About the “Manifesto”

Our “Manifesto” has not gone without response. No sooner had we circulated it among our supporters for discussion than we began receiving letters with comments and questions.

This fact alone indicates that the spectre of communism is stirring in the depths of our class, that there exists a need for the theoretical comprehension of the history and present condition of class struggle, as well as a desire to define the tasks of the proletarian vanguard. It is precisely for this reason that, from the very first issue of our journal, we are opening a column titled “Correspondence with a Comrade”, in which we intend to conduct a dialogue both with proletarian revolutionary organisations and with individual comrades of our class.

One comrade writes:

«To begin with, I should note the clarity of your position on certain issues (your view of the condition of the working class, your attitude towards Trotskyism, Stalinism, and other tendencies, the development of international relations, the development of class struggle, and so forth). This is, in general, what one expects from a manifesto as such, but from my own experience I can say that far from everyone considers it necessary to state such positions openly (whether because they do not dare to, or for some other reason, I do not know)».

In another comrade’s letter we read:

«You derive your continuity directly from the “Manifesto of the Communist Party”. But it was written more than 150 years ago. Has there really been no development of communist theory during all that time? Should those entire 150 years simply be discarded and forgotten? That is precisely the conclusion suggested by the first paragraph. I think it would be necessary at least briefly to mention the main milestones in the development of Marxism after Marx, as well as its further development by Marx himself. The “Manifesto” is only the first stage, the foundation for subsequent theoretical development. It is essential to mention both “Capital” and Lenin’s “Imperialism…”».

Of course, in the 150 years since the publication of the “Manifesto of the Communist Party”, Marxist theory has developed, and we are not calling for this entire development to be «discarded and forgotten» – no such conclusion follows from our text. We merely wish to show that: 1) the ultimate aims proclaimed in the “Manifesto” by the communist and workers’ movements are more relevant to our epoch than they were to the epoch of its authors; 2) it is precisely our group that upholds these aims.

Nothing else is required in this necessarily brief introduction to a programmatic document. Moreover, Marx’s “Capital” and Lenin’s “Imperialism…” are not programmatic documents with which our own programmatic document must establish continuity. They are, unquestionably, milestones in the development of Marxist theory and of science in general, fundamental works of the highest importance, whose analysis we share. However, this analysis is economic in character – that is, it helps to draw and substantiate political and programmatic conclusions, but does not in itself contain formulations of strategic aims.

Both comrades touched upon the question of the relationship between Marxism and the state.

The first writes:

«We have repeatedly said, referring to “The State and Revolution”, that, unlike anarchists, we hold that the state must wither away, not that it must be destroyed; accordingly, the task consists in abolishing the conditions which make the state necessary, rather than the state itself».

The second comrade argues:

«From the fact that “the modern state corresponds to modern private property”, it does not at all follow that the abolition of private property requires the abolition of the state. Moreover, if we proceed from Marx and Engels, the relationship is the reverse. Private property arose prior to the state and constituted a necessary condition for its emergence. Hence, the state, as a phenomenon, cannot be abolished without abolishing private property and the division of labour. If by this you mean not the state in general, but the bourgeois state, then this should be stated more clearly. Namely, that the first step towards the abolition of private property (and the division of labour) is the destruction of the bourgeois state and its replacement by a proletarian, withering-away semi-state».

That is correct: our “Manifesto” refers specifically to the destruction of the modern state, that is, the bourgeois state. This is clear from the context. In the second sentence, the adjective “modern” is omitted in relation to private property and the state purely for stylistic reasons, so as not to overload the text, since the previous sentence already makes clear precisely which private property and state are being discussed.

Thus, within the context, it is easy to trace the following logical chain: “the aim of the communists is the abolition of private property” & “modern private property corresponds to the modern state” => “from the communist standpoint, the abolition of modern private property requires / presupposes / entails the destruction of the modern state”.

