This work was written for the 150th anniversary of Lenin as the result of a short communication with one of the Marxist circles and a secondary reading of Lenin’s work What is to be done?.

Labor movement

It is known that wage-workers have long since learned to unite in order to fight for certain indulgences and concessions on the part of the bourgeoisie. Such uprisings, though violent, never radically alter prevailing conditions. Under capitalism, the bourgeoisie and proletariat constitute a unity of opposites. The economic struggle, as a form of relations between these opposites only ensures their reproduction.

World practice shows that rallies, protests, strikes and even riots that do not put forward the goals and slogans of communism and are not led by consistent communists eventually lead to a natural defeat, to the strengthening of the power of capital, and to an even more stable domination of the latter.

In the absence of communists and a communist agenda, the bourgeoisie, “without problems,” creates the illusion of a “fair” bourgeois society among the proletariat through some redistribution of material wealth, the removal of odious officials where necessary, democratic procedures, small victorious wars, and instilling the absence of alternatives to capitalist relations. The classics once said this about the state of affairs:

“The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas.”

A hundred years ago, the labor movement in the Russian Empire developed quite spontaneously due to extremely difficult working conditions and a high concentration of production. The workers immediately stumbled upon fierce opposition from the owners and political servants of the state against any of the most common economic demands by today’s standards. This, already within the framework of the spontaneous economic struggle, created a certain political orientation for the entire working-class movement and a great illusion for the “economists” to simply support this movement, which, in the historical perspective for the working class, where opportunism dominated, would inevitably lead at best to an external reform orf exploitation, and therefore, the stabilization and strengthening of capitalism. The Bolsheviks, of course, understanding such a course of development, could not allow it to come to pass, and immediately pushed for such a political organization of the advanced representatives of the working class which was the complete denial of the spontaneity of economism.

Today we have a well-established state system of capitalism whose policy consists of a special set of measures of social support. The bourgeois state, on the one hand, supports a more or less normal (that is, the normal position of a wage slave under capitalism) situation of workers to satisfy the need to reproduce the labor force (medicine, education, recreation, entertainment, democratic voting), but on the other hand, ensures expanded reproduction of profit for the capitalist and the absence of any threat to its domination from the proletariat.

One part of the bourgeoisie, within the framework of a competitive struggle with another part of it, which, as is happening in Russia, has stronger lobbying opportunities in the state apparatus, can quite purposefully push the proletariat onto the quasi-revolutionary path of the bourgeois politics of the working class. And this movement of the awakened proletarian masses without the leadership of the communists will always lead, as the practice of all Maidans shows, to the defeat of the working class, to its complete disorganization, to reaction, to a new round of more brazen and at the same time sophisticated exploitation, and accordingly, to strengthening the bourgeois order as a whole.

The content of the communist policy of the working class is not to beat out the best conditions for a slave existence, but consists in the destruction of private property relations by establishing the dictatorship of the working class and scientifically planned management, along with revolution in all spheres of human life, aimed at eliminating the vices of capitalism and educating a new person.

In such a situation, it is impossible to consider the successful self-organization of the proletariat to secure handouts from the owner as a significant achievement, despite the apparent growth relative to the current deplorable state of the labor movement. This is a completely normal and well-established practice in all capitalist countries of spontaneous strengthening of the power of capital by reforming and replacing persons representing political power on the basis of “signals from below”, when these signals begin to be more or less powerful. At the same time, the participation in this process of the leftists, behind which there is no organization of revolutionaries (ideologically and theoretically trained Marxists with an already established press, developments of revolutionary transformations, who are actively working to spread communist ideas on a professional basis), is purely serving the interests of capital, which in this struggle only strengthens its dominance.

The spontaneous struggle of the proletariat, taking place in various forms of self-organization (trade unions, strike committees, cooperatives and other associations), cannot go beyond the boundaries of bourgeois politics. Those rudiments of class consciousness that arise as a result of such a struggle cannot draw from this struggle itself sufficient grounds for the qualitative growth of consciousness up to the communist one, that is, the understanding and acceptance of its historical task to radically change the entire social structure. Such consciousness can be achieved only through the assimilation of Marxist truths about the development of matter in its social form.

