3. Theory

Under this head, three matters come up for consideration: a. the importance of theory to the proletarian movement; b. criticism of the theory of spontaneity; c. the theory of the proletarian revolution.

Some think that Leninism signifies the supremacy of practice over theory, in this sense, that the chief thing in Leninism is the translation of Marxist principles into the realm of fact, the “fulfilment” of these principles. Leninism of this sort pays little heed to theory. We know that Plehanoff again and again made fun of Lenin for his indifference to theory, and especially to philosophy. We know, too, that many of those who are engaged in the practical application of Leninism care little for theory, their attitude being due, above all, to the extent to which their time is engrossed in practical work. My business here is to show that this peculiar view of Lenin and Leninism is utterly wrong-headed. It is quite out of touch with the world of reality. The endeavour of “practical” persons to have no truck with “theories” runs counter to the whole spirit of Leninism and is a great danger to our cause.

Revolutionary theory is a synthesis of the experience of the working-class movement throughout all lands—the generalised experience. Of course theory out of touch with revolutionary practice is like a mill that runs without any grist, just as practice gropes in the dark unless revolutionary theory throws a light on the path. But theory becomes the greatest force in the working-class movement when it is inseparably linked with revolutionary practice: for it, and it alone, can give the movement confidence, guidance, an understanding of the inner links between events; it alone can enable those engaged in the practical struggle to understand the whence and the whither of the working-class movement. Again and again, Lenin said:

Without a revolutionary theory, there cannot be a revolutionary movement (Works, Russian edition, vol. v., p. 135.)

Lenin knew better than any one else the immense importance of theory, especially for such a party as ours, one called to form the vanguard of the international proletariat; and above all in view of the complicated situation, both at home and abroad, with which the Party is confronted. As far back as 1902, foreseeing the special role of our Party, he thought it necessary to point out that:

Only a party guided by an advanced theory can act as vanguard in the fight. (Works, Russian edition, vol. v., p. 136.)

To-day, when Lenin’s forecast of the role of our Party has been fulfilled, it would be superfluous to labour the point that what he had to say about the matter is of fundamental importance.

The immense importance attached by Lenin to theory is perhaps best shown by this, that he himself undertook the great task of generalising, on behalf of materialistic philosophy, the main achievements of science since the days of Engels, and of comprehensively criticising the anti-materialistic trends of certain Marxists. Engels said that “materialism should take on a new aspect with each new discovery”. For his own epoch, Lenin performed this task in his remarkable work Materialism and Empirio-Criticism. Plehanoff, on the other hand, though he had been so ready to condemn Lenin for “indifference to philosophy”, did not himself make a serious attempt to perform the necessary task.

The theory of spontaneity is the theory of opportunism; the theory that we must bow before the spontaneity of the working-class movement; the theory which in practice amounts to a denial that the vanguard of the working class, the Party of the working class, can act as leader for the class as a whole.

This theory that we must bow before the spontaneity of the working-class movement is the theory of those who deny the revolutionary character of the working-class movement, the theory of those who oppose any endeavour to lead the working-class battalions into an attack upon the foundations of capitalism. It is the theory of those who consider that the movement should be content to formulate demands that are “reasonable”, demands that will be “acceptable” by the capitalists; it is the theory of those who are glad to follow “the line of least resistance”. The theory of spontaneity is the ideology of trade unionism.

The theory that we must bow our heads before the spontaneity of the working-class movement is the theory of those who are decisively opposed to an attempt to give the spontaneous movement a deliberate and purposive character; it is the theory of those who do not want our Party to march in front of the working class, stimulating the masses till they reach the level of conscious action, leading the movement. It is the theory of those who consider that the thinking elements should let the movement go its own way, that the Party should listen for the voice of the Spontaneous movement and be content to trot along in the rear, to hold on to the tail, to follow where the movement leads. It is the theory of those who underestimate the importance of the thinking elements, the theory of those whose ideology is that of “hvostism” or “tailism”—the logical foundation of every kind of opportunism.