At the same time, this is not a question of abstract “destruction”. As Marx wrote in “Critique of the Gotha Programme”, between capitalist and communist society lies a period of revolutionary transformation of the former into the latter, to which there corresponds also «a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat».¹ The bourgeois state machine cannot simply be taken over in its ready-made form or abolished in the abstract – it must be smashed, broken to pieces, and replaced by a proletarian semi-state, which will begin to wither away as class antagonisms disappear.

The same comrade writes:

«I think that the slogan “Communism or barbarism” would be better replaced with “Communism or death”, since the present condition of capitalism threatens not only the existence of civilisation, but the very existence of humanity itself».

We used the formula “Communism or barbarism” for several reasons:

1. as a reference to the tradition of the revolutionary wing of Marxism represented by Rosa Luxemburg, who, in her work “The Crisis of German Social Democracy” (also known as the Junius Pamphlet), popularised a statement by Engels, who, according to her, formulated the dilemma facing humanity as follows:

«Friedrich Engels once said: “Bourgeois society stands at the crossroads, either transition to socialism or regression into barbarism”».²

Naturally, instead of the term “socialism” we used “communism”, since, unlike in the time of Engels and Luxemburg, in our epoch these currents have become definitively separated and hostile to one another.

2. it seems to us that there are no grounds for replacing “barbarism” with “death”, since “death” is merely a hypothetical and, moreover, extremely unlikely scenario (given the “flexibility” of capitalism and the absence of any objective interest on the part of the bourgeois ruling class in the destruction of humanity), whereas “barbarism” is something we can already observe directly before us now. At the same time, we cannot in any way exclude the possibility that humanity may be destroyed in imperialist wars contrary to the will of the bourgeoisie.

And once again we quote from the same comrade’s letter:

«The quotation from Marx on the necessity of genuine communist action is very well chosen. Yes, this practical movement must be led by a world communist party. Yes, such a party does not presently exist. But the creation of such a party is not the organisation’s immediate practical task. In this, you are drifting towards idealism. Parties are not created through the will (whim, desire) of individual subjects. Their emergence requires a whole series of objective and subjective conditions».

We are in complete agreement. Moreover, in the “Manifesto” we emphasise that «we view our activity as part of the practical movement towards communism, as a struggle for the creation of this [world communist] party, and our Manifesto as only one of the necessary steps along this path».

In other words, we are speaking of the process of creating this party, a process in which we are already participating alongside other representatives of the proletarian vanguard. The tempo of this process is directly connected with objective conditions, and its maturation does not depend upon our subjective will. We are principled opponents of all manifestations of voluntarism.

The comrade asserts:

«The paragraph on the demarcation from economistic and “workerist” tendencies is not clearly formulated».

We considered that, in a programmatic document, there is no need to explain the meaning of economistic and workerist tendencies; it is sufficient simply to declare that we do not belong to them, and this has been stated clearly and unambiguously.

Let us continue quoting the same comrade:

«Yes, class struggle is always, in its content, a political struggle, even in those cases where it takes economic forms. Therefore, the formal separation of economic and political struggle only confuses the question; it is necessary clearly to distinguish form and content, without conflating them. The task of communists is not to oppose the economic form of class struggle to its political content (this is not only foolish, but impossible), but to constantly demonstrate that the economic form is the embryonic form of class struggle, which must be developed into its highest political, that is, revolutionary, form».

We cannot agree that:

1. «class struggle is always, in its content, a political struggle».

Class struggle may begin in an economic form and may even possess an economic content. This can continue for years and decades. Moreover, not every political class struggle constitutes a revolutionary struggle of the proletariat against capitalism.

In stating this, we categorically reject the metaphysical, non-dialectical separation of economic and political struggle. As Marx pointed out in his letter to F. Bolte (1871):

«[…] every movement in which the working class comes out as a class against the ruling classes and attempts to force them by pressure from without is a political movement. […] out of the separate economic movements of the workers there grows up everywhere a political movement, that is to say a movement of the class, with the object of achieving its interests in a general form, in a form possessing a general social force of compulsion. If these movements presuppose a certain degree of previous organisation, they are themselves equally a means of the development of this organisation».³

Indeed, every major economic strike inevitably brings workers into confrontation with the bourgeois state apparatus – the police, the courts, the laws – and thereby objectively acquires a political character. To sever economics from politics and to assert that economic struggle cannot develop into political struggle means falling into precisely that opportunist “economism” which Lenin mercilessly combated in “What Is To Be Done?”. The task of the vanguard is not to deny the political potential of economic struggle, but, through participation in it, to transform the sparks of discontent with economic conditions into the flame of conscious revolutionary struggle against the rule of capital.

