How to Win the Revolution?

Many movement activists wanted revolution and were waiting for that event to come. However, when faced with questions about their readiness to face revolution, they retreated. They did not discuss this any further. For them movement is everything. Theoretical questions never alight in their heads, even if there are they are only for a moment and then disappear. They are the passive subjects of the revolution. Consciously or not they have adopted an anti-theory stance. This attitude is dangerous, and from the vanguard's point of view it is fatal. Such an attitude can never lead a revolution let alone win it.

Revolution is a spontaneous uprising of the masses. Revolutions can occur for various reasons. It could happen because of political decay from corruption scandals; by tyranny; by the economic crisis; and therefore revolution never has a date when it can happen. For this reason, it is impossible to artificially create the situation that is the backdrop for the revolution. Through its contradictions capitalism provides all the fuel for the revolution itself.

But not every revolution automatically leads to a socialist victory. History proves this time and time again. Even the many demonstrations and major strikes in history that were able to overthrow a regime have not been able to overthrow the capitalist system. As was the case with the 98' Reform Movement, although the masses spilled into the streets and were able to overthrow the Suharto dictatorship, the problem of power was still lagging behind. The regime changed but the foundations of capitalism were still intact.

Revolution is not a simple event, it involves masses, class and leadership. There are many groups and leaders who all at the time of revolution want to gain political power for the benefit of their class. The masses newly awakened by the revolution found themselves confused by the multitude of leaders and groups. They will test these leaderships one by one until they fall on the leadership that best represents their interests. Because of this, revolutions are always marked by the ups and downs of these parties and the replacement of the moderate wing for the most radical wing. From this, building a revolutionary party and leadership is crucial to winning the revolution.

The example of the Cuban Revolution is often cited by many on the Left as proof that building a revolutionary party is unnecessary in the struggle for power. But facts prove otherwise. On January 1, 1959, a general strike paralyzed Cuba and forced dictator Batista to flee the country. Within days the guerrillas of the 26th of July Movement led by Fidel Castro and Ernesto Che Guevara were accepted as heroes by the masses.

For many years Cuban workers played a key role in the struggle against imperialism. This fact was marked by a large wave of strikes and demonstrations, including armed uprisings and the formation of revolutionary councils at sugar mills in the 1930s. This led to the overthrow of the US General Machado's puppet government which was soon replaced by an army coup led by Fulgencio Batista. Batista was replaced by a corrupt civilian government at Grau San Martín which was in turn overthrown by Batista returning in a second military coup in 1952. The succession of corrupt leadership and military coups played out by the ruling class made the people's anger grow more acute by the day. The United States and their local criminals created widespread discontent among the population, including the petty bourgeois strata. Thousands of small businessmen bankrupted by big monopolies, students resentful of domination of their countries by foreign powers, and small landowners crippled by large US-backed landlords joined the ranks of the opposition against the regime. In this situation all groups can lead the revolution but the success of the socialist revolution is another matter.

This event was followed by the takeover of power by Fidel Castro, who, due to conflicting US interests, was forced to nationalize important companies in Cuba. Fidel declared himself in a speech in April 1959. "I have said in a clear and definitive way that we are not Communists... The door is open to private investment that contributes to Cuba's industrial development."

The fact is that Fidel Castro and his friends had absolutely no intention of eliminating capitalism and landlords in Cuba. They were driven to do so by a combination of US policy errors and mass pressure from the Cuban people.

But the Cuban Revolution was led by a handful of intellectuals and in the course of the fighting no more than a few hundred people participated. Mass plays a secondary role. There were workers' and peasants' militias and revolutionary committees, but their role was not to govern but only to approve decisions taken elsewhere. Hundreds of thousands of people gathered to hear the leaders speak, but they were not allowed to make a decision.

This revolution has the support of the masses because of its benefits which are visible to many, i.e. great improvements in living standards, eradication of illiteracy, one of the best health systems in the world, etc. But without workers' control over state management and the economy there would be no socialism. The rise of bureaucracy and mismanagement is an unavoidable consequence. This is one of the most important lessons to be learned since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Of course, there have been many similar events of revolutions in the colonial countries since 1945, but from all of these events, although their 'Left' leaders succeeded in holding the leadership of the revolution, in reality they were not able to sustain the revolution. Then what we witnessed during this period was the birth of caricatured regimes out of socialism, namely a state with a planned economy minus the democracy of the working people.

Marxism teaches that the revolution against capitalism and the task of building socialism can only be achieved through the collective and conscious action of the workers themselves. Marxism also teaches that without an organization, the working class is just raw material ready to be exploited. For Marxists the revolutionary party is the organ of history through which the proletariat becomes class conscious. Those who claim that the revolutionary party is irrelevant or not needed to win the revolution are wrong. On the contrary, a party of this kind is an absolute instrument for the victory of the socialist revolution.

A revolutionary party like this cannot be improvised when needed or spontaneously created when a revolution breaks out. The revolutionary party must be built consistently and consciously. Such a party must be guided by the methods of scientific socialism. All of these experiences have been demonstrated by the experience of the Bolsheviks.

In difficult history we find a group or party capable of working as flexibly and principledly as the Bolsheviks. The party which started with a small group of no more than half a dozen then grew into thousands and won the revolution in October 1917. Their cadres were forged, tested and renewed by the embers of the class struggle. Starting from underground work under police censorship and supervision, working in parliament, in war, and seizing power and maintaining it. After succeeding in seizing power the party must face 21 imperialist countries and win them. All of this required the long work of educating the initial cadres. That is why revolutionary parties always start from small groups of people who are committed to socialism.

Today we are starting the same thing that the Bolsheviks did more than a hundred years ago. We acknowledge that we are small to begin the enormous work of winning the revolution. But we have strong ideas and ideas that have proven to bring victory to the workers. We are sure to find all the resources we need. We are not shy about claiming to be the heirs of the Bolsheviks. We want to make history of the next revolution! We want to win! We are building Bolshevism! Finally, Bolshevism is conscious will to win the revolution! For that, join us!