if he can find a buyer."33 "The
proletarian," stated Marx and Engels in the Manifesto of the Communist Party, "is without property; his relation to his wife and
children has no longer anything in common with the bourgeois family relations; modern industrial labor ... has stripped him of
every trace of national character. Law, morality, religion, are to him so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in
ambush just as many bourgeois interests,"34 so that "private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the
population."35 The workers have no property; they may just as well wish for a revolution; for "the proletarians have nothing to
lose but their chains."36
Seventhly, however, even the greater part of the bourgeoisie becomes expropriated, as a tiny fraction of the upper class
gains a practical monopoly over all the property in the nation and, ultimately, in the world. Capitalism then becomes "only the
title of a number of persons to the possession of the globe enabling them to appropriate to themselves as tribute a portion of
the surplus-labor of society and furthermore to a constantly increasing extent with the development of production."37
Coupled with this, eighthly, is the rise of imperialism, whereby the rich of one nation annex the property even of other
nations. "There is no doubt," wrote Lenin, "that the development is in the direction of a single united world trust embracing all
enterprises without exception, and all states without exception. But the development is taking place under such
circumstances and with such speed, with such contradictions, conflicts and upheavals-by no means only economic, but
political, national, etc., etc.,- that certainly before a single world trust or ultra-imperialistic world union of national finance
capitals is established, imperialism will inevitably break down and capitalism will be transformed into its antitheses."38 Hence,
"it is clear why imperialism is moribund capitalism, capitalism in transition to socialism: monopoly, which grows out of
-40-

capitalism, is already capitalism dying out, the beginning of its transition to socialism."39
Ninthly, the transition from capitalism to socialism is greatly aided by the development of state monopoly capitalism in the
Western world during the last century. As Lenin stated: "State-monopoly capitalism is a complete material preparation for
socialism, the threshold of socialism, a rung in the ladder of history between which and the rung called socialism there are no
intermediate rungs. 40 For "in a revolutionary situation, at the time of revolution, state-monopoly capitalism passes over
directly into socialism."41
But lastly, the transition from the private property of capitalism to the public property of socialism is not so much a matter
of a change of the ownership of the means of production, but rather a necessary step in the emancipation of man. This was
Marx's criticism in his Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of "crude (pre-Marxist) utopian communism, which was
merely political, but not yet human." For such utopian "communism" was "communism: (a) of a political nature still-democratic
or despotic; (b) with the annulment of the state, yet still incomplete, and being still affected by private property (i.e., by the
estrangement of man) [, ... such utopian communism] has not yet grasped the positive essence of private property, and just
as little the human nature of need, [and] it remains captive to it and infected by it. It has, indeed, grasped the concept, but not
its essence."42 But as Marx himself put it: "From the relationship of estranged labor to private property it further follows that
the emancipation of society from private property, etc., from servitude, is expressed in the political form of the emancipation
of the workers; not that their emancipation alone was at stake but because the emancipation of the workers contains
universal human emancipation 43
And this human emancipation takes place in the form of a socialist revolution. For the propertyless proletarians under the
leadership of the Communist Party organize themselves into a powerful socio-economic force which suddenly overthrows the
status quo.
4.

Socialist Property

Socialist property, firstly, necessarily evolves from capitalist property as a result of the omnipresent dialectical process.
As Marx stated in his Capital I: "The capitalist mode of appropriation, the result of the capitalist mode of production, produces
capitalist private property. This is the first negation of individual private property, as founded on the labor of the proprietor. But
capitalist production begets, with the inexorability of a law of nature, its own negation. It is the negation of negation. This does
not re-establish private property for the producer, but gives him individual property based on the acquisitions of the capitalist
era: i.e., on co-operation and the possession in common of the land and of the means of production."44
Requoting this citation from Marx and commenting on it in his own Anti-Dhring, 45 Engels maintained that "to anyone who
understands English, this means that social ownership extends to the land and the other means of production, and private
ownership to the products, that is, the means of consumption,"46 and that "Marx merely shows from history, that just as the
former petty industry necessarily through its own development, created the conditions of its annihilation, i.e., of the
expropriation of the small proprietors, so now the capitalist mode of production has likewise itself created the material
conditions which will annihilate it ... The capitalist mode of production and appropriation, and hence capitalist private property,
is the first negation of individual private property founded on the labors of the proprietors. But capitalist production begets with
the inexorability of a law of Nature, its own negation. It is the negation of the negation," and "in characterizing the process as
the Negation of the Negation, therefore, Marx does not dream of attempting to prove by this that the process was historically
necessary. On the contrary: after he has proved from history that in fact the process has partly already occurred, and partly
must occur in the future, he then also characterizes it as a process which develops in accordance with a definite dialectical
law."47
Secondly, at least some pointers to socialist property could already be gleaned from the old pre-capitalistic Russian
commune or mir or obshchina, for even though Engels pointed out in his Social Relations in Russia in 1874-5, that "a man
who will say that this revolution can be more easily carried out in a country, because, although it has no proletariat, it has no
bourgeoisie either, only proves that he has still to learn the ABC of Socialism,"48 in 1877 Marx was still insisting that Russia
still had "the finest chance ever offered by history to a nation [to pass directly from the pre-capitalistic remnants of 'primitive
communism' straight into socialism] and thus avoid "all the fatal vicissitudes of the capitalist regime."49
In 1889, in the Preface to the 1882 Russian edition of the Manifesto of the Communist Party, he and Engels, faced with
the question: "Can the Russian obshchina-a form of the primeval common ownership of land, pass directly to the higher form
of communist common ownership?," gave as their answer: "If the Russian Revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian
revolution in the West, so that both complement each other, the present Russian common ownership of land may serve as
the starting point for a communist development."50 But in his 1893 Letters to Daniel-son, Engels felt that the golden
opportunity to effect such a transition short-circuiting the capitalist stage in Russia, had then been allowed to slip.51
Thirdly, further pointers to socialist property could also be gleaned from the "post-capitalistic" if temporary Paris
Commune of 1871. We have already seen elsewhere 52 that Engels regarded the Paris Commune as the socialistic
dictatorship of the proletariat. Of interest here is his approval of the action of April 2, 1871, when "the Commune decreed the
... transformation of all Church property into national property."53 However, as Lenin sadly admitted, in the Paris Commune
unfortunately "the proletariat stopped half-way: instead of proceeding with the 'expropriating of the expropriators,' it was
carried away by the dream of establishing supreme justice in the country, based on the common national task. For instance,
such institutions as banks were not seized."54

