Lenin's lesson on historical analogy and the struggle against opportunistic falsification of history.

written by Wolfgang Eggers

on occasion of 21st of January 2021, the 97th death anniversary of Lenin.


The propagation of the historical events of the Workers' World Movement and the history of the World Communist Movement, is reflected in our Red Calendar, published by the Comintern (SH) at the beginning of each year, including the Red Calendar 2021.

As the Sections continue to build up, they are increasingly given the task of working independently on the history of the revolutionary movement in their own country, which is not only an important lever for the socialist revolution in their own country, but above all an important lever for the world socialist revolution. It is a fact that the sections are still very inexperienced to perform this task correctly on behalf of the Comintern (SH). In order to help the sections, the Comintern (SH) has decided to work out some guidelines to overcome the revisionist historiography at home and to deal critically with the historical sources of the modern revisionists. The following article, written by comrade Wolfgang Eggers on the occasion of the 97th anniversary of Comrade Lenin's death, serves this purpose.

Dear comrades !

In our annual plan 2021 we wrote:
The Comintern (SH) continues to hold high the banner of the communist tradition on a world scale in 2021.
Too much anti-communism is spread all over the world. All the more it is our duty and also honor to maintain and defend our own communist tradition. Our roots are a never-ending source of our strength. With this strength we unite the communists all over the world and finally the whole world proletariat, too. The communist tradition cannot be better represented than by the Communist International !
Our experience shows that comrades all over the world are grateful and feel deep sympathy with the Comintern (SH). "Commemorative Days" - this is indeed a collective propagandist, agitator and organizer of the Comintern (SH) and its sections. This lever of party building should not be underestimated and further cultivated in 2021!
Communists around the world can count on the fact that we will not give up publishing "commemorative days" in 2021.
There are also many young comrades who welcome our efforts in this matter. "Commemorative days" are one of the most important events of passing our tradition from one generation to the next.
It is important to mention that the Comintern (SH) will always look at historical events in the mirror of the present and the future. Our greetings should always be related to the present situation. In this way, we learn from historical events for the purpose of our daily global class struggle. We integrate historical events into our class struggle.
The extent of implementation of all these proposals of historical dates depends on our forces (- some will be added and some will be omitted). The "Red Calendar 2021" contains more events than can be covered by our forces. We will make a selection of what can and cannot be tackled. We definitely need to focus our forces on RILU (100 years) and Paris Commune (150 years).
Sections must adopt some dates of the "Red Calendar 2021" that concern historical events in their own country. (Division of labor between headquarters and sections).



* * *

The Comintern (SH) assumes that the negative influence of modern revisionism on proletarian historiography, especially under the conditions of revisionism in power, still has such devastating effects today that proletarian historiography has been displaced and almost completely replaced by revisionist historiography. The bourgeois historians of open anti-communism work closely with the revisionist historians who falsely claim to be representatives of communist historiography. The ruling class of the bourgeoisie, as well as all the preceding ruling classes, were classes that ruled over the historiography, they were all classes of falsifiers of history. The world proletariat is the only class whose historiography is scientific, that is, based on objective truths.

Only with the Archive of the Comintern (SH), after 20 years, we have succeeded in ending this untenable state of affairs. In 20 years we have fought for the liberation of proletarian revolutionary historiography from the shackles of revisionist historiography. But we are still far from the goal of completely smashing the revisionist historiography, without which we cannot destroy the openly anti-communist historiography of the bourgeoisie either.

It is the neo-revisionists today who use the rich material of the revisionist historiography of social-fascist states to fulfill their lackey service, namely to fight our Stalinist-Hoxhaist historiography, the historiography of the world socialist revolution.

Stalinism-Hoxhaism teaches that the essence of neo-revisionist falsification of history is mainly to restore the historiography of revisionism in order to use it as a weapon against the Stalinist-Hoxhaist historiography.

To refer in words to the historiography of the 5 classics of Marxism-Leninism, but in reality to deny and falsify it, this is one of the essential features of the neo-revisionist falsification of history.

To fight the bourgeoisie's falsification of history in words, but to deny and falsify the revolutionary history of the proletariat in deeds - this is the task of opportunist falsification of history on behalf of the bourgeoisie.

