MARX- ENGELS- 辽NIN-TROTSKY

IN THEIR OWN WORDS

Selec ted and Ed ited b~

T.ANDRADI
Marx - Engels - Len in-Tro tsky
In The ir own Words

Firs t Edition- May, 2018

© T.Andradi

ISBN 978-955-53658-1-9

Prin ted by

New D ilruk Prin ters

No. 70, Cyril Jansz Mawa tha,

Panadura.

Pub lished by

T. Andradi Pub lishers,

405b, Rubberwa ttha Road,

Modaraw ila,

Panadura.
 PREFACE
This anthology is an attempt by a l ife-long Marxist to select,
gather and put into a single book certain important and interesting
passages relating to the fundamen tals of Marxism as well as important
ideas relating to various other subjects, as enunciated by the founders of
Marxism (Marx and Engels J and two foremost leaders of the Marxist
movemen t (Lenin and Trotsky.) Although the selections are mine, none of the
words (except the titles) are mine. All the quotations are in their own words.
Although there are few anthologies enuncia ting the fundamentals of
Marxism, all of them are limited to one, at most two, of these persons.
Furthermore they are limited to a very few topics. What distinguishes this
book from such other books is the fact that it tries to encompass most of the
importan t passages of almost all the writings of these four giants in regard
to the theory and practice of Marxism.

As it can be seen from the contents, at the age of seventy years at

the time, I had once again to go through almost all the published works
of these four Marxists which I have been reading for the last sixtyyears and
used extensively in my polemical works written in Sinha/a language against
Sri Lankan misleaders of the working class, defending the fundamentals of
Marxism. One might th ink that it would have been a tiresome and boring
task for me. On the con trary, it was the most refreshing task that I could have
set myself at this age, for it enabled me not only to refresh my memory but
also to get reaffirmed as to the correctness and validity of Marxism in
comprehending the world in a scientific way in order to change it ,
notwithstanding all vicious attacks and misrepresentations and outrigh t
distortions made incessan tly by bourgeois politicians and their petty-
bourgeois theoreticians as well as m isleaders of the working class
throughout the world against Marxism. When the Soviet Union and its
satellite countries collapsed like a house of cards in 1990s, they did their best
to ident抄 it as the final collapse of Marxism, as if no one has ever even
thought of such an even tuality, wh ich is a deliberate lie, for it is a well-
known fact that Trotsky, from the very beginning of h is struggle against
Stalin and the Soviet bureaucracy as far back as late 1920s, insisted tha t the

1
Soviet Union would collapse sooner or later, under the pressure o「concerted
hostile pressure of world imperialism, unless the world revolu tion comes to
its rescue and he irreconcilab ly fough t un til he was murdered by Stalin
against the Stalinist theory of Socialism in one country . Thus it is highly
unwarranted for anyone to identify the collapse of the Soviet Un ion with the
alleged collapse of Marxism. Yet the ideologues of the world bourgeoisie not
only base themselves on the above hypocritical stance, but also try on this
basis to glorify the so-called liberal cap italism as the culm ination po in t in
historical process, which was baptized by Francis Fukuyama as THE END
OF HISTORY, a phrase stolen from Hegel and Marx. The bankrup tcy of these
"theoreticians is such, this so-called irreversible culmination poin t has
engu lfed the world capitalist economy into a severe crisis in 2008, which it
was unable to overcome so far, despite resorting to all the despera te
measures totally inimical to the alleged omnipotence of'market forces'. In
addition to that, almost all the coun tries, especial ly the most
capitalistical ly developed countries, have already taken steps to go back to
an era of trade wars, which they claimed not so long ago, as belonging to a
bygone era with the advent of yet another irreversible era - that of
globalization. In this context, to get a correct understanding of wha t is
happening in the world, a thorough understanding of Marxism becomes all
the more necessary and indispensable.

Of course, if this kind of a book is to be all-inclusive, there are some

though t-provoking and wonderful passages by other Marxist gian ts such as
Plekhanov, Karl Kautsky, Rosa Luxemburg etc. should also be included. It
goes without saying that it is a task beyond my imagination, considering the
enormous size such a book will assume and the enormous cost that will
increase thereby.

Although there is no strict order in arranging these quotations, a

semblance of order is there nonetheless. Philosophy comes first along
with religion. Economics follows. Then matters pertaining to political
matters. The right of nations to se lf- determination gets a special treatment ,
not on ly because it is high ly controversial within the world Marxist
movement, but also because of its special relevance to Sri Lanka, which,
despite its 30-year war, is nowhere near any type of solution to the
2
national question. Finally comes matters relating to politics as well as
various personalities and countries. As to the order of presenting the
views our four Marxists , it is always Marx, Engels, Len in and Trotsky , as it
should be.

It cannot be claimed that this is an exhaustive exposition of Marxism,

and the editor of this book has no such a claim whatsoever. These
quota tions were selected and arranged original ly with the sole in ten tion of
translating them in to Sinhala language and to provide the Sinhala
readers with a nearly comprehensive, book enabling them to get an
overall view of Marxism, in the con text of prevailing dearth of Marxist
literature in Sri Lanka. When the original English version was completed, it
natural ly came to my mind, as to why shouldn't it be pub lished in English
also. Getting such an idea into mind and getting it materialized are
completely d ifferen t things and it was attested by the fact that I had to wait
for more than] years to get it published. In the mean time, the Sinhala
translation was published in 2017, to coincide with the centena,y
commemoration of the 1917 October Revolution. Now, at last , I am in
a position to publish the English version as well, this time, to coincide with
the 200 th birth anniversa,yof Karl Marx which falls on the 5小 。if May 2018.
As a result I had to postpone my original plan to publish the Sinhala
translation of Franz Mehring's biography of Marx to coincide with his 200 th
birth anniversa,y,as Mehring himse lf has published his original German
version in 1918 to coincide with the cen tena,ycommemoration of Karl
Marx. As it is more appropriate to contribute to the in terna tional
working class movemen t a book of this type on this historic occasion, wh ich
has the poten tial to clarify and galvanize the understanding of Marxism
, arming the ostensible Marxists as well as potential Marxists, while
disarming not on ly the Stalinists, Maoists, opportunists and sectarians but
also the so-called post-modernists who are doing their best to confuse the
would- be Marxists by mixing clear-cut Marxist concepts with high ly
unin telligible phraseology, which appear on the surface to be highly erudite,
but hollow and pure balderdash to the core in fact..

Final ly, I should thank the comrades who con tributed financially enabling
me to publish this book, without which I wouldn' t have achieved it. As it
3
is the brain-child [ or, as my political detractors may cynically say,
brainless- child) 。tf mine, I am responsible for whatever shortcomings it
may contain. I hope everyone, including those who consider themselves
omniscien t, will have something to learn from what appears in th is book and,
at least a few of them would go to the original sources not only to verify but
also to get to the bottom of the relevan t subjects , and take their pens in to
their own hands to contribute something to defend and, in the process,
develop Marxism. Furthermore I hope my readers and critics would point out
whatever shortcomings or mistakes it may contain, so I could correct
them in a future edition, in case I will be fortunate enough to do so.

01/05/2018
405B, Rubberwattha Road,
Modarawila,
Panadura,
Sri Lanka.
EMAIL tulsiriandradi79@gmail.com
Telephone 94 0382237470
LOGIN ~

4
 The His toric Role ofKarl Marx

Jus t as Darw in d iscovered the laws o f develo pmen t o f

or gan ic na ture, so Marx d iscovered the laws o f develo pment o f
human h is to ry : the s im ple fac t, h itherto concealed b y an
over growth o f ideolo gy, tha t mank ind mus t firs t o f all ea t, dr ink,
have she lter and clo th in g, be fore it can pursue pol itics, sc ience,
art, rel igion, e tc; tha t there fore the produc tion o f the immed ia te
ma ter ial means o f subs is tence and conse quen tl y the de gree o f
econom ic develo pmen t a tta ined b y given peo ple or dur in g a given
e poch form the founda tion upon wh ich the s ta te ins titutions, the
le gal conceptions, art and even the ideas on rel igion o f the peo ple
concerned have been evolved, and in the l igh t o f wh ich the y mus t
there fore be ex pla ined, ins tead o f v ice versa, as had h itherto been
the case.
(Engels- Speech a t the Graves ide o f Karl Marx - Marx - Engels -
Selec ted Works - Vo l.II - p 167 (1883)

His torical Materialism

The conclus ion that ne ither le gal rela tions nor pol itical
forms could be comprehended whe ther b y themselves or on the
bas is o f a so-called general develo pmen t o f the human m ind, bu t
that on the con tra ry the y or igina te in the mater ial cond itions o f
5
life, the totality of which Hegel, following the example of Engl ish
and French thinkers of the eighteenth century, embraces within
the tenn "civil society"; that, the anatomy of this civil society,
however, has to be sought in political economy . . . the general
conclusion at which I arrived and which, once reached, become
the guiding principle of my studies can be smnmarized as follows.
In the social production of their existence, men inevitabl y enter
into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely
relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the
development of their material forces of production. The totality of
these relations of production constitutes the economic structure
of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and
political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms
of social consciousness. The mode ofproduction of material life
conditions. the general process of social, political and
intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that
determines their existence, but their social existence that
determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of
development, the material productive forces of society come into
conflict with the existing relations ofproduction or - this merely
expresses the same thing in legal terms with the property
relations within the fi·amework of which they have operated
hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces
these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of
social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead
sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense
superstructure. In studying such transformations it is always
necessary to distinguish between the material transformation of
the economic conditions of production, which can be determined
with the precision of natural science, and the legal, political,
6
rel igious, a rtis tic or ph iloso phic- in sho rt, ideolo gical forms in
wh ich men become consc ious o f th is con flic t and figh t it ou t.Jus t
as one does no t jud ge an ind iv idual b y wha t he th inks abou t
h imsel f, so one canno t jud ge such a per iod o f trans formation b y
its consc iousness, bu t, on the contrar y, th is consc iousness mus t be
ex pla ined from the con trad ic tions o f ma ter ial l ife, from the
con flic t ex is tin g be tween the soc ial forces o f produc tion and the
rela tions o f produc tion. No so cial order is ever des troyed before
all the produc tive forces for wh ich it is sufficien t have been
developed, and new super ior rela tions of produc tion never
replace older ones before the ma terial conditions for the ir
ex is tence have ma tured w ith in the framework of t/ze old so cie ty.
Mank ind thus inev itably se ts itse lf only such tasks as it is able to
solve, s ince closer exam ina tion will always show tha t the
problem itse lf arises only when the ma terial conditions for its
solu tion are always presen t or a t leas t in the course of
forma tion. In broad ou tline, the As ia tic, anc ien t, feudal and
modem bour geo is modes o f produc tion ma y be des igna ted as
e pochs mak in g pro gress in the econom ic develo pmen t o f soc ie ty.
The bour geo is mode o f produc tion is the las t an ta gon is tic form o f
the soc ial process o f produc tion- an ta gon is tic no t in the sense o f
ind iv idual an ta gon ism bu t o f an an ta gon ism tha t emana tes from
the ind iv idual soc ial cond itions o f ex is tence-bu t the produc tive
forces develo pin g w ith in bour geo is soc ie ty crea te also the
ma ter ial cond itions for a solu tion o f th is an ta gon ism. The
preh is to ry o f human soc ie ty accord in gl y closes w ith th is soc ial
forma tion.
(A Con tribu tion to the Cr itique o f Pol itical Econom y - Marx - pp.
20/22 (1859)