-41-

What is really necessary for the socialist dictatorship of the proletariat, then, as Engels remarked elsewhere, fourthly, is
the expropriation of the private property of the expropriators. As he wrote in his Anti-Dhring, approvingly quoting from Marx's
Capital: "That which is now to be expropriated is no longer the laborer working for himself, but the capitalist exploiting many
laborers ... The expropriators are expropriated." 55
Fifthly, and following from the above, under the socialistic dictatorship of the proletariat, private property is abolished. As
this point is of basic importance, it will be dealt with at some length below.
Already in his Principles of Communism of 1847, Engels answered "Question Fourteen: 'What form will this new [socialist]
order assume?,'" as follows: "The phrase abolition of private properly is the most succinct and characteristic way of
formulating the change in the social order which has been rendered necessary by the development of large-scale industry.
The communists are right, therefore, to place this in the forefront of their demands." 56 And to "Question Twenty: 'What will be
the consequence of the final removal of private property?,'" he answers that society will remove "the employment of all
productive forces and instruments of commerce from the hands of private capitalists and use them in accordance with a plan
based on existing means and on the needs of the whole society. Just as the peasants and hand-workers of the previous
century altered their whole way of life and became quite different men when they were dragged into large-scale industry, so
quite different men will be needed and will be created when production is carried out in common by society as a whole and
when production accordingly develops in new ways."57
More important still are the following statements by Marx and Engels in the Manifesto of the Communist Party of 1848:
"The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property...
that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few ... 'Do you mean the property of the petty
artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form?' There is no need to abolish that; the
development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily You are horrified at our
intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for ninetenths of the population ... You reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we
intend."58
More specifically, the first four measures advocated in the program of the Manifesto are, "I. Abolition of property in land and
application of all rents of land to public purposes. 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 3. Abolition of all right of
inheritance. 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels." 59
Similarly, Marx's 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program called for the socialization of the (private) ownership of all means of
production, under socialism, as "nothing can pass into the ownership of individuals except individual means of
consumption."59a
Much later, and six months prior to the Russian Revolution in 1917, Lenin advocated: "Nationalization of all lands in the
country ... The setting up of a model farm on each of the large estates ... under the control of the Soviets of Agricultural
Laborers' Deputies and for the public account. The immediate amalgamation of all banks in the country into a single national
bank, and the institution of control over it by the Soviet of Workers' Deputies."60 On the very day of the revolutionary takeover,
November 7, 1917, he proclaimed that "the cause for which the people have fought; namely the immediate offer of a
democratic peace, the abolition of landed proprietorship, workers' control over production, and the establishment of Soviet
power-this cause has been secured."61 And the very next day, November 8, in his Decree on Land, he promulgated that:
"Landed proprietorship is abolished forthwith without any compensation ... All damage to confiscated property, which
henceforth belongs to the whole people, is proclaimed a grave crime to be punished by the revolutionary courts. ... Workers'
control over the production, storage, purchase and sale of all products and raw materials should be introduced in all
industrial, commercial, banking, agricultural and other enterprises"; and "all owners and all representatives of the workers and
office employees elected for the purpose of exercising workers' control should be answerable to the state for the
maintenance of the strictest order and discipline and for the protection of property. Persons guilty of dereliction of duty,
concealment of stocks, accounts, etc., shall be punished by the confiscation of the whole of their property and by
imprisonment for a term up to five years."62 And in his post-Revolutionary Will the Bolsheviks Maintain Power?, Lenin stated
that "the extraordinarily obstinate and non-submissive capitalists will, of course, have to be punished by the confiscation of
the whole of their wealth and by their imprisonment."63
The complete abolition of private property, however, even under socialism, is, sixthly, a long-term measure. Already Marx had
prophesied in his Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844: "In order to abolish the idea of private property, the idea
of communism is completely insufficient. It takes actual communist action to abolish actual private property. History will come
to it; and this movement, which in theory we already know to be a self-transcending movement, will constitute in actual fact a
very severe and protracted process"64 And Lenin followed this advice after his 1917 takeover. On the day after the
Revolution, he announced: "The land of ordinary peasants and ordinary Cossacks shall not be confiscated."65 And shortly
thereafter, he agreed with the Left Socialist Revolutionaries (with whom he was in governmental coalition, and who
advocated equal land redistribution to the peasants), that "equal land tenure and like measures cannot prejudice socialism,"
and that in the "transition to full socialism," the Bolshevik proletariat "is obliged, in the interests of the victory of socialism, to
yield to the small working and exploited peasants in the choice of these transitional measures, for they could do no harm to
the cause of socialism."66
Accordingly, seventhly, at least as far as the small landowners and producers are concerned, one should first try to
educate them gently into the advantages of social ownership and production before applying force. As Engels had already
stated: "Our task would first of all consist in transforming their individual production and individual ownership into co-operative
production and co-operative ownership, not forcibly, but by way of example, and by offering social aid for this purpose."67

