We are reproducing below a slightly edited article by Comrade M Basavapunnaiah that appeared in a special issue of People’s Democracy commemorating the birth centenary of V I Lenin (April 22, 1970). This is being done both as a tribute to Comrade MB’s understanding of the Leninst tactics and for the importance of these being based on concrete analysis of concrete conditions. Secondly, this article is being reprinted on the occasion of Lenin’s 144th birth anniversary that falls on April 22, 2014. Merely one section of the original article is not being reproduced here because it deals with tactical issues connected with the advance of the Indian revolution in the decade of 1970s. Needless to add, today’s situation is entirely different from the one obtaining then. Otherwise, the article is reproduced in full. There are references to the current Indian political situation then obtaining. Though this may be outdated, there are insights on the tactical line worked out by the CPI(M) in that situation which would be a useful learning experience for us in this generation. Editor ON April 22, 1970 falls the Birth Centenary of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, the immortal architect of the Great Russian Socialist Revolution and leader of the world proletarian revolutionary movement. The centenary is going to be celebrated by all the Communist contingents of the world working class in a befitting manner. This great event will be commemorated by recalling the unique contribution he has made to the treasure house of Marxism, the theory and practice of the proletarian world Socialist revolution. Since it is impossible for any single individual to cover different aspects of Lenin’s great contribution in an article of the size we are attempting, we prefer to deal here with one aspect, namely, his superb talents and ability as a master tactician of the working class in its struggle for political power and its consolidation. The tactics he had worked out from time to time, and at every turn of events in the long course of the struggle for the victory of the Great Russian Revolution, remain an unerring guide and a model. Communists, the world over, have to study and imbibe them. It should not offend anyone if we observe that a good many ardent admirers of Lenin and the staunchest adherents of Marxism do not pay the utmost attention to this aspect of Lenin, the aspect of his tactical genius, notwithstanding their proficiency in the general theory of Marxism – Leninism and devotion to the cause of the working class. No ego need come in the way of our frank admission that it is exactly in this respect of working out correct tactics corresponding to every developing and changing situation that many amongst us fumble, falter and slip into serious errors. Though it is naive on the part of any Communist to think that a mere recollection of Lenin’s teachings on tactics will remedy our ills on this score, it would do immense good if we remind ourselves, again and again, of the victorious tactics of Lenin and the principles behind them. Part of Class Strategy The term ‘tactics’ which, in its classical meaning, is associated with the military art of manoeuvring against the enemy troops, has come to be used in world Marxist – Leninist literature, as the day to day science and art of the revolutionary proletariat in realising the strategic objective of winning political power from the hands of the class enemy, the capitalists. But the capitalists and their theoreticians have imported into this term a vulgar and common place meaning, reducing it to the adoption of some ‘tricks’ as a temporary way out of any difficult situation that one confronts, thus bringing the term ‘tactics’ into contempt and disrepute. Marxist – Leninists reject this highly distorted and totally opportunist definition of the term ‘tactics’. They consider tactics is an inseparable part of the class strategy of the revolutionary working class, based on a strictly objective analysis of the concrete class realities in a given situation. Tactics, to be worthy of that name, have to a systematic plan of action, illumined by firm principles and steadfastly carried out, and Lenin had to wage a bitter struggle against his opponents who were against a principled plan of tactics. The ‘Economists’ of that period were bowing down to spontaneity and even elevating it to a principle. To them tactics were a process of growth of Party tasks, which grew together with the Party. For the ‘Economists’, only that struggle was desirable, which was possible and the struggle which was possible was that which was going on. Calling this ‘unbounded opportunism’, Lenin wrote: ‘To confound recognition, in principle, of all means of struggle, of all plans and methods, provided they are expedient, with the demand at a given political moment to be guided by a strictly observed plan is tantamount, if we are to talk of