7
 Prole taria t and Philosophy
The proletariat is coming into being in Germany as a result
of the rising industrial development. For it is not the naturally
arising poor but artificially impoverished, not the human masses
mechanically oppressed by the gravity of society but the masses
resulting from the drastic dissolution of society, mainly of the
middle estate, that form the proletariat, although it is obvious that
gradually the naturally arising poor and the Christian Germanic
serfs also join its ranks.

By proclaiming the dissolution of the hitherto existing

world order the proletariat merely states the secret of its own
essence, for it is in fact the dissolution of the world order by
demanding the negation of private property. The proletariat
merely raises to the rank of a principle of society what society has
made the principle of the proletariat, what, without its own
cooperation, is already incorporated in it as the negative result of
society. In regard to the world which is coming into being the
proletarian then finds himself possessing the same right as the
German king in regard to the world which has come into being
when he calls the people his people as he calls the horse his horse.
By declaring the people his private property the king simply states
that the property owner is king.

As philosophy finds its material weapons in the

proletariat, so the proletariat find its spiritual weapons in
philosophy. And once the lightning of thought has s quarely struck
this ingenuous soil of the people the emanicipation of the
Germans into human bein gs will take place.

8
 Let us sum up the result.

The only practically possible liberation of Germany is

l iberation that proceeds from the stand point of the theory which
proclaims man to be the highest being for man.
In Germany no kind of bondage can be broken without
breaking every land o f bondage. The thorough Gennany cannot
make a revolution without making a thoroughgoing revolution.
The emancipation of Germany is the emanicipation of the
human being. The head of this emanicipation is philosophy;its
heart is the proletariat. Philosophy cannot be made a reality
without the abolition of the proletariat; the proletariat cannot be
abolished without philosophy being made a reality.
(Marx-Con tribu tion to the Cr itique o f He gel's Ph iloso ph y o f Law -
MECW-Vo l.3 - pp. 186/87)

Ruling Ideas
The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the
ruling ideas, i.e. - the class which is the ruling material force of
society is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class
which has the means of material production at its disposal,
conse quently also controls the means of mental production, so that
the ideas of those who lacks the means of mental production are
on the whole are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more
than the ideal ex pression o f the dominant material relations, the
dominant material relations grasped as ideas; hence of the
relations which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the
ideas of its dominance.
(Marx- German Ideolo gy -MECW-Vo l. 5 - P. 59 (I 845)

9
 Hege为Dialectics
Bu t you ou gh t on no accoun t to read He gel as Herr Ba rth
has done, namel y in order to d iscover the paralo gisms and ro tten
dod ges wh ich served h im as levers in cons truc tion. Tha t is pure
schoolbo y's work. It is much more im po rtan t to d iscover the tru th
and the gen ius wh ich l ie beneath the false form and w ith in the
artific ial connec tions. Thus the trans itions from one ca te gor y or
from one con trad ic tion to the nex t are nearl y alwa ys arb i甘ar y,
o ften made throu gh a pun.

He gel's d ialec tics is u ps ide down because it is su pposed to

be the "sel f-develo pmen t o f thou gh t" o f wh ich the d ialec tics o f
fac ts there fore is onl y a re flec tion,whereas really the dialec tics in
our heads is only the reflection of the actual developmen t go in g
on in the world of na ture and of human h is tory in obedience to
dialectical forms.
(En gels to Schm id t - Marx-En gels - Selec ted Correspondence - pp .
438/39(1891)

Marx's Dialectics

M y d ialec tical me thod is no t onl y d ifferen t from the

He gel ian, bu t is its d irec t o ppos ite. To He gel, the l ife process o f
the human bra in, i.e., the process o f th ink in g, wh ich, under the
name o f "the Idea", he even trans forms in to an inde penden t
subjec t, is the dem iurgos o f the real world, and the real world is
onl y the ex ternal, phenomenal form o f "the Ide a. " With me, on
the con trary, the idea is no th ing else than the ma terial world

10
reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of
thought.
The mystifying side of Hegelian dialectic I
criticised nearly thirty years ago, at a time when it was still the
fa shion. But just as I was working at the first volume of "Das
Kapital, " it was the good pleasure of the peevish, arrogant,
mediocre........... who now talk large in cul tured German y, to
treat He gel in same. way as the brave Moses Mendelsohn in
Lessing's time treated Spinoza, i.e., as a "dead dog." I therefore
openly avowed myself the pupil of that mighty thinker, and even
here and there, in the chapter on the theory of value, co quetted
with the modes of expression pecu liar to him. The mystification
which dialectic suffers in Hegel's hands, by no means prevents
him from being the first to present its general form of working in a
comprehensive and conscious manner. With him it is standing on
its head. It must be turned right side up again, if you would
discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell.

In its mystified form, dialectic became the fashion in

Germany, because it seemed to transfigure and to glorify the
existing state of things. In its rational form it is a scandal and
abomination to bourgeoisdom and its doctrinaire professors,
because it includes in its comprehension and affirmative
recognition of the existing state of things, at the same time also,
the recognition of the negation of that state, of its inevitable
breaking up; because it regards every historically developed
social form as in fluid movement, and therefore takes in to
accoun t its transient nature not less than its momentary

11
ex is tence; because it le ts no th ing imposes upon it, and is in its
essence critical and revolu tiona ry.

(Marx- Ca pital - Afterword to the second German Ed ition - Vo l. 1-

pp . 19/20 (1873)

Philosopher 's World

The ordinary man does no t th ink he is sa yin g an yth in g

ex traord inary when he s ta tes tha t there are a pples and pears. Bu t
when the ph iloso pher ex presses the ir ex is tence in the s pecula tive
wa y he sa ys some th in g ex traord inar y. He per forms a m iracle b y
produc in g the real na tural objec ts, the a pple, the pear, e tc., ou t o f
the unreal crea tion o f the m ind, "the Fru it, i.e., b y crea tin g
those fruits ou t o f h is own abs trac t reasons, wh ich he cons iders
as an Absolu te subjec t ou ts ide h imsel f, re presented here as "the
Fru it. " And in re gard to eve y objec t the ex is tence o f wh ich he
ex presses, he accom pl ishes an ac t o f crea tion.

It goes w ithou t sa yin g tha t the s pecula tive ph iloso pher

accom pl ishes th is con tinuous crea tion onl y b y presen tin g
un iversall y known qua lities o f the a pple, the pear, e tc., wh ich
ex is t in real ity, as de term in in g fea tures inven ted b y h im, b y
giv in g the names o f the real th in gs to what abs trac t reason alone
can crea te, to abs trac t formulas o f reason, finall y, b y declarin g h is
own ac tiv ity, b y wh ich he passes from the idea o f a an a pple to
the idea o f pear, to be the sel f-ac tiv ity o f the Absolu te Subjec t,
the Fru it.

12
 In the s pecula tive wa y o f s peak in g th is o pera tion is called
com prehend in g subs tance as Subjec t, as an inner process, as an
Absolu te Person, and th is com prehens ion cons titutes the essen tial
character o f He gel's method.
(Marx-The Hol y Fam il y -MECW- Vo l. 4 - p. 60 (1845)

YoungHegi或'an Philosophe邓

H itherto men have alwa ys formed wron g ideas abou t

themselves, abou t wha t the y are and wha t the y ou gh t to be. The y
have arran ged the ir rela tions accord in g to the ir ideas o f God, o f
normal man, e tc. The produc t o f the ir bra ins have go t ou t o f the ir
hands. The y, the crea tors, have bowed down be fore the ir
crea tions. Le t us l ibera te ~hem from the ch imeras, the ideas,
do gmas, ima ginar y be in gs under the yoke o f wh ich the y are
pin in g awa y. Le t us revol t a ga ins t th is rule o f concepts. Le t us
teach men, sa ys one (Feuerbach) how to exchan ge these
ima ginations for thou gh t wh ich corres pond to the essence o f man;
sa ys ano ther (Bruno Bauer) how to take u p a cr itical a ttitude to
them; sa ys the th ird (Max S timer) how to ge t them ou t o f the ir
heads; and ex is tin g real ity w ill colla pse.

These innocen t and ch ild-l ike fanc ies are the kernel of the
modem youn g He gel ian ph iloso ph y.

The old He gel ians had unders tood eve ryth in g as soon as
it was reduced to a He gel ian lo gical ca te gory. The youn g
He gel ians cr iticized eve ryth in g b y ascrib in g rel igious conce ptions
to it b y declarin g tha t it is a theolo gical ma tte r. The youn g
13
He gel ians are in a greemen t w ith the old He gel ians in the ir bel ie f
in the rule o f re ligion, o f concepts, o f a un iversal pr inc iple in the
ex is tin g world. Exce pt tha t the one pa rty a ttacks the rule as
usurpa tion, wh ile the o ther ex tols it as le gitima te. … ·

The youn g He gel ian ideolo gis ts, in s pite o f the ir alle gedl y
world shatter in g phrases, are the s taunches t conserva tives. The
mos t recen t o f them have found the correc t ex press ion for the ir
ac tiv ity when the y declare the y are onl y fi gh tin g a ga ins t phrases.
The y forge t, however, that the y themselves are o ppos in g no th in g
bu t phrases to these phrases, and the y are in no wa y comba tin g the
real ex is tin g world when the y are comba tin g solel y the phrases o f
th is world.......

