Current page: 1 (book has 1 pages in total)

N. Lenin
On the tasks of the proletariat in this revolution

Arriving only on April 3 at night in Petrograd, I could, of course, only on my own behalf and with reservations regarding insufficient preparation to speak at the meeting on April 4 with a report on the tasks of the revolutionary proletariat.

The only thing I could do to make my job easier was conscientious opponents - there was production written theses. I read them and passed on the text to Comrade. Tsereteli. I read them very slowly and twice: first at a meeting of Bolsheviks, then at a meeting of both Bolsheviks and Mensheviks.

I am publishing these personal theses of mine, provided with only the briefest explanatory notes, which were developed in much more detail in the report.

Theses

1. In our attitude to the war, which on the part of Russia and under the new government of Lvov and Co. undoubtedly remains a predatory imperialist war due to the capitalist nature of this government, not the slightest concession to “revolutionary defencism” is acceptable.

To a revolutionary war, which truly justifies revolutionary defencism, the conscious proletariat can give its consent only on the condition of: a) the transfer of power into the hands of the proletariat and the poorest parts of the peasantry adjacent to it; b) upon refusal of all annexations in deed, and not in words; c) with a complete break in practice with all the interests of capital.

In view of the undoubted conscientiousness of broad sections of the mass representatives of revolutionary defencism, who recognize war only out of necessity, and not for the sake of conquest, in view of their deception by the bourgeoisie, it is necessary to especially thoroughly, persistently, and patiently explain to them their mistake, explain the inextricable connection between capital and the imperialist war, and prove that to end war with a truly democratic, non-violent world it is forbidden without overthrowing capital.

Organization of the widest propaganda of this view in the army.

Fraternization.

2. The uniqueness of the current moment in Russia lies in transition from the first stage of the revolution, which gave power to the bourgeoisie due to the insufficient consciousness and organization of the proletariat, - to the second its stage, which should give power into the hands of the proletariat and the poorest strata of the peasantry.

This transition is characterized, on the one hand, by maximum legality (Russia Now the freest country in the world of all the warring countries), on the other hand, the absence of violence against the masses and, finally, their trusting and unconscious attitude towards the capitalist government, worst enemies peace and socialism.

This uniqueness requires us to be able to adapt to special the conditions of party work among the unprecedentedly broad masses of the proletariat, who had just awakened to political life.

3. No support for the Provisional Government, an explanation of the complete falsity of all its promises, especially regarding the refusal of annexations. Exposure, instead of an unacceptable, illusion-seeking “demand” that This government, government of capitalists, stopped be imperialist.

4. Recognition of the fact that in the majority of Soviets of Workers' Deputies our party is in the minority, and so far in a weak minority, before block of everyone petty-bourgeois opportunistic, succumbing to the influence of the bourgeoisie and carrying out its influence on the proletariat, elements from the people's socialists, socialist revolutionaries to the OK (Chkheidze, Tsereteli, etc.), Steklov, etc., etc.

Explaining to the masses that S.R.D. exists the only possible form of revolutionary government and what is therefore our task, for now This government succumbs to the influence of the bourgeoisie, only a patient, systematic, persistent one, adapting especially to the practical needs of the masses, can emerge, clarification mistakes in their tactics.

While we are in the minority, we carry out the work of criticism and clarification of errors, while preaching the need to transition the entire state power to the Soviets of Workers' Deputies, so that the masses can get rid of their mistakes through experience.

5. Not a parliamentary republic - a return to it from S.R.D. It would be a step backwards, but a republic of Soviets of workers, farm laborers and peasants' deputies throughout the country, from bottom to top.

Elimination of the police, army, bureaucracy. 1
That is, replacing a standing army with the general armament of the people.

The pay of all officials, even if all of them are elected and replaced at any time, is not higher than the average pay of a good worker.

6. In the agricultural program, shifting the center of gravity to Sov. batr. deputies.

Confiscation of all landowners' lands.

Nationalization everyone lands in the country, disposal of land by local Sov. batr. and cross, deputies. Allocation of Soviets of Deputies from the poorest peasants. Creation of each large estate (in the amount of about 100 to 300 dessiatines, according to local and other conditions and as determined by local institutions) into a model farm under the control of laborers. deputies and at the public expense.

7. Immediate merger of all banks in the country into one national bank and the introduction of control over it by S.R.D.

8. Not “introducing” socialism like ours direct task, and the transition immediately only to control on the part of the S.R.D. for the social production and distribution of products.

9. Party tasks:

a) immediate party congress;

b) a change in the party program, the main thing:

1) about imperialism and the imperialist war,

2) about the attitude towards the state and is our demand of the “commune state” 2
That is, such a state, the prototype of which was provided by the Paris Commune.

3) correction of a backward program - minimum;

c) change of party name 3
Instead of “social democracy,” whose official leaders throughout the world have betrayed socialism by going over to the bourgeoisie (“defencists” and wavering “Kautskyites”), we must call ourselves Communist Party.

10. Renewal of the International.

The initiative to create a revolutionary International, an International against social chauvinists and against the "center" 4
“Center” is the name in international social democracy for the current that oscillates between chauvinists (“defencists”) and internationalists, namely: Kautsky and Co. in Germany, Longuet and Co. in France, Chkheidze and Co. in Russia, Turati and Co. ° in Italy, MacDonald and Co. in England, etc.

In order for the reader to understand why I had to especially emphasize, as a rare exception, the “case” of conscientious opponents, I invite you to compare the following objection of Mr. Goldenberg with these theses: Lenin “planted the banner civil war in the midst of revolutionary democracy" (quoted in Mr. Plekhanov's Unity, No. 5).

Isn't that right, Pearl?

I write, read, chew: “due to undoubted conscientiousness wide layers massive representatives of revolutionary defencism... in view of their deception by the bourgeoisie, it is necessary especially thoroughly, persistently, patiently explain to them their mistake...

And the gentlemen from the bourgeoisie, who call themselves Social Democrats, Not belonging to neither wide layers, nor to massive representatives of defencism, with a clear forehead, convey my views, present them as follows: “the banner (!) of civil war has been hoisted” (there is not a word about it in the theses, there was not a word in the report!) “in the midst (!!) revolutionary democracy"...

What it is? How does this differ from pogrom agitation? from "Russian Will"?