tactics, to confounding the recognition by medical science of various methods of treating diseases with the necessity of adopting a certain definite method of treatment for a given disease’ (Vol.5, P.397) Further, lashing out against the ‘Economists’ who charged that the tactics – as – plan contradicts the essence of Marxism, Lenin wrote: ‘But this is a slander of Marxism, it means turning Marxism into the caricature held up by the Narodiniks in their struggle against us. It means belittling the initiative and energy of class conscious fighters, whereas Marxism, on the contrary, gives a gigantic impetus to the initiative and energy of the Social Democrat, opens up for him the widest perspectives and (if one may so express it) places at his disposal the mighty force of many millions of workers ‘spontaneously’ rising for the struggle... At a time when many Russian Social Democrats suffer from a lack of initiative and energy, from an inadequate ‘scope of political propaganda, agitation, and organisation’, from a lack of ‘plans’ for a broader organisation of revolutionary work, at such a time, to declare that ‘tactics – as – plan contradicts the essence of Marxism’ means not only to vulgarise Marxism in the realm of theory, but to drag the Party backward in practice’ (Ibid, Pp 392-93) To the accusation that Lenin was setting up his programme against the movement, ‘like a spirit hovering over the formless chaos’, Lenin asked: ‘But what else is the function of Social Democracy if not of a ‘spirit’ that not only hovers over the spontaneous movement, but also raises this movement to the level of ‘its programme’? Surely it is not its function to drag at the tail of the movement’. The ‘Economists’ were not only following this formula of ‘tactics – as – process’, but elevating it to a principle, ‘so that it would be more correct to describe its tendency not as opportunism, but as tailism’ (Ibid, P 396) Concrete Analysis of Conditions As Lenin puts it: ‘Tactics must be based on a sober and strictly objective appraisal of all the class forces in a particular State – and of the States that surround it and of all States in the world over – as well as the experiences of revolutionary movements’. He drives home this truth by the observation that the ‘most essential thing in Marxism, the living soul of Marxism, is the concrete analysis of concrete conditions’ How many amongst us who take pride in calling ourselves Marxist Leninists and accept the formulation and observations of Lenin as gospel truth, pay adequate attention to this injunction of Lenin on tactics? Not infrequently, we take only some aspects of a given situation and miss certain other equally important things, tend to take decisions on the spur of the moment and fail to weigh the pros and cons, delay in swiftly orienting to what is new and growing in the situation, getting stuck in what was correct yesterday but has become outdated today, and continue reciting strategic truths ignoring the paramount need for working out tactical slogans suited to the situation arising from time to time. Stalin, in his celebrated work, Foundations of Leninism, while explaining the significance of Leninist ‘strategy and tactics’ points out how Lenin not only ‘brought out into the light of day the brilliant ideas of Marx and Engels on tactics and strategy that had been immured by the opportunists of the Second International’, but he also ‘developed them further and supplemented them with new ideas and propositions, combining them all into a system of rules and guiding principles for the leadership of the class struggle of the proletariat’ Defining the concept of stage and strategy in distinct demarcation from the concept of tactics, Stalin points out: ‘Strategy is the determination of the direction of the main blow of the proletariat at a given state of the revolution’ and which ‘deals with the main forces of the revolution and their reserves. It changes with the passing of the revolution from one stage to another, but remains essentially unchanged throughout a given stage’ which might last for a comparatively longer period of years and even decades. But the case with tactics is different. In the words of Stalin: ‘Tactics are the determination of the line of conduct of the proletariat in the comparatively short period of the flow and ebb of the movement, of the rise and decline of the revolution, the fight to carry out this line by means of replacing old forms of struggle and organisation by new ones, old slogans by new ones, by combining these forms, etc’. ‘While the object of strategy is to win the war’ against a targeted enemy, ‘the object of tactics is not winning the war as a whole, but the winning of some particular engagements or some particular battles, the carrying through successfully of some particular campaigns or actions corresponding to the concrete circumstances in the given period of rise and decline of the