But we can agree that:

2) «the formal separation of economic and political struggle only confuses the question».

We therefore maintain that this separation should not be formal, that is, metaphysical, but concrete, that is, dialectical. The former can develop into the latter, but this is impossible without the intervention of the proletarian vanguard – the materialised consciousness of our class. And this intervention is itself impossible without the third form of class struggle already identified by Engels. We think the reader understands that we are referring to theoretical struggle, which for us is presently the most urgent form of struggle.

Lenin wrote of this in “What Is To Be Done?”:

«Engels recognizes, not two forms of the great struggle of Social Democracy (political and economic), as is the fashion among us, but three, placing the theoretical struggle on a par with the first two».⁴

We cannot agree with the assertion that:

3) «the task of communists is not to oppose the economic form of class struggle to its political content (this is not only foolish, but impossible)».

The economic form of struggle cannot, by definition, possess a political content; otherwise, it would be termed political. Political content corresponds to the political form of struggle, while economic content corresponds to the economic form. In many cases – if not in the overwhelming majority – economic demands (higher wages, a shorter working day, improved working conditions, and so forth) may have no connection whatsoever with political questions.

This comrade writes:

4) «the economic form is the embryonic form of class struggle, which must be developed into its highest political, that is, revolutionary, form».

This is true, but it requires clarification. Not every instance of economic struggle can, even in principle, develop into political struggle. Moreover, political and revolutionary forms of struggle are by no means synonymous. The political form itself may remain primitive and stand very far from its highest form – the revolutionary one. In such cases, workers not only fail to oppose “their own” bourgeoisie and state, but are even loyal to them and appeal to their laws, “values”, and even symbolism, without understanding whose interests those very laws, “values”, and symbols serve (e. g. Russia in the 1990s and 2010s).

Is political struggle the highest form of class struggle? Undoubtedly, yes. Does this mean that every class struggle can develop into a political, and still more into a revolutionary, struggle? Undoubtedly not. Different forms may simply coexist alongside one another (chronologically and/or geographically), without developing or exerting any influence upon one another.

At the same time, only through the introduction of communist consciousness by the vanguard of the class into the proletariat’s class struggle can political struggle gain the possibility of developing into revolutionary struggle. Otherwise, even upon reaching the political level, class struggle will continue to revolve within the orbit of the interests of one or another faction of the bourgeoisie.

On this question, Lenin, in the pamphlet “What Is To Be Done?”, quotes K. Kautsky at length, who, at the time, was still a Marxist:

«[…] socialist consciousness appears to be a necessary and direct result of the proletarian class struggle. But this is absolutely untrue. Of course, socialism, as a doctrine, has its roots in modern economic relationships just as the class struggle of the proletariat has, and, like the latter, emerges from the struggle against the capitalist-created poverty and misery of the masses. But socialism and the class struggle arise side by side and not one out of the other; each arises under different conditions. Modern socialist consciousness can arise only on the basis of profound scientific knowledge. Indeed, modern economic science is as much a condition for socialist production as, say, modern technology, and the proletariat can create neither the one nor the other, no matter how much it may desire to do so; both arise out of the modern social process. The vehicle of science is not the proletariat, but the bourgeois intelligentsia […]: it was in the minds of individual members of this stratum that modern socialism originated, and it was they who communicated it to the more intellectually developed proletarians who, in their turn, introduce it into the proletarian class struggle where conditions allow that to be done. Thus, socialist consciousness is something introduced into the proletarian class struggle from without [von Aussen Hineingetragenes] and not something that arose within it spontaneously [urwüchsig]. Accordingly, the old Hainfeld programme quite rightly stated that the task of Social-Democracy is to imbue the proletariat (literally: saturate the proletariat) with the consciousness of its position and the consciousness of its task. There would be no need for this if consciousness arose of itself from the class struggle».⁵

In quoting this passage, we understand that an inevitable discussion with supporters of various workerist and spontaneist currents lies ahead of us. Let us address this in advance.