It has no t occurred to an y one o f these ph iloso phers to

in qu ire in to the connec tion o f German ph iloso ph y w ith German
real ity, the connec tion o f the ir cr itic ism w ith the ir own ma ter ial
surround ings.
(Marx- German Ideolo gy - MECW- Vo l. 5 - pp. 23, 29/ 30 (1845)

Hegel's language

When in 1831 the d yin g He gel le ft the le gac y o f h is

s ys tem to h is d isc iples, the ir number was s till rela tivel y smal l. The
s ys tem onl y ex is ted in that no doub t s tric t and r igid, bu t also sol id
form wh ich has s ince been much cr itic ised bu t was no thin g less
than a necess ity. He gel h imsel f, proudl y con fiden t in the s tren gth
o f the idea, had done little to po pularise h is doc trine. The w ritin gs
he has publ ished were all couched in a r igorousl y sc ien tific,
almos t thorn y s tyle, and, l ike the Jahrb iicher fiir
14
w issenscha ftlich kr itik, in wh ich h is pu pils wro te a fter the same
fash ion, could coun t on onl y a small, and moreover preoccu pied,
publ ic o f scholars.The lan gua ge d id no t need to be ashamed o f the
scars rece ived in the s tru ggle w ith thou gh t; wha t was firs t re qu ired
was to rejec t dec idedl y ever yth in g ima ginar y, fan tas tic, and
emo tional and to gras p pure thou gh t in its sel f-crea tion. Once th is
secure base o f o pera tions had been ach ieved, it was poss ible to
awa it in calm a subse quen t reac tion o f the excluded elemen ts and
even descend in to un ph iloso ph ic consc iousness, s ince the rear was
covered. The in fluence o f He gel's lec tures alwa ys rema ined
l im ited to a small c ircle, and al thou gh its im po rtance there was
grea t, it could bear fru it onl y in la ter years.
(Mar,:.- Schell in g and Revala tion- MECW-Vo l. 2 - P. 195 (1841 - 42)

Ludwig Feuerbach

Feuerbach is the onl y one who has a ser ious, cr itical

a ttitude to the He gel ian d ialec tic and who has made genu ine
d iscover ies in th is field. He 1s in fac t the true con queror o f the old
ph iloso ph y. The ex ten t o f h is ach ievemen t, and the un pre ten tious
s im plic ity w ith wh ich he, Feuerbach, gives it to the world, s tand
in s trik in g con tras t to the o ppos ite a ttitude (o f the o thers)

Feuerbach's grea t ach ievemen t is:

1) The proo f tha t ph iloso ph y is no th in g else bu t rel igion

rendered in to thou gh t and ex pounded b y thou gh t, i.e.,
ano ther form and manner o f ex is tence o f the es tran gemen t
o f the essence o f man; hence e quall y to be condemned.

15
 ． ．
2) The es tab lishmen t o f true ma ter ia lism and • o f real
s cience, b y ma kin g the soc ial relationsh ip o f "man to
man" the bas ic pr inc iple o f the theo ry;

3) H is o ppos in g to the ne ga tion o f the ne ga tion, wh ich cla ims

to be the absolu te pos i tive, the sel f-su ppo rtin g pos itive,
pos itivel y based on itsel f.

Feuerbach ex pla ins the He gel ian d ialec tic (and thereb y
jus tifies s taiiin g ou t from the pos itive fac ts wh ich we know b y the
senses) as follows.

He gel se ts ou t from the es tran gemen t o f subs tance (in

lo gic, from the in fin ite, the abs trac tly un iversal) - from the
absolu te and fixed abs trac tion; wh ich means, pu t in a po pular
wa y, tha t he se ts ou t from rel igion and theolo gy.

Secondl y, he annuls the in fin ite, and pos its the ac tual,
sensuous, real, fin ite, pa rticular ( ph iloso ph y , annulmen t o f
rel igion and theolo gy. )

Th irdl y, he a ga in annuls the pos itive and res tores the

abs trac tion, the in fin ite -res tora tion o f rel igion and theolo gy.

(Marx- Econom ic and Ph iloso phical Manuscripts o f 1844 - MECW-Vo l. 3 -

pp. 328/29)

16
 Theses on Feuerbach

The ch ie f de fec t o f all h ithe rto ex is tin g ma ter ial ism- tha t o f
Feuerbach included -is tha t the th in g (Ge gens tand), real ity,
sensuousness, is conce ived onl y in the form o f the objec t (objek t)
or con tem pla tion (Anschanun g), bu t no t as human
sensuousness, ac tiv ity, prac tice, no t subjec tivel y.Hence it
ha ppened tha t the ac tive s ide, in con trad is tinc tion to ma ter ial ism,
was develo ped b y ideal ism - bu t no t abs trac tl y, s ince, of course,
ideal ism does no t know real, sensuous ac tiv ity as such.
Feuerbach wan ts sensuous objec ts, reall y d ifferen tia ted from the
thou gh t objec ts, bu t he does no t conce ive human ac tiv ity itsel f as
objec tive (ge ge gs tandliche) ac tiv ity. Hence in the Essence o f
Chr is tian ity, he re gards the theore tical a ttitude as the onl y
genu inel y human a ttitude, wh ile prac tice is conce ived and fixed
onl y in its d irty—juda ical form o f appearance. Hence he does no t
gras p the s ign ificance o f'revolu tionary' , o f "prac tical - cr itical,"
ac tiv ity.

I. The ques tion whe ther objec tive (ge gens tandliche) truth
can be a ttribu ted to human th ink in g is no t a ques tion o f
theo ry but is a prac tical ques tion. In prac tice man mus t
prove the truth, tha t is, the real ity and power, the this-
s idedness (D iesse itigke it) of h is th ink in g. The d is pu te
over the real ity or non- real ity o f th ink in g wh ich is isola ted
from prac tice is a purel y scholas tic ques tion.

II. The ma ter ial is t doc trine tha t men are produc ts o f
c ircums tances and u pbrin gin g, and tha t, there fore, chan ged
17
 men are produc ts o f o ther c ircums tances and chan ged
u pbrin gin g, for ge ts that it is men tha t chan ge
c ircums tances and tha t the educa tor h imsel f needs
educatin g. Hence th is doc trine necessar il y a rrives a t
d iv id in g soc ie ty in to two pa rts, o f wh ich one is su perior to
soc ie ty (in Robe rt Owen, for exam ple.)

The co inc idence o f the chan gin g o f c ircums tances and o f

human ac tiv ity can be conce ived and ra tionall y unders tood
onl y as revolu tion is in g prac tice

II I. Feuerbach s ta rts ou t from the fac t o f re ligious sel f

al iena tion, the du pl ica tion o f the world in to a rel i gious,
ima gina ry world and a real one. H is work cons is ts in the
d issolu tion o f the rel igious world in to its secular bas is. He
overlooks the fac t tha t a fter com ple tin g th is work, the
ch ie f th in g s till rema ins to be done. For the fac t tha t the
secular founda tion de taches itsel f from itsel f and
es tabl ishes itsel f in the clouds as an inde penden t realm is
reall y onl y to be ex pla ined b y the sel f-cleava ge and sel f-
con trad ic toriness o f th is secular bas is. The la tter mus t
itsel f, there fore, firs t be unders tood in the con trad ic tion
and then, b y the removal o f the con trad ic tion,
revolu tion ised in prac tice. Thus, for ins tance, once the
earthl y fam il y is d iscovered to be the secre t o f the hol y
fam il y, the former mus t then itsel f be critic ised in theo ry
and revolu tion ised in prac tice.

18
IV. Feuerbach, no t sa tis fied w ith abs trac t th inkin g, a ppeals
to sensuous con tem pla tion; bu t he does no t conce ive
sensuousness as prac tical, human- sensuous ac tiv ity.

V. Feuerbach resolves the rel igious essence in to the human

essence. Bu t the human essence is no abs trac tion inheren t
in each s in gle ind iv idua l. In its real ity it is the ensemble o f
the soc ial rela tions.

Feuerbach, who does no t en ter u pon a c ritic ism o f th is

real essence, is conse quen tly com pelled:

1) To abs trac t from the h is tor ical process and to fix

the rel igious sen timen t (Gem iit) as some th in g b y
itsel f and to presu ppose an abs trac t- isola ted -
human ind iv idua l.

2) The human essence, there fore, can w ith h im be

com prehended onl y as "genus", as an in ternal,
dumb general ity wh ich merel y na turall y unites the
man y ind iv iduals.

V I. Feuerbach, conse quen tly, does no t see tha t the "rel igious
sen timen t" is itsel f a so cial produc t, and tha t the abs trac t
ind iv idual whom he anal yses belon gs in real ity to a
particular form o f soc ie ty.

VII. Soc ial life is essen tiall y prac tica l. All m ys ter ies wh ich
m islead theor y to m ys tic ism find the ir ra tional solu tion in
human prac tice and in the com prehens ion o f th is prac tice.

19
 ．
VII I. The h ighes t po in t a tta ined b y con tem pla tive ma ter ial ism,
that is. ma ter ial ism wh ich does no t unders tand
sensuousness as prac tical ac tiv ity, is the con tem pla tion o f
s in gle ind iv iduals in "c iv il soc ie ty. "

IX. The s tand po int o f the old ma ter ial ism is "c iv il" soc ie ty; the
s tand po in t o f the new is human soc ie ty, or soc ial ised
human ity.