Everywhere and always, opportunism clutches at the minute, at the moment, at today, for it is unable to appreciate the connection between “yesterday” and “tomorrow”. Marxism, on the other hand, demands a clear awareness of this connection. (Lenin, Volume 17, Marxism and "Nasha Sarja")

It is the task of the Comintern (SH) and its sections to systematically refute and correct the (revisionist) falsifications of history in all fields of ideology, economy, politics and culture. Above all, we have to attack the falsifications of history about the 5 classics of Marxism-Leninism, about the Comintern and about Lenin's and Stalin's Soviet Union and about Comrade Enver Hoxha's socialist Albania non-stop by advancing and consolidating our Stalinist-Hoxhaist historiography.


* * *

Lenin teaches that the ruling class does not only deny and falsify the revolutionary history of the oppressed classes, but even sacrifices its initially own revolutionary past when it comes to putting down the revolutionary movement of the oppressed classes and maintaining bourgeois rule.

The entire history of capital is one of violence and plunder, blood and corruption.“ (Lenin, Volume 21, page 105)

Bourgeois historical science is a means to the end of oppression and exploitation.

Proletarian historical science is a means to the end of liberation and elimination of exploitation and oppression.

Just as the world bourgeoisie and the world proletariat face each other as hostile classes, the historical sciences of the ruling and oppressed classes also face each other as hostile.

The bourgeoisie fears the proletarian historiography about the struggle of the proletariat for the downfall of capitalism. That is why it has hired paid scribblers to falsify the results of proletarian historical research and to "prove" the "eternity" and "unshakability" of the capitalist world order.

That is why the proletariat fights the bourgeois historical science with the proletarian historical science, basing itself on the 5 classics of Marxism-Leninism, especially on Lenin, whose 97th death anniversary we want to commemorate today.

 

* * *

Concrete-historical analysis, Lenin teaches, demands the study of historical events in their interrelation and causality.

The revisionists replaced dialectics with metaphysics. They metaphysically separate the general from the particular, elevate it to the abstract, and contrast it with the concrete.

The revisionists ignore the concrete-historical content of events and make use of historical analogies further back in time to justify their bourgeois policy directed against the revolution.

Lenin teaches that historical parallels are permissible only in a limited sense. Every historical comparison as its weaknesses and risks. But scientifically applied - that is, using the method of dialectical and historical materialism - lessons from historical comparisons have contributed to the enrichment of the great treasure of Marxist theory, including the further development of Marxism-Leninism through Stalinism-Hoxhaism. Today, Stalinism-Hoxhaism is only emerging. It has only aroused the interest of a small minority of world revolutionaries and has by no means yet reached the masses who are currently still asleep, at least as far as their interest in Stalinism-Hoxhaism is concerned. The glorious period in the history of Stalinism-Hoxhaism has not yet begun. This period will begin only when Stalinism-Hoxhaism has been grasped by the masses as an invincible ideological weapon of their liberation. We must look back at the historical path of Marxism and then Leninism. Didn't it also take decades for Marxism-Leninism to capture the masses and lead them to victorious revolution ? So, with confidence, we will continue to work on restoration of the history of the World Revolution.

* * *

What does proletarian historiography teach about analogies ?

Especially with regard to the periods of history, analogies are important. From the class struggles of the past ages we can draw conclusions in certain respects to the class struggles of the present. The function of historical analogy in many cases is not the same as in the explanation of prehistory, namely, to draw conclusions from what is known to what is unknown, but consists in a sharp illumination of the known facts by emphasizing the coincident and incongruous features of the analogous historical situation.

Stalin pointed out that the revolution taking place in one country can learn from revolutions taking place in other countries, even if these revolutions do not belong to the same type.

Engels, in his work "The German Peasant War", used in a very instructive way the analogy between the German conditions in the period of 1525 and those around 1848 to characterize the basic question of German history.

* * *

And Lenin, generalizing, distinguishes two interrelated periods in the dialectic of historical development:

"The dialectics of historical development was such that in the first period, it was the attainment of immediate reforms in every sphere of the country’s life that was on the order of the day. In the second period it was the critical study of experience, its assimilation by wider sections, its penetration, so to speak, into the subsoil, into the back ward ranks of the various classes." (Lenin, Volume 17, "Certain Features of the Historical Development of Marxism")

If you cite an historical parallel, you must single out and point out exactly what is similar in the different events; if not, what you get will not be an historical comparison but words cast to the winds..“ (Lenin, Volume 17, "Those Who Would Liquidate Us", Chapter IV)

Both, as far as the difference between international and national historical events is concerned, especially as far as the world revolution and the revolution in individual countries and regions are concerned, and as far as the differences in the comparison of historical epochs (e.g. different stages of development of capitalism) are concerned, the Marxist theoretician must neither make the mistake of ignoring these differences and generalizing arbitrarily, nor make the mistake of tearing apart existing correlations. In short, one must neither lump everything together in history nor take individual events out of context.

