The primary aim of a Marxist-Leninist Party is, however, not the carrying through of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, but the carrying through of the socialist revolution which will establish the political power of the working people led by the working class – the dictatorship of the proletariat. The successful carrying through of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, and the establishment of the new- democratic revolution, and the establishment of the new-democratic state of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, was but the first stage in a revolutionary process leading to, and necessary to, the achievement of the second stage: the socialist revolution of the working class.
The Chinese revolution taken as a whole involves a twofold task. That is to say, it embraces both the bourgeois-democratic revolution (the new-democratic revolution) and the proletarian-socialist revolution, i.e., both the present and future stages of the revolution. The leadership in this twofold revolutionary task devolves on the Chinese Communist Party, the party of the proletariat, without whose leadership no revolution can succeed. ...
Every Communist ought to know that, taken as a whole, the Chinese revolutionary movement led by the Communist Party embraces two stages, i.e., the democratic and the socialist revolutions, which are two essentially different revolutionary processes, and that the second process can be carried through only after the first has-been completed. The democratic revolution is the necessary preparation for the socialist revolution, and the socialist, revolution is the inevitable sequel to the democratic revolution. (Mao Tse-tung: “The Chinese Revolution and the Chinese Communist Party”, in: “Selected Works”, Vol.2; Peking; 1965; p.330-1).
However, Marxist-Leninists have always held that the Marxist-Leninist Party of the working class, having led the bourgeois-democratic revolution to victory, should make the revolutionary process continuous, should prepare immediately for the socialist revolution, and should initiate this as soon, as there exists the required degree of political consciousness on the part of the working class and the required degree of revolutionary unity between the working, class and the poor peasantry, under the leadership of the working class.
While the democratic petty bourgeois wish to bring the revolution to a conclusion as quickly as possible, and with the achievement, at most, of the above demands, It is our interest and our task to make the revolution permanent, until all more or less possessing classes have, been forced out of their position of dominance, until the proletariat has conquered state power. (K. Marx & F. Engels: “Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League”, 1850; in: “Selected Works”, Vol. 1; Moscow; 1958; p.110).
From the democratic revolution we shall at once, according to the degree of strength, the strength of the class-conscious and’ organized” proletariat, begin to pass over to the socialist revolution. We stand for continuous revolution. We shall not stop half way. (V.I. Lenin: “The Attitude of Social-Democracy toward the Peasant Movement”, 1905; in: “Selected Works”, Vol.3; London; 1946; P.145)
The proletariat will immediately utilise this liberation from Tsarism, from the agrarian power of landlords, ... to bring about the socialist revolution. (V.I. Lenin: “The Two Lines of the Revolution”, 1915; in: “Selected Works”, Vol.5; London; undated; p.163.).
Stalin comments on the last passage as follows:
This, then, is the position in regard to Lenin’s idea of the bourgeois-democratic revolution passing into the proletarian revolution for the ’immediate’ transition to the proletarian revolution.” (J.V. Stalin: “The Foundations of Leninism”, 1924; in: “Leninism”; London; 1942; p.26).
Things have turned out just as we said they would. The course taken by the revolution has confirmed the correctness of our reasoning. First, with the ’whole’ of the peasantry against the monarchy, the landlords, the mediaeval regime (and to that extent, the revolution remains bourgeois, bourgeois-democratic). Then, with the poorest peasants, with the semi-proletarians, with all the exploited, against capitalism, including the rural rich the kulaks, the profiteers, and to that extent the revolution becomes a socialist one. To attempt to raise an artificial Chinese wall between the first and second revolutions, to separate them by anything else than the degree of preparedness of the proletariat and the degree of unity with the poor peasants, is monstrously to distort Marxism, to vulgarise it, to put liberalism in its place. It means smuggling in a reactionary defence of the bourgeoisie against the socialist proletariat. (V.I. Lenin: “The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky”, 1917; in: “Selected Works”, Vol. 7; London; 1946; p. 191).
The heroes of the Second International asserted (and continue to assert) that between the bourgeois-democratic revolution and the proletarian revolution there is a chasm, or at any rate a Chinese Wall, separating one from the other by a more or less protracted Interval of time, during which the bourgeoisie... develops capitalism, while the proletariat accumulates strength and prepares for the ’decisive struggle’ against capitalism. This interval is usually calculated to extend over many decades, if not longer. It is hardly necessary to prove that this Chinese Wall ’theory’ is totally devoid of scientific meaning under the conditions of imperialism, that it is and can be only a means of concealing and camouflaging the counter-revolutionary aspirations of the bourgeoisie. (J.V. Stalin: “The Foundations of Leninism”, in: “Leninism”; London 1942; p.22).