17/10/2022
The Fight Against the Trotskyist Identification of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat with the Dictatorship of the Party
Source: Readings in Leninism, No.3, The dictatorship of the proletariat, p.101-107
The dictatorship of the proletariat must not be contrasted to the leadership ("dictatorship") of the Party, if correct inter-relationships exist between the Party and the working class, between the vanguard and the working masses. But what follows from this is that it is all the more impermissible to identify the Party with the working class, the leadership ("dietatorship") of the Party with the dictatorship of the working class. From the circumstance that the "dictatorship" of the Party must not be set up in contrast to the dictatorship of the proletariat, Comrade Sorin came to the incorrect conclusion that "the dictatorship of the proletariat is the dictatorship of our Party." But Lenin speaks not only of the impermissibility of making such a contrast; he also speaks of the impermissibility of contrasting the "dictatorship of the masses" to the "dictatorship of the leaders." On that basis, ought we not to identify the dictatorship of the leaders with the dictatorship of the proletariat? If we took that road, we would have to say that the "dictatorship of the proletariat is the dictatorship of our leaders." But, properly speaking, it is precisely to this absurdity that the policy of identifying the "dictatorship" of the Party with the dictatorship of the proletariat leads...
Where does Comrade Zinoviev stand on this subject?
Comrade Zinoviev, at bottom, shares Comrade Sorin's point of view of identifying the "dictatorship" of the Party with the dictatorship of the proletariat, with this difference, however, that Comrade Sorin expresses himself more openly and clearly, whereas Comrade Zinoviev "wriggles." It is sufficient to take, say, the following passage in Comrade Zinoviev's book, Leninism, to be convinced of this.
"What (says Comrade Zinoviev) is the prevailing system in the U.S.S.R. from the standpoint of its class content? It is the dictatorship of the proletariat. What is the direct mainspring of power in the U.S.S.R.? Who gives effect to the power of the working class? The Communist Party! In this sense, we have the dictatorship of the Party. (My italics.-J. S.) What is the juridical form of power in the U.S.S.R.? What is the new type of state system that was created by the October Revolution? The Soviet system. The one does not in the least contradict the other." (G. Zinoviev, Leninism, pp. 370-71.)
That there is no contradiction between the one and the other is, of course, correct, if by dictatorship of the Party in relation to the working class as a whole we mean the leadership of the Party. But how is it possible, on this basis, to place a sign of equality between the dictatorship of the proletariat and the "dictatorship" of the Party? Between the Soviet system and the dictatorship of the Party? Lenin identified the Soviet system with the dictatorship of the proletariat, and he was right, for the soviets, our soviets, are organizations which rally the toiling masses around the proletariat under the leadership of the Party. But when, where, and in which of his writings, did Lenin place a sign of equality between the "dictatorship" of the Party and the dictatorship of the proletariat, between the "dictatorship" of the Party and the Soviet system, as Comrade Zinoviev does now? Neither the leadership ("dictatorship") of the Party, nor the leadership ("dictatorship") of the leaders contradicts the dictatorship of the proletariat. Ought we not, on that basis, proclaim that our country is the country of the dictatorship of the proletariat, that is to say, the country of the dictatorship of the Party, that is to say, the country of the dictatorship of the leaders? It is precisely to this absurdity that we are led by the "principle" of identifying the "dictatorship" of the Party with the dictatorship of the proletariat that Comrade Zinoviev so stealthily and timidly advocated.
In Lenin's numerous works, I have been able to note only five cases in which he cursorily touches on the question of the dictatorship of the Party.
The first case is in his dispute with the Socialist-Revolutionaries and the Mensheviks, where he states:
"When we are reproached with having the dictatorship of one party, and, as you have heard, a proposal is made to establish a united socialist front, we reply: "Yes, the dictatorship of one party! We stand by it, and cannot depart from it, for it is the Party which, in the course of decades, has won the position of vanguard of the whole factory and industrial proletariat."" (Collected Works, Russian edition, Vol. XXIV, p. 423.)
The second case is in the Letter to the W on the Victory over Kolchak.
"Some people (especially the Mensheviks and the Socialist-Revolutionaries, all, even the "Lefts" among them) are trying to scare the peasants with the bogey of the "dictatorship of one party," the party of Bolsheviks, Communists. The peasants have learned from the case of Kolchak not to be terrified by this bogey. Either the dictatorship (i.e., the iron rule) of the landlords and capitalists, or else the dictatorship of the working class." (Ibid., p. 436.)