X. The ph iloso phers have onl y in ter pre ted the world, m
various wa ys; the po in t, however, is to chan ge it.
(Marx-Theses on Feuerbach-Marx —Engels Selected Works- Vo l. II -
pp .403/05) (1845)

Limita tions ofthe 1 沪Cen tury Ma terialism

The ma ter ia lism o f the las t cen tury was predom inan tl y
mechan ical, because a t tha t time, o f all na tural sc iences, onl y
mechan ics, and indeed onl y the mechan ics o f sol id bod ies -
celes tial and terres trial - in sho rt, the mechan ics o f grav ity, had
come to an y de fin ite close. Chem is try a t tha t time ex is ted onl y in
the infan tile, philo gis tic form. B iolo gy s till la y in swaddl in g
clo thes; ve ge table and an imal organ isms had been onl y rou ghl y
exam ined and were ex pla ined as the resul t o f purel y mechan ical
cause. Wha t the an imal was to Desca rtes, man was to the
ma terial is ts o f the e igh teen th cen tury- a mach ine. Th is exclus ive
a ppl ica tion o f the s tandards o f mechan ics to process o f a chem ical
and or gan ic na ture - in wh ich processes the laws o f mechan ics
are, indeed, also val id, bu t are pushed in to the back ground b y

20
o ther h igher laws - cons titutes the firs t s pec ific bu t a t tha t time
inev itable l im ita tion o f class ical French mater ial ism.

The second s pec ific lim ita tion o f th is ma ter ial ism la y in its
inab il ity to com prehend the un iverse as a process, as ma tter
under go in g un in ten卫pted h is torical develo pmen t. Th is was in
accordance w ith the level o f the na tural sc ience o f tha t time, and
w ith the me taph ys ical, tha t is, an ti-d ialec tical manner o f
ph iloso ph is in g connec ted w ith it. Na ture, so much was known,
was in e ternal mo tion. Bu t accord in g to the ideas o f tha t time, th is
mo tion turned, also e ternall y, in a c ircle and there fore never
moved from the s po t; it produced the same resu lts over and over
a ga in. Th is conce ption was at tha t time inev itable. The Kan tian
theo ry o f the or igin o f the solar s ys tem had been pu t forward bu t
recen tl y and was s till re garded merel y as a cur ios ity. The h is tory
o f the develo pmen t o f the earth, geolo gy, was s till to tall y
unknown, and the conce ption tha t the an ima te na tural be in gs o f
today are the resul t o f a lon g se qence o f develo pmen t from the
s im ple to the complex could no t a t tha t time sc ien tificall y be pu t
forward a t al l. The unhis tor ical v iew o f na ture was there fore
inev itable. We have the less reason to reproach the ph iloso phers
o f the e igh teen th cen tury on th is accoun t, s ince the same th in g is
found in He ge l. Accord in g to h im, na ture, as a mere "al iena tion"
o f the idea, is incapable o f develo pmen t in time - ca pable onl y o f
ex tend in g its man ifoldness in s pace, so tha t it d is plays
s imul taneousl y and alon gs ide o f one ano ther all the s ta ges o f
develo pmen t comprised in it, and is condemned to an e ternal
re pe tition o f the same processes.....
(En gels-Ludw ig Feuerbach and the End o f Class ical German Ph iloso phy-
Marx-En gels Selec ted Works-Vo l. II- pp. 373 /74 (1888)

21
 r
1

Feuerbach ~ Historic Role

Then came Feuerbach's Essence of Christianity. With

one blow it pulverised the contradiction, in that without
cirumlocutions it placed materialism on the throne again. Nature
exists independent of all philosophy. It is the foundation upon
which we human beings, ourselves products of nature, have,
grown up. Nothing exists outside nature and man, and higher
beings our religious fantasies have created are only the fantastic
reflections of our own essence. The s pell was broken: the
"s ystem" was exploded and cast aside, and the contradiction,
shown to exist onl y in our imagination, was dissolved. One must
himself have experienced the liberating effect of this book to get
an idea of it. Enthusiasm was general; we all became at once
Feurbachians. How enthusiasticall y Marx greeted the new
conception and how much-in spite of all critical reservations - he
was influenced b y it, one may read in the Hol y Fam ily.

Even the shortcomings of the of the book contributed to

its immediate effect. Its literary, sometimes even high-flown,
style secured for it a large public and was at an y rate refreshing
after long years of abstract and abstruse Hegelianising. The same
is true of its extravagant deification of love, which, coming after
the now intolerable sovereign rule of "pure reason" had its excuse,
if not justification......

But what we must not forget is that it was precisel y these

two weaknesses of Feurbach that the "true Socialism", which had
been spreading l ike a plague in "educated" Germany since 1844,
22
took a t its s ta rtin g po in t, pu ttin g l itera ry phrases in the place o f
sc ien tific knowled ge, the liberation o f man kind b y means o f
"love" in place o f the eman ic ipation o f the prole tar ia t throu gh the
econom ic trans forma tion o f produc tion, los in g itsel f in the
nauseous fine w ritin g and ecs tas ies o f love typified b y Herr Karl
G riin.
Ano ther th in g we mus t no t for ge t is th is: the He gel ian
school d is in te grated, bu t He gel ian philoso ph y was no t overcome
throu gh cr itic ism; …..F euerbach broke throu gh the s ys tem and
s im pl y d iscarded it. Bu t a ph ilosophy is no t disposed of by the
mere assertion tha t it is false. And so powe rful a work as
He gel ian ph iloso ph y, wh ich had exer cised so enormousan
in fluence on the in tellec tual develo pmen t o f the nation, could no t
be d is posed o f b y s im pl y be in g ignored. It had to be "subla ted"
in its own sense, tha t is, in the sense that wh ile its form had to be
ann ihila ted throu gh cr itic ism, the new con ten t which had been
won throu gh it had to be saved....

Bu t in the mean time, the revolu tion o f 1848 thrus t the

whole ph iloso ph y as ide as unceremon iousl y as Feuerbach had
thrus t as ide He ge l. And in the process Feuerbach h imsel f was also
pushed into the back ground.

(En gels-Ludw ig Feuerbach and the End o f Class ical German Ph ilosophy-
Marx- Engels Selec ted Works-Vo l. 11 - pp. 367/368 (1888)

Feuerbach on Love

Now rela tions be tween human be in gs, based on a ffec tion,

and es pec iall y be tween the two sexes, have ex is ted as lon g as

23
mankind has. Sex love in particular has undergone a development 1

and won a place during the last eight hundred years which has
made it a compulsory pivotal point of all poetry during this
period. The existing positive religions have limited themselves to !
the bestowal of a higher consecration upon state re gulated sex ;
love, that is, upon the marriage laws, and they could all disappear
tomorrow without changing in the slightest the practice of love
and friendship . Thus the Christian religion in France, as a matter 1
of fact, so completely disappeared in the years 1793-98 that even;
Napoleon could not re-introduce it without opposition and:
difficulty; and this without any need for a substitute, in!
Feuerbach's sense, making itself felt in the interval.

Feuerbach's idealism consists here in this: he does not !

simply accept mutual relations based on reciprocal inclination'1
between human beings, such as sex love, friendship, compassion, :
self-sacrifice, etc., as what they are in themselves, without
associating them with any particular religion which to him, too,
belongs to the past; but instead he asserts that they will attain their :
full value only when consecrated by the name of religion. The i
chief thing for him is not that these purely human relations exist,
but that they shall be conceived of as the new, true religion. They !
are to have full value only a fter they have been marked with a ;
religious stamp. Religion is derived from religare and meant
originally a bond. Therefore every bond between two people is a
religion. Such etymological tricks are the last resort of idealist i

philosophy. Not what the word means according to the historical

development of its actual use, but what ought to mean according
to its derivation is what counts. And so sex love and the
intercourse between the sexes is apotheosised to a religion merely
24
in order tha t the word rel igion, wh ich is so dear to the ideal is tic
memor ies, ma y no t d isa ppear from the lan gua ge... If Feuerbach
w ishes to es tabl ish a true rel igion u pon the bas is o f an essen tiall y
ma ter ia lis t conce ption o f na ture, that is the same as re gardin g
modem chem is try as true alchem y. If rel igion can ex is t w ithou t its
god, alchem y can ex is t w ithou t its ph iloso pher's s tone. B y the
wa y, there ex is ts a ve ry close connec tion be tween alchem y and
re ligion. The ph iloso pher's s tone has man y godl ike pro pe rties and
the E gyptian - Greek alchem is ts o f the firs t two cen tur ies o f our
era had a hand in the develo pmen t o f Chris ta in doc tr ines, as the
da ta given b y Ko pp and Be rthelo t have proved.

Feuerbach's asse rtion tha t "the per iods o f human ity are
邮tin guished onl y b y rel igious chan ges" is dec idedl y false. Great
h is tor ical turn in g-po in ts have been accom pan ied b y rel igious
chan ges onl y so far as three world rel igions wh ich have ex is ted up
to the presen t-Buddh ism, Chr is tian ity and Islam-are concerned.
The old tribal and na tional rel igions, wh ich arose s pon taneousl y,
d id no t prosel ytize and los t all the ir power o f res is tance as soon as
the inde pendence o f the tr ibe or people was los t.
(En gels-Ludw ig Feuerbach and the End o f Class ical German
Philoso ph y - MESW - Vo l. II - pp. 3 78/80 (1888)

Aliena tion

Pol itical econom y s ta rts w ith the fac t o f pr iva te pro pe rty; it
does no t ex pla in it to us. It ex presses in general abs trac t
formulas.The ma ter ial process throu gh which pr iva te pro pe rty
ac tuall y passes and these formulas it then takes for laws. It does
no t com prehend these laws, i.e., it does no t demons tra te how
the y ar ise from the ve ry nature o f priva te pro pe rty. Pol itical
25
econom y throws no ligh t on the cause o f the d iv is ion be tween
labour and ca pital, and be tween capital and land. When, for ;
exam ple, it de fines the rela tionsh ip o f wa ges to pro fit, it takes the
in teres t o f the ca pital is t to be the ul timate cause, i.e., it takes for
gran ted what it is su pposed to ex pla in. S im ilarl y, com pe tition
comes in eve rywhere. It is ex pla ined from ex ternal c ircums tances. i

As to how these ex ternal and apparen tly acc iden tal c ircums tances j

are bu t the ex press ion o f a necessa ry course o f develo pmen t, ;

pol itical econom y teaches us no th in g .. .. The onl y wheels wh ich !
pol itical econom y se ts in mo tion are greed and the war amon g :
the greed y- com pe tition.

