Author of quotes: Vladimir Ilyich Lenin. Page 1

The trade unions were the giant progress of the working class in the early development of capitalism as the transition from sparseness and helplessness of the workers to the rudiments of class Association. When became to grow the highest form of class Association of the proletarians revolutionary party of the proletariat (which will not deserve the name until it learns to bind the leaders with the class and with the masses into one, into something inseparable), then the trade unions inevitably began to discover the reactionary traits, a certain craft narrowness, a certain tendency to apoliticism, some stagnation, etc. But only through trade unions, through their interaction with the party of the working class anywhere in the world development of the proletariat was not and could not go. The conquest of political power by the proletariat is a gigantic forward step for the proletariat, as a class, and the party has even more and in new ways, not just in the old way, to educate the unions, to direct them, however, however, do not forget that they remain, and long will remain necessary "school of communism" and a preparatory school for the implementation of the proletarians of their dictatorship, the necessary Union of the workers for the gradual transition into the hands of the working class (not individual jobs), and then all the workers, the management of the entire economy of the country.

We can (and must) begin to build socialism not fantastic and not from a specially created us human material, but from that bequeathed to us by capitalism. This is a very "difficult", but just a different approach to the problem not so serious that it is not worth mentioning.

Capitalism inevitably leaves socialism the legacy, on the one hand, the old, centuries-old, professional and craft distinctions among the workers, on the other hand, trade unions which only very slowly, for years and years, can develop and will develop in a broader, less shops, industrial unions (covering the whole production and not just the workshops, craft or profession), and then, through these industrial unions, to move on to the destruction of the division of labor between people, to education, to the education and training of comprehensively developed and comprehensively trained people, people, who know how to do everything. This communism is, needs to go and come, but only through a long number of years. Today, almost trying to anticipate the next result is quite developed, it is strengthened and established, it is expanded and Mature communism, is still that four year old child to teach higher mathematics.

The same ridiculous childish nonsense I can not seem to us important, scientists completely and terribly revolutionary talk of the German lefts to the fact that the Communists can not and should not work in reactionary trade unions, that it is permissible to abandon this work that we must leave the trade unions and to create necessarily very new, very clean, very cute (and for the most part, probably very young) invented by the Communists "working Union," etc., etc.

The dictatorship carries out organized in the Councils the proletariat headed by the Communist party of Bolsheviks, which, according to the last party Congress (IV. 1920), 611 thousand members. The number of members fluctuated until the October revolution, and after the very first it was much smaller, even in 1918 and 1919. We fear the excessive expansion of the party, because the government parties will inevitably seek to cling careerists and charlatans, who deserve only to be shot. Last time we opened wide the door of the party - only for the workers and peasants in those days (the winter of 1919) when Yudenich was a few versts from Petrograd, and Denikin Orel (approx. 350 versts from Moscow), ie, when the Soviet Republic was threatened by a desperate, mortal danger, and when adventurers, careerists, charlatans and generally unstable people in no way could count on a lucrative career (and probably could expect the gallows and torture) by joining the Communists.

Quick change of legal and illegal work associated with the need particularly to "hide", especially to conspire it the main staff, it leaders, lead us sometimes to deeply hazards. The worst was that in 1912, the Bolshevik Central Committee included the provocateur - Malinovsky. He failed dozens and dozens of the best and most faithful comrades, summing them under hard labor and accelerating the death of many of them. If he can do any more evil, it is because we have correctly put the ratio of legal and illegal work. To gain trust we have, Malinowski, as a member of the Central Committee of the party and a Duma Deputy, was to help us put the legal daily newspaper that knew how and when the tsarist government to fight against the opportunism of the Mensheviks, to preach the fundamentals of Bolshevism in suitably disguised form. With one hand in sending to prison and to death dozens and dozens of the best leaders of Bolshevism, Malinowski should have been the other hand to help the education of tens of thousands of new Bolsheviks through the legal press. Over this fact does not prevent a good think about the German (and also English and American, French and Italian) comrades who are confronted by the task to learn how to conduct revolutionary work in reactionary trade unions.