The third case is in Lenin's speech at the Second Congress of the Communist International in his controversy with Tanner. I have quoted it above.
The fourth case comprises several lines in "Left-Wing" Communism: An Infantile Disorder. The passage in question has already been quoted above.
And the fifth case is in his draft scheme of the dictatorship of the proletariat, published in the Lenin Miscellany, Volume III, where there is a sub-heading "Dictatorship of One Party. (See Lenin Miscellany, Russian edition, Vol. III, p. 497.)
It should be noted that in two cases out of the five, the second and the fifth, Lenin has the words "dictatorship of one party" in quotation marks, thus clearly emphasizing the inexact, figurative sense of this formula.
It should also be pointed out that in every one of these cases when Lenin speaks of the "dictatorship of the Party" in relation to the working class, he means not dictatorship in the actual sense of the term ("power based on violence") but the leadership of the Party.
It is characteristic that in none of his works, major or secondary, where Lenin discusses or merely alludes to the dice tatorship of the proletariat and the function of the Party in the system of the dictatorship of the proletariat, is there any hint whatever that "the dictatorship of the proletariat is the dictatorship of our Party." On the contrary, every page, every line of these works cries out against such a formulation. (See State and Revolution, The Proletarian Revolution and Renegade Kautsky, "Left-Wing" Communism: An Infantile Disorder, etc.)
Even more characteristic is the fact that in the theses of the Second Congress of the Communist International concerning the role of a political party, theses worked out under the direct guidance of Lenin, which he repeatedly referred to in his speeches as a model of the correct formulation of the rôle and tasks of the Party, we do not find one word, literally not one word, about the dictatorship of the Party.
What does all this mean?
It means that:
a. Lenin did not regard the formula "the dictatorship of the Party" as being irreproachable and exact, for which reason it is very rarely used in Lenin's works, and is sometimes put in quotation marks.
b. On the few occasions that Lenin was obliged, in controversy with opponents, to speak of the dictatorship of the Party, he usually referred to the "dictatorship of one party," to the fact that our Party holds power. alone, that it does not share power with other parties. Moreover, he always made it clear that the dictatorship of the Party, in relation to the working class meant the leadership of the Party, its leading role.
e. In all those cases (and there are thousands) in which Lenin found it necessary to give a scientific definition of the role of the Party in the system of the dictatorship of the proletariat, he spoke exclusively of the leading rôle of the party in relation to the working class.
d. That is why it "never occurred" to Lenin to include the formula "dictatorship of the Party" in the fundamental resolution on the role of the Party (I have in mind the resolution adopted at the Second Congress of the Communist International).
e. Those comrades who identify or try to identify the "dictatorship" of the Party and, consequently, the "dictatorship of the leaders," with the dictatorship of the proletariat are wrong from the point of view of Leninism, and are politically shortsighted, for they thereby violate the conditions of the correct relations between the vanguard and the class.
Needless to say, the formula "dictatorship of the Party," when taken without the above-mentioned qualifications, can create a whole series of perils and political defects in our practical work. When this formula is employed without qualification, it is as though the word is given:
a. To the non-Party masses: Don't dare to contradict, don't argue, for the Party can do everything, for we have the dictatorship of the Party.
b. To the Party cadres: Act more resolutely; tighten the screw; and there is no need to heed what the non-Party masses say; we have the dictatorship of the Party.
c. To the Party leaders: You can enjoy the luxury of a certain amount of self-complacence; you can even give yourselves a few airs, if you like; for we have the dictatorship of the Party, and of course that "means" the dictatorship of the leaders.
It is quite opportune to recall these dangers precisely at the present moment when the political activity of the masses is on the upgrade; when the readiness of the Party to pay close attention to the voice of the masses is of particular value; when sensitiveness to the demands of the masses is a basic precept of our Party; when the Party is called upon to display political caution and particular flexibility in its policy, when the danger of becoming conceited is one of the most serious dangers confronting the Party in its task of correctly leading the masses.
One cannot but recall Lenin's golden words uttered at the Eleventh Congress of our Party:
"Among the masses of the people, we (Communists J. S.) are but drops in the ocean, and we will be able to govern only when we properly express that which the people appreciate. Without this the Communist Party will not lead the proletariat, the proletariat will not take the lead of the masses, and the whole machine will fall to pieces." (V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Russian edition, Vol. XXVII, p. 256.)
""Properly express that which the people appreciate" - this is precisely the necessary condition that insures for the Party the honorable role of the main guiding force in the system of the dictatorship of the proletariat."
Joseph Stalin, Leninism, Vol. I, pp. 292-96.