Prec isel y because pol itical econom y does no t gras p i

the wa y the movemen t is connec ted, it was poss ible to o ppose, for
ins tance, the doc trine o f com pe tition to the doc trine o f mono pol y, .l
the doc trine o f the freedom o f the cra fts to the doc trine o f the
gu ild, the doc trine o f d iv is ion o f landed pro pe rty to the doc tr ine o f I
the b ig es ta te - for com pe tition, freedom o f the cra fts and the
d iv is ion o f landed pro pe rty were ex pla ined and com prehended
onl y as acc iden tal, premed ita ted and v iolen t conse quences o f
mono pol y, o f the guild s ys tem, and o f feudal pro pe rty, no t as the ir
necessa ry, inev itable and na tural conse quences.

Now, there fore, we have to gras p the in trins ic connec tion :

be tween priva te pro pe rty, avarice, the separa tion o f labour, ca pital
and landed pro pe rty; the connec tion o f exchan ge and com pe tition,
o f value and the devalua tion o f men, o f mono pol y and
com pe tition, e tc. -we have to gras p th is whole es tran gemen t
connec ted w ith the mone y s ys tem.

26
 Do no t le t us go back to a fic titious pr imord ial cond ition as
the pol itical econom is t does, when he tries to ex pla in. Such a
pr imord ial cond ition ex pla ins no th in g; it merel y pushes the
ques tion awa y in to a gre y nebulous d is tance. The econom is t
assumes in the form o f a fac t, o f an even t, wha t he is su pposed to
deduce - namel y, the necessar y rela tionsh ip between two th in gs -
be tween, for exam ple, d iv is ion o f labour and exchan ge. Thus the
theolo gian ex pla ins the or igin o f ev il b y the fall o f man; tha t is, he
assumes as a fac t, in h is tor ical form, what has to be ex pla ined.

We proceed from an ac tual econom ic fac t.

The worker becomes all the poorer the more wea lth he
produces, the more h is produc tion increases h is power and s ize.
The worker becomes an ever chea per commod ity, the more
commod ities he crea tes. The devalua tion o f the world o f men is
in d irec t pro p01iion to the increas in g value o f the world o f th in gs.
The labour produces no t onl y commod ities; it produces itsel f and
the worker as a commod ity - and th is a t the same ra te a t wh ich it
produces commod ities in genera l.

Th is fac t ex presses merel y tha t the objec t wh ich labour

produces - labour's produc t - con fron t it as some th in g a lien, as a
power inde penden t o f the produce r. The produc t o f labour is
labour wh ich has been embod ied in an objec t, wh ich has become
ma ter ial; it is the objec tifica tion o f labou r. Labour's real isa tion is
its objec tifica tion. Under these econom ic cond itions th is
real isation o f labour appears as loss o f rea lisa tion for the
workers; objec tifica tion as loss o f the objec t and bonda ge to it;
a ppro pr ia tion as es tran gemen t, as a liena tion … ..

27
 All these conse quences are implied in the statement that i
the worker is related to the product of his labour as to an alien j

object. For on this premise it is clear that the more the worker J

s pends himsel f, the more powerful becomes the alien world o f !

objects which he creates over and against himself, the poorer he ]
himself-his inner world - becomes, the less belongs to his as his
own. It is the same as in religion. The more the man puts into
God, the less he retains in himsel f. The worker puts his life into
the object, but now his life no longer belongs to him but to the
object. Hence, the greater this activity, the more the worker lacks
objects. Whatever the product of his labour is, he is not. Therefore
the greater this product, the less is he himself. The alienation o f ,
theworker in his product means not only that his labour becomes j

an object, an external existence, but that it exists outside him, 1

independently, as something alien to him, and that 1t becomes a ]
power on its own confronting him. It means that the li fe which he
has conferred on the object confronts him as something hostile j

and alien.
(Mai-x -Economic and Ph iloso ph ic Manuscrip ts o f 1844 -MECW-Vo l.3
- pp . 270-72)

＊ ＊ ＊
Political economy conceals the estrangement inherent in
the nati,re of labour by not considering the direct relationship
between the worker (labour) and production. It is true that
labour produces wonderftil things for the rich-but for the
worker it produces privation. It produces palaces - but for the
worker, hovels. It produces beauty - but for the worker deformity.
It replaces labour by machines, but it throws one section of the

28
workers, back to a barbarous type o f labour, and it turns the o ther
sec tion in to a mach ine. It produces in tell igence - bu t for the
worker, su1 pid ity, cre tin ism....

T ill now we have been cons ider ing the es 甘an gemen t; the
al iena tion o f the worker onl y in one o f its as pec ts, i.e., the
worker's re liatnon11§ hip to the produc ts o f h is labour. Bu t the
es tran gemen t is man i fes ted no t onl y in the resul t bu t in the ac t o f
produc t沁n, w i th in the produ cin g ac tiv ity itsel f. How could the
worker come to face the produc t o f h is ac tiv i ty as a s tran ger, were
it no t tha t in the ver y ac t o f produc tion he was es tran gin g h imsel f
from h imsel f? The produc t is a fter all bu t the sununa ry o f the
ac tiv ity, o f produc tion. If then the produc t o f labour is al iena tion,
produc tion itsel f mus t be ac tive al iena tion, al iena tion o f ac tiv ity,
the ac tiv ity o f a liena tion. In the es tran gemen t o f the objec t o f
labour is merel y summar ised the es tran gemen t, the al iena tion, in
the ac tiv ity o f labour itsel f.

Wha t, then, cons titutes the al ienation o f labour?

F irs t, the fac t tha t labour is ex ternal to the worker, i.e., it

does no t belon g to h is in tr ins ic na ture; tha t in h is work, there fore,
he does no t a ffirm h imsel f bu t den ies h imsel f, does no t feel
con ten t bu t unhappy, does no t develo p freel y h is ph ys ical and
men tal ener gy bu t mortifies h is bod y and ru ins h is m ind. The
worker there fore onl y feels h imsel f ou ts ide h is work, and in h is
work feels ou ts ide h imsel f. He feels a t home when he is no t
work in g, and when he is work in g he does no t feel a t home. H is
labour is there fore no t volun tary, bu t coerced; it is forced labour.
I t is there fore no t the sa tis fac tion o f a need; it is merel y a means

29
to sa tis fy needs ex ternal to it. Its al ien charac ter emerges clearl y in
the fac t tha t as soon as no ph ys ical or o ther com puls ion ex is ts,
labour is shunned l ike the pla gue. Ex ternal labour, labour in wh ich
man al iena tes h imsel f, is a labour o f sel f - sacr ifice, o f
mo rtifica tion. Las tl y, the ex ternal charac ter o f labour for the
worker appears in the fac t tha t it is no t h is own, bu t someone
else's, tha t it does no t belon g to h im, tha t in it he belon gs, no t to
h imsel f, bu t to ano the r. Jus t as in rel igion the s pon taneous ac tiv ity
o f the human ima gina tion, o f the human bra in and the human
he ai1, o pera tes on the ind iv idual independen tl y o f h im, tha t is, 1

o perates as an al ien, d iv ine or d iabol ical ac tiv ity - so is the

worker's ac tiv ity, no t h is s pon taneous ac tiv ity. It belon gs to
ano ther; it is the loss o f h is sel f.
As a resul t, there fore, man (the worker) onl y feels h imsel f
freel y ac tive is h is an imal func tions - eatin g, drink in g,
procrea tin g, or a t mos t in h is dwell in g and in dress in g-u p, e tc; and
in h is human func tions he no lon ger feels h imsel f to be an yth in g
bu t an an ima l. Wha t is an imal becomes human and wha t is human
becomes an ima l.

Ce rta inl y ea tin g, dr ink in g, procreatin g, e tc., are genu inel y

human func tions. Bu t taken abs trac tly, se para ted from the s phere
o f all o ther human ac tiv ity and turned in to sole and ul tima te ends,
the y are an imal func tions.
(Marx-Econom ic and Ph iloso ph ical Manuscr i p ts o f 1844-MECW-Vo l. 3- p p . 273/7 5)

Hegel and Aliena tion

For He gel the human be in g - man - e quals sel f-

．
consc iousness. All es tran gemen t o f the human be in g is there fore
no th in g bu t es tran gemen t o f sel f~consc iousness. The
30
es tran gemen t o f sel f-consc iousness is no t re garded as an
ex press ion- re flec ted in the realm o f knowled ge and thou gh t - o f
the real es 甘an gemen t o f the human be in g. Ins tead, the ac tual
es tran gemen t - tha t wh ich a ppears real- is accord in g to its
innermos t, h idden na ture (wh ich is onl y brou gh t to l igh t b y
ph iloso ph y) no th in g bu t the man ifes ta tion o f the es tran gemen t o f
the real human essence, o f se lf-cons ciousness. The sc ience wh ich
com prehends th is is there fore called phenomenolo gy … ·

Ex pressed in all its as pec ts, the surmoun tin g o f the objec t
o f cons ciousness means:

I) Tha t the objec t as such presen ts itsel f to consc iousness as

some th in g van ish in g.

2) Tha t it is the al iena tion o f sel f - consc iousness wh ich

pos its th in ghood

3) Tha t th is al iena tion has no t merel y a ne ga tive bu t a

pos itive s ign ificance.

4) Tha t it has th is mean in g no t merel y for us or in tr ins icall y,

bu t for sel f-cons ciousness itsel f.

5) For self - cons ciousness, the ne ga tive of the objec t, or its

annull in g o f itsel f, has pos itive s i gni ficance - or it knows
th is fi.1 til ity o f the objec t - because o f the fac t tha t it
al iena tes itsel f, for in th is al iena tion it pos i ts itsel f as
objec t,or, for the sake o f the ind iv is ible un ity o f be in g-for-
sel f, pos its the objec t as itsel f.
31
 6) On the o ther hand, th is con ta ins likew ise the o ther
momen t, tha t sel f-consc iousness has also jus t as much
su perseded th is al iena tion and objec tiv ity and resumed
them in to itsel f, be in g thus a t home in its o ther-be in g as
such.

7) Th is is the movemen t o f consc iousness and th is 1s

there fore the to tal ity o f its momen ts.