revolution. Tactics are a part of strategy, subordinated to it and serving it’. ‘During a given stage of the revolution tactics may change several times, depending on the flow or ebb, the rise or decline, of the revolution’. Lenin’s Tactical Principles He summarises the tactical principles of Lenin briefly as the following three: 1. The principle of the necessity of taking into account the national peculiarities and national characteristics of each nation while working out the guiding instructions of the Comintern for the workers’ movement of that nation’ 2. The principle of the necessity for the Communist Party in every country for utilising the smallest possibilities of securing mass allies for the proletariat even if they are temporary, vacillating, wavering unreliable’. 3. The principle of the necessity of taking into account the truth that propaganda and agitation alone are not enough for the political education of millions of the masses as this demands the political experience of the masses themselves’ We may add here the following significant observation of Lenin which supplements the above theory. Since the proletarian revolution in Russia and its victories on an international scale, expected neither by the bourgeoisie nor the philistines, the entire world has become different, and the bourgeoisie everything has become different too. It is terrified of ‘Bolshevism’, exasperated by it almost to the point of frenzy, and for that very reason it is on the one hand, precipitating the progress of events, and, on the other, concentrating on the forcible suppression of Bolshevism, thereby weakening its own position in a number of fields. In their tactics the Communists in all the advanced countries must take both these circumstances into account’ (Vol. 31, P 100, emphasis added) Subsequently history sharply highlights this aspect. The rise of fascism and the most heinous crimes committed in Germany, Italy, Japan, Spain and some other countries. The fratricidal civil war the imperialist stooge Chiang Kai – shek conducted, murdering millions of worker and peasant fighters, and the ghastly butcheries in Greece, Malaya, Burma, Vietnam, Korea, Philippines, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq and several other States of Asia, Africa and Latin America of working class revolutionaries during the post Second World War period fully confirm the truth how the bourgeoisie, on a world plane, has become ‘different’, degenerating into despicable beasts perpetrating any and every heinous crime against the toiling masses to perpetuate its rule of exploitation and plunder. Lenin had time and again warned the world proletariat of this aspect, and instructed them to take this into serious account in their tactics. Writing on the ‘Tenth Anniversary of Pravda’ in May 1922, he observed: ‘Though Bolshevism has become an international force, though in all the civilised and advanced countries new Chartists, new Varlins, new Liebknechts have been born, and are growing up as legal (just as legal as our Pravda was under the tsars ten years ago) Communist Parties, nonetheless, for the time being, the international bourgeoisie still remains incomparably stronger than its class enemy. This bourgeoisie, which has done everything in its power to hamper the birth of proletarian power in Russia and to multiply tenfold the dangers and suffering attending its birth, is still in a position to condemn millions and tens of millions to torment and death through its white guard and imperialist wars, etc. That is something that we must not forget. And we must skilfully (emphasis added) adapt our tactics to this specific situation’. (Vol.33, P.352) The defeat of the fascist bloc in the Second World War and the victory scored by the Soviet Red Army which bought about a radical change in the world correlation of forces in favour of the working class, do not permit any underestimation of the strength of the world bourgeoisie which ‘is still in a position to condemn tens of millions to torment and death’. It is impermissible for any Communist party to discount this factor while working out its tactics. And, yet, it is monstrous that some sorry theoreticians, who claim to be adherents of Lenin and admirers of his tactical principles, embolden themselves to preach the gospel of ‘peaceful’ transition to Socialism, vouchsafing for the peaceable characteristics acquired by the bourgeoisie in the ‘new epoch’. We, the Communists in India, are fully aware how our own bourgeoisie, which ceaselessly talks of ‘ahimsa’, non violence, peace and Gandhian gospels of humanism and love, in no way, lags behind its class brethren in other countries in this respect. The mass arrests, tortures, and killings of thousands of worker peasant leaders during 1947 – 1951, the systematic police repression and violence practiced on the worker peasant masses and their struggles and the latest cold blooded