-42-

In Lenin's Russia, this was done by instituting two new kinds of production organization from the nineteen-twenties onwardsfirstly, the kolkhoz (or collective farm); and secondly, the sovkhoz (or state farm).
Eighthly, then, there is the kolkhoz or collective. Already Engels had stressed: "When we are in possession of state
power, we shall not even think of forcibly expropriating the small peasants (regardless of whether with or without
compensation), as we shall have to do in the case of the big landowners. Our task relative to the small peasant consists, in
the first place, in effecting a transition of his private enterprise and private possession to co-operative ones; not forcibly, but
by dint of example and the proffer of social assistance for this purpose."88 And even before the Revolution, Lenin advised "the
rural proletarians and semi-proletarians to strive toward turning every landed estate into a sufficiently large model farm, to be
conducted on a communal basis by the local Soviet of Agricultural Laborers' Deputies under the direction of agricultural
experts and with the aid of the best technical appliances," and warned "against the false attraction of the system of petty
farming."69 And after the Revolution, in 1919, Lenin re-emphasized: "From all the activities of the Soviet government you
know what tremendous significance we attach to the communes, artels, and all other organizations generally that aim at
transforming and at gradually assisting the transformation of small, individual peasant farming into socialized, co-operative, or
artel farming... Only when it has been proved in practice, by experience comprehensible to the peasant, that the transition to
the co-operative, artel form of farming is essential and possible, shall we be entitled to say that in this vast peasant country,
Russia, an important step towards socialist agriculture has been taken. A commune must be organized so that it will serve as
a model, and the neighboring peasants will be attracted to it."70
Ninthly, there is the sovkhoz or state farm. In contrast to the kolkhoz, where peasant landowners group their property
together and own it as the common property of the collective, in the sovkhoz, the state itself establishes a state-owned
collective where all the means of production belong to the state. Lenin regarded state or public property as consistently
socialist property, i.e., the most perfect form of socialist property, representing the highest level of socialized production.71
Tenthly-and flowing from the last two points-Marxist-Leninist socialist property is opposed to that of Fabian socialism. The
latter asserts the desirability of municipal ownership rather than national ownership. This Fabian principle was already
opposed by Engels in his 1893 Letter to Sorge,72 for such a (Fabian) absolutization of the local or municipal collective at the
expense of the (Marxist-Leninist) state collective, is a retrograde step more reminiscent of Proudhon than of Marx. 73 For in
Marxism-Leninism, even Marxist local collective property is destined to be ultimately absorbed into state property (when local
collective property eschatologically becomes national property), and, still later, into communal property (when the whole world
has become one gigantic commune) 74
As Lenin remarked,75 anticipating the development of Trotsky's leftwing-communist anti-peasant position and Bukharin's rightwing-communist pro-kulak position: "The task that we are now tackling, for the time being-temporarily-alone, looks like a
purely Russian task, but in actual fact it is a task that will confront all the socialists ... The new society, built on the basis of
the alliance of workers and peasants, is inevitable. Sooner or later, twenty years earlier or twenty years later, it will come, and
it is for it, for this society, that we are helping to elaborate forms of alliance between workers and peasants when we work to
implement our New Economic Policy."
In the meantime, under socialism, eleventhly, private properly in general and the property of the kulaks (or richer peasants) in
particular is abolished. By 1919, Lenin was proceeding strongly with the abolition of private property, especially by
persuading the "middle peasants" (or those economically between the kulaks and the impoverished peasants) to make the
transition to communist farming through state farms, agricultural communes and/or co-operatives [or collective farms] for
collective tilling of the land.76
It was, however, particularly Stalin who exterminated the approximately five million kulaks as a propertied class in 1929-30.
"The kulak is an enemy of the Soviet government," he wrote in 1930. "There is not and cannot be peace between him and us.
Our policy towards the kulak is to liquidate him as a class ... There is no longer any reason to tolerate these spiders and
bloodsuckers ... Hence, the policy of liquidating the kulaks as a class must be pursued with all the firmness and consistency
of which Bolsheviks are capable."77
Twelfthly, a bird's eye view of the course of the progressive socialization of property was beautifully sketched by Lenin before
the Revolution (and later executed with remarkable consistency thereafter):
"All the land must be the property of the whole nation. From this it follows that in advocating the immediate transfer,
without payment, of the landed estates to the local peasants, we do not by any means advocate the seizure of those estates
as private property, we do not by any means advocate the division of those estates. We believe the land should be taken by
the local peasantry for one sowing in accordance with a decision adopted by the majority of local peasant deputies.
"The land must be the property of the entire people, and must be declared such by a central state power. Until that power
is established, the local authorities, I again repeat, should take over the landed estates and should do so in an organized
manner according to the will of the majority
"As the peasants often say, 'All the old boundaries and barriers will fall away, the land will be unfenced-there will be free soil
and free labor!
"Does that mean that the land will be handed over to all working people? No, it does not. Free labor on free soil means that
all the old forms of land tenure will be abolished, and there will be no other form of ownership than national ownership;
everyone rents land from the state; there is a single state authority, that of all the workers and peasants; a peasant can rent
land from it as a lease-holder; between the peasant and the state there are no middle-men; the terms on which land is rented
are equal for all; that is free labor on free soil.
"Does that mean that the land will be handed over to all the working people? No, it does not. You cannot eat land, and to