8) Consc iousness mus t s im ilarl y be related to the objec t in

the to tal ity o f its de term inations and have com prehended it
in terms o f each o f them. Th is to tal ity o f its de term ina tions
makes the objec t in tr ins icall y a s pir itual be in g; and it
becomes so in tru th for consc iousness throu gh the
a pprehend in g o f each one o f the de term ina tions as se lf or
throu gh wha t was called above the s pir itual attitude to
them.
(Marx- Economic and Ph iloso ph ical Manuscripts of 184 牛MECW -
Vo l. 3- p.335)

Civil Socie ty
S peak in g exac tl y and in the prosa ic sense, the members o f
c iv il soc ie ty are no t a toms. The s pec ific pro per ty o f the a tom is
tha t it has no pro pe rties and is there fore no t connec ted w ith be in gs
ou ts ide it, b y an y rela tionsh ip de term ined b y its own na tural
necess ity. The a tom has no needs, it is sel f- su ffic ien t; the world
ou ts ide it is an absolute vacuum, i.e., is con ten tless, senseless,
meanin gless; jus t because the a tom has all fullness in itsel f.The
e go is tic ind iv idual in c iv il soc ie ty ma y in h is non-sensuous
32
 ima gina tion and l ifeless abs trac tion in fla te h imsel f in to an a tom,
i.e., in to an unrela ted, sel f-su ffic ien t, wan tless, absolu tel y full,
blessed be in g.Unblessed sensuous rea lity does no t bo ther abou t
h is ima gina tion; each o f h is senses com pels h im to bel ieve in the
ex is tence o f the world and o f ind iv iduals ou ts ide h im, and even
h is pro fane s tomach rem inds h im ever yda y tha t the world ou ts ide
h im is no t em pty, bu t is wha t reall y fills. Eve ry ac tiv ity and
pro pe11 y o f h is be in g, ever y one o f h is v ital ur ges, becomes a
need, a necess ity, wh ich h is self -see kin g h·ans forms in to seek in g
for o ther th in gs and human be in gs ou ts ide h im. Bu t s ince the need
o f one ind iv idual has no sel f- ev iden t mean in g for ano ther e go is tic
ind iv idual ca pable o f sa tis fyin g tha t need, and there fore no d irec t
connec tion w ith its sa tis fac tion, each ind iv idual has to crea te th is
connec tion; it thus becomes the in termed iary be tween the need o f
ano ther and the objec ts o f need. There fore, it is na tural necess ity,
the essen tial human pro per ties however es tran ged the y ma y
seem to be, and in teres t tha t hold the members o f c iv il soc ie ty
to ge ther; civil, no t po litical l ife is the ir real tie. It is there fore no t
the s ta te tha t holds the a toms o f c iv il soc ie ty to ge ther, bu t the fac t
tha t the y are a toms onl y in ima gina tion, in the heaven o f the ir
fanc y, bu t in rea lity be in gs tremendousl y d ifferen t from a toms, in
o ther words, no t d iv ine e go is ts, bu t e go is tic human be in gs. Onl y
po litical su pers tition s till ima gines toda y tha t c iv il l ife mus t be
held to ge ther b y the s ta te, whereas in real i ty, on the con trary, the
s ta te is held to ge ther b y c iv il l ife.
(Marx and Engels - The Holy Fam ily- MECW-Vo l.4- pp 120/21 (I 845)
＊ ＊ ＊
C iv il soc ie ty embraces the whole ma ter ial in tercourse o f
ind iv iduals w ith in a de fin ite s ta ge o f the develo pmen t o f

33
productive forces. It embraces the whole commercial and
industrial life o f a given stage and, insofar, transcends the sta te
and the nation, though, on the other hand again, it must assert
itself in its external relations as nationality and internally must
organise itself as state. The tenn "civil society" emerged in the
eighteenth century, when property relations had already extricated
themselves from the ancient and medieval community. Civil
society as such only develops with the bourgeoisie; the social
organization evolving directly out of production and intercourse, 1

which in all ages forms the basis o f the state and o f the rest o f the
idealistic superstructure, has, however, always ben designated by
the same name.
(Marx - German Ideolo gy - MECW-Vo l.5-p.89)

Prem ises of the Ma terialis t

Conception ofHis tory
The premises from which we begin are not arbitrary ones,
not do gm as, but real premises from which abstraction can only
be made in the imagination. They are real individuals, their
activity and the material conditions of their life, both those which
they find already existing and those produced by their activity.
These premises can thus be verified in a purely emp irical way .

The first premise o f all human history is, o f course, the

ex istence o f l iving human individuals. Thus the first fact to be
established is the physical organisation of these individuals and
their conse quent relation to the rest o f nature. O f course, we
canno t here go either into the actual physical nature o f man, or
into the natural cond itions in which man finds himsel f -

34
geolo gical, oro- h ydro gra ph ical, cl ima tic and so on. All h is tor ical
writin gs mus t se t ou t from these na tural bases and the ir
mod i fica tion in the course o f h is tor y throu gh the ac tion o f men.

Men can be d is tin gu ished from an imals b y consc iousness,

b y re ligion or an yth in g else you l ike. The y themselves be gin to
d is tin gu ish themselves from an imals as soon as the y be gin to
produce the ir means o f subs is tence, a s te p wh ich is cond i tioned
b y the ir ph ys ical or gan isa tion. B y produc in g the ir means o f
subs is tence men are ind irec tl y produc in g the ir ma ter ial l ife. The
wa y in wh ich men produce the ir means o f subs is tence de pends
firs t o f all on the na ture o f the means o f subs is tence the y ac tuall y
find in ex is tence and have to re produce.
(Marx-German Ideolo gy-MECW-Vo l.5~ p.31 (1845)

His to丘cal Materialism

The produc tion o f ideas, o f conce ptions, o f consc iousness,

is a t firs t d irec tl y in terwoven w ith the ma ter ial ac tiv ity and the
ma ter ial in tercourse o f men - the lan gua ge o f real l i fe .
Conce iv in g, th ink in g, the men tal in tercourse o f men a t th is s ta ge
s till a ppears as the d irec t e fflux o f the ir ma ter ial behav io r. The
same appl ies to men tal produc tion as ex pressed in the lan gua ge o f
the pol itics, laws, moral ity, rel igion, me ta ph ys ics, e tc., o f a
peo ple. Men are the producers o f the ir conce ptions, ideas, e tc.,
tha t is, real, ac tive men, as the y are cond itioned b y a de fin ite
develo pmen t o f the ir produc tive forces and o f the in tercourse
corres pond in g to these, u p to its furthes t forms. Consc iousness
[ das bewuss te in] can never be an yth in g else than the consc ious
be in g (das bewuss te Se in), and the be in g o f men is the ir ac tual

35
l ife process. If in all ideolo gy o f men and the ir rela tions a ppear 1

u ps ide-down as in a camera obscura, th is phenomenon ar ises

jus t as much from the ir h is torical l ife-process as the invers ion o f
objec ts on the ir re tina does from the ir ph ys ical l ife-process.

In d irec t con tras t to German ph iloso ph y wh ich descends

from heaven to ea rth, here it is a ma tter o f ascend in g from earth to
heaven. Tha t is to sa y, no t o f se ttin g ou t from wha t men sa y, 1

ima gine, conce ive, nor from men as narrated, thou gh t o f,

imagined, conce ived, in order to arrive at men in the flesh; bu t
se ttin g ou t from real ac tive men, and on the bas is o f the ir real
life-process demons tra tin g the develo pmen t o f the ideolo gical
re flexes and echoes o f th is l ife-process. The phan toms formed in
the bra ins o f men are also, necessaril y, sub limates o f the ir
ma terial life- process, wh ich is em piricall y ver ifiable and bound to
ma ter ial prem ises.Moral ity, rel igion, me ta ph ys ics, and all the res t
o f ideolo gy as well as the forms o f consc iousness corres pond in g
to these, thus no lon ger re ta in the semblance o f inde pendence.
The y have no h is to ry, no develo pmen t; bu t men, develo pin g the ir
ma terial produc tion and the ir mate rial in tercourse, a lter, alon g
w ith th is the ir ac tual world, also the ir th ink in g and the produc ts o f
the ir th ink in g. It is no t consc iousness tha t de term ines l ife, bu t l ife
tha t de term ines consc iousness. For the firs t manner o f approach
the s ta rtin g po in t is consc iousness taken as the liv in g ind iv idual;
for the second manner o f a pproach, wh ich con forms to real l ife, it
is the real liv in g ind iv iduals themselves, and consc iousness is
cons idered solel y as the ir consc iousness.
(Marx - Gennan Ideolo gy-MECW-Vo l. 5- pp. 36/37 (I 845)

36
 Misusing HistoricalMaterialism

There has also been a d iscuss ion in the Vo iks tr ib iine

abou t the d is tr ibu tion o f produc ts in future soc ie ty, whe ther th is
w ill take place accord in g to the amoun t o f work done or
o therw ise. The ques tion has been a pproached ve ry
"ma ter ial is ticall y" in o ppos ition to ce1ia in ideal is tic phraseolo gy
abou t jus tice. Bu t s tran gel y enou gh it has no t s truck an yone tha t,
a fter all, the me thod o f d is tr ibu tion essen tiall y depends on how
much there is to d is tribu te, and tha t th is mus t surel y chan ge w i th
the pro gress o f produc tion and soc ial or gan isa tion, so tha t the
me thod o f d is tr ibu tion ma y also chan ge. Bu t to eve ryone who
took pa rt in the d iscuss ion, "soc ial is t soc ie ty" a ppeared no t as
some th in g under go in g con tinuous chan ge and pro gress bu t as a
s table a ffa ir fixed once for all, wh ich mus t, there fore, have a
me thod o f d is 甘ibu tion fixed once for al l. All one reasonabl y do,
however, is

(1) to try and d iscover the me thod o f d is tr ibu tion to be used

a t the be ginn in g, and

(2) to try and find the general tendenc y o f the fu气rther

develo pmen t. Bu t abou t th is I do no t find a s in gle word in
the whole deba te.