Marxism is introduced into the mass proletarian environment through agitation, propaganda, and organizational work from outside by the most advanced representatives of the proletarian class, the revolutionaries. The fight against misconceptions, including those associated with the economic struggle, is the most important means of increasing political literacy and consciousness. Authority among the proletariat is won, and supporters are recruited only on the basis of deep scientific knowledge of propagandists and agitators on the laws of social development and a long campaign to convince the progressive representatives of the proletariat of the fidelity of Marxist truths. At the same time, such work can be effective only if there is not just a simple declaration of common Marxist truths, but the development and proposal to the working people of a specific scientifically based program, or at least significant outlines of this program, to transform the entire set of social relations arising in the course of life of every person: from the organization of the removal of household waste to the progressive exploration of outer space and from the organization of the workplace to the scientific and planned global economy as a whole. This campaign is part of the strategy of organizing revolutionaries at this stage in the development of the labor movement.

Why do we speak first of the advanced representatives of the proletariat?

The fact is that the uneven development under capitalism causes uneven access and opportunity to the necessary, primarily social science, knowledge, with which one can approach not only the understanding of the unreasonableness of modern social relations (the bourgeois environment itself somehow copes with this), but to the recognition and understanding of the only adequate alternative — communism. For example, it would be foolish naivete to assert that even under the dictatorship of the working class such a rise in the consciousness of the masses is possible that would make it possible to expand the party to the entire class. Especially now, when the communist movement is in its infancy, the work of the organization of revolutionaries should be directed, first of all, to the advanced workers of mental and physical labor.

It should be borne in mind that today the rooting of bourgeois (more often in a petty-bourgeois form) ideology among the proletariat is somewhat different than it was a hundred years ago. Today, from the school bench to the university department, from idle conversations in the family to the mass media of all kinds, we see the content of what concerns the general foundations of the universe, social structure and the essence of human life, brought to extreme poverty. An extraordinary abundance of wretched ideological bourgeois soup reigns. Thus, today Marxists are required to have even greater restraint and a higher level of knowledge, deeper agitation and propaganda materials, a more professional approach to the organization of the central body, to the education, selection and co-optation of personnel, to the secrecy of all activities, and to the continuity of work, in order to firmly win over the most advanced elements of the proletariat, so that through the latter they will be able to influence the entire proletarian mass, to educate and re-educate them.

In the formation of the political vanguard, it remains important to expose all the vile sides of capitalism; this exposition must be uncompromisingly scientific. We must not leave a stone unturned from the attempts of bourgeois propaganda to present any intelligible alternative to communist ideas. There really is no such alternative.

Now, on the territory of the largest fragment of the USSR, we have political conditions for the free propaganda of communist ideas. In fact, while remaining within the framework of scientific decency and the criminal code, nothing prevents the open spreading of provisions that are very seditious for the ruling class about the need for the most radical reorganization of society.

“…we must prepare the reapers, not only to cut down the tares of today, but to reap the wheat of tomorrow,” wrote Lenin.

The quality of the training of cadres today, whether we can convince the leading representatives of the working class of the fidelity of our political line, how we theoretically formulate this line, and how we put it into practice will directly determine the success of further work, up to the resolution of the most the difficult tasks of building communism.

How can an organization of revolutionaries establish contact with the broad masses without the use of the entire might of the state apparatus? Only through those representatives of the proletariat who, with the help of extremely competent and professional agitation and propaganda work, are convinced of the fidelity of the ideas of Marxism, is it possible to include them in the work not only of spreading communist ideas, but also of developing the theory of building communism.

Does the above mean that all ideological and theoretical work should be directed only at a narrow layer of progressive elements? No. With the accumulation of a critical number of trained cadres and the availability of material resources, broader agitational work should also take place in relation to all sections of the proletarian and non-proletarian masses, especially in relation to the self-employed population. And we must assume this work even now (preparing campaign materials based on theoretical developments), in order to ensure later, if not active support, then at least passive acceptance of the radical changes caused by the actions of the Communist Party to the entire social system. In addition, the Internet allows everyone who is interested to get access to our publications.

Why are we talking about the fundamental possibility of developing a program for building communism right now?

It must be understood that in the absence of a broad upsurge of the masses and a viable party of the vanguard type, an open and broad denunciatory campaign against the government, which Lenin wrote about in relation to tsarism, is still impossible and suicidal. But at the same time, other possibilities open up for us — the relatively free scientific propaganda of communist ideas. We must take full advantage of this opportunity. We must theoretically resolve the main factors and conditions for the victorious building of the Communist Party and communism in its first phase in relation to all spheres of the life of society.

