|
Dictated March 28, 1918 |
Published according to |
From V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th English Edition,
Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1965
Vol. 27, pp. 203-18.
Translated from the Russian
by Clemens Dutt
Edited by Robert Daglish
|
ORIGINAL VERSION OF THE ARTICLE "THE IMMEDIATE TASKS |
| |
|
|
Chapter X . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . |
203 |
page 203
VERBATIM REPORT
C H A P T E R X
. . . [*] The Soviet press has devoted excessive space and attention to the petty political issues, the personal questions of political leadership by which the capitalists of all countries have striven to divert the attention of the masses from the really important, profound and fundamental questions of our life. In this connection we are faced with the need to solve almost anew a problem for the solution of which all the material requisites are available, only awareness of the urgency of this problem and readiness to solve it being absent. This problem is how to convert the press from an organ mainly devoted to communicating the political news of the day into a serious organ for educating the mass of the population in economics. We shall have to ensure, and we shall ensure, that the press serving the Soviet masses will devote less space to questions of the personal composition of the political leadership, or to questions of the tenth-rate political measures that comprise the commonplace activity and routine work of all political institutions. Instead the press will have to give priority to labour questions in their immediately practical setting. The press must become the organ of the labour commune in the sense of giving publicity to just what the leaders of capitalist enterprises used to try to conceal from the masses. For the capitalist the internal organisation of his enterprise was something veiled by trade
page 204
secrets from the eyes of the outside world, something over which, it seems, he wanted to be omnipotent and in sole command, hidden not only from criticism, not only from outside interference, but also from outside eyes. For the Soviet government, on the contrary, it is the organisation of labour in any particular large enterprises, in any particular village communes that is the chief, fundamental and urgent question of all social life. Our first and main means for increasing the self-discipline of the working people and for passing from the old, good-for-nothing methods of work, or methods of shirking work, in capitalist society, must be the press, revealing shortcomings in the economic life of each labour commune, ruthlessly branding these shortcomings, frankly laying bare all the ulcers of our economic life, and thus appealing to the public opinion of the working people for curing these ulcers. Let there be ten times less newspaper material (perhaps it would be good if there were 100 times less) devoted to so-called current news, but let us have, distributed in hundreds of thousands and millions of copies, a press that acquaints the whole population with the exemplary arrangement of affairs in a few state labour communes which surpass the others. Each factory, each artel and agricultural enterprise, each village that goes over to the new agriculture by applying the law on socialisation of the land, is now, as one of the democratic bases of Soviet power, an independent commune with its own internal organisation of labour. In each of these communes, an increase in the self-discipline of the working people, their ability to work together with managing experts, even from the bourgeois intelligentsia, their achievement of practical results in the sense of raising labour productivity, economising human labour and safeguarding output from the unprecedented thieving from which we are suffering immeasurably at the present time -- that is what should form the main content of our Soviet press. That is the way in which we can and must bring it about that the force of example becomes first of all a morally essential, and later a compulsorily introduced, pattern for organising labour in the new Soviet Russia.
In capitalist society there have been repeated examples of the organisation of labour communes by people who hoped
page 205
peacefully and painlessly to convince mankind of the advantages of socialism and to ensure its adoption. Such a standpoint and such methods of activity evoke wholly legitimate ridicule from revolutionary Marxists because, under the conditions of capitalist slavery, to achieve any radical changes by means of isolated examples would in fact be a completely vain dream, which in practice has led either to moribund enterprises or to the conversion of these enterprises into associations of petty capitalists.
This habitual attitude of ridicule and scorn towards the importance of example in the national economy is sometimes evident even now among people who have not thoroughly considered the radical changes that began from the time of the conquest of political power by the proletariat. Now, when the land has ceased to be private property, when the factories have almost ceased to be private property and will undoubtedly cease to be such in the very near future (it will be no trouble at all for the Soviet government in its present situation to introduce the appropriate decrees), the example of the labour commune, which solves organisational problems better than any other means, has acquired tremendous significance. It is just now that we must see to it that the mass of unusually valuable material available in the form of the experience of the new organisation of production in individual towns, in individual enterprises, in individual village communes, becomes the possession of the masses.