First of all, in order to properly understand the Leninist idea cited above, it must be placed within the context of the concrete historical conditions of that time, when the tendency of the “Economists” was widespread among Russian workers. These “Economists” believed that the proletariat should confine itself to economic struggle, leaving political struggle to the liberals. There were also those who believed that the development of the workers’ movement would itself spontaneously contribute to the growth of the proletariat’s political class consciousness. Lenin, however, in his struggle against these tendencies, pointed to the tasks of the proletarian party within this specific historical context: to develop the political consciousness of the proletariat, to lead it beyond the narrow limits of struggle against the bourgeoisie within the factory, to explain that the bourgeoisie is not unified but divided into factions struggling amongst themselves, and that in the conditions of Russia at that time there also existed a feudal landowning aristocracy, as well as broad petty-bourgeois strata. All of these possessed their own particular interests, which might coincide, but would never become common or unified; the proletariat had to understand this and make use of it in its struggle.

Thus, from Lenin’s point of view, “introducing consciousness from without” meant bringing it from beyond the confines of the factory, beyond the confines of the relationship between factory owner and wage labourer; it meant opening the worker’s eyes to the full breadth of social life, its diversity and contradictions, and thereby contributing to the transformation of the proletariat from a “class in itself” into a “class for itself” – into a class consciously struggling against private property.

Regarding the section “Method”, the comrade writes:

«It would seem that this section should be based upon Lenin’s “Three Sources…”. That is, it should proceed from the primacy of philosophy and political economy, through which socialism was transformed from utopia into science».

We considered that here, as in many other instances, it is sufficient simply to declare our adherence to the Marxist school in order to, from the outset, demarcate ourselves from other socialist currents. In a programmatic document, it would probably be out of place to set out in detail the advantages of Marxism over other currents of revolutionary thought. Such an exposition would inevitably be superficial and therefore unconvincing.

Another comrade draws attention to yet another idea from our “Manifesto”:

«we know with certainty that theories which predict the “automatic” collapse of capitalism or point to its specific “objective” limits are unscientific».

And comments: «The fact that emphasis is placed on this, once again, gives a fairly clear idea of the position, but perhaps this point should be elaborated in greater detail: why exactly “we know with certainty” this. Whether this ought to be done in the Manifesto – I do not know; after all, it is fundamentally a thesis-like document».

Yes, in the “Manifesto” we merely stated our positions in a thesis-like form. In future publications we shall return to this question.

The idea from the “Manifesto” that, in catastrophic crises of overproduction, the productive forces are increasingly destroyed prompted this same comrade to write:

«If we look at the twentieth century, there is no obvious tendency towards an increase in the frequency of crises of overproduction, and I would by no means describe all of them as catastrophic… And in the twenty-first century, they have so far occurred rather rarely in comparison with the twentieth. It feels as though something different from what I have in mind is being referred to».

What we mean here is that, in our epoch of developed, that is, monopolistic capitalism, with productive forces incomparably greater than those of its earlier stages, such crises have become far more frequent and extensive than in the epoch of its “youth”. Moreover, the bourgeois media generally do not analyse them as such. Not to mention that, in certain sectors – for example, the textile industry or the property sector – they have become permanent, something that did not exist in the epoch of early capitalism. In the twenty-first century, we have witnessed characteristic examples of such crises, lasting for years: during the “Great Recession” of the 2000s, when homes in the United States stood empty while hundreds of thousands remained homeless; and at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, when pharmaceutical companies destroyed millions of coronavirus tests after demand for them sharply declined, instead of distributing them or storing them until demand recovered. Were these crises “catastrophic”? Not in the sense of being fatal to the capitalist system, but in the sense of being monstrous in terms of the scale of human losses suffered by our class – in the form of deaths, ruined health, shattered lives, broken families, and so forth – as well as losses to humanity’s productive forces. We believe that they were.