I write, read, chew: “R.D.’s advice is the only possible form of revolutionary government, and therefore our task can only be patient, systematic, persistent, adapting especially to the practical needs of the masses, clarification mistakes in their tactics...

And opponents of a certain sort present my views as a call for “civil war in the midst of revolutionary democracy”!!

I attacked Vr. the government for being Not appointed neither an early nor any date at all for the convening of the Uchr. meetings, getting off with promises. I argued that without Sovetov r. and s. dep. convening of the Constitution the meeting is not guaranteed, its success is impossible.

I am credited with the view that I am against the speedy convening of the Uchr. meetings!!!

I would call these “delusional” expressions if decades of political struggle had not taught me to look at the conscientiousness of my opponents as a rare exception.

Mr. Plekhanov in his newspaper called my speech “delusional.” Very good, Mr. Plekhanov! But look how clumsy, clumsy and slow-witted you are in your polemics. If I spoke a delusional speech for two hours, how could hundreds of listeners endure the “nonsense”? Further. Why does your newspaper devote an entire column to presenting “nonsense”? It’s not round, not at all round.

It is much easier, of course, to shout, scold, yell, than to try to tell, explain, remember, How Marx and Engels reasoned in 1871, 1872, 1875. about the experience of the Paris Commune and how which Does the proletariat need a state?

The former Marxist Mr. Plekhanov probably does not want to remember Marxism.

I quoted the words of Rosa Luxemburg, who called August 4, 1914. German social democracy "a stinking corpse." And Messrs. The Plekhanovs, Goldenberg and Co. are “offended”... for whom? Germanic chauvinists called chauvinists!

The poor Russian social-chauvinists are confused, socialists in words, chauvinists in deeds.

Russia became acquainted with Marxism a long time ago, but with Leninism only on April 3 (16), 1917. On the very day when I arrived at the Finland Station. In two rally words, he expressed his position already at the station, and outlined it in detail for a group of selected socialists in the Kshesinskaya Palace, where the Bolsheviks organized their headquarters in the former apartments of the ballerina. Finally, after some time, these thoughts were formulated in writing as the famous "".

Later, Soviet historiography tried to obscure the fact that when Russia and Lenin finally met after a break, at first she did not recognize her son, who had lived for a long time in a foreign land. Or, more precisely, she did not understand and did not accept. And this, of course, is not about conservatives or liberals, but about the street and socialists raised on Marx. Including members of the Bolshevik Party itself.

When they write about Lenin’s enthusiastic meeting at the Finlyandsky Station, there is no exaggeration. The mass of soldiers and proletarians who came to the station at the call of the Bolsheviks rejoiced at the event.

For various reasons (the St. Petersburg soldier was generally glad for any reason to leave the stuffy barracks), but also because by that time many were already fed up, and Bolshevik agitators spoke admiringly of Ilyich. It is also true that they applauded a lot. However, it is rare that a rally fully understands what it is applauding. This is exactly the case.

Judging by the memoirs, the arrival of the Bolshevik leader at the Finland Station was remembered by Lenin’s dizzying statement that “the dawn of the world socialist revolution has already begun” (“everything is boiling in Germany”, and “the hour is not far off when, at the call of our comrade Karl Liebknecht, the peoples will turn to arms against their exploiters"). Moreover, as it turned out, the welcoming public is “the vanguard of the world proletarian army”! Feel yourself" forward detachment“It was pleasant, although few people understood what was being said. Apart from the socialists, and there were several dozen of them in the crowd, everyone else had not even heard of Liebknecht. Competent socialists understood everything, but did not agree with the speaker: they were not At the moment I was more interested in the situation in Russia.

© public domain

© public domain

Nikolai Sukhanov (Menshevik internationalist) writes about that meeting with irony, although, due to his internationalism, as an exception, he even agreed on some things. And yet, “this was not a response to the entire context of the Russian revolution, as it was perceived by all its witnesses and participants. The entire context of our revolution spoke to Lenin about Thomas, and he, right from the window of his sealed carriage, without asking anyone, without listening to anyone, blurted out about Yerema. Or, to be absolutely precise, the context of the revolution spoke about national interests, and a passenger arriving from abroad blurted out about Karl Liebknecht, Germany and the European proletariat."

The wariness of socialists, including the Bolsheviks, towards the updated Lenin was simply explained. They all studied from Marx, Engels and Western socialists, and therefore the sequence of steps looked approximately the same for everyone.

First, and only then, using democratic freedoms, as capitalism develops and the proletariat grows, the struggle for socialist transformation begins. The peasant environment, and at that time in Russia it was much broader than the proletarian environment, was considered inert, unreliable, if not treacherous in relation to the ideas of socialism. And it took time to change this situation.

Russian socialists were preparing not for an armed struggle for power, but for future parliamentary battles in the Constituent Assembly. , bursting into Russia like a tornado, he mixed up all plans, deciding to immediately begin preparations for a socialist revolution, during which power should pass into the hands of the proletariat and the poor peasantry, to the Soviets.

“” set a number of goals, but the main one was the second revolution in a row in three months in “the freest country in the world.” This is Lenin’s definition: “Russia is now the freest country in the world of all the warring countries,” a country where “there is no violence against the masses.” And this freedom created, from Ilyich’s point of view, a lot of conveniences for a skilled revolutionary. Much of Lenin’s position was, of course, built on sand. Let's say, hope for an international event - a world revolution, which, in his opinion, was about to break out. Ilyich correctly noticed its real outbreaks in Europe, tired of the war, but, as subsequent events showed, he overestimated it. Therefore, Russia had to go through further thorny path from calls for world revolution to the thesis about “building socialism in one particular country.”

But there was something else: Lenin understood (or felt) the situation in Russia better than others, noting that the “bourgeois-liberal” one was completed.

And most importantly, he very accurately assessed the maximalism of the masses - as he said, the people were a hundred times more radical than the Bolsheviks - and had the courage, talent and exceptional will to heat this already hot metal white-hot and forge from it what he considered necessary.