We are still under considerable pressure from the old public opinion imposed by the bourgeoisie. If we look at our newspapers, it is easy to see what a disproportionately large place we still devote to questions raised by the bourgeoisie, questions with which it seeks to divert the attention of the working people from the concrete practical tasks of socialist reconstruction. We must convert -- and we shall convert -- the press from an organ for purveying sensations, from a mere apparatus for communicating political news, from an organ of struggle against bourgeois lying -- into an instrument for the economic re-education of the masses, into an instrument for telling the masses how to organise work in a new way. Enterprises or village communes which do not respond to any appeals and demands for restoring
page 206
self-discipline and raising labour productivity will be entered on a "black list" by the socialist parties and will either be put in the category of sick enterprises in regard to which measures have to be taken for their rehabilitation by means of special arrangements -- special steps and statutes -- or they will be put in the category of punished enterprises which are liable to closure and whose participants must be handed over to a people's court. Introducing publicity in this sphere will by itself be a vast reform and will serve to draw the broad mass of the people into independent participation in deciding these questions, which most closely concern the masses. The reason why so little has been done in this respect up to now is that what was kept hidden from public knowledge in individual enterprises and communes has remained a secret as of old, which was understandable under capitalism but which is absolutely absurd and sense less in a society that wants to achieve socialism. The force of example, which could not be displayed in capitalist society, will be of enormous importance in a society that has abolished private ownership of land and factories, not only because, perhaps, good examples will be followed here, but also because a better example of the organisation of production will be accompanied inevitably by a lightening of labour and an increase in the amount of consumption for those who have carried out this better organisation. And here, in connection with the importance of the press as an organ for the economic reorganisation and re-education of the masses, we must also touch on the importance of the press in organising competition.
The organisation of competition must take a prominent place among the tasks of the Soviet government in the economic sphere. In their criticism of socialism, bourgeois economists have often declared that socialists deny the importance of competition or give it no place in their system or, as the economists express it, in their plan of social organisation. There is no need to say how stupid is this accusation, which has often been refuted in the socialist press. The bourgeois economists, as always, have confused the question of the specific features of capitalist society with the question of a different form of organisation of competition. The socialists' attacks have never been directed against
page 207
competition as such, but only against market competition. Market competition, however, is a special form of competition characteristic of capitalist society and consisting in a struggle of individual producers for a livelihood and for influence, for a place in the market. The abolition of competition as a struggle of producers that is connected only with the market does not at all mean the abolition of competition -- on the contrary, the abolition of commodity production and capitalism makes it possible to organise competition in its human instead of its bestial forms. It is just at the present time in Russia, in view of the foundations of political power that have been created by the Soviet Republic, and of the economic characteristics of Russia with her vast expanses and tremendous diversity of conditions -- it is just now that organisation of competition on a socialist basis in our country should be one of the most important and rewarding tasks in the reorganisation of society.
We are for democratic centralism. And it must be clearly understood how vastly different democratic centralism is from bureaucratic centralism on the one hand, and from anarchism on the other. The opponents of centralism continually put forward autonomy and federation as a means of struggle against the uncertainties of centralism. As a matter of fact, democratic centralism in no way excludes autonomy, on the contrary, it presupposes the necessity of it. As a matter of fact, even federation, if carried out within limits that are rational from an economic point of view, if it is based on important national distinctions that give rise to a real need for a certain degree of state separateness -- even federation is in no way in contradiction to democratic centralism. Under a really democratic system, and the more so with the Soviet organisation of the state, federation is very often merely a transitional step towards really democratic centralism. The example of the Russian Soviet Republic shows us particularly clearly that federation, which we are introducing and will introduce, is now the surest step towards the most lasting union of the various nationalities of Russia into a single democratic centralised Soviet state.