Let us cite a passage from the “Manifesto”:

«This unprecedented revolutionary wave was subsequently swept away by a counter-revolution of colossal force. During the 1920s and 1930s, Stalinism…»

And the comrade’s subsequent comment:

«Here (and not only here, though I shall confine myself to this quotation), Stalinism is described as a counter-revolution. This, in my view, is one of the cornerstones of our position, and therefore, it seems to me, some clarification should be given as to why this is so. Usually, these words are immediately followed by accusations of Trotskyism. Further on in the text, the attitude towards Trotsky is explained (which is entirely correct), but I fear that, firstly, some potential readers may simply decide not to continue reading the Manifesto, and secondly, that it is not sufficiently concrete on the question of its attitude towards Stalinism».

Nevertheless, we believe that, in a programmatic document, it is sufficient merely to declare one’s positions. All the more so given that this topic is indeed extremely important and will be addressed repeatedly in our future publications. As for the point that «some potential readers may simply decide not to continue reading the Manifesto», that may well be the case, but such “costs” are possible in relation to any document, or even literary text.

Another quotation from the “Manifesto”:

«for the first time, it constituted the working class as an active subject of international relations».

The comrade comments: «Can those who directly participated in international relations truly be called the working class, rather than its representatives or the expression of its will? »

This point brings us back to the discussion on the relationship between class and party, and between the party and its leaders, which our school conducted with other revolutionary currents. We shall no doubt return to it in future materials, but here we shall merely note that when we speak of the subjects of international relations, we do not mean concrete individuals. Even from the standpoint of the more adequate bourgeois schools, the subjects of international relations are not individuals but states, and Marxism agrees with this, though it considers this insufficient. Marxism goes further and poses the question: which class rules the state? It arrives at the conclusion that the real subjects of international relations are the ruling classes, which use their states (and other organised forces) to project their interests. Therefore, from the standpoint of Marxism, it is entirely correct to say that if the working class becomes the ruling class, then it also becomes a subject of international relations.

The comrade writes:

«I would say a subject of geopolitics rather than of international relations».

We deliberately avoid using the term “geopolitics”, unlike, for example, Lotta Comunista, because we are well aware that this term denotes an anti-scientific approach to describing relations between nations and states, based upon a vulgar-materialist conception of the decisive role of physical and geographical conditions in the life of human society, in some cases supplemented by biologising concepts such as racism, Social Darwinism, and Malthusianism.

Another quote from the “Manifesto”:

«The counter-revolutionary wave and the subsequent decades of bourgeois rule gave rise not only to the monsters of capitalist reaction, but also to many more or less influential ideologies of false socialism – Stalinism, Maoism, Castroism and Guevarism, Juche, Chavism, etc. All of them were born in their time as bourgeois ideologies of “catch-up development”, designed to accompany the centralisation and acceleration of capitalist development in the respective backward countries».

A comrade’s comment: «Centralization and the acceleration of capitalist development create objective conditions for class struggle; such movements in the Third World were viewed positively in “Unitary Imperialism”. And although I must admit I view LC’s optimism on this point with considerable scepticism (since history had already made it clear by then that this more often than not suffocates the proletariat’s struggle), this stance still aligns with Marxism. The difference is that these ideologies transformed from national-liberationist into national-serfdom ideologies. The essence of the quoted passage is certainly clear, but it seems to me that it may lend itself to ambiguous interpretation».

In this instance, the issue is not whether we “endorse” these historical movements and ideologies, but rather that we: 1) distance ourselves from their contemporary adherents, who not only serve the interests of various bourgeois factions but also discredit Marxism and communism; and 2) clarify the place assigned to them by the Marxist school, in contrast to the approach taken by various pseudo-communists.

It was no accident that our Manifesto extensively cited key theses from Lenin’s speech at the Second Congress of the Comintern, as they provide the key to approaching this problem as a whole, including in these specific cases.

