Lenin CW-Vol. 23.pdf - From Marx to Mao

A CARICATURE OF MARXISM45Kievsky gets round the theoretical difficulties by a verysimple and superficial dodge, known in German as “burschikose”phraseology, i.e., primitive, crude phrases heard (andquite naturally) at student binges. Here is an example:“Universal suffrage,” he writes, “the eight-hour day andeven the republic are logically compatible with imperialism,though imperialism far from smiles [!!] on them and theirachievement is therefore extremely difficult.”We would have absolutely no objections to the burschikosestatement that imperialism far from “smiles” on the republic—afrivolous word can sometimes lend colour to a scientificpolemic!—if in this polemic on a serious issue we wereFROM MARXTO MAOgiven, in addition, an economic and political analysis of theconcepts involved. With Kievsky, however, the burschikose⋆phrase does duty for such an analysis or serves to I conceallack of it.What can this mean: “Imperialism far from smiles on therepublic”? And why?The republic is one possible form of the political superstructureof capitalist society, and, moreover, under presentdayconditions the most democratic form. To say that imperialismdoes not “smile” on the republic is to say that thereis a contradiction between imperialism and democracy. Itmay very well be that NOT Kievsky does FOR not “smile” or even “farfrom smiles” on this conclusion. Nevertheless it is irrefutable.To continue. What is the nature of this contradiction betweenimperialismCOMMERCIALand democracy? Is it a logical or illogicalcontradiction? Kievsky uses the word “logical” without stoppingto think DISTRIBUTIONand therefore does not notice that in this particularcase it serves to conceal (both from the reader’s andauthor’s eyes and mind) the very question he sets out to discuss!That question is the relation of economics to politics:the relation of economic conditions and the economic contentof imperialism to a certain political form. To say that every“contradiction” revealed in human discussion is a logicalcontradiction is meaningless tautology. And with the aidof this tautology Kievsky evades the substance of the question:Is it a “logical” contradiction between two economicphenomena or propositions (1)? Or two political phenomenaor propositions (2)? Or economic and political phenomena orpropositions (3)?