And just as democratic centralism in no way excludes autonomy and federation, so, too, it in no way excludes, but on the contrary presupposes, the fullest freedom of various
page 208
localities and even of various communes of the state in developing multifarious forms of state, social and economic life. There is nothing more mistaken than confusing democratic centralism with bureaucracy and routinism. Our task now is to carry out democratic centralism in the economic sphere, to ensure absolute harmony and unity in the functioning of such economic undertakings as the railways, the postal and telegraph services, other means of transport, and so forth. At the same time, centralism, understood in a truly democratic sense, presupposes the possibility, created for the first time in history, of a full and unhampered development not only of specific local features, but also of local inventiveness, local initiative, of diverse ways, methods and means of progress to the common goal. The task of organising competition, therefore, has two aspects: on the one hand, it requires the carrying out of democratic centralism as described above, on the other hand, it makes it possible to find the most correct and most economical way of reorganising the economic structure of Russia. In general terms, this way is known. It consists in the transition to large-scale economy based on machine industry, in the transition to socialism. But the concrete conditions and forms of this transition are and must be diverse, depending on the conditions under which the advance aiming at the creation of socialism begins. Local distinctions, specific economic formations, forms of everyday life, the degree of preparedness of the population, attempts to carry out a particular plan -- all these are bound to be reflected in the specific features of the path to socialism of a particular labour commune of the state. The greater such diversity -- provided, of course, that it does not turn into eccentricity -- the more surely and rapidly shall we ensure the achievement of both democratic centralism and a socialist economy. It only remains for us now to organise competition, i.e., to ensure publicity which would enable all communes in the state to learn how economic development has proceeded in various localities; to ensure, secondly, that the results of the advance towards socialism in one commune of the state are comparable with those in another; to ensure, thirdly, that the experience acquired in one commune can be repeated in practice by other communes; to ensure the possibility of
page 209
an exchange of those material -- and human -- forces which have done well in any particular sphere of the national economy or of the state administration. Crushed by the capitalist system, we cannot at present even imagine at all accurately what rich forces lie hidden in the mass of the working people, in the diversity of labour communes of a large state, in the forces of the intelligentsia, who have hitherto worked as lifeless, dumb executors of the capitalists' pre-determined plans, what forces are lying hidden and can reveal themselves given a socialist structure of society. What we have to do is only to clear the way for these forces. If we devote ourselves to the organisation of competition as a matter of state importance, then -- provided that Soviet principles of the state system are implemented, provided that private ownership of land, factories, etc., is abolished -- the results are inevitably bound to show themselves and will dictate our further forms of construction.
The resolution of the Extraordinary Congress of Soviets, which I referred to at the beginning, mentions, among other things, the need to create a harmonious and strong organisation.[*] At the present time the degree of organisation, both of Soviet institutions and of economic units operating within the bounds of Russia, is extremely low. It could be said that immense disorganisation prevails.
But it would be incorrect to regard this as a state of ruin, collapse and decline. If the bourgeois press makes such an appraisal, it is clear that the interests of the capitalist class compel people to look at things in this way, or rather compel them to appear to look at them thus. In fact, however, any one who is capable of looking at things at all historically will not doubt for a moment that the present state of disorganisation is a state of transition -- of transition from the old to the new -- a state of growth of what is new. The transition from the old to the new, if it proceeds as sharply as it has in Russia since February 1917, presupposes of course a gigantic destruction of what has become obsolete and moribund in social life. And it is clear that the search for the new
page 210
cannot at once provide those definite, established, almost fixed and final forms which previously took shape in the course of centuries and lasted for centuries. The present Soviet institutions and the economic organisations which are characterised by the concept of workers' control in industry -- those organisations are still in a period of ferment and instability. In these organisations, naturally, the aspect characterised by discussion and the airing of questions at meetings prevails over the business aspect. It could not be otherwise, for without drawing new sections of the people into socialist construction, without awakening to activity the broad masses hitherto asleep, there could be no question of any revolutionary change. The endless discussions and endless holding of meetings -- about which the bourgeois press talks so much and so acrimoniously -- is a necessary transition of the masses still completely unprepared for social construction, a transition from historical somnolence to new historical creativeness. There is absolutely nothing terrible in the fact that this transition is protracted in some places, or in the fact that the training of the masses in new work does not go forward with the rapidity which could be dreamt of by a man who is accustomed to work in isolation and does not understand what is involved in rousing hundreds, thousands and millions to independent political life. But in realising this we must also realise the turn that is now beginning in this respect. While Soviet institutions had not spread throughout Russia, while socialisation of the land and nationalisation of factories remained an exception to the general rule, it was natural that social management of the national economy (considered on a nation-wide scale) could not emerge from the stage of preliminary discussional preparation either, from the stage of discussion and interpretation. Just now a fundamental change is taking place, Soviet institutions have spread all over Russia. From Great Russia they have spread to the vast majority of the other nationalities of Russia. Socialisation of the land in the countryside and workers' control in the towns have ceased to be exceptions; instead, they have become the rule.