In general, the word'ma teria lis tic'serves many of the

younger writers in Germany as a mere phrase w ith wh ich
anyth ing and everyth in g is labelled w ithou t ft1rther s tudy, tha t
is, they s tick on th is label and then cons ider the ques tion
disposed of. Bu t our conception of h is to ry is above all a gu ide to
37
s tudy, no t a lever for cons truc tion after the manner of the ;
Hege lian. All h is to ry mus t be s tudied afresh; the conditions of j
ex is tence of the d(fferen t forma tions of so ciety mus t be
exam ined indiv idually before the a ttempt is made to deduce fi·om
them the po litical, civ il-law, aes thetic, ph ilosoph ic, re ligious,
e tc., v iews corresponding to them. U p to now bu t l ittle has been
done here because onl y a few peo ple have go t down to it
ser iousl y. In th is field we can u til ize hea ps o f hel p , it is
immensel y b ig, and an yone who w ill work ser iousl y can ach ieve
much and d is tin gu ish h imsel f. Bu t ins tead o f th is too man y o f the
youn ger Germans s impl y make use o f the p怕ase h is tor ical
ma ter ial ism (and ever yth in g can be turned in to a phrase) onl y in
order to ge t the ir own rela tivel y scan ty h is tor ical knowled ge - for
econ01n ic h is tor y is s till in it swaddl in g clo thes! - cons truc ted
in to a nea t s ys tem as qu ickl y as poss ible, and the y then deem 1
themselves some th in g ver y tremendous. And a fter tha t a Ba rth can
come alon g and a ttack the th in g itsel f, wh ich in h is c ircles has
indeed been de graded to a mere pl订ase.
(En gels to C.Schm id t -Marx-En gels- Selec ted Corres pondence - pp. 415 /16
(1890)
Accord in g to the ma ter ia lis t conce ption o f h is to ry, the
ul tima tel y de tem1 in in g elemen t in h is tory is the produc tion and
re produc tion o f l i fe. More than th is ne ither Marx nor I have ever
asserted. Hence i f somebod y tw is ts th is in to sayin g tha t the
econom ic elemen t is the onl y de tenn in in g one, he trans forms tha t
pro pos ition in to a mean in gless, abs trac t, senseless phrase. The
econom ic s itua tion is the bas is, bu t the var ious elemen ts o f the
su pers truc ture -pol itical forms o f the class s tru ggle and its resul ts,
to w i t: cons titu tions es tabl ished b y the v ic tor ious class a fter a
success ful battle, e tc., jur id ical forms, and even the re flexes o f all

38
these ac tl1al s tru ggles in the bra ins o f the partic ipan ts, pol i tical,
jur is tic, ph iloso ph ical theor ies, rel igious v iews and the ir further
develo pmen t in to s ys tems o f do gm as - also exerc ise the ir
in fluence u pon the course o f h is tor ical s tru ggles and in man y
cases pre pondera te in de termjn in g the ir form. There is an
in terac tion o f all these elemen ts in wh ich, am id all the endless
hos t o f acc iden ts (th is is, o f th in gs and even ts whose inner
in terconnec tion is so remo te or so im poss ible o f proo f tha t we can
re gard it as non-ex is ten t, as ne gl i gible) the econom ic movemen t
finall y asse rts i tsel f as necessar y. O therw ise the a ppl ica tion o f the
theory to an y per iod o f h is to ry would be eas ier than the solu tion
o f a s im ple e qua tion o f the fu·s t de gree.

We make our h is tory ourselves, bu t, in the firs t place,

under ver y de fin ite assum ptions and cond itions. Amon g these the
econom ic ones are u ltima tel y dec is ive. Bu t the pol itical ones, e tc.,
and indeed even the trad itions wh ich haun t human m inds also pla y
a pa rt, al thou gh no t the dec is ive one.....

In the second place, however, h is tor y is made in such a

wa y tha t the final resu lt alwa ys ar ises from con flic ts between
man y ind iv idual w ills, o f wh ich each in tum has been made wha t
it is b y a hos t o f pmiicular cond itions o f l ife. Thus there are
innumerable in tersec tin g forces, an in fin ite ser ies o f
parallelo grams o f forces wh ich give r ise to one resu ltan t - the
h is tor ical even t. Th is ma y a ga in i tsel f be v iewed as the produc t o f
power wh ich works as a whole uncons ciousl y and w ithou t
vol ition. For wha t each ind iv idual w ills is obs truc ted b y ever yone
else, and wha t emer ges is some th in g tha t no one w illed. Thus
h is tory has proceeded h ithe rto in the manner o f a na tural process
and is essen tiall y subjec t to the same laws o f mo tion. Bu t from the
fac t tha t the w ills o f ind iv iduals - each o f whom des ires what he is
39
impelled to do b y h is ph ys ical cons titut~~n an~ ~x temal, in the las t
res.ort econom fc, c ircums tances (e ither h is own personal
c ircums tances or those o f soc ie ty in general) - do no t atta in wha t
the y wan t, bu t are mer ged in to an a ggre gate mean? a co 血non
res~l tan t, it mus t no t be concluded tha t the y are e qual to zero. On
the con 甘ary, each con tribu tes to the resul tan t and is to th is ex ten t
included in it.

I would furthennore ask you to s tud y th is theo ry from its

or iginal sources and no t at second hand; it is reall y much eas ier.
Marx hardl y wro te an yth in g in wh ich it d id no t pla y a pa11. Bu t
es pec iall y The E igh teen th Bruma ire o f Lou is Bona par te is a,'
mos t excellen t exam ple o f its appl ica tion. There are also man y
allus ions to it in Ca pita l. Then ma y I also d irec t you to m y
wr itin gs: Herr Eu gen D iihr in g's Revolu tion in Science and
Ludw ig Feuerbach and the End o f Class ical German
Philoso ph y,in wh ich I have given the mos t de ta iled accoun t o f ,
h is torical ma terial ism wh ich, as for as I know, ex is ts.

Marx and I are ourselves pa rtl y to blame for the fac t tha t
the youn ger peo ple some times la y more s tress on the econom ic
s ide than is due to it. We had to em phas ize the ma in princ iple
vis-a-vis our adversaries, who den ied it, and we had no t always
the time, the place or the o ppo rtun ity to give the ir due to o ther
elemen ts involved in the in terac tion. Bu t when it came to
presen tin g a sec tion o f h is to ry, tha t is, to makin g a prac tical
app i ica tion, it was a d ifferen t ma tter and there no error was
pe 面iss ible. Un for tuna tel y, however, it happens onl y too o ften
a
tha t peo ple th ink the y have full y unders tool new the~ ry and can
~ppl y it w i thou t more ado from the momen t the y have ass im ila ted
its rna ir1_pr inc iples, and even those no t alwa ys c~rrec tl y .. . ..
(En gels to J. p
Bloch - Marx-En gels - Sele~ ted Corres ondence - PP·
417 /l 9 -{1890)

40
 ＊ ＊ ＊
The mater ial is t conce ption o f h is tory s ta rts from the
pro pos ition tha t the produc tion (o f the means to su ppo rt human
l ife) and, nex t to produc tion, the exchan ge o f th in gs produced, is
the bas is o f all soc ial s truc ture; tha t in ever y soc ie ty tha t has
appeared in h is to ry, the manner in wh ich weal th is d is tr ibu ted and
soc ie ty d iv ided in to classes or orders is de penden t u pon wha t is
produced, how it is produced, and how the produc ts are
exchan ged. From th is po in t o f v iew the final causes o f all soc ial
chan ges and pol i tical revolu tions are to be sou gh t, no t in men's
bra ins, no t in man's be tter ins igh t in to e ternal 甘u th and jus tice, bu t
in chan ges in the modes o f produc tion and exchan ge. The y are to
be sou gh t, no t in the ph iloso ph y, bu t in the econom ics o f each
pa rticular e poch. The grow in g perce ption tha t ex is tin g soc ial
ins titutions are unreasonable and unjus t, tha t reason has become
unreason, and r igh t wron g, is onl y proo f tha t in the modes o f
produc tion and exchan ge, chan ges have s ilen tly taken place w ith
wh ich the soc ial order, adapted to earl ier econom ic cond itions, is
no lon ger in kee pin g. From th is it also follows tha t the means o f
ge ttin g r id o f the incon gru ities tha t have been brou ght to l igh t
mus t also be presen t, in a more or less develo ped cond ition, w ith in
the chan ged modes o f produc tion themselves. These means are
no t to be inven ted, s pun ou t o f the head, bu t d iscovered w ith the
a id o f the head in the ex is tin g ma ter ial fac ts o f produc tion.

(An ti - D illrr ing - Engels - pp. 365/66 (1878)

41
 Ideology 邸 d His torical Ma te丘alism

As to the realms o f ideolo gy wh ich soar s till h igher in the

a ir - rel igion, ph iloso ph y, e tc. - these have a preh is tor ic s tock,'
found alread y in ex is tence b y and taken over in the h is tor ical
per iod, o f wha t we should toda y call bunk. These var ious false 1
conce ptions o f nature, o f man's own be in g, o f s pir its, ma gic
forces, e tc., have for the mos t pa rt onl y a ne gative econom ic
elemen t as the ir bas is; the low econom ic develo pmen t o f the ，I