In practice this theory, which was current in Russia before the revolution of 1905, led those who were guided by it (they were known as the “economists”) to deny the need for an independent working-class party in Russia. The “economists” were opposed to the development of a revolutionary working-class struggle for the overthrow of tsarism; they advocated a trade-unionist policy within the movement; they wished the working-class movement to remain under the thumb of the liberal bourgeoisie.?

The campaign of the old “Iskra”, and Lenin’s brilliant criticism of “tailism” in What is to be done?, not only smote the “economists” hip and thigh, but also provided a theoretical foundation for a truly revolutionary Russian working-class movement.

Had it not been for this preliminary work in the theoretical field, it would have been impossible to create an independent party of class-conscious workers in Russia, and impossible for that party to take the lead in the revolution.

But the theory that we must bow before the spontaneity of the movement is not an exclusively Russian phenomenon. This theory (varying a little in form) is voiced in all the parties affiliated to the Second International. I am thinking now of the theory of “the forces of production”. On this theory, as distorted by the leaders of the Second International, everything can be justified and every one can be conciliated; facts obvious to all the world are established and proved; and the mere observing and recording of the facts becomes an end in itself. Marx said that materialist theory must not be content with explaining the world, but must change it. Kautsky and Co., however, are satisfied with explaining, and leave the change to take care of itself. Here is an instance (among many which might be given) of the way in which this precious theory is applied. Just now I reminded you (see above, p. 92) how, at the Basle Congress, the parties affiliated to the Second International threatened to declare “War against War” if the imperialists began a war. But, you will remember, directly the imperialist war began, the “War against War” business was scrapped, and the workers were told to fight “all out” in defence of their several imperialist fatherlands. As a result of this change of front, millions of workers were butchered. But it would be a great mistake to suppose that any one is to blame for this, that any one betrayed the working class. Nothing of the sort! Everything happened as it had to happen. For, first of all, the International is an “instrument of peace”, not a “weapon of war”. Secondly, in view of “the level of the forces of production” at the time of the outbreak of the war, there was no option. The fault lies with “the forces of production”. Mr. Kautsky’s “theory of the forces of production” explains this quite clearly, and those who challenge the soundness of the theory are not Marxists.

“The Party?” you venture to ask at this stage. “Has the Party no function?”

“What are you talking about?” comes the ready answer. “Can the Party do anything to affect the working of so decisive a factor as “the level of the forces of production’?”

A host of such instances of the falsification of Marxism could be marshalled. Their aim is to raise a smoke-screen thick enough to hide the opportunism of those who utter them, and it is self-evident that they are nothing more than the western European variety of the “tailism” which Lenin was combating in Russia as long ago as the days before the revolution of 1905.

Surely, too, the abandonment of this radically false outlook is an essential preliminary to the formation of genuinely revolutionary parties in western Europe.

The Leninist theory of the proletarian revolution is based on three fundamental theses.

First Thesis. The dominion of financial capital in countries of advanced capitalist development; the issue of stocks and bonds, as the chief activity of financial capital; the export of capital to the sources of raw material, this being one of the main foundations of imperialism; omnipotence of the financial oligarchy, as a result of the rule of financial capital—all these circumstances disclose the intensely parasitic character of monopolist capital, make the yoke of the capitalist trusts and syndicates a hundred times more intolerable, intensify the workers’ indignation, and spur the masses on towards the proletarian revolution, as their only means of deliverance. (See Lenin’s Imperialism.)

As a result, the revolutionary crisis in capitalist countries becomes more acute; there is a heaping up of combustible material on the internal front, on the proletarian front, in the “mother countries”.