-43-

farm it you need implements, animals, equipment, and money; without money, without implements, you cannot farm. And so,
when you set up a system of free labor on free soil, there will be no landed estates, no categories on the land.
"I and my Party comrades ... know of only two ways of protecting the interests of agricultural laborers and poor
peasants
"The first way is to organize the agricultural laborers and poor peasants. We should like, and we advise it, to have in each
peasant committee, in each volost, uyezd and gubernia, a separate group of agricultural laborers and poor-peasants who will
have to ask themselves: 'If the land becomes the property of the whole people tomorrow-and it certainly will, because the
people want it to-then where do we come in? ...' Only this road promises a gradual, difficult, but real and certain transfer of
the land to the working people.
"The second step which our Party recommends is that every big economy, for example, every big landed estate, of which
there are 30,000 in Russia, should be organized as soon as possible into a model farm for the common cultivation of the land
jointly by agricultural laborers and scientifically trained agronomists, using the animals, implements, etc., of the landowner for
that purpose. Without this common cultivation under the direction of the Soviets of Agricultural Laborers, the land will not go
entirely to the working people." 78
And this bird's eye view of the course of progressive socialization of property carries us right to the very threshold of
future communism.79
5.

Property under "Future Communism"

With the complete abolition of private property under pure communism, we come to the very heart of communism. For
communism, by its very definition, is the abolition of private property. As Marx remarked: "Communism is the positive
expression of the abolition of private property, and in the first place of universal private property";80 communism is the
"positive abolition of private property, of human self-alienation and therefore the actual attainment of human nature by and for
man."81
Secondly, communist property is a historical necessity-its advent is historically conditioned and therefore unavoidable. As
Engels maintained: "Private property will disappear of its own accord."82 And as Marx again remarked: "In order to abolish the
idea of private properly, the idea of communism is completely insufficient. It takes actual communist action to abolish actual
private property. History will come to it; and this movement, which in theory we already know to be a self-transcending
movement, will constitute in actual fact a very severe and protracted process ...
"When communist workmen associate with one another, theory, propaganda, etc., is their first end. But at the same time,
as a result of this association, they acquire a new need-the need for society-and what appears as a means becomes an end.
You can observe this practical process in its most splendid results whenever you see French socialist workers together. Such
things as smoking, drinking, eating, etc., are no longer means of contact or means that bring together. Company, association,
and conversation, which again has society as its end, are enough for them; the brotherhood of man is no mere phrase with
them, but a fact of life, and the nobility of man shines upon us from their work-hardened bodies."83
Thirdly, communist property represents a stage in which the very idea of private property has been totally transcended.
Under capitalism, the ideal of communist property could only be stated negatively, held Marx, 84 as was done by that "crude
[pre-Marxist] communism" which indulged in "counterposing universally private property to private property [and which] finds
expression in the beastial form of counterposing to marriage (certainly a form of exclusive private property) the community of
women, in which a woman becomes a piece of communal and common property. It must be said that this idea of the
community of women gives away the secret of this as yet completely crude and thoughtless communism. Just as the woman
passed from marriage to general prostitution, so the entire world of wealth (that is, of man's objective substance) passes from
the relationship of exclusive marriage with the owner of private property to a state of universal prostitution with the
community. In negating the personality of man in every sphere, this type of communism is really nothing but the logical
expression of private property, which is this negation ... General envy constituting itself as a power is the disguise in which
avarice re-establishes itself and satisfies itself, only in another way. The thoughts of every piece of private property-inherent
in each piece as such-are at least turned against all wealthier private property in the form of envy and the urge to reduce to a
common level, so that this envy and urge even constitutes the essence of competition. The crude communism is only the
consummation of this envy and of this levelling-down proceeding from the preconceived minimum. It has a definite, limited
standard. How little this annulment of private property is really an appropriation is in fact proved by the abstract negation of
the entire world of culture and civilization, the regression to the unnatural simplicity of the poor and undemanding man who
has not only failed to go beyond private properly, but has not yet even attained to it."
There is a vast difference between the above crude pre-Marxist "communism" and true post-socialistic [Marxist]
"communism as the positive transcendence of private property as human self-estrangement and therefore as the real
appropriation of the human essence by and for man; communism therefore as the complete return of man to himself as a
social (i.e., human) being-a return become conscious, and accomplished within the entire wealth of previous development.
This [Marxist] communism, as fully-developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism equals
naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature and between man and man-the true resolution
of the strife between existence and essence, between objectification and self-confirmation, between freedom and necessity,
between the individual and the species. Communism is the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution." 85