He was not afraid of defeat either. As he believed, if the Paris Commune, even having lost, nevertheless moved Marxism forward, the Russian revolution in any case would serve the cause of educating socialist leaders of a new wave. Moreover, Lenin the internationalist more than once said that he was ready to sacrifice the Russian revolution for the sake of a revolution in a more developed country, for example in Germany, since it will be easier to build socialism there. The fact that the Russian people played the role of a kind of experimental laboratory mouse did not bother Vladimir Ilyich at all. received only two votes in support, 13 were against. Approximately the same balance of power remained in the Bolshevik Party for almost the entire month of April. And yet Lenin did not give up, stubbornly convincing everyone that he was right. And he knew how to convince.

The most heated discussion took place at the party conference at the end of April. Dzerzhinsky, hinting at Lenin’s isolation from real Russia, demanded on behalf of “many” who “do not agree in principle with the theses of the speaker” to listen to a co-report “from comrades who practically do.”

The future All-Union elder Kalinin was indignant: “I am surprised at Comrade Lenin’s statement that the old Bolsheviks have become a hindrance at the moment.”

And the future first chairman of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, Kamenev, again and again explained to Lenin, as a capable student who had skipped the most important lessons, what objective conditions (strictly according to Marx) were preventing immediate implementation in Russia. And yet, the conference eventually adopted a resolution that supported Lenin’s “theses.”

From that moment on, the Russian political calendar began to accelerate from February to October.

So the victory of socialism in Russia, as in a single country, is impossible - moreover, the value February Revolution according to Lenin, it was not at all about its democratic gains, about opening the way for broad reforms, but only about using the Russian peasantry as a base for the world revolution, as a “step” to it.

It is very interesting that the first edition April theses Lenin, recorded by F.I. Drapkina at the March party meeting and read by Lenin on the morning of April 4 in the choir of the Tauride Palace is missing (Drapkina naively exclaims “for some reason”) in the IV edition of Lenin’s works.

Lenin proclaims the April Theses at the Petrograd Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies. April 4, 1917

In this first edition, Lenin emphasized even more sharply his main idea from the “Letter to the Swiss Workers”:

"One Liebknecht is worth more than 110 defencists... if you sympathize with Liebknecht and extend even a finger to the defencists [we are talking about that part of the Russian revolutionary democracy that remained in positions of national defense during the war], then this will be betrayal of international socialism.”

Historian E. Ponasenkov about Lenin’s April Theses

Hence the call for fraternization with the Germans at the front. But while on the German side this fraternization had the character of a propaganda, now they would say “cold” war, with the delivery of numerous Left Socialist-Revolutionary and, in its slogans, Bolshevik literature to the Russian trenches, on the Russian side it clearly had an anti-state, anti-national character and the call for it was the nature of the assistance is by no means to Liebknecht, but to the German General Staff Kaiser's Germany. In his April theses, Lenin put forward the slogan: “No support for the Provisional Government.” Despite the revolution, Lenin thus called for the continuation of defeatist tactics, seeking grounds for it in the system of the established dual power. Now speaking out against a parliamentary democratic republic under the slogan “All power to the soviets,” he fully revealed his natural anti-democracy, repulsion from freedom and legal statehood, because deputies from military units and factories were more often delegated to the “councils of workers’ and soldiers’ deputies” than elected (depending on depending on which party dominated in a particular place), and in addition, co-optation into councils on the basis of former party merits, stay in exile, in exile, etc., took on the broadest character. Thus, only a minority of the population was represented in the councils.

In order not to be unfounded, we will cite an excerpt from Pravda of June 22, 1917, which allowed itself a more objective attitude towards the soviets when they could not yet serve as a cover for establishing a party dictatorship over the country:

“It’s no secret to anyone,” Pravda wrote regarding the vote on an offensive on the front on June 18, “that in Petrograd Soviet very, very unevenly (and, moreover, obviously unprofitable for our party), 500 thousand Petrograd workers have four times fewer deputies in the Soviet than 150 thousand (a greatly underestimated figure - N.R.) of the Petrograd garrison. It turns out that 1 soldier has as many voting rights as 10-12 workers. The abnormality of this situation is recognized by everyone.”

Let us add to this statement of Pravda that, for example, the employees of the then three million (without garrison) Petrograd were represented in the council in a smaller proportion, and for the most part were not represented at all, as well as small property owners, the intelligentsia, who were not members of the parties of revolutionary democracy , and many others. As for the peasantry, in particular the Petrograd province, at first they were almost completely ignored by the Soviets.

Two days later, on April 6, Lenin’s theses were discussed at a meeting of the Bureau of the Central Committee. The draft, the only surviving protocol record, has not yet been published. The majority of Central Committee members supported L. Kameneva, who believed that the bourgeois revolution had taken place and it should be allowed to mature to the end before raising the question of the transition to socialism.

Kamenev opposed the tactics of a “permanent” revolution, which Lenin’s April theses essentially called for. As throughout the March-April period, Kamenev was supported by Stalin. Stalin said that Lenin’s theses “are a scheme, they have no facts and therefore they do not satisfy.” Like Kamenev, he believed that “there is nothing in the West” that would guarantee a socialist revolution in the near future.

On April 8, in Pravda, Kamenev openly defended the resolution of the Bolshevik conference mentioned above and wrote:

“Until any new decisions of the Central Committee and resolutions of the All-Russian Party Conference, these resolutions remain our platform, which we will defend both from the influence of revolutionary defencism and from the criticism of Comrade. Lenin".

On the same day, a vote was taken in the Petrograd Party Committee on Lenin’s April theses: of the 16 members of the Central Committee present, two were in favor, one abstained, and 13 voted against Lenin.

Even within his own party, Lenin seemed isolated. How ironically he said Plekhanov, nor "helpful" Platten, who delivered Lenin to Russia, nor Robert Grimm, who worked for him from the Germans, did not earn their fees.

N. Sukhanov (Himmer), a Menshevik close to the Bolsheviks, in his “Notes on the Revolution” speaks of Lenin’s almost complete isolation during the days of his arrival. But what only seemed. After his failure in the Petrograd Committee, the very next day, April 9, Lenin wrote his article “On Dual Power,” where, in response to the question of Provisional Government he answers - “he must be overthrown”, and a day later, on April 10, in his theses for the conference - “Tasks of the proletariat in our revolution” - he explains how the Provisional Government should be replaced - by the Councils of Workers', Soldiers' and Peasants' Deputies, which "are not understood also in the sense that they represent a new form, or rather a new type of state» .