Second Thesis. Increasing export of capital to colonies and dependencies; a widening of “spheres of influence”? and colonisation until all the land in the world has been grabbed; the transformation of capitalism to become a worldwide system thanks to which a handful of “advanced” countries is able to hold the vast majority of the population of our planet in a state of financial bondage and colonial oppression—all these changes have, first of all, transformed the Separate economies of national areas into parts of a unified system known as the “world economy”; and have, secondly, divided the population of the world into two camps. One of these camps contains the small number of “advanced “capitalist countries, which exploit and oppress the rest of the world, the colonial and dependent lands (far more numerous), so that these latter are now compelled to struggle in the hope of freeing themselves from the imperialist yoke. (See Lenin’s Imperialism.)

As a result, the revolutionary crisis in colonies and dependencies becomes more acute; and the spirit of revolt against imperialism becomes intensified all along the external front, the colonial front.

Third Thesis. Monopolist rule over “spheres of influence” and colonies; differences in the degree of capitalist development attained by various countries, with the result that there is a fierce struggle between the countries that have secured and those that would like to secure a large “share of the spoils”; imperialist wars as the only means of “readjusting the balance”, of securing the redistribution desired by the countries that are excluded from “a place in the sun”—all these influences cooperate in leading to the accumulation of tensions on the third front, the intercapitalist front, thus weakening the imperialist forces and promoting a union between the proletarian and the colonial fronts for the fight against imperialism. (See Lenin’s Imperialism.)

As a result, under imperialism, wars become inevitable; and, under imperialism, there must necessarily ensue a coalition between the proletarian revolution in Europe and the colonial revolution in the East, this leading to the formation of a united world-front of the revolution against the world-front of imperialism.

All the foregoing inferences are unified and generalized by Lenin in the conclusion that “imperialism is the immediate forerunner of the socialist revolution”. (Works, Russian edition, vol. xiii., p. 243.)

As a result, our attitude towards the problem of the proletarian revolution has undergone a change. We have new lights upon its character, its scope, its general scheme.

Study of the antecedents of the proletarian revolution used, in general, to be undertaken from an outlook upon the economic conditions peculiar to the country under consideration. This formulation of the problem has to-day become inadequate. We have, nowadays, to approach the matter from a more general outlook, from that upon all or most of the countries in the world, from that upon the world economy. Individual countries and individual national economies have ceased to be independent entities. They have become parts of a united whole, which is spoken of as the world economy. The old “civilising” capitalism has developed into imperialism, which is a worldwide system of financial bondage, a system whereby the inhabitants of colonies and dependencies (forming the great majority of the population of the globe) are oppressed by a small number of “advanced” countries.

In former days the question which came up for discussion was whether the objective conditions requisite for the proletarian revolution were or were not present in this or that highly developed country. This formulation of the problem, likewise, has to-day become inadequate. Our business, nowadays, is to discuss whether the objective conditions requisite for the proletarian revolution do or do not exist in the world economy, in the worldwide imperialist system regarded as a unified whole. Within that system there are certain countries where industrial development is backward, but this is not an insurmountable obstacle to the revolution if the system as a whole (it would be more accurate to say, inasmuch as the system as a whole) is already ripe for the revolution.

In former days, again, it was usual to think of the proletarian revolution, in this country or that, as an independent magnitude, confronted by another independent magnitude, the capitalist forces of the same country; these two independent magnitudes faced one another upon an independent national front. To-day this formulation is obsolete. Nowadays we have to think in terms of the worldwide proletarian revolution, for the various national capitalist fronts, isolated of yore, have coalesced into a unified whole, the worldwide imperialist front, against which must be arrayed the unified front of the revolutionary movement in all lands.

In former days, finally, it was customary to regard the proletarian revolution as an outcome of conditions that were purely local to the country under consideration. Once more, this formulation is obsolete. Nowadays we have to regard the proletarian revolution, first and foremost, as the outcome of the growth of antagonisms within the worldwide system of imperialism, as the outcome of an effort which (in this country or in that) breaks the chains of worldwide imperialism.

Where will the revolution begin? In what country can the capitalist front be first broken?