-44-

Fourthly-at least in the initial stages of pure communism-communist property is both individual and social, and is held in
association. As Marx declared: "Association, applied to the land, has the advantages from an economic point of view of largescale ownership, and at the same time achieves the original tendency of the division of land, namely equality The land
ceases to be an object of sordid speculation, and through freedom of work and enjoyment becomes once again the real,
personal property of men.86 And, as Engels explained, "by 'collective ownership,' Marx meant an ownership 'which is at the
same time both individual and social.' "87
But fifthly-as indeed under socialist property from which communist property is a gradual development-associative property
must develop into national property, where all the means of production are ultimately nationalized.88 As Marx stated in the
eighteen-seventies: "The future will disclose that ground can only be national property. To surrender land to associated
husbandmen, would be to surrender entire society to a particular class of producers. The nationalization of ground and land
[however] will bring about a complete alteration in the relation between labor and capital ... Only then will the class
differences and privileges disappear, together with the economic basis which causes them, and society be altered into an
association of free 'producers.' "89
Sixthly, national property will ultimately develop into communal or communist property. As the famous modern communist
Russian philosopher Afanasyev remarked: "The building of the material and technical basis of communism serves as the
foundation for the further development of socialist production relations and their gradual transformation into communist
relations, which will be the most perfect relations between free people of high intelligence and all-round development ...
"Under communism, instead of the two forms of property-state and cooperative collective-farm-which exist under
socialism, there will be one communist property belonging to all members of society . . . [as a result of] the eventual merger of
the two into one communist property. The process is already under way. There is a growth of inalienable assets (= the
communal assets of the collective farm which are not divided among the members. They include machinery, motors, farm
buildings, livestock, and money for investment in the collective farm] ... There will be wider joint construction by several
collective farms of electric power plants, establishments for processing agricultural products, etc. [land] ... rural
electrification
"Socialist [i.e., communist-N.L.] production relations... are relations of co-operation, friendship and mutual assistance
between all members of society."90
Seventhly, when all the nations have amalgamated with one another, communist property will reach the stage where all
people on earth will be but non-owning usufructuaries obliged to improve and hand the use of the communist property down
to the next generation(s). As Marx remarked in his Capital III: "From the standpoint of a higher economic form of society,
private ownership of the globe by single individuals will appear quite as absurd as private ownership of one man by another.
Even a whole society, a nation, or even all simultaneously existing societies taken together, are not the owners of the globe.
They are only its possessors, its usufructuaries, and, like boni patres familias, they must hand it down to succeeding
generations in an improved condition."91
Lastly, communist property is not an end in itself, but a means to greater ideological gains which are expected to result
therefrom. As Marx maintained in his Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts: "Religion, the family, the State, law, morality,
science, art, etc., are only particular form s of production and come under its general law. The positive abolition of private
property, as the appropriation of human life, is thus the positive abolition of all alienation, and thus the return of man from
religion, the family, the State, etc., to his human, i.e., social life."92 And later: "We have seen how, on the assumption that
private property has been positively abolished, man produces man, himself and then other men, how the object which is the
direct activity of his personality, is at the same time his existence for other men, and their existence for him. Similarly, the
material of labor, and man himself a subject, are the point of origin as well as the result of this movement (and because there
must be this point of origin, private property is a historical necessity). Therefore, the social character is the universal
character of the whole movement; as society itself produces man as man, so it is produced by him. Activity and mind are
social in their content as well as in their origin; they are social activity and social mind."93
And as Engels remarked in his Principles of Communism: "The many-sided developments of the talents of all the
members of society by means of the abolition of the hitherto prevalent division of labor, by means of industrial education, by
means of an alternation of employments, by means of the participation of all in the enjoyments produced by common labor,
by means of the absorption of town by countryside and countryside by town-such are the main results to be expected from
the abolition of private ownership." 94
6.

Post-Leninistic Communists on Future Property

It remains to enquire to what extent socialist and communist property have been achieved in Russia.
At the beginning of the nineteen-sixties, kolkhozes were being merged into better kolkhozes or into sovkhozes at the rate of
ten per day, while sovkhozes were rising at the rate of three per day (even though the sovkhozes still constituted only fortyfive percent of the total Soviet land crop, the kolkhozes constituting the remainder), and seventy percent of all new urban flatdwellings were built as "co-operatives."95 At the 1961 Twenty-second Congress of the C.P.S.U., 96 it was stated that
sovkhozes "will become mechanized and well-organized first-class factories of grain, cotton, meat, milk, wool, vegetables,
fruit and other products," and after the Congress the authoritative communist Russian philosopher Afanasyev stated that
"under communism, instead of the two forms of property-state and co-operative collective farms [sovkhoz and kolkhoz]-which

-45-

exist under socialism, there will be one communist property belonging to all members of society" (Afanasyev's italics-N.L.).
And in 1963, representative Soviet philosophers insisted that "the historic mission of the socialist revolution is the abolition of
capitalist private ownership of the means of production, and of capitalist production relations, their replacement by public,
socialist ownership of the means of production, and by socialist production relations."97
In 1968, when confronted with the questions: "Does private property exist under socialism in any form? Will it exist at all
under communism?," Soviet experts answered: "If by private property one means land, mineral wealth, means of
transportation and communication, means of production, means of distribution and exchange, the answer is no (italics
theirs), and "under communism ... possibly ... when the time comes there will be such an abundance of all the good things of
life, to be had for the taking, [that] people will care very little about owning things personally."98
And in Red China, of course, socialist property has long been the rule and the complete communization of property has
long been the aim. As early as 1958, the Chi-ly-ying commune, for example, comprised some sixty-eight villages composed
of 12,133 households with a population of 57,551 people, where the land, houses, farm implements, cattle, cottage
industries, and even the kitchen utensils were all owned by the commune.90 And even though progressive communization
was somewhat relaxed as a result of the disastrous harvests of 1960-1 and the withdrawal of all Russian aid at that time, it
was continued in strength from 1966-9 in the Great Cultural Revolution and would still seem to be in progress even today.100
7.