Historical erroneous conclusions are by no means equal to historical erroneous conclusions. For there is a big difference whether we Stalinists-Hoxhaists draw historical false conclusions because we have not correctly applied the method of dialectical and historical materialism, or whether the opportunists deliberately try to mislead the masses with historical false conclusions. The result, however, is the same: With every historical fallacy, the world socialist revolution moves away from victory. Therefore, we must learn better and better how to correctly apply the dialectical method to any historical comparisons and avoid misconceptions.

The opportunists like to draw historical parallels when it comes to keeping the proletariat from its current revolutionary struggle and directing the proletariat with its communist party in an opportunist direction, that is, in a direction that hurts the bourgeoisie the least. In doing so, Lenin distinguishes both the "left "opportunist and the right opportunist falsifications of history, which complement each other and pursue the same anti-Marxist goals. The opportunism of refuting Marxism with false historical parallels goes hand in hand with the dogmatic simplification, flattening and twisting of history.

* * *

Given the richness and versatility of proletarian ideology, it is not surprising that the world revolution and the revolution in individual countries are considered in their different historical periods. In these historical considerations, at one time the philosophical teachings of Marxism play the determining role, at another time political economy is in the foreground, and again at another time the lessons of the communist movement and the proletarian class struggle. This does not mean that all other aspects are ignored. It simply means that the preponderance of interest in this or that doctrine of Marxism does not follow our subjective desires, but depends on the totality of historical conditions. It is clear that in the historical phases of the ebb of the revolution theoretical-philosophical questions are central. There are also countries where Marxism is not yet as developed in certain fields as in other countries, from which the different interest in Marxism is understandable and comprehensible. Through the Communist International, all the different needs to consult certain teachings of Marxism for certain purposes can be optimally satisfied for all revolutionary forces of the world, namely through our multilingual literary archive,the biggest one all over the world. This also applies to the scientific consideration of historical parallels and even more to the fight against the revisionist falsification of history, which is being restored by the neo-revisionist historiography today. For this we give an example from today's Germany:

Now in Germany, besides our own unadulterated original ROTER MORGEN archive, there is also a so-called "ROTER MORGEN" archive on the website www.RoterMorgen.eu. What is this archive ? This is an archive of the German neo-revisionists, which they have recently launched. Among other things, it is about a certain article: "Falsification of history" from our central organ Roter Morgen, from September 1969, which was once written by comrade Ernst Aust. Why do these German neo-revisionists publish this article from our central organ "Roter Morgen" without our permission, perhaps out of "pure" historical interest or do they pursue a certain political intention? What attitude do these neo-revisionists themselves take to the falsification of history ? Well, they simply copy the article "falsification of history" without comment. Behind this allegedly "neutral" point of view, to publish a historical document again after 50 years, however, hides very well their neo-revisionist attitude. Why ? Because our party, the KPD/ML, had taken a wrong attitude at that time in its founding period (thus also in this according article), from which our party and comrade Ernst Aust, however, distanced themselves self-critically 10 years later and said goodbye forever to it. That is concealed. One cannot want to make the overcome mistakes of the KPD/ML the basis of the "defense" of the KPD/ML without being guilty of falsifying history.

The KPD/ML and comrade Ernst Aust have adopted the position of the Party of Labor of Albania under the leadership of comrade Enver Hoxha, namely to reject, expose and fight Maoism as a revisionist ideology. Thus, our party had long since overcome this Maoist infantile disease. Our party's mistake at the beginning was that we had not fought modern revisionism from the Bolshevik standpoint alone, but had also relied on the revisionist standpoint of Maoism. At the time of its foundation, our party was not yet able to see through the revisionist nature of Maoism. Just as we had not seen through the revisionism of many a fellow worker at that time (who had to be expelled), long before Maoism came into vogue. And what do the neo-revisionists make of it ? After 50 years (!!) they keep quiet about this necessary ideological correction of our party. For more than 40 years until today our party has been fighting Maoism. The neo-revisionists ignore this fact. These people pretend to "defend" comrade Ernst Aust (against us, who were ourselves members of the founding cell of comrade Ernst Aust in Hamburg, against whom else?! Nobody but us defends today the KPD/ML and comrade Ernst Aust since the very founding time !).

So how can the neo-revisionists want to "defend" comrade Ernst Austin 1969, who had corrected his wrong 1969 position in 1979 ? Fighting with "Ernst Aust" against Ernst Aust ?