Regarding the movements of fake socialism, it can be stated that they not only expressed imperialist interests from the outset (Stalinism) or aligned themselves with one of the imperialist blocs – specifically, the USSR bloc (as all the others did; Maoism later shifted its orientation and aligned with the US) – but some of them waged a direct struggle to destroy the Marxist movement and succeeded in achieving this goal (Stalinism, Maoism).

Certainly, some of these movements and their corresponding ideologies may have partially fulfilled a national-revolutionary role. However, this was far from their defining characteristic, nor was it sufficient grounds for Marxists to “welcome” them. For instance, Stalinism, which emerged in Russia – a country that cannot be classified as part of the “Third World” – played a somewhat national-revolutionary role in the backward countries of Central Asia under its control. Yet this is incomparable to the colossal damage it inflicted on the working class on a global scale.

Another quotation from the “Manifesto”:

«The most famous of these movements is Trotskyism, which currently does not even have a unified theory and has degenerated to the level of petty-bourgeois ideologies».

The comrade comments: «As I said above, the fact that a position on Trotskyism is openly stated is important, but a contradiction seems to have crept in here. First, Trotskyism is described as a current, then it is said that this current lacks a unified theory and, consequently, is not internally coherent. Finally, it is stated that Trotskyism as a current has degenerated. I do not dispute the fact itself, but if Trotskyism lacks a unified theory, can one really speak of it as a single current rather than several? And which of them have degenerated? In general, I never cease to be surprised by how many different kinds of people call themselves Trotskyists. At times, I cannot understand what connection with Trotsky they have at all».

We examine this question from a historical perspective, in its development, while understanding that any current within society can be regarded as unified only relatively, only up to a certain point. Initially, Trotskyism can indeed be considered a conditionally unified current, arising on the basis of Trotsky’s ideas in Russia and subsequently in several other countries, and at first relying upon cadres grouped around Trotsky himself. Over time, this conditional unity disintegrated. Nevertheless, it seems to us that all these currents may still be considered Trotskyist on the basis of their continuity with original Trotskyism – if not organisational, then at least ideological continuity. This continuity is expressed in the acceptance of: 1) the concept of the degenerated workers’ state; 2) Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution; and 3) certain historical interpretations advanced by Trotsky concerning the history of the Party, the Russian Revolution, and the counter-revolution.

Another comrade writes: «I fundamentally disagree with singling out Trotsky; in essence, he never moved beyond the framework of Stalinism».

We maintain, however, that Trotsky did in fact move beyond the framework of Stalinism. The fundamental principles of Stalinism, which distinguish it and upon which its entire edifice literally rests – without which it would completely collapse – are the assertions that: 1) by the 1930s socialism had, mostly, already been built in the USSR, both in the economy and in the political superstructure; and 2) in the subsequent years (at least until Stalin’s death) the USSR moved ever closer to socialism, both economically and politically.

Trotsky did not share this conception. He held that: 1) «the Soviet Union is as yet far from having attained the first stage of socialism» economically, let alone in the political superstructure, upon which his criticism was to a large extent concentrated; and that it would be truer «to name the present Soviet regime in all its contradictoriness, not a socialist regime, but a preparatory regime transitional from capitalism to socialism»; 2) under the leadership then governing the USSR, the country was moving in the opposite direction, further away from socialism, although the final outcome of this process had not yet been decided.

He wrote:

«It is impossible at present to answer finally and irrevocably the question in what direction the economic contradictions and social antagonisms of Soviet society will develop in the course of the next three, five or 10 years. The outcome depends upon a struggle of living social forces – not on a national scale, either, but on an international scale».⁶

His theory of the degenerated workers’ state, most fully elaborated in “The Revolution Betrayed” (from which the cited quotations are taken), although far removed from Marxism, scientificity, and theoretical rigour, nevertheless cannot be classified as one of the Stalinist theories. There are even theories which criticise Stalin personally (for particular mistakes, “excesses”, voluntarism, the excessive use of violence, especially against communists, and so forth), while remaining Stalinist in essence. Trotsky’s theory does not belong even to this category, since: a) it addresses far more fundamental questions and only to a small extent concerns itself with the qualities of individual personalities; b) it shares none of the fundamental principles of Stalinism described above.