Summary

From the above, it has appeared that, according to communism, property is a natural or semi-manufactured or manufactured
thing possessed and used (or exchanged) by a man or a group of men or mankind as the case may be, depending on
whether it is enjoyed as private property or public (or communal) property. Under "primitive communism" all property was
held in common by the primordial tribe, but as a result of the division of labor, the control of property became alienated from
its original producer(s), and private property came into being. This process was encouraged by the progressive development
of the family and its property; of commodities; of money; of private property in land; of the industrial capitalist and its
complement-the propertyless proletariat; and of state monopoly capitalism and world capitalism and imperialism, and their
complements-the suppressed citizens and the international proletariat and the exploited colonies. Indeed, it is only by means
of a socialist revolution planned and engineering by the Communist Party that inhuman private property can be replaced with
truly human social ownership.
After the socialist revolution, socialist ownership of the means of production inexorably replaces private ownership thereof in
accordance with the definite laws of dialectical and historical materialism, and this was already foreshadowed in the old precapitalistic Russian commune known as the "obshchina" and in the short-lived Paris Commune of 1871, which transformed
all church property into national property. The right of inheritance is abolished, and the expropriators who expropriated
society of its property are now themselves expropriated of that property. Private property is immediately abolished, even
though the explication hereof takes quite some time, especially as far as the small peasants are concerned, who are
encouraged to undertake the transition to socialism first via the collective farm (kolkhoz) and then via the state farm
(sovkhoz), and through local collectives to national collectives and finally to international collectives. Only in this way can
socialism ripen into future communism.
Under communism, by its very definition, all property is held in common. The attainment of this stage is believed to be
historically inevitable, and some previews of its embryonic growth can already be observed even under capitalism, even
though its full development can as of now only be negatively conceived, for future communism as the solution to the riddle of
history will completely transcend the very idea of private property. Communism starts with collective or associative property,
but then deepens first into national property and then into worldwide post-national communal property, when collective
property and state property will have merged into one universal communist property. Then, all the inhabitants of the earth will
be mere non-owning usufructuaries, obliged to hand down the improved use of the worldwide communist property to future
generations.
In this way, universal property becomes social or truly human. As Engels stated: "The many-sided developments of the
talents of all the members of society by means of the abolition of the hitherto prevalent division of labor, by means of
industrial education, by means of an alter-nation of employments, by means of the participation of all in the enjoyments
produced by common labor, by means of the absorption of town by countryside and countryside by town-such are the main
results to be expected from the abolition of private ownership."
In post-Leninistic times, there has been no theoretical departure from the above Marxist-Leninist program Russia and
China claim that private property has been almost totally abolished there, that even most newly built living quarters are "cooperatives," and that under future communism, "people will care very little about owning things personally." Consequently,
one must conclude that the Marxist-Leninist theory of the eschatological communization of property is still very much in vogue
behind the iron and bamboo curtains.

-46-

Chapter X
CLASS IN COMMUNIST ESCHATOLOGY
"It was precisely Marx who had first discovered the great law of motion of history, the law according to which all historical
struggles, whether they proceed in the political, religious, philosophical or some other ideological domain, are in fact only the
more or less clear expression of struggles of social classes, and that the existence and thereby the collisions, too, of these
classes are in turn conditioned by the degree of development of their economic position, by the mode of their production and
by the form of exchange resulting from it. This law, which has the same significance for history as the law of the
transformation of energy has for natural science-this law gave him here, too, the key to understanding the history of the
Second French Republic. He put his law to the test on these historical events, and even after thirty-three years we must still
say that it has stood the test brilliantly."
-Engels: Introduction to Marx's
Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1885)
The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord
and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another,
carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution
of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.
-Marx and Engels1
Whereas the last chapters dealt with labor, value, and property, the cornerstones in the progressive development of the
heart of communistic eschatology, this current chapter will deal with the next step in this development-class. For as labor
acquires value and is translated into property, property-holders begin to develop and soon become frozen into rigid classes
on the basis of the property which they hold.
In this chapter, then, we shall deal with: first, the communist doctrine of the nature of class; second, the communist
doctrine of class under "primitive communism , third, the communist doctrine of class alienation; fourth, the communist
doctrine of class under socialism; fifth, the communist belief regarding class under future communism; sixth, the postLeninistic communistic statements on the future of class. And seventh, we shall give a summary of the development and
future destiny of the communist doctrine of class.
1.

Nature of Class

In the very last chapter of his Capital III (being various writings collated by Friedrich Engels), Marx barely started to write
a (very much incomplete) chapter on classes. 2 Unfortunately, his manuscript breaks off after five introductory paragraphs on
the subject, without giving any definition of classes at all, although what he does say there makes it quite clear that he
regarded ownership as the basis of classes. In his Theses on Feuerbach, however, he did intimate that the individual's nature
is determined by his position in the social relations of production,3 and so it would seem that he regarded the fundamental
conflict of economic interests as the basis of class.4
As he remarked in his 1852 Letter to Weydemeyer:5 "No credit is due to me for discovering the existence of classes in
modern society, nor yet the struggle between them. Long before me, bourgeois historians had described the historical
development of this class struggle, and bourgeois economists the economic anatomy of the classes. What I did that was new
was to prove: (1) that the existence of classes is only bound up with particular, historic phases in the development of
production; (2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat; (3) that this dictatorship itself only
constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society."
To Marx and Engels, the idea of domination of others is inherent in the idea of class.6 But it is especially Lenin who gave
us a clear definition: "Classes are large groups of people which differ from each other by the place they occupy in a
historically definite system of social production, by their relation (in most cases, fixed and formulated in laws) to the means of
production, by their role in the social organization of labor and, consequently, by the dimensions and method of acquiring the
share of social wealth that they obtain. Classes are groups of people, one of which may appropriate the labor of another
because of the different places they occupy in the definite system of social economy," he wrote in his 1919 A Great
Beginning.7 And in his address The Task of the Youth Leagues one year later, he declared: "Classes are that which permits
one section of society to appropriate the labor of another section. If one section of society appropriates all the land, we have
a landlord class and a peasant class. If one section of society possesses the factories and works, has shares and capital, and
the other section works in these factories, we have a capitalist class and a proletarian class."8
Perhaps the most comprehensive of all such statements is the Leninist communist Bukharin's 1925 definition of class as
an "aggregate of persons playing the same parts in production. standing in the same relation towards other persons in the
production process, these relations being also expressed in things (instruments of labor) ."9
The nature of class, then, is a grouping of people on the basis of their common economic interests vis-a-vis other people

-47-

with different economic interests.