Bringing back to life the position revised by Ernst Aust himself and selling it to the working class as a valid model again, this is exactly what we mean by false historical analogy.

So the intention of the neo-revisionists is easy to see through. These people want to bring the working class back to some old, false positions of the KPD/ML. But this can mean nothing else than to keep the working class away from our corrected positions. They can not differ between wrong and correct position and follow the method of eclecticism. It is precisely in this sleight of hand that we see the attack of these people on our party today.

They are reconcilers of Enver Hoxha and Mao, paving the way back to Maoism. They turn out to be restorers of Maoism and for this purpose they make use of our old party documents, which were wrong but had been corrected long ago. And in doing so, they also steal the party symbol of the German Section of the Comintern (SH), which we designed, to be seen on their websites, while at the same time propagating the works of Mao Zedong.

The neo-revisionists call us "charlatans." Who are in truth the charlatans, us or them ?

Who defends the Roter Morgen ?

It is you, who make use of the pirated copies of our Roter Morgen, or we, who have created, supported and defended the Roter Morgen from the very beginning until today, who have grown up with it for decades, in good times and bad times? We of the German Section of the Comintern (SH) are members of the KPD/ML of comrade Ernst Aust. We have never been anything else. Under his personal guidance, we co-wrote Roter Morgen, took care of the lay-out and printing, set up Roter Morgen distribution, freed Roter Morgen from the clutches of the liquidators and moved it from Hamburg to Würzburg for protection.

That was us and not you.

Who stood with the Roter Morgen in front of the factory gates, in front of the department stores, in front of the train stations, in front of professional schools or drove to the countryside for the Roter Morgen in order to spread it among the peasants ?

That was us and not you.

Who rang the doorbells in the working-class neighborhoods and sold the Roter Morgen?

That was us and not you.

Who continued to publish the Roter Morgen even after the death of comrade Ernst Aust ?

That was us and nobody else !

All this shows:

The history of the Roter Morgen is the history of our workers' fists and not of you pirate copiers ! Just as the whole history of the working class can be defined as the history of class struggle.

So our answer to you neo-revisionists is clear. We define your falsification of history as follows:

"Against falsification of history in words, falsification of history in deeds - this is the physiognomy of the neo-revisionists of www.RoterMorgen.eu.

The KPD/ML is a Bolshevik party, was never a Maoist party, nor does it ever want to become one. Only these German neo-revisionists propagate it. Have fun with it, dear ladies and gentlemen ! In any case, we Stalinist-Hoxhaists have learned from our initial mistakes. To repeat them is left to you. We cannot fight Soviet revisionism with Chinese revisionism, just as we cannot fight revisionism with revisionism in general. It can only be done on the basis of the 5 classics of Marxism-Leninism ! The neo-revisionists have dug their own grave with their clumsy falsification of history. The working class will still remember us Stalinist-Hoxhaists when you have long since been forgotten.


* * *

As for the Marxist conception of history, Lenin gave an excellent definition of the materialist conception of history in his 1914 article "Karl Marx," which we will quote here in full:

The discovery of the materialist conception of history, or more correctly, the consistent continuation and extension of materialism into the domain of social phenomena, removed the two chief shortcomings in earlier historical theories. In the first place, the latter at best examined only the ideological motives in the historical activities of human beings, without investigating the origins of those motives, or ascertaining the objective laws governing the development of the system of social relations, or seeing the roots of these relations in the degree of development reached by material production; in the second place, the earlier theories did not embrace the activities of the masses of the population, whereas historical materialism made it possible for the first time to study with scientific accuracy the social conditions of the life of the masses, and the changes in those conditions. At best, pre-Marxist “sociology” and historiography brought forth an accumulation of raw facts, collected at random, and a description of individual aspects of the historical process. By examining the totality of opposing tendencies, by reducing them to precisely definable conditions of life and production of the various classes of individual aspects of the historical process. By examining the choice of a particular “dominant” idea or in its interpretation, and by revealing that, without exception, all ideas and all the various tendencies stem from the condition of the material forces of production, Marxism indicated the way to an all-embracing and comprehensive study of the process of the rise, development, and decline of socio-economic systems. People make their own history but what determines the motives of people, of the mass of people—i.e., what is the sum total of all these clashes in the mass of human societies? What are the objective conditions of production of material life that form the basis of all man’s historical activity? What is the law of development of these conditions? To all these Marx drew attention and indicated the way to a scientific study of history as a single process which, with all its immense variety and contradictoriness, is governed by definite laws.