murders of scores of Naxalites in Andhra Pradesh in the year 1969 sufficiently expose their ‘ahimsa’ gospels and prove the correctness of Lenin’s warnings with a vengeance. The decadent bourgeois class, all over the world, has been constantly perfecting the art of counter revolution to violently suppress the Communists, stopping at nothing in its diabolical tactics of war, violence and cruelty. The working class has to draw its own lessons and learn how to meet this menace and perfect its counter tactics. It has no right to complain that it is outwitted by its class enemy. Striking Examples of Tactical Leadership Getting back to the main theme, of Lenin’s masterly tactics and the cardinal lessons they teach us, let us recall some of the striking examples of his tactical leadership. Exceptionally instructive and educative are Lenin’s tactics, pursued during the two stormy periods of 1905- 07 and 1917 – 18. In each of these two short periods of rapid developments there were any number of quick changes of slogans, forms of struggles and organisation. Lenin and his Bolshevik following were in the forefront carrying out the uncompromising struggle against individual terrorism, characterising it as ‘intelligentsia terrorism’, as harmful to the revolutionary struggle of the working class, while remaining the staunchest advocates of an armed mass insurrection and uprising to achieve revolutionary power. He did not permit premature armed skirmishes before the revolution was ripe in 1905, and was quick and alert in giving the call for the armed uprising in 1905, the moment the time was ripe. See how Lenin puts things: ‘Intelligentsia terrorism and the mass movement of the working class were separate and this separateness deprived them on their full force. That is precisely what the revolutionary Social Democrats have been saying all along. For this very reason, they have always been opposed to terrorism and the vacillations towards terrorism which members of the intellectual wing of our Party have often displayed. For this reason, precisely, the old Iskra took a position against terrorism when it wrote in issue No 48. ‘The terrorist struggle of the old type was the riskiest form of revolutionary struggle, and those who engaged in it had the reputation of being resolute, self sacrificing people. Now, however, when demonstrations develop into acts of open resistance in the Government... the old terrorism ceases to be an exceptionally daring method of struggle’ (Vol. 8, P.160) But he treated ‘insurrection’ with all the seriousness it deserved and never as a ‘pastime’ as some ultra-revolutionaries of our time who know of no other form of struggle except ‘armed struggle’ for all the countries in all the continents though they boastfully claim to be pure ‘Leninists’ and to have monopoly of Marxism- Leninism. “‘Insurrection’ is an important word. A call to insurrection is an extremely serious call. The more complex the social system, the better the organisation of State power, and the more perfected the military machine, the more impermissible is it to launch such a slogan without due thought...Important words must be used with circumspection. Enormous difficulties have to be faced in translating them into important deeds... The slogan of insurrection is a slogan for deciding the issue by material force, which in present day European civilisation can only be military force. This slogan should not be put forward until the general prerequisites for revolution have matured, until the masses have definitely shown that they have been roused and are ready to act, until the external circumstances have led to an open crisis. But once such a slogan has been issued, it would be an errant disgrace to retreat from it, back to moral force again, to one of the conditions that prepare the ground for an uprising to a ‘possible transition’ etc...etc.’ (Vol. 9, Pp 367 – 69) Slogan of Armed Uprising Once he scented the rising revolutionary mood of the masses and the sweep of their revolutionary actions, he was quick to advance the slogan of armed uprising as a slogan of action. Describing the developments he states: ‘The workers’ movement is St Petersburg these days has made gigantic strides. Economic demands are giving way to political demands. The strike is turning into general strike and it has led to an unheard of colossal demonstration; the prestige of the tsarist name has been ruined for good. The uprising has begun. Force against force. Street fighting is raging, barricades are being thrown up, rifles are cracking, guns are roaring. Rivers of blood are flowing; the civil war for freedom is blazing up... The slogan of the workers has become: Death or Freedom!’ (Vol. 8, P. 71) Condemning all those who were talking against the workers taking to arms as cowards, betrayers and traitors of the revolution, he points out: ‘Social Democracy has not advanced the slogan of insurrection on the spur of the movement. It has always fought, and will continue to fight, against revolutionary phase mongering, and it will always demand a sober estimation of forces and analysis of the given situation. The Social Democratic Party has ever since 1902 spoken of preparing the uprising, without ever confounding this work of preparation with the senseless artificial improvisation of rebellions which would merely dissipate our forces uselessly. And only now, after Ninth January, has the workers’ party placed the slogan of insurrection on the order of the day, only now has the necessity of the uprising and the urgency of mobilising for it, been recognised. The autocracy itself has made this slogan a practical slogan of the working class movement’ (Vol. 8, P. 540) After the major engagements are over between the forces of revolution and counter revolution, and the revolutionary forces courted defeat in them, there appeared widespread partisan armed actions ‘conducted by individuals and by small groups’. Lenin observed that the ‘usual appraisal of the struggle we are describing is that it is anarchism, Blanquism, the old terrorism, the acts of individuals isolated from the masses, which demoralise the workers, repel wide strata of the population, disorganise the movement and injure the revolution’. But he refuted such an appraisal and argued: ‘Nobody will be so bold as to call these activities of Lettish Social Democrats anarchism, Blanquism or terrorism. Why? Because here, we have a clear connection between the new forms of struggle and the uprising, which broke out in December, and which is again brewing’. (Vol. 11, Pp. 216-217) Then again after a few months of such strong defence of this form of partisan armed struggle, he advocated its stoppage, firmly coming against using it, since the revolutionary upsurge had receded and these partisan armed actions, instead of assisting the movement, had begun disorganising it. His mind was alert and agile to concretely study the concrete conditions for any tactics he was working out. He writes, ‘to attempt to answer yes or no to the question whether any particular means of struggle should be used, without making a detailed examination of the concrete situation, of the given stage of its development, means completely to abandon the Marxist position’ (Vol. 11, Pp. 216 – 217, Emphasis added) It is the deplorable lack of such concrete study of concrete conditions that is at the root of the malady of our present day ‘Naxalite revolutionaries’ which has landed them in all sorts of reckless, adventurist gambles. This is a disease quite common to the petty bourgeois intellectuals, when they are either too young and immature, or are frustrated. They take the name of Lenin and Leninism in vain while they outright ignore its most fundamental requisite, i.e. ‘the most essential thing in Marxism, the living soul of Marxism, is the concrete analysis of concrete conditions’. Swift Change of Tactics Let us see how Lenin, during the same period of 1905 – 07, as well as during 1917, had approached the question of participation in the parliamentary forms of struggle, i.e. taking part or not taking part in the elections to the tsarist Duma and the Constituent Assembly. Within a short period of one or two years and of a few months in the case of the Constituent Assembly, tactics were swiftly changed to suit the rapidly developing events. Boycott of elections to the Duma and subsequent participation in the elections to the Constituent Assembly, on the eve of the capture of power and after the capture of power, but again a decision to disperse the Constituent Assembly, were all taken in quick succession. Summarising the lessons of the boycott and non boycott in November 1906, Lenin had the following to state: ‘As for ourselves – we have not repented. We said and still say: boycott or non boycott is a question not of principle, but of expediency. The boycott of the First Duma, was expedient. It gave the mass of the people a vivid, concrete, proletarian appraisal of the Duma as an institution incapable of solving the fundamental problems of the revolution. The dissolution of the Duma and all that followed it have confirmed this appraisal; the mass of the people clearly perceive that here too, the proletariat proved to be their natural leader in the revolution, warning them beforehand of the sterility of constitutional illusions! The boycott diverted the attention and the forces of the Government, and thus contributed to the victory of the bourgeois opposition at the elections. The boycott united the broad proletarian masses in a single act of revolutionary protest. Its agitational and organisational effect was enormous’. ‘The boycott performed a great service – but its work is already done. A proper appraisal of the Duma was given, a telling blow was struck at parliamentary illusion – there is no need to do it over again. At the