Many leftists believe that the development of a scientific program for the construction of communism under capitalism is impossible, that such a development would be projecting, inventing abstract models of the future, and would be utopian in nature. They draw analogies with the theoretical works of representatives of utopian socialism. Meanwhile, the best works of the utopian socialists contained a multitude of highly correct observations denouncing the vices of private property and brilliant foresights, but did not represent a coherent scientific system that fully, that is, diamatically, reflected the totality of private property relations in their movement. So, the analogy is not very good.

We know that the direction of the development of matter, including its social form, occurs on the basis of the dialectical law of the negation of the negation. If we set ourselves the task of investigating capitalism with the utmost conscience, then we must first of all determine those qualitative and quantitative changes that characterize the transition of capitalism as the highest form of class society, that is, a society dominated by relations of private property in an extreme degree of development, from one qualitative state in its opposite, communism. Therefore, for a direct understanding of this transition, it is necessary to investigate this change in an object that passes into its opposite. To understand capitalism means to study the movement of capitalism in its opposite, to study communist relations,

It is certainly true that such research cannot be limited to contemplation, but consists in direct, conscious and active participation as a revolutionary subject in creating the necessary and sufficient conditions (above all, the establishment of the dictatorship of the working class) for the development of social relations of communism, undeveloped forms which are already contained in capitalism.

Therefore, it is important that agitation and propaganda work be aimed not just at denouncing the existing order, but, above all, at working out an effective strategy for the progressive development of all the existing rudiments of communist relations. Only by providing the advanced representatives of the proletariat with the only true alternative to all the variety of slave relations is it possible not only to gain authority among the working people, but also to form on this basis an advanced detachment, through which it will be possible to direct a critical mass of the proletariat to establish their own dictatorship to destroy private property relations and build communism.

If, for example, we consider a market economy, even with a naked eye, its inefficiency becomes obvious. Any, even the simplest, economic operation to deliver a product to a consumer passes through a long chain of parasitic elements in the form of intermediaries. Many sectors of the economy — stock exchanges, securities markets, financial institutions such as banks, insurance and investment companies, pension funds — do not produce anything by definition and are completely unnecessary elements for the production of material and spiritual benefits from the point of view of normal process planning. Only capitalists need them, because capitalists see production only through the prism of monetary profit. Capitalist anarchy slows down scientific and technological progress and places a heavy burden on the proletariat in the form of gigantic overhead costs.

Private property relations reduce all economic and other human activity to the pursuit of means of subsistence and thereby impoverish the development of what is actually human in it, that is, creative labor. The class division resulting from property relations assigns a rigidly determined place to the proletariat — a ceiling above which it is impossible to jump.

How can one exclude unnecessary links and expenses in organizing production, which are further aggravated by economic anarchy? The fullest development and use of human potential will be made possible by economic planning, which under capitalism is in its infancy relative to its truly gigantic potential.

As is known, economic planning under capitalism, necessary even within the framework of the most insignificant economic activity, already reached its actual ceiling at the beginning of the 20th century, precipitating two world imperialist slaughters. Moreover, the countries of the socialist camp, with a completely low initial level of development, limited material and human resources, were able, on the basis of planning, to take a giant step from the state of agrarian economy to world leaders of the industrialized countries, satisfying the necessary cultural and material needs of their peoples.

In addition, where the selection and training of personnel is carried out locally, handicraft, and spontaneously, the probability that a person will be in the right position is low, and where personnel are systematically selected and trained, the development of each member of society produces direct economic effects. A person, whose abilities are used most effectively and who has in his hands such a powerful tool as a planned, scientifically organized economy, is able to work miracles and solve practically any economic problems that are available at the existing level of development of the productive forces. Hence planning, undeveloped and limited under capitalism, with the aim of enriching only a handful of oligarchs, under communism becomes the basis for the prosperity of the whole society as a whole and of each person in particular.

Thus, the isolation and ideological development of progressive elements of future communist relations, which are available as elements in the capitalist system, becomes not only a means of morally exposing the vices of modern society, but also an effective means of propaganda and a lever for attracting personnel in party building.

What is an organization of revolutionaries?

The Party, being a voluntary union of people who have embarked on the path of a revolutionary transformation of the social system, in full accordance with its goal, accepts those representatives of the socio-economic classes who, rejecting any selfish interests, consciously assume full responsibility and obligation in the steady pursuit of the victorious political line to establish the dictatorship of the working class and build communist relations as the only and sufficient factor for the destruction of all exploitation, wars, hunger, poverty, ignorance, dumps, unqualified medical care, and other vices of a society where competition, the market, anarchy, and private interests rule the ball.