On the other hand, the extremely critical and even desperate situation the country is in as regards ensuring at least the mere possibility of existence for the majority
page 211
of the population, as regards safeguarding it from famine -- these economic conditions urgently demand the achievement of definite practical results. The countryside could subsist on its own grain -- there is no doubt of that -- but it will be able to do so only if in actual fact an absolutely strict account is taken of all existing grain, and if it can be distributed among the whole population with the greatest economy and carefulness. Correct distribution requires correct organisation of transport. But it is transport that has suffered the worst destruction by war. And what is most of all necessary for the revival of transport in a country marked by such huge distances as Russia is harmonious; strong organisation and, perhaps, really millions of people working with the precision of clockwork. Now has come the turning-point when -- without in any way ceasing to prepare the masses for participation in state and economic administration of all the affairs of society, and without in any way hindering their most detailed discussion of the new tasks (on the contrary, helping them in every way to carry out this discussion so that they independently think out and arrive at correct decisions) -- we must at the very same time begin strictly to separate two categories of democratic functions: on the one hand, discussions and the airing of questions at public meetings, and, on the other hand, the establishment of strictest responsibility for executive functions and absolutely businesslike, disciplined, voluntary fulfilment of the assignments and decrees necessary for the economic mechanism to function really like clockwork. It was impossible to pass to this at once; some months ago it would have been pedantry or even malicious provocation to demand. it. Generally speaking, this change cannot be brought about by any decree, by any prescription. But the time has come when the achievement of precisely this change is the pivot of all our revolutionary reforms. Now it has been prepared for, now the conditions for it have matured, now it is impossible to postpone it or wait for it any longer. Not long ago, in discussing the question of the reorganisation and correct planning of railway transport, the question arose of how far one-man managerial authority (which could be called dictatorial) is compatible with democratic organisations in general, with the collective principle in manage-
page 212
ment especially, and with the Soviet socialist principle of organisation in particular. Undoubtedly, the opinion is very widely held that there can be no question of such compatibility, that one-man dictatorial authority is incompatible with democracy, the Soviet type of state and collective management. Nothing could be more mistaken than this opinion.
The democratic principle of organisation -- in its highest form, in which the Soviets put into effect proposals and demands for the active participation of the masses not only in discussing general rules, decisions and laws, and in controlling their fulfilment, but also directly in their implementation -- implies that every representative of the masses, every citizen, must be put in such conditions that he can participate in the discussion of state laws, in the choice of his representatives and in the implementation of state laws. But it does not at all follow from this that we shall permit the slightest chaos or disorder as regards who is responsible in each individual case for definite executive functions, for carrying out definite orders, for controlling a definite joint labour process during a certain period of time. The masses must have the right to choose responsible leaders for themselves. They must have the right to replace them, the right to know and check each smallest step of their activity. They must have the right to put forward any worker without exception for administrative functions. But this does not at all mean that the process of collective labour can remain without definite leadership, without precisely establishing the responsibility of the person in charge, without the strictest order created by the single will of that person. Neither railways nor transport, nor large-scale machinery and enterprises in general can function correctly without a single will linking the entire working personnel into an economic organ operating with the precision of clockwork. Socialism owes its origin to large-scale machine industry. If the masses of the working people in introducing socialism prove incapable of adapting their institutions in the way that large-scale machine industry should work, then there can be no question of introducing socialism. That is why in the period we are now passing through, when the Soviet government and the dictatorship of the proletariat have grown sufficiently
page 213
strong, when the main lines of the enemy opposing us, i.e., of the exploiters opposing us, have been sufficiently destroyed or rendered harmless, when the functioning of Soviet institutions has adequately prepared the mass of the population for independent participation in all spheres of social life -- at the present moment we are immediately confronted by the tasks of strictly separating discussion and airing questions at meetings from unfailing execution of all instructions of the person in charge. This means separating the necessary, useful preparation of the masses for executing a certain measure and checking up on its execution, which is fully recognised by every Soviet, from the actual execution itself. The masses can now -- this is guaranteed them by the Soviets -- take all power into their hands and consolidate this power. But to prevent this resulting in the overlapping of authority and irresponsibility from which we are suffering incredibly at the present time, it is necessary that for each executive function we should know precisely what persons, having been chosen to act as responsible leaders, bear responsibility for the functioning of the economic organism as a whole. This requires that as often as possible, when there is the slightest opportunity for it, responsible persons should be elected for one-man management in all sections of the economic organism as a whole. There must be voluntary fulfilment of the instructions of this individual leader, there must be a transition from the mixed form of discussions, public meetings, fulfilment -- and at the same time criticism, checking and correction -- to the strict regularity of a machine enterprise. The great majority of the labour communes of Russia, the mass of the workers and peasants, are already approaching this task or have already arrived at it. The Soviet government's task is to undertake the role of interpreting the fundamental change that is now beginning and of giving this necessity legal form.