present time, a boycott will not divert the forces of the Government – the latter has certainly learned the lesson of the past elections. The work of agitation and organisation can be performed just as well by taking part in elections as by boycotting them – unless the electoral law is changed very much for the worse. If it is, then, perhaps we may have to resort to the boycott again. But we may not have time to bother with Duma elections at all if big revolutionary battles begin again’ (Vol. 11, Pp. 270 – 271) Commenting on the tactics of convening the Constituent Assembly and its subsequent dispersal, Lenin writes: ‘We took part in the elections to the Russian bourgeois parliament, the Constituent Assembly, in September – November 1917. Were our tactics correct or not? Did not we, the Russian Bolsheviks, have more right in September – November 1917 than any Western Communists to consider that parliamentarism was politically obsolete in Russia? Of course we did, for the point is not whether bourgeois parliaments have existed for a long or short time, but how far the broad masses of the working people are prepared –ideologically, politically and practically – to accept the Soviet system and disperse the bourgeois democratic parliament. That owing to a number of special considerations the urban working class, and the soldiers and peasants of Russia were exceptionally well prepared to accept the Soviet system, and to disperse the most democratic of bourgeois parliaments, is an absolutely incontestable and fully established fact. Nevertheless, the Bolsheviks did not boycott the Constituent Assembly, but took part in the elections both before the proletariat conquered political power and after’. ‘The conclusion which follows from this is absolutely incontrovertible; it has been proved that participation in a bourgeois democratic parliament even a few weeks before the victory of the Soviet Republic, and even after such a victory, not only does not harm the revolutionary proletariat but actually helps it to prove to the backward masses why such parliaments deserve to be dispersed; it facilitates their successful dispersal, and helps to make bourgeois parliamentarism politically obsolete’. Such are the Leninist tactics and such are the lessons summed up. February – October 1917 More thrilling and highly educative are Lenin’s tactics during the months between February and October 1917, the model tactics of the Bolshevik Party. It is now known to all who are acquainted with the A, B, C of world political history that the slogan, ‘convert the imperialist war into a civil war against one’s own bourgeoisie’ was the clarion call of Lenin and his internationalist followers. And it is also a known and established fact that the Provisional Government of Milyukov and Kerensky that came into existence following the February Revolution was pursuing the policy of imperialist war and its existence was incompatible with the activities and aspirations of the Soviets that had come into existence. Did Lenin and his Bolshevik Party make the mistake of continuing with the slogan of ‘Down with the war’ and raising the slogan of the immediate overthrow of the Provisional Government on the ground that it was continuing the imperialist war and pursuing imperialist policies? No. Based on the concrete analysis that it was a ‘dual power’ that had come into existence and that it was the ‘interlocking’ of two dictatorships, the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie on the one hand and the dictatorship of the workers and peasants on the other, in the form of Soviets, taking into account this peculiar situation, Lenin states: ‘For the Marxist, who must reckon with objective facts, with the people and classes, and not with individuals and so on, the peculiar nature of the actual situation as described above must determine the peculiar tactics for the present moment’. The tasks he deduced were: In the first place ‘our work must be one of criticism, of explaining the mistake of the petty bourgeois Socialist Revolutionary and Social Democratic parties; of preparing and welding the elements of a consciously proletarian Communist Party, and of curing the proletariat from the ‘general’ petty bourgeois intoxication, and the ‘combating’ of this unreasoning trust of the people’. Secondly, ‘The slogan ‘Down with the war’ is, of course, correct. But it fails to take into account the specific nature of the tasks of the present moment and the necessity of approaching the broad mass of the people in a different way... what is required of us is the ability to explain to the people that the social and political character of the war is determined not by the ‘good will’ of individuals and groups, or even of nations, but by the position of the class which conducts the war, by the class policy of which the war is a continuation, by the ties of capital, which is the dominant force in