The same comrade writes:

«In the current period, no concrete tasks for communists are indicated. It is clear that “there is certainly no reason to expect a spontaneous class struggle among wage workers in the developed imperialist metropolises in the foreseeable future”, that “primitive accumulation of capital” and agrarian revolutions have come to an end, and that national-liberation and anti-colonial movements belong to the past. But what, concretely, is to be done under these conditions? Fight for the abolition of private property? Excellent. But how? »

We do not yet have a definitive answer to this question, and in the “Manifesto” we acknowledge that, for us, the problem lies precisely in how this process will develop.

But to the question «What Is To Be Done?» we respond with a categorical rejection of passive contemplation and academic waiting. Marx’s famous eleventh thesis on Feuerbach states: «Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it»⁷. We have no right merely to “closely observe” the class while waiting for conditions to mature. Lenin called such a position “tailism”, trailing in the rearguard of the spontaneous movement. The task of communists, as Lenin wrote in the article “Where To Begin?”, is the immediate transition to practical organisation: the creation of an all-Russian (in our case, international) political newspaper – a collective propagandist, agitator, and organiser. This organ must penetrate every spontaneous outbreak of workers’ struggle, inseparably linking theoretical work with the practical leadership of the struggle of the masses already today, while preparing cadres for the future struggle for a classless society.

Another quotation from the “Manifesto”:

«Compared with the capitalism of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the contemporary working class exhibits a far more complex internal stratification… This is precisely why there is no mass labour movement and why the revolutionary minority is extremely weak in the centres of imperialist development».

The comrade comments:

«I think that such stratification and the relative expansion of the interclass stratum are not in themselves the cause of the weakness of the working class: people with multiple sources of income, although occupying a less vulnerable position, are usually more sensitive to political and economic turbulence and therefore relate to it more consciously, while on the whole continuing to share the interests of the working class. »

The words «this is precisely why» refer to the entire complex of factors listed in the preceding paragraph, and not solely to the more complex stratification of contemporary society. Otherwise, we have no objections. Indeed, the degree of sensitivity to political and economic turbulence does not directly correlate with income level or material position. History knows examples of representatives of the bourgeoisie who passed over to the side of the proletariat. The role of the upper strata of the wage-working class in the revolutionary movement is likewise well known. We are far removed from the position of those who consider it necessary to place their hopes in the most backward and pauperised strata of society.

In pointing to the increasing complexity of the stratification of wage workers in the centres of imperialism, we must not slide into bourgeois-sociological justifications for the decline of class struggle through abstract references to the existence of “multiple sources of income”. The true material basis of opportunism and passivity in the metropolitan countries was brilliantly exposed by Lenin in “Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism”. By extracting monopoly superprofits, the imperialist bourgeoisie possesses the economic means to bribe the upper stratum of “its own” working class, thereby creating a bourgeoisified “labour aristocracy”. This privileged stratum constitutes the principal social base of reformism and the agency of the bourgeoisie within the workers’ movement. Without a ruthless break with this opportunist stratum and the exposure of its betrayal, there can be no question of the formation of revolutionary consciousness in the imperialist centres.

March 2026

Footnotes

1. - K. Marx. Critique of the Gotha Programme // Marxists Internet Archive. URL: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm ↩

2. - R. Luxemburg. The Junius Pamphlet // Marxists Internet Archive. URL: https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1915/junius/ch01.htm ↩

3. - K. Marx. Letter to Friedrich Bolte In New York // Marxists Internet Archive. URL: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/letters/71\_11\_23.htm ↩

4. - V. Lenin. What Is To Be Done? // Marxists Internet Archive. URL: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/i.htm ↩

5. - V. Lenin. What Is To Be Done? // Marxists Internet Archive. URL: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/ii.htm ↩

6. - L. Trotsky. The Revolution Betrayed; Chapter 3 // Marxists Internet Archive. URL: https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch03.htm ↩

7. - K. Marx. Theses On Feuerbach // Marxists Internet Archive. URL: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/ ↩