The slogan of practical ability and businesslike methods has enjoyed little popularity among revolutionaries. One can even say that no slogan has been less popular among them. It is quite understandable that as long as the revolutionaries' task consisted in destroying the old capitalist
page 214
order they were bound to reject and ridicule such a slogan. For at that time this slogan in practice concealed the endeavour in one form or another to come to terms with capitalism, or to weaken the proletariat's attack on the foundations of capitalism, to weaken the revolutionary struggle against capitalism. Quite clearly, things were bound to undergo a radical change after the proletariat had conquered and consolidated its power and work had begun on a wide scale for laying the foundations of a new, i.e., socialist, society. Now, too, as was pointed out above, we have no right to weaken in the slightest degree either our work of convincing the mass of the population of the correctness of our ideas, or our work of destroying the resistance of the exploiters. But the main thing in the fulfilment of these two functions has already been achieved by us. The chief and urgent requirement now is precisely the slogan of practical ability and businesslike methods. It follows that it is now an immediate, ripe and essential task to draw the bourgeois intelligentsia into our work. It would be ludicrously stupid to regard this drawing in of the intelligentsia as some kind of weakening of the Soviet system, some kind of departure from the principles of socialism or some kind of inadmissible compromise with the bourgeoisie. To express such an opinion would be a meaningless repetition of words that refer to a quite different period of activity of the revolutionary proletarian parties. On the contrary, precisely for fulfilling our revolutionary tasks, precisely in order that these tasks should not remain a utopia or a naïve aspiration but actually become a reality -- and be achieved immediately -- precisely for the sake of this aim we must now put practical ability and businesslike methods in organisational work as our primary, immediate and chief task. What has to be done just now is to tackle from every aspect the practical erection of the edifice, the plan of which we outlined long ago, the foundations for which we have fought for vigorously enough and firmly enough won, the materials for which we have adequately collected and which now -- having provided it with scaffolding and put on working clothes, which we are not afraid of dirtying with any auxiliary materials, and strictly fulfilling the instructions of those in charge of the practical work -- we must build and build and build.
page 215
The extent to which the changes in the formulation of our tasks are sometimes still not understood is evident. incidentally from the recent discussion on the role of the trade unions.[88] The view was expressed (supported by the Mensheviks, of course, with obviously provocatory aims, that is to say, with the aim of provoking us to take steps advantageous only to the bourgeoisie) that in the interests of preserving and strengthening the class independence of the proletariat the trade unions should not become state organisations. This view was camouflaged by specious and quite customary phrases learnt by heart about the struggle of labour against capital and the necessity for the class independence of the proletariat. In actual fact, however, this view was and is either a bourgeois provocation of the crudest kind or an extreme misunderstanding, a slavish repetition of the slogans of yesterday, as is shown by an analysis of the altered conditions of the present period of history. Yesterday the chief task of the trade unions was the struggle against capital and defence of the class independence of the proletariat. Yesterday the slogan of the day was distrust of the state, for it was the bourgeois state. Today the state is becoming and has become proletarian. The working class is becoming and has become the ruling class in the state. The trade unions are becoming and must become state organisations which have prime responsibility for the reorganisation of all economic life on a socialist basis. Hence to apply the slogans of the old trade unionism to the present epoch would mean renouncing the socialist tasks of the working class.