2.

"Primitive Communist" Classlessness

Under primitive communism, according to Marxism, as the philosopher Andr Munier has pointed out,10 there were no
classes. As Marx himself stated: "All past history, with the exception of its beginnings, is the history of class struggle"
(emphasis mine-N.L.). 10 At that primitive stage, all men were economically equal.
As Engels remarked: "As men emerged from the animal world-in the narrower sense of the term -so they made their entry
into history; [they were] still half animal, brutal, still helpless in face of the forces of Nature, still ignorant of their own: and
consequently as poor as the animals and hardly more productive than these. There prevailed a certain equality in the
conditions of existence, and for the heads of families a kind of equality of social position-at least an absence of social
classes-which continued among the natural agricultural communities of the civilized people of a later period." 11 For "the
wealth of the old tribal and village communities of antiquity was in no sense a domination over men."12
3. Class in Alienated Society
Precisely as a result of the rise of production, a surplus was ultimately created, and when that happened, some products
became dispensable and exchangeable commodities controlled by that group or those groups who have produced the
surplus, who thus acquired vested interests and thereby became a class in antagonistic contradistinction to the then
economically unequal rest of society. As Engels stated: "The more the products of the commune assumed the commodity
form, that is, the less they were produced for their producers' own use and the more for the purpose of exchange, the more
the original primitive division of labor was replaced also within the commune, the more did inequality develop in the property
of the individual members of the commune, the more deeply was the ancient common ownership of the land undermined, and
the more rapidly did the commune move towards its dissolution and transformation into a village of small peasants."13
As Marx remarked: "All past history, with the exception of its beginnings, is the history of class struggle These
antagonistic classes of society are always the results of the modes of production and exchange, in a word, of the economic
conditions of their times."14
In this way, the economically more developed group became the ruling class. As Marx and Engels remarked: "What else
does the history of ideas prove, than that intellectual production changes its character in proportion as material production is
changed? The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class."15
This usually happened in two stages. When a group began to discharge a definite economic function, held Marx, it
became a "class 'in sich' "-a class in itself; but later, when it became conscious of its socio-economic position, it became a
"class 'fr sich' "-a class for itself. 16 Thus classes ultimately root in economic conditions, independent of the will of the
members thereof. 17
The class struggle is indeed the clue to history, as Marx and Engels pointed out. 18 Lenin asserted that "civilized society is
divided into antagonistic and, indeed, irreconcilably antagonistic classes,"19 and Mao declared that "revolutionary wars are
inevitable, in a class society," and that apart from such revolutions "a leap in social development cannot be made, the
revolutionary ruling classes cannot be overthrown, and the people cannot win political power."20
In a class society, class values are prevalent-law, religion, morality, etc., are all but the supra-structural products of their
infra-structural economically governed class roots. As Engels remarked: "We therefore reject every attempt to impose on us
any moral dogma whatsoever as an eternal, ultimate and forever immutable moral law on the pretext that the moral world too
has its permanent principles which transcend history and the differences between nations. We maintain on the contrary that
all former moral theories are the product, in the last analysis, of the economic stage which society had reached at that
particular epoch. And as society has hitherto moved in class antagonisms, morality was always a class morality; it has either
justified the domination and the interests of the ruling class, or, as soon as the oppressed class has become powerful
enough, it- has represented the revolt against this domination and the future interests of the oppressed." 21 "A really human
morality which transcends class antagonisms and their legacies in thought, only becomes possible at a stage of society which
has not only overcome class contradictions, but has even forgotten them in practical life."22
As Lenin stated: "We repudiate all morality that is taken outside of human class concepts. We say that this is deception, a
fraud which clogs the brains of the workers and peasants in the interests of the landlords and capitalists. We say that our
morality is entirely subordinated to the interests of the class struggle of the proletariat. Our morality is deduced from the class
struggle of the proletariat."23
"The development of all human societies for thousands of years, in all countries without exception, reveals a general
conformity to law, regularity, and consistency in this development, so that at first we had a society without classes-the original
patriarchal, primitive society, in which there were no aristocrats; then we had a society based on slavery-a slave-owning
society ... This form was followed in history by another, feudalism. In the great majority of countries, slavery, in the course of
its development, evolved into feudalism ... Further, with the development of trade, the appearance of the world market, and
the development of money circulation, a new class arose within feudal society, the capitalist class ... This fundamental factthe transition of society from primitive forms of slavery to serfdom and finally to capitalism -must always be borne in mind."24
After the dissolution of "primitive communism," the first stage in the development of the class struggle, then, is that of

