Page:Lev Borisovich Kamenev - The Dictatorship of the Proletariat (1920).pdf/14

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

and the apparatus of government is seized by the revolting proletariat, that general staff has new tasks to perform. The victory of the proletariat signifies the disorganisation of the old social system. The formation of a new army, the feeding of the country, the building up of industry on new principles, the organisation of law courts, the establishment of relations with the peasants, the diplomatic relations with other countries—all these matters become at once the immediate tasks of the general staff of the victorious proletarian army. Any delay in the accomplishment of one of these tasks, or any hesitation in the decision.is capable of bringing greatest harm to the further victorious development of the proletarian revolution.

Consequently, this general staff must be an organised responsible, and centralised institution, prepared to deal with, and decide all political, economic, social, and diplomatic problems. An organisation which would satisfy all these conditions and solve all the problems incumbent upon it may be called, of course, by any name whatsoever; but in reality—and if we do not play with words—such an organisation can only be the political party of the proletariat; i.e., an organisation of the most advanced, revolutionary elements of the proletariat, united by their common political programme and an iron discipline.

Such an organisation cannot be formed in a day or even a week; it is the result of a prolonged process of assembling and selecting experienced leaders, who have proved, by their daily work, to be capable of estimating rightly each phase of the labour struggle, and the interests of each separate group of the working class, from the higher point of view of the general interests of the entire working class as a whole.

The greatest misfortune which could befall the proletarian army after seizing the strongholds of capitalism, would be if the apparatus of leadership proved to be in the hands of men, groups, or organisations whose previous work had been carried out only in the sphere of the labour movement.

14