The same thing has to be said of the co-operatives. A co-operative is a little shop, and no changes, improvements or reforms alter the fact that it is a shop. The capitalist era taught socialists this view. And there is no doubt that these views correctly expressed the essence of the co-operatives as long as they remained a small appendage to the mechanism of the bourgeois system. But the point is that the position of the co-operatives undergoes a fundamental change from the time of the conquest of state power by the proletariat, from the moment that the proletarian state sets about systematic creation of the socialist order. Here quantity passes into quality. The co-operative, as a small island in capitalist society is a little shop. The co-operative, if it
page 216
embraces the whole of society, in which the land is socialised and the factories nationalised, is socialism. The task of the Soviet government after the bourgeoisie has been expropriated politically and economically consists obviously (mainly) in spreading co-operative organisations throughout society so as to make every citizen a member of a single nation-wide, or rather state-wide, co-operative. If we brush this task aside by referring to the class character of the workers' co-operatives, we shall prove to be reactionaries, harking back from the era that began with the conquest of political power by the proletariat to the era that existed prior to that conquest. While capitalism existed the political and economic activity of the working class was marked by two tendencies. On the one hand, there was the tendency to settle down fairly comfortably under capitalism, which was feasible only for a small upper stratum of the proletariat. On the other hand, there was the tendency to lead the whole mass of working and exploited people towards the revolutionary overthrow of capital in general. It is clear that when this, second tendency has gained the upper hand, when capital has been overthrown, and it is necessary to begin organising a nation-wide socialist co-operative, our view of the tasks and conditions of the co-operative movement undergoes a fundamental change. We must enter into an agreement with the bourgeois co-operatives as well as with the proletarian co-operatives. We must not be afraid. It would be ridiculous if we were to fear an agreement with the bourgeois co-operatives, for we are the ruling power. We need an agreement enabling us to find practically feasible, convenient and suitable forms of transition from fragmentary, scattered co-operatives to a single, national co-operative. As the state power, we must not be afraid of an agreement with the bourgeois co-operatives, for such an agreement will inevitably mean their subordination to us. At the same time, we have to realise that we represent the new proletarian state power, that the working class has become the ruling class in the state. Hence the workers' co-operative must be at the head of the movement for converting the individual co-operatives into a single, national co-operative. The working class must not isolate itself from the rest of the population; on the contrary, it must lead all sections of the population without
page 217
exception in the matter of uniting them one and all in a single, national co-operative. What practical, immediately feasible, transitional measures are required for this is another question. But we must clearly realise and unequivocally decide that the whole point now is precisely this practical transition, that the proletarian state power must undertake it, test all reforms by experience and achieve the transition at all costs.
In discussing the question of restoring the discipline and self-discipline of the working people, special mention should be made of the important role now devolving on the courts of law. In capitalist society, the court was mainly an instrument of oppression, an instrument of bourgeois exploitation. Hence the bounden duty of the proletarian revolution lay not in reforming the judicial institutions (the task to which the Cadets and their henchmen, the Mensheviks and Right S.R.s, confined themselves), but in completely destroying and razing to its foundations the whole of the old judicial apparatus. The October Revolution fulfilled, and successfully fulfilled, this necessary task. In place of the old court, it began to establish a new, people's court or, rather, Soviet court, based on the principle of the participation of the working and exploited classes -- and only of these classes -- in administering the state. The new court has been needed first and foremost for the struggle against the exploiters who are trying to restore their domination, or to defend their privileges, or secretly to smuggle through and secure by deception some particle of these privileges. But, in addition, the courts -- if they are really organised on the principle of Soviet institutions -- have another, still more important task. This task is to ensure the strictest discipline and self-discipline of the working people. We would be ridiculous utopians if we were to imagine that such a task could be carried out on the morrow of the fall of bourgeois rule, i.e., in the first stage of the transition from capitalism to socialism, or -- without coercion. It is quite impossible to fulfil this task without coercion. We need the state, we need coercion. The Soviet courts must be the organ of the proletarian state carrying out such coercion. They have
page 218
the immense task of educating the population in labour discipline. As yet, exceedingly little, or rather almost nothing, has been done by us in this respect. We must, however, achieve the organisation of such courts on the widest scale, with their activity extending to the entire working life of the country. Only such courts, provided the broad mass of the working and exploited population take part in them, will be able to ensure, through democratic forms conforming to the principles of the Soviet system, that aspirations for discipline and self-discipline do not remain vain aspirations. Only such courts will be able to ensure that we have a revolutionary authority, which we all recognise in words when speaking of the dictatorship of the proletariat, but instead of which we often see around us something as amorphous as jelly. Incidentally, it would be more correct to compare the state of society in which we live now not with a jelly, but with metal that is being melted to prepare a more stable alloy.
|
Notes on |
page 587
[87] Original Version of the Article "The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government" was dictated by Lenin to a shorthand typist on March 23-28, 1918. [p. 203]
[88] This refers to the discussion on the role of the trade unions at the First All-Russia Congress of Trade Unions held in Petrograd, January 7-14 (20-27), 1918. [p. 215]