modern society, by the imperialist character of international capital, by Russian dependence on finance, banking and diplomacy upon Britain, France etc. He remarks that all ‘this seems to be ‘nothing more’ than propaganda work, but in reality it is most practical revolutionary work’, and ‘this and only this must be the direction or rather, the content of our propaganda’. Lenin and the Bolshevik Party not only did not raise the slogan of ‘Down with the war’ and ‘Overthrow of the Provisional Government’ as slogans of action, they also denounced such slogans as dangerous adventurism when they were advanced by a certain group of party members. Stalin explains the entire question thus: ‘Did we, the Party and Lenin, know in April 1917 that we would have to overthrow the Provisional Government of Milyukov and Kerensky, that the existence of the Provisional Government is incompatible with the activity of the Soviets, that power must pass into the hands of the Soviets? Yes, we knew this. ‘Because the Provisional Government and the petty bourgeois parties of the Socialist Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, had not yet exhausted their possibilities, were not as yet sufficiently discredited in the eyes of the millions of masses of toilers, ‘Because Lenin knew that for the overthrow of the Provisional Government and the establishment of Soviet power, only the understanding, the consciousness of the advanced group of the proletariat, the party of the proletariat, alone was insufficient, for this it was still necessary that the masses should themselves be convinced through their own experience of the correctness of such a line. ‘Because it was necessary to pass through the whole coalition bacchanalia, through the betrayals and treacheries of the petty bourgeois parties in June, July, August 1917, through the ‘honourable’ coalition of the petty bourgeois parties with Kornilov, and Milyukov, through the Kornilov revolt, etc, in order that millions of toiling masses could be convinced of the inevitability of the overthrow of the Provisional Government and the establishment of Soviet power, ‘Because only in these conditions the slogan of Soviet power, as a perspective would be converted into the slogan of Soviet power as the slogan of the day’. (Comments on Current Affairs in China, Pravda, July 28, 1927) Attention to Every Development This is not all. Lenin and his Bolshevik Party, the persistent and consistent advocates of armed insurrection to overthrow the rule of the tsarist autocracy and the rule of the exploiters, taking into serious account the concrete conditions obtaining in post February revolutionary Russia, worked their hardest to achieve the Socialist revolution, in a ‘perfectly peaceful way’. It was only after the first week of July 1917 that Lenin pointed out, ‘This slogan is no longer correct for it does not take into account that power has been transferred and the revolution has in fact been completely betrayed by Socialist Revolutionaries and Mensheviks’, and gave the clarion call, ‘Let us gather forces, reorganise them, and resolutely prepare for the insurrection, if the course of the crisis permits it on a really mass, national scale’ Having decided on the necessity for an immediate armed insurrection, Lenin neither closed his mind to further developments nor did he give up the hope and striving for a peaceful transition. On September 1, 1917, writing on the subject, he stated, ‘Now, and only now, perhaps during only a few days, or a week or two, such a Government could be set up and consolidated in a perfectly peaceful way. In all probability it could serve the peaceful advance of the whole Russian Revolution, and provide exceptionally good chances for great strides in the world movement towards peace and the victory of Socialism’. ‘In my opinion, the Bolsheviks who are partisans of world revolution and revolutionary methods may and should consent to this compromise only for the sake of the revolution’s peaceful development – an opportunity that is extremely rare in history and extremely valuable, an opportunity that only occurs once in a while’ These lines were written on September 1, but could not be sent to press at once; on September 3, he writes: ‘After reading Saturday’s and today’s papers I say to myself: perhaps it is already too late to offer a compromise. Perhaps the few days in which peaceful development was still possible have passed too. Yes, to all appearances, they have already passed – yes, to all appearances, the days when by chance the path of peaceful development became possible have already passed’. That was how the developments in months, weeks and days were taken into account by Lenin in working out tactics. And this was the Leninist method of working out tactics for the proletarian class struggle, the method of meticulous care for every detail of development, to be tested, retested and verified in