The party is not a charitable organization created to help the proletarian masses in their own struggle (as a rule, not only economic, but also political, with a trade unionist, read: bourgeois, content), but the headquarters or the brain of a class that has taken the path of a true class struggle for the abolition of private property relations.

The ideological and theoretical struggle, being the leading economic and political forms of the class struggle, also determines the organizational principle of party building.

These circumstances determine the necessity of resolving the following task: to clothe the ideological and theoretical struggle in such a professional form of organizing the vanguard of the proletariat, which will not leave a stone unturned from any opportunism and will have really seasoned and tested cadres for the capture and retention of power and the beginning of the construction of a communist society. Those who excel in this, who in practice have proved their commitment to the communist cause, will form the basis of the central organ of the future communist party.

In order to be ahead of the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois forces, to push the sleepy ones aside, to pull up the backward, to provide all-round material for the development of the political consciousness and political activity of the proletariat, it is necessary to achieve a sufficient level of Marxist knowledge, but passively sitting at a desk, as students of bourgeois schools do, not understanding the need to master difficult material, is not enough; it is necessary to actively participate in the defeat of opportunism, in the agitation and propaganda of communism. Such work actually maintains the high level of the central theoretical organ, educates propagandists of Marxism and future leaders of the proletarian revolutionary struggle.

Successful ideological work makes it possible to clarify the existing conditions for the development of the country, to combat theoretical and tactical delusions in the course of the economic and political struggle of the working class, and, accordingly, becomes a necessary condition for the qualitative growth of the entire labor movement.

But the mere declaration of the need to wage a struggle, and even some practice of such a struggle against opportunism, is not enough. Opportunists (whether conscious or thoughtless), perfectly mimicking and not encountering a proper rebuff in the form of certain organizational principles, can creep into leading positions in the party and, using democratic methods of promoting cadres, sooner or later begin to pursue an incorrect policy that objectively contradicts the tasks of communist construction. A constant struggle against such opportunism within the Party, arising simply from the democratic principle itself, is ineffective, splits the unity of the Party, does not allow successful communist construction, causes irreparable damage to the consciousness of the working masses, reduces their activity and causes the latter’s just distrust of their vanguard. Practice has shown that the formal participation of party members in democratic procedures does not make the party masses subjects of revolutionary transformations and does not raise their consciousness and activity to the required level. Only direct participation in the meaningful elaboration of decisions on the basis of Marxist self-education will make it possible, on the one hand, to attract an increasing number of trained personnel to communist construction and, on the other hand, to prevent careerists, swindlers, opportunists and other enemies of the working class from being admitted to leading positions.

Organizationally blocking the way for opportunists into the party from the very beginning of the formation of the vanguard of the proletariat is a condition for the successful development of the dictatorship of the working class, because a bad peace in the form of the presence of hidden opportunists in key posts or an endless war with symptoms of an opportunist disease within the communist party, arising on the basis of democratic centralism, as shown by the whole practice of the labor movement of the 20th century, leads to the defeat of the working class, its great losses, and reaction for many years, and the reasons for this defeat are purely subjective. If a communist party arises in present-day historical circumstances, it must overcome any difficulties, because it is on the basis of knowledge of the objective conditions and various factors of social development that the party is formed.

Disbelief in one’s own strength gives rise to tailist activity in relation to any activity of certain social groups of the population. The absence of preventive ideological developments, professional propaganda materials, and the established practice of theoretical struggle cannot lead to the desired results. It is not possible to change the consciousness of the awakening representatives of the masses, or attract the individual most advanced elements of the latter into their ranks in sufficient numbers.

In order to raise the proletarian masses to a truly revolutionary level of organization, it is necessary to learn how to set up the press professionally, develop theory, organize effective agitation and propaganda work, and finally gather a sufficient number of competent Marxist comrades, on whom one can rely with confidence in any undertaking.

The theoretical preparation of the work must be extremely thorough, ensure development for many years to come, and correspond to an analysis of the objective factors and conditions of the class struggle and the progress of society, which does not allow for strategic blunders. Only in this way is there a need to conduct this or that activity, be it self-education circles, party building, agitation, or especially propaganda. We must learn from our great predecessors: Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, who were able to pursue the correct political line based on the need for a specific achievement of the set goal at each stage of the development of the movement. And each of our steps in the movement towards communism must be necessary for the achievement of this goal.