In Russia we are experiencing (the third year after the overthrow of the bourgeoisie) the first steps of transition from capitalism to socialism or the lower stage of communism. Classes have remained and will remain everywhere for years after the conquest of power by the proletariat. Except maybe in England, where there are peasants (but there are small proprietors!), this time will be less. To destroy classes means not only to drive out the landlords and capitalists - that we relatively easy to do - it also means to destroy small producers, and they cannot drive, they cannot be suppressed, they have to get along, they can (and should) change, re only very prolonged, slow, cautious organizational work. They surround the proletariat on all sides the petty-bourgeois element, it is impregnated with it, corrupting it to him, cause constantly inside the proletariat relapses petty of being spineless, of fragmentation, of individualism, of the transitions from passion to depression. Need the strictest centralization and discipline within a political party of the proletariat to resist to the organizational role of the proletariat (which is his main role) to carry out correctly, successfully, victoriously. The dictatorship of the proletariat is a stubborn struggle, bloody and bloodless, violent and peaceful, military and economic, pedagogical and administrative, against the forces and traditions of the old society. The force of habit of millions and tens of millions is a most formidable force. Without a party of iron and tempered in struggle, without a party enjoying the confidence of all honest in the given class, without a party, able to follow the mood of the masses and to influence it, to conduct such a struggle successfully is impossible. To win large centralized bourgeoisie is a thousand times easier than to "vanquish" the millions and millions of small proprietors, and they are their everyday, routine, invisible, elusive, demoralizing activity is carried out by the same results which the bourgeoisie need, which restore the bourgeoisie. Anyone who weakens the iron discipline of the party of the proletariat (especially during its dictatorship), actually helps the bourgeoisie against the proletariat.

The monopolistic position of England singled out "labor aristocracy", promisance, opportunistic, from the "masses". The leaders of this labour aristocracy moved permanently to the side of the bourgeoisie, was, directly or indirectly, on the contents of it. Marx won himself the honourable hatred of the bastards for what was openly branded them traitors. Modern (twentieth century) imperialism created a monopoly-a privileged position for a few advanced countries, and on this basis everywhere in the II international described the type of leaders traitors, opportunists, social-chauvinists, defending the interests of his profession, his stratum of the labor aristocracy. Created isolation of the opportunist parties from the "masses", ie from the widest layers of workers, most of them, from Nahodka paid workers. The victory of the revolutionary proletariat is impossible without a struggle against this evil, without disclosure, opatrenia and expulsion opportunistic, social-traitorous leaders.

We must learn to distinguish the person who gave the bandits money and weapons to reduce brought by bandits evil and to facilitate the capture and execution of criminals, from a man who gives bandits money and weapons to participate in the division of the bandit production. In politics it is not always as easy as in childishly simple example. But those who want to invent work for this recipe, which would give pre-ready solutions for all occasions, or who promised that the policy of the revolutionary proletariat will have no difficulty and no complicated provisions that would be just a charlatan.

Currently, when I hear the attacks on our tactics in signing the Brest peace-side, such as "socialists-revolutionaries", or when I hear the remark of the comrade Lansbury made in conversation with me: "our English leaders of the trade unions say that the trade-offs are acceptable for them, if they were valid for Bolshevism", I respond usually first of all simple and "popular" comparison:
Imagine that your car is stopped by armed bandits. You give them money, passport, revolver, car. You get rid of a pleasant neighborhood with gangsters. The compromise there, of course. "Do ut des" ("give" you the money, weapons, car, "you gave" me the opportunity to leave while the going's good). But it's hard to find a sane man who would declare such a compromise "fundamentally unacceptable" or declared the person who has entered into such a compromise, an accomplice of the bandits (even though the bandits, sitting on the car, could use his weapons for new robberies). Our compromise with the bandits of German imperialism was such a compromise.

The state should not be to religion, religious communities should not be associated with state power. Everyone must be absolutely free to profess any religion or not to recognize any religion.

The manufacturers and masters say that our workers are ignorant and rude - because with them and have to turn rude. In the working class we do have a little education and a lot of brutality, - this cannot be denied. Just who is to blame most? To blame the manufacturers, craftsmen, officials who keep themselves with the workers, as bars with the serfs, do not want to recognize in the work an equal human being. Workers handle a polite request or question - and meet everywhere swearing, rudeness, threats.

Revolution can be and probably will consist of long battles, of several periods of onset, with intervals of counter-revolutionary convulsions of the bourgeois system.

Practice higher (theoretical) knowledge, for it has not only the dignity of universality, but also the immediate reality.