It is the historical being of society that determines the historical consciousness of society and not vice versa.

Lenin wrote about this in his famous philosophical book: "Materialism and Empiriocriticism":

"Historical materialism recognises social being as independent of the social consciousness of humanity. In both cases consciousness is only the reflection of being, at best an approximately true (adequate, perfectly exact) reflection of it. From this Marxist philosophy, which is cast from a single piece of steel, you cannot eliminate one basic premise, one essential part, without departing from objective truth, without falling a prey to a bourgeois-reactionary falsehood." (Lenin, Volume 14, MATERIALISM and EMPIRIO-CRITICISM, 2. How Bogdanov Corrects and “Develops” Marx)

Marx, for example, repeatedly called for arming and insurrection. Only then, when Marx saw the inevitable 'exhaustion' of the 'real revolution' - only then did he change his view. Any further call for insurrection would have been mere gamesmanship. A party that fails to find a clear answer to such a change in the form of the revolutionary movement does not deserve the name party.

As with the dissolution of the First International with the failure of the Paris Commune, it is historically inevitable, under changed conditions in the revolution, to take a step back and gather new forces in order then to be able to take an all the greater historical step forward. This dialectical approach is in fact revolutionary and not opportunistic, as the "left" opportunists accuse us of being.

Let's take an example from the present:

The "Arab Spring" shows that the mass movement is not yet proletarian, that even bourgeois-democratic forces hold the leadership in it. This is then reflected in the new bourgeois Arab governments after the old dictators have been overthrown. Lenin writes on this:

"It would be extremely harmful to entertain any illusions on this score." [Lenin refers hereby to the „windbag Trotsky“ (see Lenin Volume 8, pages 291-292). The democratic revolution must rouse the vast masses to active life, to heroic efforts, to “fundamental historic creativeness”; it must raise them out of frightful ignorance, unparalleled oppression, incredible backwardness, and abysmal dullness. The revolution is already raising them and will raise them completely; the government itself is facilitating the process by its desperate resistance."But, of course, this democratic mass movement cannot yet speak of a proletarian revolutionary consciousness. For this, the masses must go through a series of revolutionary trials. Only each further wave of the "Arab Spring" will lead to a higher stage of revolutionary consciousness of the masses. For Lenin, the logic of revolution is that socialist upheaval presupposes a series of democratic upheavals that cannot be skipped. It is the task of the Stalinist-Hoxhaists to peel the real progressive character of the "Arab Spring" out of the tinsel of its (petty-bourgeois) ideological wrappings. In supporting any progressive movement, one must take into account both its past and its future. That is, one must apply the dialectic of Marxism in assessing the "Arab Spring." The achievements of the "Arab Spring" initially meant only unsatisfactory results for the masses. May the petty-bourgeois elements then retreat in disappointment and betray the revolutionary movement prematurely, but the "Arab Spring" will be driven forward all the more impetuously by the lowest classes without them and will secure them more extensive achievements in the following waves. We Stalinists-Hoxhaists must not lose sight of the socialist goal of the "Arab Spring" at any moment:

„We go to the very end of the division of society into classes.“ (Lenin, Volume 8, page 329)

"In this revolution, the revolutionary proletariat will participate with the utmost energy, sweeping aside the miser able tail-ism of some and the revolutionary phrases of others. It will bring class definiteness and consciousness into the dizzying whirlwind of events, and march on intrepidly and unswervingly, not fearing, but fervently desiring, the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship, (...) in order to create for itself a truly large arena, an arena worthy of the twentieth century, in which to carry on the struggle for socialism". (Lenin, Volume 8, page 292)

* * *


The renegades once fought for the revolution, but only to betray it afterwards by invoking such historical parallels that can no longer be applied to the real conditions of the present, and therefore dragging the revolution back in its forward movement. Such historical parallels of the renegades are sleight of hand, completely in the interest of the bourgeoisie. One cannot and must not take seriously such gimmicks with historical parallels. Such historical parallels are learned crap and are not based on science. The more impudently and shamelessly someone mocks Marxism with false historical parallels, the more honor the bourgeoisie pays him. But with false historical parallels Marxism cannot be refuted.