We must not sit passively at the books, but without fail participate in the defeat of opportunism and development of theory, albeit in small steps, progressively and systematically, and to promote the creation, on the basis of this ideological and theoretical work, of a central propaganda organ for the organization of the entire movement. The product of such activity can only be an organization of professional revolutionaries, which will be able to start working with the entire proletarian mass, having won the appropriate authority.

Trotskyists, for example, instead of raising the critical mass of the proletariat to Marxist consciousness, are trying to cover up their tailism with a transitional program, which, they say, is a bridge between the existing demands of the proletariat, read: trade unionism, and the program of the socialist revolution.

“This bridge should include a system of transitional demands, stemming from today’s conditions and from today’s consciousness of wide layers of the working class and unalterably leading to one final conclusion: the conquest of power by the proletariat,” wrote Trotsky.

The main problem with this “construction site” is that it leads nowhere. Without a theoretical elaboration of communist transformations on the basis of an analysis of the objective conditions for their implementation, without a deep campaign to propagate communism, it will not be possible to achieve sufficient success in mastering the masses ideologically. This work is completely discarded by the Trotskyists in favor of the opportunity to indulge the elemental forces of the proletariat, albeit, as is customary among unprincipled opportunists, in a veiled form, and to gain some popularity among the masses, though always temporary and shaky. Communists cannot afford to base their work on convincing the proletariat of the need for radical change without fully understanding what specific goal it is pursuing.

Targeting the satisfaction of the interests of the working class only within the framework of capitalism leads to the growth of many opportunistic directions of development within revolutionary organizations. Various ways of struggle over all sorts of secondary and tertiary issues of the life of society are the basis for constant splits due to the variability of factors, circumstances, and problems that arise in society. Sometimes these directions converge at one really important point, but, due to theoretical poverty, they converge in order to diverge again and again.

The struggle for petty interests within the framework of democratic procedure is not a stepping stone to the struggle for the establishment of the dictatorship of the working class and the triumph of communism. Just as an athlete, when jumping to a height of even 20 centimeters, must first of all work out the technique that will be directly useful when leaping to a height of 2 meters, so the future Marxist revolutionary must set himself the task of developing precisely those qualities that will be needed to conquer and retain power for the proletariat and the building of communism. The most simple and obviously possible ways of jumping a bar of 20 centimeters, which are available to all healthy people without exception, are in no way suitable for leaping to really record heights.

What prompts trade unionism in modern Russia is not the criminal ban on certain forms of economic struggle, as was the case under the autocracy, but ignorance and fear of prolonged and persistent propaganda at first for only a few progressive representatives of the proletariat with the aim of accumulating forces and means for the subsequent agitation of already wide masses of employees. Such a strategy is a preparation for the mass growth of the labor movement and should force this work to be carried out with even greater perseverance and energy. And if the proletariat is not provided with a sufficient number of competent leaders, then the effectiveness of the revolutionary struggle will be negligible.

The nature of the work to improve the conditions for the sale of labor power implies democratic forms of decision-making and an attempt at centralist implementation of these decisions, doomed in advance, if not to complete failure in the case of the relative simplicity of the issue under consideration, then at least to a completely unsatisfactory implementation of it. The task of the revolutionary theoretician and propagandist is determined by the unswerving demand to convince a sufficient number of party workers and sympathetic masses of the absolute fidelity of Marxist propositions. Persuasion by voting, by fighting for votes, including with the help of authority, determines only the formal consent of the majority, even if carried out under the best circumstances, from top to bottom. Such consent, not based on personal conviction in the correctness of the decisions taken, on understanding the essence of specific circumstances that necessarily lead to a given decision, becomes unstable. The effectiveness of work to implement such a decision cannot satisfy even the most unpretentious party worker in terms of discipline. There can be no question of competent independent activity, taking into account the specific circumstances on the ground, because without sufficient theoretical background, any directive launched will not be implemented and will drown in the swamp of local misunderstanding.