The usual answer was that this would happen where industrial development was most advanced, where the proletariat formed the majority of the population, where the level of civilisation was high, where democracy was thoroughly established.

But, according to Leninist theory, this reasoning is unsound. There are no grounds for the belief that the capitalist front will first be broken where industrial development is most advanced, and so on, and so on. The capitalist front will be broken where the chain of imperialism is weakest, and it is there that the proletarian revolution (which follows upon the defeat of imperialism) must begin. It is likely enough, therefore, that the country where the revolution begins, the country where the capitalist front is broken, will be one where capitalist development is comparatively backward; and that, while the revolutionary movement is being successful in such a country, others, where industrial development is much farther advanced, will remain within the framework of capitalism.

In 1917, the weakest part of the imperialist world-front was in Russia. There the front was broken, so that the way was opened for the advance of the proletarian revolution. Why did this happen? Because, in Russia, there occurred a great uprising of the people, led by the revolutionary proletariat, which has as its formidable ally the peasantry, the millions upon millions of those who had been oppressed and exploited by the landowners. Because, in Russia, the forces of imperialism, the forces that faced the revolution, were incorporated in the execrable figure of tsarism, which was devoid of moral authority and was universally detested. Russia was the weakest part of the imperialist world-front, although in Russia capitalism was so much less developed than in France, Germany, Great Britain, or the United States of America.

Where is the front likely to be broken next? Again at the weakest point, obviously. Perhaps that will be in British India, where there is a young and combative revolutionary proletariat, allied to the champions of the movement for national liberation— a movement which is certainly very powerful. In India, moreover, the antirevolutionary forces are incorporated in a foreign imperialism, which has completely forfeited moral credit and has incurred the general hatred of the oppressed and exploited masses.

Another possibility is that the next breach in the imperialist world-front will occur in Germany. The factors at work in India are beginning to operate in Germany as well. But, naturally, the immense difference in evolutionary level between British India and Germany must not be forgotten. The course and the upshot of the revolution in Germany will necessarily have their own peculiar stamp.

That was why Lenin wrote:

The capitalist countries of western Europe will accomplish their evolution towards socialism, ... not by the methodical maturing of socialism in these lands, but through the exploitation of some of the States by others (the exploitation of the first State that is defeated during the imperialist war), and through the exploitation of the whole of the East. Thanks to the first imperialist war, the East has definitively been drawn into the revolutionary movement, has definitively been swept into the vortex of the worldwide revolutionary movement. (Works, Russian edition, vol. xviii, part II., p. 136.)

To put the matter more concisely, the imperialist front will usually be broken where it is weakest. This weak spot will not necessarily be where capitalism is most highly developed, where industrial workers are numerous and peasants scarce, and so on.

That is why statistical data concerning the proportion of proletarians among the population of this country or that, have less bearing on the problem of the proletarian revolution than the statisticians of the Second International (who do not understand imperialism, and are as much afraid of the revolution as of the plague) like to think.

Furthermore, the heroes of the Second International have asserted, and continue to assert, that between the bourgeois-democratic revolution and the proletarian revolution there is a great gulf fixed, or at any rate a sort of Chinese wall. But the gulf or the wall is temporal, not spatial. We are told that there must be a long interval between the bourgeois revolution and the proletarian revolution, an interval of many decades at least, during which the bourgeoisie (having risen to power) is developing the resources of capitalism, while the proletariat is slowly consolidating its forces and preparing for the “decisive struggle “against capitalism. Is it not self-evident that this theory is devoid of scientific foundation under imperialist conditions, and is nothing more than a mask for the concealment of the counter-revolutionary appetites of the bourgeoisie? Surely it is self-evident that, under imperialist conditions, when clashes and wars are germinating; on the eve of the socialist revolution, when “thriving “capitalism is on the way to become “dying” capitalism, and when the revolutionary movement is on the up grade all over the world; at a time when imperialism is allied with the forces of reaction, including autocracy and serfdom, thus making it even more essential that there should be a consolidation of the revolutionary forces from the proletarian movement in the West to the movement on behalf of national liberation in the East; at an hour when the uprooting of the vestiges of the feudal regime has become impossible without a revolutionary struggle against imperialism—surely at such a time and in such circumstances it is self-evident that the bourgeois-democratic revolution will tend to develop into the proletarian revolution! The history of the Russian revolution has abundantly and irrefutably confirmed this view. With good reason did Lenin, as long ago as 1905, on the eve of the first Russian revolution, describe (in his pamphlet Two Tactics) the bourgeois-democratic revolution and the socialist revolution as two links of one chain, as two natural stages of the Russian revolution:

The proletariat must push the democratic revolution through to an end, inducing the mass of the peasantry to join forces with the workers, in order to break the power of the autocracy and to overcome the vacillations of the bourgeoisie. The proletariat must push the socialist revolution through to an end, inducing the mass of the semi-proletarian elements to join forces with the proletariat, in order to break the power of the bourgeoisie and to overcome the vacillations of the peasantry and the petty bourgeoisie. Such are the tasks of the proletariat, of which the adherents of the new “Iskra”? show so narrow a conception in their arguments and resolutions concerning the scope of the revolution. (Works, Russian edition, vol. vi., p. 371.)

Here I shall make no more than a passing allusion to Lenin’s later works, in which the idea of the metamorphosis of the bourgeois revolution into the proletarian revolution is brought into much greater relief than in Two Tactics, so that it forms one of the corner stones of the Leninist theory of the revolution. Certain comrades appear to believe that Lenin did not happen — upon this idea until 1916. They think that before that year he supposed that in Russia the revolution would only be a bourgeois revolution; that power would pass to the bourgeoisie and not to the proletariat. It is said that this erroneous belief regarding Lenin’s views has even been championed in our communist press. Let me assure you that there is no warrant for any such belief.

Let me remind you, for instance, of Lenin’s famous speech at the Third Party Congress (1905), when he described the dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry, that is to say the victory of the democratic revolution, as being, “not the organisation of order, but the organisation of war”. (Works, Russian edition, vol. vi., p. 171.)

Again, I may refer to Lenin’s well-known articles The Provisional Government (1905), in which, describing the prospects of the Russian revolution, he writes:

The Party ought to act in such a way as will ensure that the Russian revolution shall not be an affair of a few months, but an affair of many years; that it shall not lead merely to trifling concessions on the part of the authorities, but to the complete overthrow of the powers that be... . If we succeed, then the revolutionary conflagration will spread to the rest of Europe. The workers of western Europe, weary of the misdeeds of the bourgeois reaction, will rise in their turn and give “object lesson’ in revolution. Thereupon the revolutionary impetus of western Europe will react upon Russia, and will transform an epoch of a few revolutionary years into an epoch of several revolutionary decades. (Works, Russian edition, vol. vi., p. 129.)

Once more, there is the article published by Lenin in November 1915, in which he says:

The proletariat fights and will continue to fight with all its strength for the conquest of power, for the establishment of a republic, for the confiscation of the land, . . . and to induce the “non-proletarian masses of the people” to participate in the liberation of bourgeois Russia from the militarist-feudal imperialism which passes by the name of tsarism. This freeing of bourgeois Russia from tsarism, from the territorial dominion of the landowners, will immediately be turned to account by the proletariat —not in order to help the well-to-do peasants to get the better of the poorer peasants, the agricultural labourers; but in order, having -joined forces with the proletarians of western Europe, to complete the socialist revolution. (Works, Russian edition, vol. xiii., p. 214.)

