Foreword to Deception of the People with Slogans of Freedom and Equality

Lenin’s article exposing the reactionary essence of the slogan of “freedom and equality” of the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries, written on May,1919, which was published in the pamphlet N. Lenin, Two Speeches at the First All-Russia Congress on Adult Education, Moscow, (May 6-19, 1919). It was included in Vol. 36 of the second edition of Complete Works of Lenin.

In the spring of 1919, under the leadership of Lenin and the Bolshevik party, the Russian proletariat and the broad masses of the working people carried out an arduous struggle against the counter revolutionary forces of imperialism and the white guards. However, at this time, the self-styled “democrat” and “socialist” Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionary Party echoed the second international revisionists, attacked the Bolshevik party and the Soviet regime, publicized the slogan of “freedom” and “equality”, deceived the people and cooperated with the armed interference of imperialism. Therefore, exposing the reactionary essence of these slogans became an urgent task on the political and ideological front, and therefore an important part of socialist re-education in Russia as a whole. Therefore, Lenin made this speech at the closing of the First All-Russia Congress on Adult Education.

The speech consists of an introduction and five parts. Lenin responded to some important theories and political problems that opportunists attacked the Bolsheviks most intensely at that time, such as the relationship between revolution and war, the two different natures and ways of making agreements with the imperialists, the attitude towards democracy, freedom and equality, and the relationship between democracy and proletarian dictatorship, so as to defend and develop Marxist theory of freedom and equality, and elucidate the theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat. In the introduction, Lenin pointed out briefly that the so-called “democrats” and “socialists” were slandering the Bolshevik party on several political issues, as well as the necessity and urgency of fighting back against them.

The first part is about how to deal with the difficulties encountered in the process of revolution and transition to a new system. Firstly, Lenin expounded the legitimacy of the Soviet regime’s armed self-defense. Lenin refuted the accusations of the Mensheviks and the Social Revolutionaries that “the Bolsheviks promised peace, but in fact there were continuous wars, which brought suffering to the people”. He pointed out that the Bolsheviks did set out to make a revolution against the bourgeoisie, to overthrow the bourgeois government violently, they did this to extricate Russia, and then the whole of mankind, from the imperialist slaughter and to put an end to all war. These attempts to emerge from this imperialist slaughter, to smash the rule of the bourgeoisie, prompted imperialist countries to attack Russia, which caused another revolutionary war. Lenin quoted a series of armed interference of imperialism in the South and North of Russia and pointed out that it was a kind of counter-revolutionary war imposed by imperialism on Soviet Russia. It forced the Soviet regime to take up arms for self-defense and launch a revolutionary war. The second was the issue of distinguishing wars of different natures. Lenin argued that we must distinguish between the natures of wars. There are just and unjust wars, progressive and reactionary wars, wars waged by advanced classes and wars waged by reactionary classes, wars waged for the purpose of perpetuating class oppression and wars waged for the purpose of overthrowing oppression. Since all the counter-revolutionary classes are fighting against the revolution, “we must carry out a revolutionary war”. The war being waged in Soviet Russia at that time against foreign armed intervention and the suppression of the domestic white bandit rebellion was such a revolutionary war. The third was, there had never been, nor could there ever be, a revolution that was guaranteed against a long and arduous struggle, and perhaps filled with the most desperate sacrifices. Mensheviks and Social Revolutionists confused the destruction and sacrifices in two different types of wars, they denied that any revolutionary struggle of the oppressed classes should perhaps be filled with the most desperate sacrifices, for the sake of its victory, when all the propertied, all the counter-revolutionary classes were fighting against the revolution.

In the second part of the speech, Lenin discussed the fundamental differences between two types of agreements with imperialists. Lenin criticized the statement by the Socialist-Revolutionaries which equalized their alliance with the imperialist Entente allies and the temporary agreement of “Brest Peace Treaty” with the German imperialism made by the Bolsheviks. Here Lenin made a vivid metaphor: Outwardly it resembles ours as much as the act of a man who gives weapons and money to bandits resembles any act of this nature, irrespective of its goal and character, at all events, irrespective of the goal for which I give the bandits money and weapons: whether it is to get rid of them when they attack me and I find myself in a position where if I do not give them my revolver they will kill me; or I give the bandits money and weapons for the purpose of robbery, of which I am aware, and in the proceeds of which I am to share. In order to safeguard the interests of the revolution, the Bolshevik party was forced to sign the “Brest Peace Treaty” with the German imperialism. This concession agreement with imperialism could not be compared with the agreement entered into by Socialist-Revolutionaries with the Entente to fight against the workers’ revolution of their fatherland.