Lenin's opponents underestimated the main thing in the April theses - indications of a possible quick seizure of power due to the existing situation of dual power. This instruction, although not formulated directly, was at the same time so clear that Trotsky immediately discerned in it the “ideological rearmament of the Bolsheviks.”

Another reason for the relatively easy victory of Lenin and Zinoviev, who came from abroad, was the concentration of their efforts on rebuilding the party apparatus. Lenin, as numerous memoirists say, devoted a huge amount of time to personal meetings with new party members in Petrograd, he tried not to miss a single delegate coming from the provinces. It was all the easier for him and Zinoviev because they were the only ones who were fully privy to the Bolshevik cadres of 1914 and knew this cadre better than others. Lenin found a talented organizer in the person he called from the Urals Y. Sverdlova and with his help he built a real headquarters in the Kshesinskaya palace with numerous freed workers. It is enough to point out that only the Military Organization of this headquarters, or simply “Voyenka”, as it was called at that time, included several dozen released workers.

Let us give one of many examples. “Immediately after the [April] conference,” says one of the Kronstadt delegates, the old Bolshevik V. Panyushkin, “I was summoned to the secretariat of the Central Committee to see Yakov Mikhailovich Sverdlov. I receive an order from him to go to Tula... I am going to be the representative of the Central Committee of the Party for Tula and nearby provinces. I’m bringing with me a powerful column of agitators and organizers for those times - about a hundred Kronstadt sailors.” In Novosil, where Panyushkin wants to publish a newspaper, the owner of the printing house, an “anarchist Socialist-Revolutionary”, asks Panyushkin: “Is there any money?” “Yes, of course,” answers the representative of the Central Committee, and “Peasant Truth” is published in large circulation in the Tula province. The anarchist Socialist-Revolutionary was worried about the Bolshevik newspaper and asked for double the price. “We have to pay,” agreed the representative of the Central Committee who had the money.

Already by May, the face of the old Bolshevik organization, based on small groups of workers and regional organizations created by such people truly connected with the factories as Shlyapnikov and Zalutsky in Petrograd, Nogin and Lomov in Moscow has completely changed.

The headquarters in the Kshesinskaya palace, having numerous emissaries, mainly in the Baltic Fleet and among some parts of the Petrograd garrison, tried to create their own shock units in Helsingfors, Kronstadt and Petrograd, ready to take to the streets with arms in hand at a moment's notice. Among the sailors of the fleet and Kronstadt there was a significant layer anarchists and the left-wing Socialist Revolutionaries, who were often much more willing to follow Lenin's slogans than many of the old Bolsheviks. Among the reserve regiments of Petrograd (remember that their number in the city and its environs reached 400 thousand), Lenin’s slogans aroused support, especially during those periods when the Provisional Government demanded that marching companies be sent to the front. The Bolshevik "military" managed to create an organization in the 180th reserve regiment, in some units located near the Kshesinskaya palace, and especially in the 1st machine gun reserve regiment.

It is very characteristic that of the nine people elected to the Central Committee at the April Conference, about half - Kamenev, Nogin, Milyutin, Fedorov did not share Lenin’s views and did not participate directly in the creation of the party apparatus. So, for example, Nogin returned to Moscow, Kamenev continued to represent the Bolsheviks in the council. But to the Leninist group - Zinoviev, Sverdlov, Smilga– Stalin joined, changing his views. Thus, this narrow Leninist leadership, relying on the Military Organization, actually resolved all current issues.

We are not at all inclined to deny the role of the individual in history - of course, Lenin’s arrival was a decisive factor in the reorientation of the party to seize power. But we should not forget that Lenin brought with him not only the slogans and tactics of this reorientation, but also, which may have been decisive, money that allowed him to again rebuild at his own discretion the party apparatus necessary to seize power. In order to explain this rapid growth of the party apparatus, to explain the possibility of sending hundreds of emissaries, like Panyushkin, to all corners of Russia and to the front, to explain, finally, the vigorous activity of the Bolshevik Military Organization, it is necessary to dwell on.

F. Drapkina. "All-Russian Conference of the Bolsheviks in March 1917." “Questions of History” No. 9, 1956, p. 16.

We quote from E.N. Burdzhalov, see his article “On the tactics of the Bolsheviks in March-April 1917,” where he, referring to the archive of the Institute of Marxism-Leninism, quotes the protocol recording of Stalin’s speech. “Questions of History” No. 4, 1956, p. 51.

See the memoirs of V. Panyushkin. “We all came out of the people...” Magazine “October” No. 12, M. 1957, pp. 43-44.

The party was guided by these theses in its struggle to build a new society, to build a socialist state.
It will soon be 100 years since the day when this epoch-making work by the leader of the world proletariat saw the light of day. Lenin wrote it on April 3 (April 16, new style) 1917 and took it as the basis for two of his program speeches at meetings held the next day in Petrograd - at a meeting of Bolsheviks in the Kshesinskaya Palace and at a meeting of Bolsheviks and Mensheviks - participants in the All-Russian Conference of Workers' Councils and soldiers' deputies in the Tauride Palace. On April 7, Lenin's theses were published in the newspaper Pravda and reprinted in other Bolshevik publications.