It is a historical fact that the renegades with their historical parallels always intended to sacrifice the revolution by making concessions to the bourgeoisie, as was the case with Dimitroff's "popular front" policy. Always the renegades have tried to bring back to life a historical corpse. And so Dimitroff also tried to resurrect the corpse of the Second International. The bourgeoisie has always used in its history those leaders who have swung away from revolution and socialism, towards bourgeois socialism. The bourgeoisie has rendered these leaders harmless by making them an appendage of the bourgeois government. Such "socialists" served as a figurehead behind which the bourgeoisie always hid its counterrevolutionary nature. The influence on the masses, of which the bourgeoisie itself is incapable, it has done by lackey services of the renegades. They are the lightning rods to divert the popular indignation from the government and to deceive the masses - precisely not least by justifying their false historical parallels.

In the period of imperialism, the opportunist, reformist leaders, in their sophistical fallacies, apply the false analogy with special fondness. That is why Lenin and Stalin exposed with extraordinary thoroughness and depth not only the untenability of individual false propositions of the social democrats, but also the sophistical methods they used in their conclusions.

„The sophistry of this reasoning consists in a bygone period of history being substituted for the present. Both Kautsky and Potresov defend and justify the national liberal-labour policy instead of exposing it to the proletariat. That is the essence of the social-chauvinists’ sophisms. (Lenin, Volume 21, The Social-Chauvinists’ Sophisms)

It was these renegades who made no distinction between the capitalism of the 19th century (pre-imperialism) and the capitalism of the 20th century, imperialism.

The social-chauvinists picked out individual sentences of Marx and Engels, which the latter had put forward in the 19th century, in the age of the progressive bourgeois-national movement (1979 to 1871), in relation to individual wars. They now applied them 1:1 to the imperialist war of 1914-1918. In this way they wanted to persuade the proletariat of each country to fight against each other at the head of their own bourgeoisie. And today? The same game. Only that now the proletarians of a whole imperialist world camp are to be moved to shed the blood of the proletarians of the other imperialist world camp. In contrast, the Comintern (SH) takes the correct stand of relying entirely on the forces of the world proletariat and its allies to smash world imperialism as a whole, without taking sides with either bourgeois camp, namely through world socialist revolution, or international civil war against imperialist world war.

In this sense, Stalin also criticized the wrong methods of Axelrod and Plekhanov:

"The method of quotations and historical parallels, elaborate plans and dead formulas." (Stalin, Works, Volume 5, page 69, German edition)

Exemplary for the scientific application of the struggle against the falsification of history is the historical rectification of the Information Bureau of the Soviet Union, published under Stalin's guidance, with the unambiguous title "Falsificators of History" (1948). It must be studied by every communist who deals with the subject of historical falsification.

"This was not done for the purpose of giving an objective exposition of historical developments, but in order to present a distorted picture of events, to heap lies on the Soviet Union, to slander it", so it says about the falsifiers of history of the Western Allies in this brochure.

Of course, sophistry does not exhaust itself in false analogies. But the false analogy is a very characteristic artifice of sophistry. Superficial analogies, false conclusions drawn only on the basis of formal similarities are always harmful, even when there are no deceptive intentions behind them. They cloud the clear view and prevent the realizations of the historical connections of reality. Logic cannot give recipes for avoiding false analogies, but it increases our vigilance against deceptive analogies used by imperialist ideologies to mislead the masses today.

What does this mean concretely today ?

While Lenin exposed those false historical analogies that transferred the pre-imperialist period to the period of imperialism, today we expose those false analogies that transfer the period of the 20th century 1:1 to the period of the 21st century, that is, to the period of globalization. It is the neo-revisionists who dogmatically cling to old doctrines that have long since lost their validity under the changing class struggle conditions of the world prolatariat. They call this "defense of Marxism-Leninism against Stalinism-Hoxhaism." We call this mockery, a caricature of the Bolshevik firmness of principles, a stab in the back of the world proletariat, an instrument in the hands of the bourgeoisie against the world socialist revolution, against world communism.

Lenin teaches us that the strategy and tactics, the forms of struggle and methods of struggle, which were correctly developed and applied in the previous historical period, must not be transferred to the new historical period. They turn into useless instruments of the class struggle and must be replaced or adapted to the new conditions. The Comintern (SH) has learned from Lenin and correctly applies his teachings in the conditions of globalization. This can be read in full detail in all the basic documents of the Comintern (SH).

We know from Lenin that the transition from one historical period to another has a compelling effect on Marxism, which reflects these transitions. Thus, even today, the conditions of international coexistence have changed dramatically compared to the 20th century due to globalization and have developed rapidly. At such chutes of history, Marxism has always, according to Lenin, "gone through a deep crisis".