Lenin, answering the question about the difference between the professional organization of workers and the organization of revolutionaries, wrote:

“…the organisation of the revolutionaries must consist first and foremost of people who make revolutionary activity their profession (for which reason I speak of the organisation[a] of revolutionaries, meaning revolutionary Social-Democrats). In view of this common characteristic of the members of such an organisation, all distinctions as between workers and intellectuals, not to speak of distinctions of trade and profession, in both categories, must be effaced. Such an organisation must perforce not be very extensive and must be as secret as possible.”

“…it is far more difficult to unearth a dozen wise men than a hundred fools. <…> by ‘wise men’, in connection with organisation, I mean professional revolutionaries, irrespective of whether they have developed from among students or working men. … (1) that no revolutionary movement can endure without a stable organisation of leaders maintaining continuity; (2) that the broader the popular mass drawn spontaneously into the struggle, which forms the basis of the movement and participates in it, the more urgent the need for such an organisation, and the more solid this organisation must be (for it is much easier for all sorts of demagogues to side-track the more backward sections of the masses); (3) that such an organisation must consist chiefly of people professionally engaged in revolutionary activity; (4) that in an autocratic state, the more we confine the membership of such an organisation to people who are professionally engaged in revolutionary activity and who have been professionally trained in the art of combating the political police, the more difficult will it be to unearth the organisation; and (5) the greater will be the number of people from the working class and from the other social classes who will be able to join the movement and perform active work in it.”

Let us consider some points in relation to modern conditions.

Firstly, the current stage of party building does not allow a sufficient number of progressive-minded people to devote their entire lives to the revolutionary cause. However, everyone can conscientiously participate in the development of the necessary conditions, primarily a theoretical and organizational plan, for such work. By systematically supplying good materials of a theoretical and propagandistic nature to the central organ, the future revolutionary makes an invaluable contribution to the communist movement. This is how professionalism is developed and the formation of the communist cause of organizing local comrades into a party cell takes place. This also makes it possible to link the rising masses with the party.

Secondly, artificial barriers (for example, a certain number of representatives of certain professions, etc.), not related to competence in the field of social sciences, have nothing to do with real revolutionary work. The main criterion in the formation of Marxist cadres should be the continuous growth of ideological and theoretical training and work skills.

Thirdly, continuity and secrecy of activity, despite the presence of bourgeois freedoms and the relative freedom of propaganda of communism in modern Russia, should be set at a high level. Those leftists who are dismissive of the need to observe certain rules of conspiracy in any work can be safely considered fools or provocateurs, with whom any work, despite the presence of other qualities, will inevitably suffer a complete collapse. By continuity one must understand, first of all, the continuity of the work of the ideological and theoretical body and the expanded reproduction of propagandists as future leaders of the proletarian movement. This requirement, as the practice of destroying parties with communist names has shown, is extremely important in the matter of maintaining the correct political line of the Party on the seizure of power and the establishment of the dictatorship of the working class and on the even more difficult period of building communism from the lower phase to full communism. Therefore, it is absurd and harmful to confuse the organization of revolutionaries, which develops the theory and exercises leadership of the entire proletariat, embarking on a revolutionary footing, with other organizations that are much less conspiratorial: workers’ trade unions, self-education circles, including Marxist ones, designed for the general public.

Fourthly, the narrowness of the composition of persons in the organization, dictated in the era of tsarism by the presence of political terror, in the current era retains its relevance. Based on scientific authority, success in agitation and propaganda work, limited by comradely co-optation, the composition of the central bodies ensures not only the qualitative development of a correct political line, but also, with a massive influx of working masses, the implementation of such a line in life without allowing it to be blurred, “corrected” and to guard it against opportunists who are not ideologically well-prepared, but who are determined to make their way up the career ladder. Can such a position turn the broad masses of the proletariat away from the organization? Of course not. The narrowness of the members of the organization is not of a quantitatively definite nature and depends, of course, on the existing alignment of class forces, stage of party building and the mass nature of the proletarian movement. And the constant filling of the organization with loyal and honest supporters is guaranteed by the quality of agitation and propaganda work and the authority of the central body that managed to organize this work effectively.

To paraphrase Lenin, it is precisely the theoretical savvy in Marxism-Leninism, a broad outlook, that is, enriching oneself with all the valuable knowledge accumulated by mankind throughout its history, the denial of spontaneity, and the broad and bold planning of one’s activities that are the basis of such an organization of the proletariat from the point of view of the conditions for accomplishing the revolution. Such organization makes it possible to significantly reduce the importance of the objective factors of the revolutionary situation — the crisis of power and the discontent of the broad masses.

A. Krasin