Time for a great turning point

This work of Lenin is small in volume, it fits on five pages of printed text. But her historical meaning huge. It is the most important document reflecting a fateful turning point in the history of the Russian revolutionary movement. A turning point, thanks to which the liberal-bourgeois transformations that followed the abdication of power by the last Russian monarch were replaced by socialist transformations within a few months. And at the same time, the “April Theses” prove the strength of Lenin’s genius, the amazing political foresight of the creator of the Soviet state.
Vladimir Ilyich returned to Russia, which had just experienced the fall of a thousand-year-old monarchy from forced emigration literally a few hours before the April Theses were written. But in this work he gave such a deep and accurate assessment of the situation in the country and an assessment of the prospects for the development of the revolutionary movement, which not a single political figure from those who observed the events of February from the inside and directly participated in them was capable of.
It is here, in the “April Theses,” that Lenin is the first to unconditionally declare the February historical turn in the history of Russia as an intermediate one, which will inevitably be followed by a new and most important stage - the transfer of power into the hands of the people and the socialist transformation of the country. Lenin declares that February is only a prerequisite for such a transformation, relying on Marxist dialectics, on the Marxist understanding of the laws of history. And therefore, a month after the February Revolution, he says with all confidence: “The uniqueness of the current moment in Russia lies in the transition from the first stage of the revolution, which gave power to the bourgeoisie due to the insufficient consciousness and organization of the proletariat, to its second stage, which should give power to hands of the proletariat and the poorest strata of the peasantry." And then, in the notes to his theses, Lenin asserts with final clarity that the Bolshevik political doctrine is a communist doctrine. Declares the need to dissociate the Bolsheviks from those half-hearted attitudes that turned out to be dominant in the Social Democratic movement. Which entails the need to change the very name of the party: “Instead of “social democracy, whose official leaders throughout the world have betrayed socialism... we must call ourselves the Communist Party,” writes Lenin.
These Leninist words fully resonate with today, when most parties and political movements, - primarily Western ones - who consider themselves to be on the “left”, have almost completely abandoned Marxist principles and are increasingly drifting towards liberal ideology. The “left liberals” of Europe and America, in fact, identify with the basic principles of global capitalism, only adding to them a limited set of social demands, the implementation of which cannot solve the problems inherent in the capitalist system as such. Moreover, the social and anti-globalist accents in the programs of Western “left liberals” are increasingly turning out to be even weaker than in the programs of their opponents from the “right” camp. This, in our opinion, is the main reason for the increasingly obvious crisis of trust in left-liberal parties and political leaders in today’s world and the rapid strengthening of the positions of right-wing conservative politicians that we are now seeing in America and Europe.
The modern “left” elite of the West is increasingly clearly degenerating into a purely liberal elite, committing the same betrayal of socialism that Lenin spoke about when assessing the situation in the social democratic movement of the early 20th century. And thus, just like 100 years ago, this elite is bringing its collapse closer. The crisis of these so-called leftists in the West is not at all connected with the fact that truly leftist sentiments in the world are weakening, that people’s desire for social justice is not strong enough. On the contrary, this crisis is associated with the reluctance and inability of the “left liberals” to meet the growing demands that are acquiring an increasingly pronounced socialist character.
Understanding this and being convinced of the obviousness with which the laws of development of political processes, outlined by Lenin 100 years ago, are confirmed in our time, we, modern communists, must firmly realize the correctness of our position, our choice. Realize that history itself confirms the rightness of those who firmly defend Marxist-Leninist principles and continue to persistently fight for their implementation, seeing this as the only alternative to today's crisis. Lenin’s theses remind us of what we must rely on in this struggle, not one of which has lost its relevance and value today.

No government support

The “April Theses” answer the fundamental questions that faced the communists at the beginning of the last century and that confront us today, the heirs of the Lenin Party. This is a question about the attitude of communists to the government established in the country and to the system that this government is building. The question of property and the question of what kind of state, what kind of system the communists will build when they take power into their own hands. When Lenin announced his theses, his directness and adherence to principles simply frightened many. But time has proven Lenin to be right. And this should inspire us today, when the political and socio-economic situation in the country is becoming more and more similar to the situation a century ago.
Assessing those liberal-bourgeois forces that came to power as a result of the February Revolution as forces serving the interests of world capital and far from the interests of the people, Lenin categorically excludes any support for these forces by the communists, any alliance with them. He unconditionally insists on “a complete break in practice with all the interests of capital” and calls: “No support for the provisional government, an explanation of the complete falsity of all its promises...” Hence the tactics of political struggle that Lenin formulates in his theses: “For now we are in the minority , we are carrying out the work of criticism and clarification of mistakes, while at the same time preaching the need for the transfer of all state power to the Soviets of Workers' Deputies..."
These Leninist principles and requirements are fully consistent with the position of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation in relation to the policy pursued by today's Russian government of market liberals - the ideological twins of the Provisional Government of 1917, who have surpassed their predecessors both in cynicism towards the people and in managerial helplessness. We are the only political force that consistently opposes all anti-people initiatives of the Cabinet of Ministers. The only political force that never votes for the budget of degradation and collapse that is annually imposed on the country by the government. The only political force that insists on replacing the current irresponsible cabinet with a government of people's trust offers a clear program of action and is capable of ensuring its implementation.
The very name “Provisional Government”, associated with specific political circumstances that arose after the February Revolution, also has a symbolic meaning. By its actions, this government has fully proven that it is a government of temporary workers, alien to the true interests of the country and people. The power of such temporary workers cannot but give rise to a fundamental conflict with society, which ends for them inevitable collapse. But the temporary workers who were brought to power by February did not last even a year. Their rule collapsed as quickly as the monarchy they replaced. And the current temporary workers - the ideological followers of those of that time - have held power in their hands for more than a quarter of a century. Only certain personalities change. But the government that determines the socio-economic destiny modern Russia, remains essentially the same. Because the essence of the government’s policy, its commitment to recipes destructive for Russia, “prescribed” by foreign “curators” hostile to our country, has not changed since the early 90s. What allows them to maintain power for so long? How has the current “Provisional Government” of destructive liberals been maintained for more than 25 years? Lenin’s “April Theses” help us answer this question by comparing today’s situation with the situation a century ago.