-48-

slavery, and this necessarily implies the previous destruction of primitive equality or classlessness, As Engels maintained: "In
order to make use of a slave, a man must possess two kinds of things: first, the instruments and material for his slave's labor;
and secondly, the minimum means of subsistence for him. Therefore, before slavery becomes possible, a certain level of
production must already have been reached and a certain inequality of distribution must already have appeared."25
The acme of slavery, of course, is Christianity. As Engels remarked: "Christianity knew only one point in which all men
were equal: that all were equally born in original sin-which corresponded perfectly to its character as the religion of the slaves
and the oppressed."26
But even before the advent of Christianity, and ever since right up to the present day, the state had developed under
slavery as an instrument for the suppression of the economically weaker by the economically stronger classes. As Lenin
pointed out: "The existence of the state proves that the class antagonisms are irreconcilable ... According to Marx the state
could neither arise nor continue to exist if it were possible to conciliate classes ... According to Marx, the state is an organ of
class rule, an organ for the oppression of one class by another; it creates 'order,' which legalizes and perpetuates this
oppression by moderating the collision between the classes ... If the state is the product of irreconcilable class antagonisms,
if it is power standing above society and 'increasingly alienating itself from it,' it is clear that the liberation of the oppressed
class is impossible not only without a violent revolution, but also without the destruction of the apparatus of state power ...
[For] every state is a 'special repressive force' for suppression of the oppressed class."27
In class society, class clashes are inevitable. Under slavery, class struggles take the form of clashes between debtors
and creditors;28 under feudalism, between lord and tenant; and under capitalism, between capital and labor.29 But such
clashes also have some beneficial results. For, as Marx pointed out, "almost all the new inventions were the result of
collisions between the worker. and the employer ... After each new strike of any importance, there appeared a new
machine."30
A significant change in the class structure of society occurred with the transition from feudalism to capitalism. As Marx
and Engels wrote: "The serf, in the period of serfdom, raised himself to membership in the commune, just as the petty
bourgeois, under the yoke of feudal absolutism, managed to develop into a bourgeois. The modern laborer, on the contrary,
instead of rising with the progress of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class. He
becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than population and wealth. And here it becomes evident that the
bourgeoisie is unfit any longer to be the ruling class in society and to impose its conditions of existence upon society as an
over-riding law. It is unfit to rule because it is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery, because it
cannot help letting him sink into such a state, that it has to feed him, instead of being fed by him. Society can no longer live
under this bourgeoisie; in other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society."31
Under capitalism the class antagonisms are progressively simplified until ultimately only two classes remain-the
bourgeoisie and the proletariat. As Marx and Engels remarked of the proletarians, under capitalism: "Law, morality, religion
are for him just so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk just as many bourgeois interests."32 The proletariat is the
class which ultimately owns nothing but its children and its own labor-value; the bourgeois class ultimately monopolizes all
the capital and all the property available. 33 The proletarian class is reduced to economic semi-slavery. 34 For, as Lenin pointed
out, capitalism has already broken up the peasant class of feudalism,34a thereby causing the proletariat to become a major
class,35 a class that therefore can (and, indeed; by its dialectical momentum, ultimately must) revolt. 36
At first, such revolutions take on the form of sporadic uprisings (such as those of 1848 and 187l).37 But ultimately, as
Lenin pointed out, when the entire proletarian class ranges itself against the oppressive class,38 its victory is certain.39 In the
end, the proletariat organizes itself under the leaders of the working class, held Engels39a and Lenin.40 The working class itself
leads in the overthrowal of capitalism, held Lenin,41 but the (Communist) Party with its organizational principle of democratic
centvalism,42 is the vanguard of the proletariat43 and the "mind, honor and conscience of our epoch"44 and the acknowledged
leader of the masses, held Lenin.45
The abolition of classes as such now becomes inevitable. As Engels wrote in his 1884 The Origin of the Family, Private
Property and the Stale: "We are now rapidly approaching a stage in the development of production at which the existence of
these classes not only will have ceased to be a necessity, but will become a positive hindrance to production. They will fall as
inevitably as they arose at an earlier stage." 46 And as he wrote in his 1883 German Preface to the Manifesto of the
Communist Party: "All history has been a history of class struggles, of struggles between exploited and exploiting, between
dominated and dominating, classes at various stages of social evolution ... This struggle, however, has now reached a stage
where the exploited and oppressed class (the proletariat) can no longer emancipate itself from the class which exploits and
oppresses it (the bourgeoisie), without at the same time forever freeing the whole of society from exploitation, oppression and
class struggles."47
When this happens, there is a socialist revolution, and alienated society makes the transition to socialist society.
4. Class in Socialist Society
Under socialism, class distinctions are more and more combatted, until under subsequent communism, they have
disappeared altogether.
Firstly, socialism learns from the errors of the 1871 Paris Commune. There, unfortunately, held Lenin, 48" "the proletariat
stopped half-way," viz., by not "proceeding with the 'expropriation of the expropriators,'" and "instead of annihilating its

-49-

enemies, it endeavored to exercise moral influence on them ... But with all its errors, the Commune is the greatest example of
the greatest proletarian movement of the nineteenth century ... The working class will make use of it, as was already the case
in Russia during the December insurrection" (1905).
Secondly-and flowing from the first point-under socialism the class war between the working class and the exploiting
class(es) is continued. As Lenin held two years after the successful Red Revolution in 1919: "The abolition of classes is a
matter of long, difficult and stubborn class struggle, which after the overthrow of the power of capital, after the destruction of
the bourgeois state, after the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, does not disappear (as the vulgar
representatives of old socialism and old Social-Democracy imagine) but merely changes its forms and becomes in many
respects still more bitter."49 And as Stalin held a further fourteen years later in 1933: "The abolition of classes is not achieved
by the subsiding of the class struggle, but by its intensification. The state will die out not as a result of the relaxation of the
state power, but as a result of its utmost consolidation, which is necessary for the purpose of finally crushing the remnants of
the dying classes and of organizing defense against the capitalist environment which is far from having been done away with
as yet and will not soon be done away with."50
Thirdly, this intensified class struggle c