"It is precisely because Marxism is not a lifeless dogma, not a completed, ready-made, immutable doctrine, but a living guide to action, that it was bound to reflect the astonishingly abrupt change in the conditions of social life. That change was reflected in profound disintegration and disunity, in every manner of vacillation, in short, in a very serious internal crisis of Marxism. Resolute resistance to this disintegration, a resolute and persistent struggle to up hold the fundamentals of Marxism, was again placed on the order of the day. In the preceding period, extremely wide sections of the classes that cannot avoid Marxism in formulating their aims had assimilated that doctrine in an extremely one-sided and mutilated fashion. They had learnt by rote certain “slogans”, certain answers to tactical questions, without having understood the Marxist criteria for these answers. The “revaluation of all values” in the various spheres of social life led to a “revision” of the most abstract and general philosophical fundamentals of Marxism. The repetition of “slogans” learnt by rote but not understood and not thought out led to the widespread prevalence of empty phrase-mongering."(Lenin, Volume 17, Certain Features of the Historical Development of Marxism)

The Comintern (SH) has analyzed the depth of the crisis of Marxism-Leninism caused by globalization, has recognized the necessity of overcoming this crisis of the Marxist-Leninist world movement, and has undertaken a revision of Marxism-Leninism that takes into account this change in world society.

In this way, Stalinism-Hoxhaism emerged last not least by means of apply the analogical method to the advancing history of Marxism-Leninism, namely from its transition from the 20th to the 21st Century.

* * *

"If we want to remain faithful to Marxism, we cannot and must not avoid an analysis of objective conditions with general phrases. Such speeches would be pitiful evasions, an attempt to substitute abstract considerations for the concrete historical question, which clarify absolutely nothing and serve only to camouflage paucity or political headlessness." (Lenin, no source cited)

Revolutionary phrases wreck the world revolution if they are not fought consistently.

The danger of historical analogies consists in their absolutization. If one makes the analogy absolute, the historical periods to be compared coincide and thus become identical. And again, without analogies, history dissipates into infinity. In both cases the historical analogy is worthless for the proletarian historical science, i.e., only useful for the bourgeois historical falsifiers.

* * *

The conclusion by analogy must always remain open for further questions in the science of history. The conclusion by analogy can be only one among many other scientific methods. Lenin once said that "the right question is already half the solution". And he has shown with many examples that also historical parallels can already mean half solutions, if one draws the correct and not the wrong conclusions from it. Correct conclusions are based exclusively on dialectical materialism. On the other hand, the bourgeois science of history is incapable of this. In the explanations of the bourgeois historians the conclusion by analogy floats, so to speak, "in the air".

Historical analogies are based on the assumption that the history of mankind represents a coherent, unified whole, whereby historical events are interconnected, interdependent and interdependent. If history were not a unified whole, if the regularities of the historical development of society were not universal, then we would not be able to draw scientific historical analogies.

* * *

What are the principles of scientific application of historical analogies ?

1) In historical analogy we must not reduce the historical periods or events to be compared to external superficial phenomena. The historical analogy is based on the elaboration of the inner material essence of a historical period, taking into account its connection with the whole historical development of the society.

2. every historical analogy has the task to establish a valid correspondence between the different historical periods in a certain relationship.

3. since historical parallels refer to correspondences, historical analogy does not include differences existing between historical periods, i.e. historical phenomena that differ from other historical phenomena. Therefore, in the overall process of historical research, analogy can be only one link in the chain, the aim of which is to reveal both the similarities, the common features, and the differences.
4. The conclusion by analogy must lead us from already developed historical knowledge to new, still unknown historical knowledge, based on the objective regularities of the historical development of the society. The closer the connection between the known characteristics of a historical period and the known characteristics of a comparable historical period, and between the known characteristics of the historical period that coincide with the historical period to be compared and those that go beyond it, only in relation to the historical characteristics of the historical period on the other hand, the greater the probability that the conclusions about the still unknown characteristics of the historical period to be compared are correct. Lenin has expressed this theory of the historical analogy conclusion with the simple mathematical theorem:

"The unity of nature shows itself in the 'surprising analogy' of the differential equations on the different fields of appearance." (Lenin, "Materialism and Empiriocriticism")

Lenin conceived the knowledge of historical connections as a "dialectical process of movement from not-knowing to knowing," from less complete to more complete knowledge.