Technologies of temporary workers

Speaking about the favorable political prospects of the Bolsheviks, Lenin in his work emphasizes that after the February Revolution they can act as legally as possible. This is facilitated by the political situation that developed after the overthrow of the monarchy: “Russia is now the freest country in the world of all the warring countries.” This was a historical paradox favorable to the Leninist Party: the growing chaos and anarchy after February, from which only the communists could save the country, was accompanied by a weakening of political pressure on them, which made it easier to fight for power. And what accelerated the transfer of power into the hands of the Bolsheviks, which was life-saving for Russia. This is also the fundamental difference between the situation then and the situation today, when helplessness and chaos in managing the economy and social sphere are combined with maximum mobilization and rigidity of power in the matter of political self-preservation.
Having come to power as a result of the collapse of the USSR, liberal extremists began to rapidly destroy and plunder the country and very quickly lost the support of even that part of society that unconditionally supported them during the years of perestroika that preceded the anti-Soviet coup in the early 90s. The Yeltsin-Gaidar team enjoyed mass support a little longer than the Provisional Government of 1917. But to maintain her power, she used openly fascist methods, which made themselves felt both during the execution of the Supreme Council in October 1993, and during that unscrupulous bacchanalia into which the government turned presidential elections 96th. Thus, the new “Provisional Government” was able to accomplish what its predecessors failed to do in 1917.
And with the beginning of the 21st century, it relied on what was, in principle, inaccessible to temporary workers at the beginning of the 20th century:
- on modern technologies mass propaganda duping;
- increased inculcation of values ​​that contribute to the intellectual and moral degradation of society;
- cynical and criminal manipulations in elections.
It is on these three “pillars” that the illusion of “stability” and “reconciliation” of the impoverished people with the oligarchy that has seized Russian resources and its minions in power has been based for the last decade and a half. “Reconciliation”, which the authorities are hypocritically calling for in a country where the incomes of the absolute majority of citizens have been rapidly and unstoppably declining for two years now. more than a year contract. Where 72 out of 100 people live on 15 thousand rubles or less per month. Where industry and the social sphere continue to degrade, and the fabulous wealth of large owners - dollar millionaires and billionaires - is only growing. Where nine-tenths of the national wealth is concentrated in the hands of one percent of moneybags.
In such an ugly situation, characteristic only of the most backward economies of the world, the normal development of the country is impossible in principle. And we are called to “reconcile” with this by the current owners of the country, who are ready to shamelessly exploit even the sacred feelings for the people associated with the reunification of Russia and Crimea, with our support for the struggle of Donbass and Lugansk against the Bandera clique in Ukraine. Exploit to justify the destructive policies being pursued within Russia, and for the sake of preserving a system that threatens the country with social and economic catastrophe.
Paying tribute to the genius of Lenin, who stood at the head of the greatest transformations in world history, we must simultaneously admit: the conditions of struggle in which we have to act are even more difficult, more difficult to resolve the issue of power and property than those that befell the Bolsheviks in 1917. It is all the more important for us to remember Lenin’s call in the April Theses to “adapt to special conditions party work among the unprecedentedly broad masses of the proletariat, who have just awakened to political life.”

Rescue program

Problems that worsen during the crisis inevitably lead to an increase in protest potential and to the political awakening of society. Our task is to promote this awakening every day. At the same time, preventing the protest potential from developing into anarchy and chaos, which is what our opponents from the camp of the “liberal opposition” dream of and persistently provoke. In a situation where, due to the fault of the authorities, a socio-economic crisis entails a political crisis, only the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and its consistent allies can direct the growing discontent in society into the channel of a meaningful struggle of the people for their legitimate rights. For the revival of the social state, for the implementation of the socialist program declared by Lenin in the “April Theses”:
- “Nationalization of all lands in the country”
- “Immediate merger of all banks in the country into one national bank...”
- “The pay of all officials, with the election and replacement of all of them at any time, is not higher than the average pay of a good worker.”
The implementation of these proposals is directly reflected in the program of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation.
We are the only party that stubbornly resisted the introduction of private land ownership by market liberals. Time has proven us right: the transfer of land into the hands of large owners leads to the degradation of the agricultural industry and the economy as a whole. As the international situation worsens, ensuring the country's independence in the food sector is becoming an increasingly pressing issue for Russia's security.
We also demand the nationalization of raw materials industries, as well as the most important industrial enterprises, without which it is impossible to ensure the influx into the treasury of those funds that are necessary to ensure the full development of the country, its technological renewal, and the modernization of its economy.
Without Lenin's nationalization, the feat of Stalin's industrialization, which allowed as soon as possible overcome Russia's centuries-long lag, build a powerful industrial and social infrastructure. To ensure such a defense capability that allowed the USSR to resist the most powerful, predatory and ruthless enemy. In the same way, without nationalization, which the Communist Party of the Russian Federation insists on, it is impossible to stop the further degradation of the economy and social sphere, threatening the very existence of Russia as a single and independent state.
We insist on freeing Russia's financial system from external control, which today is directly served by the country's banks, which profess the cult of liberal monetarism and directly contribute to the strangulation of domestic producers with the help of predatory lending rates. Like Lenin in 1917, we today proclaim the need to create a centralized banking system. The creation of a state bank, which will be such not only in name, but also in practice, without which the Russian economy will never receive the investments it vitally needs.
We are convinced that those who come to power should go there not out of a desire to get rich, but out of a desire to benefit the country and the people. Therefore, it is necessary to deprive those entering power of selfish incentives, which unconditionally prevail in the sphere of power today. This is exactly what Lenin meant when he spoke about the need for legislative restrictions on the income of officials. And this is precisely what the Communist Party of the Russian Federation insists on today.
In the “April Theses,” Lenin says that one of the main problems slowing down the transition from the liberal-bourgeois stage of the revolution to the socialist stage is the trusting and unconscious attitude of the masses “toward the government of the capitalists, the worst enemies of peace and socialism.” The same problem faces us, today’s communists, who are opposing the new “Provisional Government”, which has lingered too long in power. And this problem can be solved only by persistently addressing the people and using for this purpose any opportunities and the most various forms education, clarification and agitation.
The fact that the problems are growing and becoming more unsustainable is becoming more obvious every day to the citizens of the country. But we are obliged to direct all our efforts to ensure that society understands: the root of the problems, the source of the crisis situation lies in the system of capitalist relations itself. The fact is that the current Russian government is committed to this system in its wildest, most barbaric and destructive forms. And today, the ultimate goal that must be strived for in order for the country to begin to revive is the same as what Lenin’s “April Theses” talk about. What is needed is not just a change of power, but a replacement of the system of oligarchic capitalism with a socialist system. A humane and highly spiritual system.

Socialism or turmoil

Just like 100 years ago, today opponents of socialism are trying to accuse Lenin and his associates of pushing the country toward civil war by putting forward the program stated in the April Theses. This is a shameless lie. Even then, in April 1917, Lenin convincingly refuted it in the notes to his theses.
All conscientious historians admit that after the Bolsheviks came to power, the bloody confrontation was provoked not by them, but by those who tried to resist the construction of socialism in our country. And they shouted loudest in advance about the prospects of a civil war precisely because they were ready to start it. They were ready to kindle the fire of a fratricidal war - just to preserve the power of capital, in which the gigantic incomes of a handful of “chosen ones” are ensured by the deprivation and poverty of the absolute majority. Objectively speaking, the war they organized was not civil. It was a war against Russia, unleashed by an international coalition of its external and internal enemies, united by the interests of capital and hatred of socialism, hatred of the awakened people.
But if the Bolsheviks in 1917 had not followed the path outlined in Lenin’s April theses, if they had faltered and agreed to a compromise with the liberal-bourgeois government, Russia, which was plunging into chaos, would have faced complete collapse and even greater losses. Lenin clearly realized this at that time, and we must realize it today.
Only the continuation of the current destructive course can push the country into bloody anarchic unrest. And only the implementation of our demands and our ideas, inheriting the behests of Lenin, will keep Russia from collapse and return it to the path of successful development. On our side is the rightness of our great predecessors, confirmed by history, and their outstanding experience. Our duty is to follow this experience and use it with dignity for the benefit of the Motherland, the peaceful existence and prosperity of which only renewed socialism can guarantee.