Lenin revealed inconsistence of the pretext of agreement of Social Revolutionists: “They say, even if they are giving assistance to those bandits, the British, French and American imperialists, they are doing so only in the interests of democracy, of the Constituent Assembly, of government by the people, of the unity of the working classes of the population, and in order to overthrow those tyrants and usurpers, the Bolsheviks!” Lenin also pointed out: “Everybody who engages in politics heard that politics are not judged by bare statements but by real class content.” Facts have proved that Socialist-Revolutionary Party reached an agreement with British, French and American imperialists to oppose the Russian Revolution, the Bolsheviks. Lenin also proved by historical facts that a temporary agreement made with some enemies for the fundamental interests of the revolution bears a very different nature. In the 1770s during the war of independence the American revolutionary people fighting to liberate themselves entered into agreements with Spanish and French imperialism, who at that time had colonies in neighboring parts of America. In alliance with these bandits, the American people fought the English and liberated themselves from them. No one has the “temerity publicly to blame the American people for this, that this agreement violated the principles of democracy and freedom”. The Socialist-Revolutionaries aimed to use some superficial similarities and aim to confuse the two things that are incompatible with each other in order to defend their traitorous behavior.

The third part of the pamphlet was about the Bolshevik attitude towards democracy and freedom.

Firstly, the text expounded that “democracy” and “freedom” in class society have class nature. Mensheviks and Socialist- Revolutionaries tried to repeat Kautsky’s argument, put democracy against dictatorship, and attacked Bolsheviks for destroying freedom and democracy. Lenin refuted this and pointed out that if freedom conflicts with labor’s freedom from capital oppression, it is a lie. In a class society, there has never been a general freedom and democracy. Freedom and democracy are always concrete. We must make a concrete class analysis of them. The bourgeoisie advocates “freedom” and “equality” to cover up the freedom of commodity owners and capital to oppress the working people. When history has developed to the time when the proletariat overthrows the rule of the capital, to talk about “general democracy” and use it against the dictatorship of the proletariat is to safeguard the rule of the bourgeoisie.

The second point was to elaborate the role of bourgeois democracy and freedom in different historical periods. Marxism showed that the democracy and freedom of the bourgeoisie played a progressive role in overthrowing the feudal autocracy. But in the struggle of the proletariat to overthrow capitalism, it is a tool for the bourgeoisie to oppose the proletariat.

Thirdly, it exposed the hypocrisy of freedom and democracy in capitalist countries and demonstrates the importance of depriving the bourgeoisie of freedom and defeating the resistance of exploiters under the dictatorship of the proletariat. (1) It shows that freedom and democracy in capitalist countries are the prerogative of the bourgeoisie. Taking the freedom of assembly as an example, the freedom and democracy written in the constitutions of all bourgeois republics is a deception that legalizes private ownership. For the proletarians, it’s just empty talk. When the assembly place belongs to the private property of capital, and these properties are protected by the whole capitalist system, what about the freedom of assembly of the working people? What is the value of empty and hypocritical freedom of assembly when workers are enslaved by capital and overwhelmed by capital work? (2) It shows that if workers want to get freedom, they must eliminate capitalist private ownership and liberate working people from capitalist oppression. “Confiscate the tall buildings first, and then talk about freedom.” (3) The lesson of history shows that after the proletariat gained power, freedom and democracy must not be given to the defeated bourgeoisie. Otherwise, “it is a great crime against the workers”. During the period when the British bourgeois revolution established the Republic in 1649 and the Jacobin dictatorship of the French bourgeois revolution in 1792-1793, the bourgeoisie did not give democracy and freedom to the overthrown monarchs at that time but instead completely crushed them. When the bourgeoisie is overthrown but not eliminated, class struggle assumes its acutest forms. Therefore, the proletariat must not give freedom to the bourgeoisie, but must deprive them of their freedom. After the proletariat seizes power, it must rely on the dictatorship of the proletariat to fight against the bourgeoisie mercilessly, resolutely defeat their resistance and safeguard the freedom of the workers. Only when classes are eliminated can we talk about democracy and freedom for all.

The fourth part is about equality. Lenin exposed and criticized the bourgeois equality view of the Mensheviks and the Socialist-Revolutionaries and elaborated the Marxist equality view incisively.