Logic is the science not of external forms of thought, but of the laws of development “of all material, natural and spiritual things”, i.e., of the development of the entire concrete content of the world and of its cognition, i.e., the sum-total, the conclusion of the History of knowledge of the world. (Lenin: Conspectus of Hegel’s book
The Science of Logic ; PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION, Volume 38, Pages 92-93)

* * *


Lenin's razor-sharp historical analogy put him in a position to see through the historical fallacies of the opportunists, and to expose, ridicule and combat the reactionary intentions they intended. It is forgivable if in one or another case we come to erroneous or even wrong conclusions. Even the 5 classics of Marxism-Leninism were not immune to this. Wrong conclusions can finally be corrected self-critically with the dialectical method. It is crucial that one does not make all too serious conclusions. But where false historical analogies are systematically practiced as a method, they represent a danger that we must resolutely confront.

Lenin himself learned from the history of the criticism of false analogies, which can be traced back to the time of the Greeks.

On July 1, 2021, we celebrate the 375th birthday of Leibniz. He used mathematical methods in logic for the first time and thus contributed to the further development of historical science. But it was Leibniz who also coined the dogmatic phrase: "Everything in nature is analogical." Lenin dealt with this in his "Philosophical Nachlass" (page 333, German edition).

The false analogies of Schelling, Schopenhauer and Fourier and later Herbert Spencer come to similar results. All the false conceptions of these philosophers about analogy are based on the metaphysical system.

Marx and Engels, for example, refuted the false analogies of the Malthusians and Social Darwinists who transferred the laws of nature 1:1 to society.

And such fascists as Spengler, made use of the false analogies to propagate their fascist ideology ("The means of understanding dead forms is the mathematical law. The means of understanding living forms is analogy"; from: "The Decline of the Occident", Volume 1, page 4).

In 1950 Stalin's works on the questions of linguistics appeared. Stalin, criticizing the wrong views of Marr, stated that language was not a superstructure. Thereupon, on the basis of false analogy, some Hungarian scholars made such propositions as "Law is not a superstructure either, music is not a superstructure either, art is not a superstructure (or a large part of it) is not a superstructure", etc. What would follow from this ? That law, art, etc. would also have no class character, just as little as language. But this is in complete contradiction to Stalin's explanations and the principles of Marxism.

 

* * *

The dialectical law of negation is also closely connected with the method of historical analogies. Already Engels had pointed out that the negation of negation is a broadly effective law of development of history. In the "Philosophical Notebooks" Lenin gives a profound elaboration of this law. Lenin regards it as a law expressing a gradual development, repeating, as it were, the stages already passed through, proceeding not in a straight line but, as it were, in the form of a spiral:

Not empty negation, not futile negation, not sceptical negation, vacillation and doubt is characteristic and essential in dialectics,—which undoubtedly contains the element of negation and indeed as its most important element — no, as a moment of development, retaining the positive, i.e., without any vacillations, without any eclecticism. (Lenin: (Lenin: Conspectus of Hegel’s book The Science of Logic ; Volume 38, Pages 92-93), page 225)

" A development that repeats, as it were, stages that have already been passed, but repeats them in a different way, on a higher basis (“the negation of the negation”), a development, so to speak, that proceeds in spirals, not in a straight line; a development by leaps, catastrophes, and revolutions; “breaks in continuity”; the transformation of quantity into quality; inner impulses towards development, imparted by the contradiction and conflict of the various forces and tendencies acting on a given body, or within a given phenomenon, or within a given society; the interdependence and the closest and indissoluble connection between all aspects of any phenomenon (history constantly revealing ever new aspects), a connection that provides a uniform, and universal process of motion, one that follows definite laws."(Lenin: „Karl Marx“, Chapter "Dialectics" - 1914)

In many basic ideological documents of the Comintern (SH) the method of historical analogy and negation of negation was correctly applied. As an illustrative example we refer to our General Line, in particular to the chapter:. "World Revolution and Negation of Negation".

* * *

In conclusion, the Comintern (SH) expresses its conviction that with this article the sections will re-evaluate the history of the revolutionary movement in their country, that they will courageously emerge from the darkness of revisionist historiography and let the revolutionary historiography of their country shine with the infallible Stalinism-Hoxhaism in new, light.

This absolutely necessary Stalinist-Hoxhaist reappraisal of the historiography of individual countries by the sections will contribute to finally freeing the entire history of the world revolutionary movement from the shackles of revisionist historiography and placing it completely at the service of the world socialist revolution.

Long live the 97th anniversary of Comrade Lenin's death !

Long live the proletarian historiography and its liberation from the fetters of bourgeois revisionist historiography !

Long live the Comintern (SH) !

Wolfgang Eggers

Comintern (SH)

January 18, 2021