Gennady ZYUGANOV

Chairman of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation

Stormy in terms of political events April 2016 allows us to consider from a different perspective the well-known “April theses” voiced by V.I. Lenin exactly 99 years ago. The “April Theses” represent 10 points that can well be called the basis of Lenin’s teachings, as well as the program of action of the Bolsheviks in the pre-revolutionary period.

Is it possible to compare the political situation in today's Russia with the revolutionary one? Perhaps not, but many of the motives of what is happening quite picturesquely echo the action of a hundred years ago. The stability of the presidential throne is ensured only by the media component; the magma of probable and very predictable upheavals has been bubbling inside the Kremlin towers for two years now. Western “partners” are tightening the reins. The mixed opposition pumps up the muscles. “Colored” leader replacement? Oligarchic liberal coup? Provisional government? Collapse and Russian Maidan?

It will soon be impossible to hide the impending reshuffles, replacements, and abdications, just as radical changes in the Russian power system are inevitable. It is no longer possible to live in the old way, no matter how much you would like it. Everyone understands this. It is still impossible to live in a new way. But the people have no understanding of how to build new life And new country. To put it simply, the situation is similar to the state of a family, when a husband and wife already see that they have no future together, have filed for divorce, but formally are still in a state of marriage and adhere to certain household norms before stepping into uncertainty.

After the first news of the abdication of Emperor Nicholas, V.I. Lenin returned from emigration to Russia. From the experience of struggle, he knew that the main enemies of the revolution would be its imaginary “friends”, talkers and compromisers, both from the petty bourgeois and from the protest swamp - the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries, who had already betrayed the interests of the working class more than once.

“It is impossible to end the war with a truly democratic, non-violent peace without the overthrow of capital.”

Lenin's first thesis substantiated the need to overthrow the power of capital as the only way Russia's vital exit from the meat grinder of the First World War.

As long as power is in the hands of a capitalist (oligarchic), and essentially anti-people government, the war remains imperialist and predatory. Is it possible to draw analogies with Putin’s Russia? Undoubtedly! The war in Ukraine, which Russia got involved in, the adventure - the war in Syria, harbingers (even warnings) of war in Nagorno-Karabakh- these are original tracings of events a hundred years ago. All these military conflicts cannot be resolved without the complete surrender of one of the parties and only outwardly have ethnic or social characteristics. But the fact of the matter is that protracted negotiations and the signing of supposedly pacifying protocols do not stop the bloodshed, but, on the contrary, aggravate it. There is a build-up of forces, drawing other states into the conflict. This means that the war has become a completely profitable and legal business for a number of corporations and countries.

Wars have very interested customers and performers. Lenin believed that in such a case it was necessary to wrest power from the hands of the capitalist ministers.

Capitalism is competition and war of everyone with everyone! To stop wars, capitalism must be destroyed. In the modern understanding, this is the power of the oligarchy.

“The transition from the first stage of the revolution, which gave power to the bourgeoisie due to the insufficient consciousness and organization of the proletariat, to its second stage, which should give power into the hands of the proletariat and the poorest strata of the peasantry.”

The situation was this: the overthrow of the tsar was only the first stage of the revolution, since power was seized by capitalists who had a vested interest in continuing the war. The masses are not organized and naively trust the promises of the capitalist government. According to Lenin, it is necessary to make maximum use of the legal opportunities that have emerged to carry out explanatory work among the proletariat that has just awakened and become politically active.

An example of how the seizure of power by an oligarchy occurs and what the consequences of this are can be observed in the example of Ukraine over the last two years. Liberal oligarchs of a pro-European course, united with far-right nationalists and Nazis, using demagoguery and hypocrisy, provocations and money from Western puppeteers, were able to captivate part of the population with “promises” to make the government fair. This became possible only because of the lack of unity of the left and pro-Russian forces, weak self-organization structures, as well as the small number of parties professing a fundamentally new ideology.

Is the Kyiv scenario possible in Russia? Not only is it possible, there is a high probability that it has already been written. It is possible that the role of the nationalists has been calculated down to the details. In Ukraine, initially marginal nationalists voiced slogans of the fight against oligarchy and corruption. And then, after the seemingly accomplished “revolution of dignity,” he indicated new enemy- represented by Donbass, Russia and Russians. And the nationalists began with pleasure to achieve the triumph of their ideals using the legalized methods of Nazism, apartheid, terrorism and robbery. Thus, all the social messages of the Maidan were replaced by the military and only strengthened the power of the oligarchy.

"No support for the Provisional Government."

Lenin exposed the naivety of conclusions that the government of the liberal capitalists who seized power could somehow become different and change its attitude towards the people. An oligarch cannot be less of a capitalist than he is. The essence of an oligarchy is to use the instruments of power to increase its resources, expand its possessions, and suck the juices out of the people and the country. The decline in social standards and the deterioration of people's lives do not fit into the logic of any commercial enterprise, the main goal of which is to make a profit for the owner. And when does the whole country become a commercial enterprise of a certain group of owners?

It is necessary to focus on how all large enterprises and their associations “shed” the maintenance of roads, housing, dormitories, kindergartens, hospitals, dispensaries, and patronage of schools from their shoulders. How an eight-hour working day turned into a 10-12 hour day with one day off a week, or even without it at all. How did the concept of labor and collective agreements, trade union, normal leave and compliance with working conditions. Formally, all this exists, but in fact it does not exist in most enterprises and individual entrepreneurs.

“While we are in the minority, we carry out the work of criticism and clarification of errors, while preaching at the same time the need for the transfer of all state power to the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies.”