First of all, he exposed the deception of bourgeois equality view, and explained Marxist equality view. Firstly, Lenin made a class historical analysis of equality and exposed the deception of the slogan “equality for all”. It is pointed out that the bourgeois revolution against feudal rule was carried out under the slogan of equality. The bourgeoisie vigorously advocates equality without hierarchy, which is of progressive significance during the overthrown of feudal hierarchy. However, after the establishment of bourgeois rule, there has never been any real equality, because the ownership of means of production, money and capital prevents people from enjoying such equality. Lenin pointed out that the equality of the bourgeoisie is nothing more than the equality of the trade and exchange of commodity owners. Under the cover of this equality, capitalists exploit workers cruelly. Under the socialist system, it is possible in a relatively short period of time to confiscate capital and the means of production. But the commodity economy still exists and money will remain and remain for a fairly long time in the transition period from the old capitalist system to the new socialist system. Before that, equality can only be verbal and constitutional, because there will always be people who use commodity currency relations to engage in exploitation activities.

Secondly, expounding the proletarian equality view. First of all, Lenin pointed out that, as long as the class distinction between workers and peasants exists, complete equality does not exist.In response to the attacks on Bolsheviks by the Mensheviks and the Socialist-Revolutionaries, that undermined the equality of workers and peasants, and advocated the so-called “labor democracy”, “majority decision” and “implementation of free food trade”, Lenin replied that under the socialist system, class differences between workers and peasants still exist, so there is no equality. Farmers have long been small producers with duality. As laborers, they are the enemies of capitalism because their food is exploited by landlords, capitalists and businessmen. At the same time, they are also property-owners and the owners of food products with a spontaneous capitalist tendency. They are used to buying and selling food freely. At that time, during the period of civil war, the Soviet regime carried out the surplus grain collection system and banned private grain trade. However, some rich peasants refused to sell surplus grain to the state and speculated on grain. Lenin pointed out that in this case, to advocate the freedom of grain trade is to restore the freedom of capitalism. The second point is to explain how to deal with the development of production during the war. Lenin refuted the fallacy that the Mensheviks and the Socialist-Revolutionaries attacked the Bolsheviks for “not developing production” and accusing them of having introduced “consumers communism” or communism for soldiers. Lenin pointed out that during the period of civil war in Russia, the whole country was destroyed by the war of imperialist plunder, and the food supply was very difficult. The primary productive force of human society is the workers, the working people. If they can survive their lives everything can be saved and restored. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary to collect surplus grain to guarantee the lives of the workers. Only by ensuring the life of workers one can talk about production and war and save the country and socialism.

The fifth part is about the victory or failure of the revolution. Firstly, Lenin exposed the despicable attempt of Kautsky to frighten Bolsheviks with the idea that the “revolution may be defeated”, and scientifically analyzed the dialectical relationship between failure and victory of the revolution. He pointed out that there has never been, there is none, there will not be, nor can there be a revolution which did not stand some risk of defeat. A revolution is a struggle of classes that has reached the peak of ferocity. As long as the revolution pushes the advanced class, which has seriously attacked the exploitation system, forward, it will win even if it suffered defeat. Secondly, Lenin cited the example of the French bourgeois revolution at the end of the 18th century to illustrate this dialectical relationship. He pointed out that, although it was crushed, the French Revolution was nevertheless triumphant, because it laid down for the whole world such firm foundations of bourgeois democracy and bourgeois freedom, that they could never be uprooted. Russia’s proletarian revolution is incomparable to the French bourgeois revolution. It has created a new state organisation, the Soviet organisation, which has achieved a moral victory among the working class all over the world, and gained their broad sympathy and support. Lenin was full of the belief that the revolution would win. He firmly argued that even if the Soviet regime was temporarily frustrated, the revolution would still win. Thirdly, Lenin discussed the importance of establishing a higher level labor organization for the victory of the revolution. He pointed out that the dictatorship of the proletariat is inevitable and absolutely necessary to get rid of capitalism. Dictatorship does not mean only violence, although it is impossible without violence, but also a form of the organisation of labor superior to the preceding forms. To solve this organizational task well and to use the discipline of the proletariat to overcome disruptive, petty-bourgeois laxity, which has played a role in disintegration, is ten million times more difficult than to suppress landlords and capitalists. But if this task is solved, socialism will win in the end. All activities of social education and school education should be subordinated to this purpose.

Finally, Lenin pointed out that no matter how many difficulties and setbacks the revolution encountered, no force in the world can drag mankind backward.

Marxism has always been opposed to talking about “democracy”, “freedom” and “equality” in an abstract way. As Lenin expressed, such beautiful slogans as freedom, equality and the will of the majority should not deceive anybody in this way. This work is of great significance for us to establish socialist democracy, freedom and equality.