. Finally I may mention the passage in The Proletarian Revolution and Kautsky the Renegade, where Lenin, having referred to the passage just quoted from Two Tactics (the one on p. 201 in which he speaks about the scope of the Russian revolution), draws the following inference::

Things have turned out as we said they would. The course of the revolution has confirmed the accuracy of our view. First of all the proletariat marched with the peasantry as a whole: against the monarchy, against the landlords, against the vestiges of medievalism (and up to this point the revolution was still bourgeois, was still bourgeois-democratic). Then the proletariat marched with the poorer peasants, with the semiproletarians, with the exploited: against capitalism, and against its embodiments in the countryside, against the kulaks, the speculators (so that now the revolution became a socialist revolution). The attempt to build a Chinese wall between the two phases, the contention that they are separated one from the other by anything more than differences in the degree of preparedness of the proletariat and in the intimacy of the union between the workers and the poorer peasants, is a gross distortion of Marxism, a debasement of Marxism, a confounding of Marxism with liberalism. (Works, Russian edition, vol. xv., pp. 508-509.)

Why, then, say the objectors, did Lenin oppose the idea of “permanent revolution”?

Because he wanted to make the fullest possible use of the revolutionary capacities and energies of the peasantry for the complete liquidation of tsarism and for the transition to the proletarian revolution, whereas the champions of “permanent revolution” did not understand how important a part the peasantry had and has to play in the Russian revolution. They underestimated the revolutionary energy of the peasantry. At the same time they underestimated the strength of the Russian proletariat, and its power of rallying the peasants to the revolutionary cause. Thus they tended to hinder the emancipation of the peasants from bourgeois influences, and to check the inclination of the peasants to join forces with the revolutionary — workers.

Lenin’s aim was to crown the revolution by the rise of the proletariat to power. On the other hand, the champions of “permanent revolution”? wanted to begin by establishing the power of the proletariat right away, not realising that when they made this their aim they were closing their eyes to such little matters as survivals of serfdom, were neglecting so puny a force as the Russian peasantry! Thus they were hindering the peasants from rallying to the proletariat.

Lenin therefore opposed the champions of “permanent revolution”, not because they asserted the continuity of the revolution (a theory he himself never ceased to support), but because they underestimated the importance of the part played by the peasantry, which forms the great reserve force for the proletariat—and because they did not really understand the nature of proletarian supremacy.

The idea of “permanent revolution” is not new. It dates from 1850, when Marx expounded it in the circular from the central committee to the members of the Communist League. The Russian champions of “permanent revolution” lifted it from that document, but in the process they botched it in such a way as to unfit it for practical use. The skilful hand of Lenin was needed to rectify this error, to restore Marx’s idea of permanent revolution to its pristine form, and to make it one of the corner stones of our theory of revolution.

In the 1850 circular, Marx, after enumerating the revolutionary demands which the communists ought to put forward, went on as follows:

Whereas the petty-bourgeois democrats want the revolution to be brought to a close as speedily as possible (as soon as their scanty demands are satisfied), it is incumbent upon the workers to make the revolution permanent until the more or less possessing classes have been excluded from power, until the proletariat has achieved the conquest of State authority, and until—not in one country alone, but in all the advanced countries of the world— the association of the proletarians has developed so far that competition among the proletarians of these lands has ceased to exist and the key industries at least are in proletarian hands.

In other words:

1. Whatever our champions of “permanent revolution” may say, Marx did not, in 1850, propose that the revolution in Germany should begin by a proletarian conquest of State authority.

2. Marx’s idea was that the conquest of State authority by the proletariat would crown the work of the revolution. The workers, having successively overthrown one fraction of the bourgeoisie after another, and having attained power, would then kindle the torch of revolution in all the countries of the world.

This is perfectly consistent with what Lenin taught. It is perfectly consistent with what Lenin did in the course of our revolution, guided by his theory of the proletarian revolution as it takes place under imperialist conditions.

Thus the Russian champions of “permanent revolution” have not been content with underestimating the importance of the part played by the peasantry in the Russian revolution, and have not only misunderstood the significance of the idea of the leadership of the proletariat; but they have also degraded Marx’s idea of “permanent” revolution, so as to deprive it of practical value.