In the Soviets of Workers' Deputies, the Bolsheviks, in the minority, oppose the bloc of the petty bourgeoisie and the compromisers.

So now, in the entire power vertical of local dumas and administrations, there are no representatives of the majority of the people. The bulk of the laws and decisions carried out through the regional dumas do not concern raising living standards, not helping the poor, not creating jobs, but the privatization of land, the legalization of buildings and commercial schemes of representatives of both the federal oligarchy and local authorities and their relatives. Lenin believed that as long as the Soviets (read - Dumas) are under the influence of the bourgeoisie, it is necessary to patiently, persistently, using specific facts and examples, show the fallacy of the decisions made by such Soviets. It is necessary to help the masses get rid of their mistakes and illusions. At the same time, explain that the Soviets of Workers' Deputies are the only possible form of government and after getting rid of bourgeois influence, all power should pass to them.

Today, Russia is once again faced with the question of returning to the institutions of true, not fake democracy.

“Not a parliamentary republic, but a republic of Soviets of workers, farm laborers and peasants’ deputies throughout the country, from bottom to top. Elimination of the police, army, bureaucracy.”

Parliamentarism, according to Lenin, is a form of dictatorship of the capitalist class, since the number of votes received directly depends on the amount of money spent on elections. Well, why not the current clownery with the elections? In a hundred years we have passed the path from feudalism to developed socialism and again returned to the starting point. Thank God - not to the digging stick, although it won’t be long before we get to that. Lenin believed that only the Councils of Workers' and Peasants' Deputies from bottom to top could become a form of direct proletarian democracy.

Haven’t any of us noticed how bars have appeared on the windows of schools and hospitals, kindergartens and apartments? Women began walking the streets with gas cylinders and stun guns. It became possible to buy a ticket for a bus or train only with a passport, although some 25 years ago no one would even think about such a thing. It is not mercenaries, but the proletarian army and police that are capable of ensuring freedom and security for the working man, Lenin believed. The pay of all officials, even if all of them are elected and replaced at any time, is not higher than the average pay of a good worker. And there was a time when judges, prosecutors or police chiefs were approved by local councils, and not appointed from the capital, which ensured the responsibility of the leaders to the residents of the subordinate territory, and not to the chief in the headquarters.

“Confiscation of all landowners’ lands. Nationalization of all lands in the country."

Russia has a lot of land. There are many forests, fields and rivers in it. But the living space of the people is narrowing, and the possessions of the oligarchs are expanding. It comes to the point that in preparation for the World Cup and the construction of subsidized housing under federal programs, the state has to buy unused land from private individuals, and at a commercial price. Reservoirs, beaches, and river sections are purchased. People's property, land ceases to be the property of the state, the state itself turns into a branch of commercial structures.

“The immediate merger of all banks in the country into one national bank and the introduction of control over it.”

The immediate merger of all the country's banks into one national bank and the introduction of control over it by the Soviets of Workers' Deputies is a rather radical statement by Lenin. But if you look today at the work of commercial banks of the Russian Federation, which refuse to recognize Crimea as Russian, at a time when this was done The State Duma, then are these our banks? Isn’t Lenin relevant and didn’t say 99 years ago that the central bank should be controlled by the people, not by corporations and as the Central Bank of the Russian Federation to itself, or rather to foreign advisers.

“Not the “introduction” of socialism, as our immediate task, but the transition immediately only to control over social production and distribution of products.”

What is preventing the Russian economy from developing today? Sanctions? Absolutely - yes. But the biggest obstacle is the unregulated nature of its economy. According to various expert estimates, from 30 to 60% of the entire Russian economy operates in the “shadow”. The negative consequences of market processes have not been minimized, equal, competitive financial, legal and social preconditions effective functioning of a market economy. Social protection is not provided for those groups in a market society whose position in a specific economic situation becomes the most vulnerable. And the biggest blow to economic regulation is corruption and lack of control, which permeates the entire vertical of the liberal Russian authorities. The irresponsibility of government bodies for anything, including the irresponsibility of the President himself for the collapse and degradation in the country. Was Lenin wrong or did he say something contradictory?

The ninth and tenth points of the “April theses” concerned the party tasks of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party (Bolsheviks) - RSDLP (b) and the creation of a revolutionary International against social chauvinists and petty-bourgeois compromisers.

If you look at the development of political events in modern Russia, it is already clear to absolutely everyone that the old parties have played their role. They legitimized the ugly system of government and society in the Russian Federation. They deprived the people of Russia. They deprived the Russian people of their role as a state-forming nation. In the 30s of the twentieth century, social chauvinists and social nationalists began to be called “national socialists” or “Nazis.” The goal of the Nazis, as everyone remembers, is class peace with the demand that workers come to terms with and endure robbery from domestic capitalists for the sake of growing their capital and supposedly for the sake of victory over the capitalists of other countries and nationalities. But the oligarchy has ceased to be national. The Russian oligarchy easily changes passports, bank accounts and villas in the West; it has long become international. All wars, as V.I. Lenin wrote, are started by capitalists, forcing or forcing them to participate in them ordinary people- workers, peasants and employees. They are hypocritically required to give their lives in war, supposedly for the “revolution”, for the “fatherland”.

If we take the “revolution” in Ukraine, then after the execution of the so-called “Heavenly Hundred,” power passed from one robber to another. And the Nazis and mobilized citizens of Ukraine are sent to a fratricidal war, for which substantial allocations are made, including from abroad.

The situation is no better in Novorossiya, where the only highly paid “job” is war. Men in the prime of life, those who, due to legislation that mocks their compatriots, were unable to legalize themselves in Russia, or somehow find a job in order to provide a living for their families, are returning to the front. Which simply could not have happened if the Russian and Ukrainian elites were truly popular, and not subordinate to the demands of international capital.

In Russia, the comprador elite is still fighting imaginary threats - something of Putin’s invention.” atomic bomb"Lenin, then with Syrian bearded men or Turkish stabs in the back.

Any anti-people power at all times was covered exclusively by the opinion of the people. Even if this opinion was different, it was formed by bayonets, lies and a decline in living standards. And this is also part Russian politics. 100 years ago our grandfathers showed that it has a limit. Russia has paid a considerable price for social and state achievements, which today have been completely liquidated or cancelled. This should not be forgotten by those who now sit at the top of power and ratings.

MORE ON THE TOPIC