Extremely poor arguments, these. If we are not Anarchists, we must
admit the necessity of a state--that is, of _compulsion_, for the
transition from capitalism to Socialism. The form of compulsion is
determined by the degree of development of the particular
revolutionary class, then by such special circumstances as, for
instance, the heritage of a long and reactionary war, and then by
the forms of resistance of the bourgeoisie and the petty
bourgeoisie. _There is therefore absolutely no contradiction in
principle between the Soviet (Socialist) democracy and the use of
dictatorial power of individuals_. The distinction between a
proletarian and a bourgeois dictatorship consists in this: that
the first directs its attacks against the exploiting minority in
the interests of the exploited majority; and, further, in this,
that the first is accomplished (also through individuals) not only
by the masses of the exploited toilers, but also by the
organizations which are so constructed that they arouse these
masses to historical creative work (the Soviets belong to this
kind of organization).[75]
This, then, is Bolshevism, not as it is seen and described by unfriendly
"bourgeois" writers, but as it is seen and described by the acknowledged
intellectual and political leader of the Bolsheviki, Nikolai Lenine.
Pages:
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446