practice. Writing under the caption, ‘Revolution Teaches’, he says: ‘Differences within or between political parties are usually resolved not only by polemics over by principles, but also by the course of political developments… that decisions made with regard to tactics must be verified as often as possible in the light of new political events. Such verification is necessary from the standpoint of both theory and practice; from the standpoint of theory in order to ascertain in fact whether the decision taken are correct, and what amendments to these decisions subsequent political events make necessary; from the standpoint of practice in order to learn how to use the decisions as a proper guide, to learn to consider them as directions for practical application. (Collected Works, Vol. 9, P. 146) It was such concrete analysis and study of concrete conditions, verification and checking up of the correctness or otherwise of tactics through practice, the alertness of mind to every twist and turn in the situation, and the guidance of the dictum that ‘propaganda and agitation alone are not enough to educate the masses and that theory will have no effect on the backward mass and they need practical experience’ that had enabled Lenin to gain mastery in working out the tactics of the proletarian class struggle. Indeed, it was this marvellous capacity as a master tactician that gave Lenin the courage and confidence to state, that it was too early to start the insurrection on November 6, too late to postpone it to the 8th, and correct and necessary to do it on November 7. The Provisional Government was pursuing the imperialist war and yet it was for some months considered tactically incorrect to raise the slogan ‘Down with the war’, even though it was of course correct. There was the revolutionary need to overthrow the Provisional Government and yet for some months the slogan for its overthrow and all power to the Soviets were considered tactically incorrect! From April to August 1917, the conditions for a peaceful Socialist revolution were present and such a path was opened, but later armed insurrection was found inevitable! Workers, peasants, and soldiers, by a majority were prepared to accept the Soviet system and yet it was found more useful to participate in the elections to the Constituent Assembly to facilitate its dispersal! All this looks easy when we now look back at these superb tactics but the need for mastering the Marxist science that is demanded of us to work out such correct and timely tactics is not appreciated adequately by man. Extremely Complex Situation On this occasion of Lenin’s Birth Centenary, let our Party pay its tributes to the great and unique contribution he has made to the treasure house of Marxist tactics, and strive our earnest to imbibe the basic principles behind these masterly tactics of the proletarian class struggles. Living in the second biggest populated and an underdeveloped country, and destined to work for the cause of Socialism and Communism in an extremely complicated situation as we have entered, we have to self critically examine how far we have been adhering to these principles so as to remedy all the shortcomings on this score. In concluding this article, it would be relevant to call the serious attention of all Marxist Leninists in our country to the critical and complex political situation that the revolutionary working class is currently facing. The revolutionary working class and other democratic forces, through their prolonged and bitter struggles, have succeeded in breaking the one party monopoly rule of the Congress and in throwing the ruling class parties into a political crisis, disunity and disarray. The divided Congress and disunited bourgeois political parties which are at each other’s throat, are simultaneously, each in its own way, also feverishly attempting to politically isolate our Party and the advanced revolutionary movement and direct their attack on them. How to meet this situation, how to foil those enemy plans, how to isolate the extreme reaction and expose the other bourgeois and petty bourgeois parties which are playing a double game, how to unite the democratic revolutionary forces and beat off the intended attack on our Party and the advanced revolutionary movement, etc, are the questions that face us. It is here that our Party’s understanding of Lenin’s teachings on tactics and also its political acumen are being put to serious test and trial. Let us strive our utmost to succeed and prove that we are worthy followers of Leninism. Let us remember the remarkable utterance of Lenin ‘that politics is a science and an art’ and ‘politics is more like algebra than arithmetic and still more like higher than elementary mathematics’. We cannot defeat the bourgeois politicians who for some time carry with them the advantage of their superiority in this regard unless this art and science is mastered.