That is why Lenin ridiculed their theory, and declared that they had closed their eyes to avoid having to see the way in which, for decades, life had been refuting so “original” and “charming” a notion. This was in articles written in 1915, ten years after the formulation of the Russian version of the theory of “permanent revolution”. (Works, Russian edition, vol. xiii., p. 213.)

That is why Lenin considered the theory tainted with menshevism. He wrote:

While it borrows from the bolsheviks the call to the proletariat to engage in a decisive revolutionary struggle and to achieve the conquest of political power, it borrows from the mensheviks the denial that the peasants have an important part to play. (See The Two Lines of Revolution, in Against the Stream, reference as above.)

Such were Lenin’s ideas concerning the way in which the bourgeois-democratic revolution would develop into the proletarian revolution, concerning the way in which the bourgeois-democratic revolution could be turned to account in order to bring about a prompt transition to the proletarian revolution.

It used to be supposed that the victory of the revolution in one country alone would be impossible, the assumption being that the conquest of the bourgeoisie could only be achieved by the united action of the proletarians of all advanced countries, or at any rate those in the majority of these. This contention no longer fits the facts. We must now set out by assuming the possibility of such a victory: for the varying speed of social evolution in different capitalist countries (proceeding in some, under imperialist conditions, by leaps and bounds); the development of catastrophic conflicts as the outcome of imperialist rivalries, inevitably culminating in wars; the growth of the revolutionary movement in all countries throughout the world— these factors, working together, make proletarian victories in separate countries not merely possible but necessary. The history of the Russian revolution is striking evidence of this. We have, nevertheless, to remember that certain preliminary conditions must be fulfilled before the bourgeoisie can be overthrown, and that unless these conditions have been fulfilled it is futile for the proletariat to think of seizing power.

Here is what Lenin wrote about these indispensable preliminaries in his Left-Wing Communism, an Infantile Disorder:

The fundamental law of revolution, confirmed by every revolution, and especially by the three Russian revolutions of the twentieth century, runs as follows. For the revolution, it is not enough that the exploited and oppressed masses should have become aware that they cannot go on living in the old way, and that they should demand changes; in addition, the exploiters must find it impossible to live and rule in the old way. Not until the “lower classes”? cannot put up with the old conditions any longer, and the “upper classes”? cannot carry on under the old conditions, can the revolution triumph. To express this truth in other words: revolution is impossible unless there is a national crisis affecting both exploited and exploiters... This means that there are two essentials for the revolution. First of all, the majority of the workers (or at any rate the majority of the class-conscious, the thoughtful, the politically active workers) must be fully aware that a revolution is necessary and must be ready to go to their deaths for its sake. Secondly, the ruling classes must be in the throes of a governmental crisis which draws even the most backward masses into the political arena, and enfeebles the government to such an extent that the revolutionists can speedily overthrow it, (Works, Russian edition, vol. xvii., p. 172.)

But the overthrow of the power of the bourgeoisie and the establishment of the power of the proletariat in one country alone does not, per se, mean the complete victory of socialism. Having consolidated its power and having secured the support of the peasantry, the victorious proletariat can and must proceed to upbuild a socialist society. Does this mean that thereby the victorious proletariat will achieve the final victory of socialism? Does this mean that the workers in one country alone, unaided, can definitively instal socialism, guaranteed against intervention, guaranteed against a restoration of the old regime? No, certainly not. For that, the victory of the revolution, if not everywhere, at least in several countries, will be requisite. That is why the fostering of revolution, the support of revolution, in other countries, is incumbent upon the country where the revolution has triumphed. That is why a country in which the revolution has triumphed must not look upon itself as an independent magnitude, but as an auxiliary, as a means for hastening the victory of the proletariat in other lands.

Lenin expressed this idea pithily as follows:

In any country, the victorious revolution must do its utmost to develop, support, and awaken the revolution in all other countries. (Works, Russian edition, vol. xv., p. 502.)

Such, in broad outline, are the characteristics of Lenin’s theory of the proletarian revolution.