preh is tor ic per iod is su pplemen ted and also pa rtiall y cond itioned
and even caused b y the false conce ptions o f na ture. And even
though econom ic necess ity was the ma in driving force of the
progress ive knowledge of na ture and has become ever more so,
it would surely be pedan tic to try and find econom ic causes for
all th is prim itive nonsense. The h is tory o f sc ience is the h is to ry o f
the gradual clearin g awa y o f th is nonsense or ra ther o f its,
re placemen t b y fresh bu t alwa ys less absurd nonsense. The peo ple
who a ttend to th is belon g in the ir tum to s pec ial s pheres in the
d iv is ion o f labour and a ppear to themselves to be work in g in an
inde penden t field. And to the ex ten t that the y form an inde penden t
grou p w ith in the soc ial div is ion o f labour, the ir produc tions,
includ in g the ir errors, reac t u pon the whole develo pmen t o f
soc ie ty, even on its econom ic develo pmen t.Bu t all the same the y
themselves are in turn under the dom ina tin g in fluence o f
econom ic develo pmen t. In ph iloso ph y, for ins tance, th is can be
mos t read il y proved true for the bourgeo is per iod. Hobbes was the
firs t modern ma ter ial is t (in the e igh teen th cen tu ry sense) bu t he
was an absolu tis t in a period when absolu te monarch y was a t its
he igh t throu ghou t Euro pe and in En gland en tered the l is ts a ga ins t
the peo ple. Locke, bo th in rel igion and pol itics, was the ch ild o f
42
the class com prom ise o f 1688. The En gl ish de is ts and the ir more
cons is ten t con tinua tors, the French ma ter ial is ts, were the true
ph iloso phers o f the bour geo is ie, the French even o f the bourgeo is
revolu tion. The German ph il is tine runs throu gh German
ph iloso ph y from Kan t to He gel, some times pos itivel y and
some times ne ga tivel y. Bu t as a de fin ite s phere in the d iv is ion o f
labour, the ph iloso ph y o f ever y epoch presu pposes ce rta in de fin ite
thou gh t ma ter ial handed down to it its predecessors, from wh ich it
takes its s tart. And tha t is wh y econom icall y backward coun tries
can s till pla y firs t fiddle in ph iloso ph y: France in the e igh teen th
cen tur y as com pared w ith En gland, on whose ph iloso ph y the
French based themselves, and la ter Ge1man y as com pared w ith
bo th. Bu t in France as well as Gennan y ph iloso ph y and the
general blossom in g o f litera ture a t tha t time were the resu lt o f a
r is in g econom ic develo pmen t. I cons ider the u ltimate su premac y
o f econom ic develo pmen t es tab lished in these s pheres too, bu t it
comes to pass w ith in the lim ita tions im posed b y the pa rticular
s phere itsel f. . . Here economy crea tes no th ing anew, bu t it
de term ines the way in wh ich the though t ma terial found in
ex is tence is altered and further developed, and tha t too for the
mos t part indirectly, for it is the po litical, legal and moral
reflexes wh ich exert the grea tes t direc t influence on ph ilosophy.
(Engels to C.Schm id t - Marx - Engels Selec ted Correspondence -
pp.423/24 (1890)

Dialecticians

The old Greek ph iloso phers were all born na tural

d ialec tic ians, and Aris totle, the mos t enc yclo paed ic in tellec t o f
them, had alread y anal ysed the mos t essen tial fonns o f d ialec tical

43
thought. The newer philosophy, on the other hand, although. in it
also dialectics had brilliant exponents (e.g. Descartes and
Spinoza) had especially through English influence, become more
and more rigidly fixed in the so-called metaphysical mode of
reasoning, by which also the French of the eighteenth century
were almost wholly dominated, at all events in their special
philosophical work. Outside philosophy in the restricted sense, the
French nevertheless produced masterpieces of dialectics. We
need only call to mind Diderot's LeNeveau de Rameau, and
Rousseau's Discourse Sur L'origine et Les Fondaments de Pin
egalite parmi les homes.
(Ant-Duhring Engels- pp.32/33)

Elements of Dialectics

One could perhaps present these elements in greater detail

as follows:
1) the objectivity of consideration (not examples, not
divergences, but the Thing-in-itself.
2) the entire totality of the manifold relations of this
thing to others.
3) The development of this thing (phenomenon,
respectively), its own movements, its own life.
4) the internally contradictory tendencies (and sides)
in this thing.
5) the thing (phenomenon, etc.) as the sum and unity
or opposites.
6) the struggle, respectively unfolding, of these
opposites, contradictory strivings, etc.

44
 7) the union of analysis and synthesis the break-down
of the separate parts and the totality, the summation
of these parts.
8) the relations of each thing (phenomenon, not only
manifold, but general, universal. Each thing
(phenomenon, process etc.) is connected with
every other.
9) not only the unity of opposites, but the transitions
of every determination, - quality, features, side,
property into every other (into its opposite?)
10) the endless process of the discovery of new sides,
relations etc.
11) the endless process of the deepening of man's
knowledge of the thing, of phenomena, processes,
etc., from appearance to essence and from less
profound to more profound essence.
12) from co-existence to causality and from one form
of connection and reciprocal dependence to
another, deeper, more general form.
13) the repetition at a higher stage of certain features,
properties, etc., of the lower and
14) the apparent return to the old (negation of the
negation.)
15) the struggle of content with form and conversely.
The throwing off of the form, the transformation of
the content.
16) the transition of quantity into quality and vice
versa (15 and 16 are example of 9 )
(Lenin - Collected Works -Vol.38 - pp.221/22)

45
 Matter and Materialism
Materialism and Idealism differ in their answers to the •
question of the source of our knowledge and of the relation of
knowledge (and of the "mental" in general) to the physical word;
while the question of the structure of matter, of atoms and
electrons, is a question that concerns only this "physical world".
When the physicists say "matter disappears" they mean that
hitherto science reduced its investigations of the physical world to
three ultimate concepts: matter, electricity and ether; now only the
two latter remain. For it has become possible to reduce matter to
electricity: the atom can be explained as resembling an infinitely
small solar system, within which negative electrons move around
a positive electron ... "Matter disappears" means that the limit
within which we have hitherto known matter disappears and that '
our knowledge is penetrating deeper; properties of matter are
likewise disappearing which formerly seemed absolute,
immutable, and primary ....

.. ... the recognition of immutable elements, "of the

immutable essence of things" and so forth, is not materialism, but
metaphysical, i.e., anti-dialectical materialism .

But dialectical materialism insists on the approximate,

relative character of every scientific theory of the structure of
matter and its properties; it insists on the absence of absolute
boundaries in Nature, on the transformation of moving matter
from one state into another, that from our point of vie is
apparently irreconcilable with it, and so forth.
(Materialism and Empirio - Criticism -Lenin - Collected Works- Vol.I4
-pp. 260-61)

46
 Sublime Nonsense - Presented as Science

When three years ago Herr Diihring, as an adept and at the

same time a reformer of socialism, suddenly issued his challenge
to his century,friends in Germany repeatedly urged on me their
desire that 1 should subject this new socialist theory to a critical
examination ...

Nevertheless it was a year before 1 could make up my

mind to neglect other work and get· my teeth into this sour apple.
It was the kind of apple that, once bitten into, had to be
completely devoured; and it was not only very sour, but also very
large. The new socialist theory was presented as the ultimate
practical fruit of new philosophical system. It was therefore
necessary to examine it in its connection with this system, and in
doing so to examine the system itself; it was necessary to follow
Herr Duhring into the vast territory in which he dealt with all
things under the sun and with some others as well ...

On the other hand, the "system-creating" Herr During is

by no means an isolated phenomenon in contemporary Gennany.
For some time now in Germany systems of cosmogony, of natural
philosophy in general, of politics, of economics, etc., have been
springing up by the dozen overnight, like mushrooms. The most
significant doctor philosophae and even a student will not go in
for anything less than a complete "System".

Just as in the modern state it is presumed that every

consumer is a connoisseur of all the commodities which he has
47
occasion to buy for his maintenance - so similar assumptions are :
now to be made in science. Freedom of science is taken to mean
that people write on every subject which they have not studied,
and put this forward as the only strictly scientific method. Herr
Duhring, however, is one of the most characteristic types of this
bumptious pseudo - science which in Germany nowadays is
forcing its way to the front everywhere and is drowning
everything with its resounding - sublime nonsense. Sublime
nonsense in poetry, in philosophy, in politics, in economics, in
historiography.Sublime nonsense in the lecture-room and on the •
platform, sublime nonsense everywhere; sublime nonsense which
lays claim to a superiority and depth of thought distinguishing it
from the simple, commonplace nonsense of other nations; sublime
nonsense, the most characteristic mass product of Germany's
intellectual industry - cheap but bad just like other German- :
made goods, only that unfortunately it was not exhibited along
with them at Philadelphia ....
(Anti Duhring - Engels-pp.9-11)

The Most General Laws ofDialectics

It is , therefore, from the history of nature and human
society that the laws of dialectics are abstracted. For they are
nothing but the most general laws of these two aspects of
historical development, as well as thought itself. And indeed they :
can be reduced in the main to three:

The law of the transformation of quantity into quality and

v1ce versa;
The law of the interpenetration of opposites;
The law of the negation of the negation.
48
 All three are developed by Hegel in his idealist fashion as
mere laws of thought: the first, in the first part of his Logic, in the
Doctrine of Being; The second fills the whole of the second and
by far the most important part of his Logic, the Doctrine of
Essence; finally the third figures as the fundamental law for the
construction of the whole system. The mistake lies in thefact that
these laws are foisted on the nature and history as laws of
thought, and not deduced from them. This is the source of the
whole forced and often outrageous treatment: the universe,
willy-nilly, has to conform to a system of thought which itself is
only the product of a definite stage of evolution of human
thought. If we tum the thing around, then everything becomes
simple, and the dialectical laws that look so extremely mysterious
in idealist philosophy at once become simple and clear as
noonday.

(Dialectics of Nature-Engels- p. 63/64)

Dialectical logic, in contrast to the old, merely fonnal

logic, is not, like the latter, content with enumerating the forms of
motion of thought, i.e., the various forms of judgement and
conclusion, and placing them side by side without any connection.
On the contrary, it derives these forms out of one another, it
makes one subordinate to another instead of putting them on an
equal level, it develops the higher forms out of the lower ....

(Dialectics of Nature - Engels- pp.227)

* *
49
*
 Matter and Motion.

Motion in the most general sense, conceived as the mode

of existence, the inherent attribute, of matter, comprehends all
changes and processes occurring in the universe, from mere
change of place right upto the thinking. The investigation of the
nature of motion had as a matter of course to start from the lowest.
,'
simplest forms of this motion and learn to grasp these before it
could achieve anything in the way of explanation of the higher
and more complicated forms ....

All motion is bound up with some change of place,

whether it be change of place of heavenly bodies, terrestrial
masses, molecules, atom or ether particles. The higher the form of
motion, the smaller this change of place. It in no way exhausts the
nature of the motion. It, therefore, has to be investigated before
anything else .

.. It already becomes evident here that matter is unthinkable

without motion. And if, in addition, matter confronts us as
something given, equally uncreatable as indestructible, it follows
that motion also is uncreatable as indestructible. It became
impossible to reject this conclusion as soon as it was recognised
that the universe is a system, an inter- connection of bodies.
(Dialectics of Nature Engels- pp. 70/71)

Natural Scientists and Philosophers

Natural Scientists believe that they free themselves from

philosophy by ignoring it or abusing it. They cannot, however,

50
make any headway without thought, and for thought they need
thought determinations. But they take these categories
unrefectingly from the common consciousness of so-called
educated persons, which is dominated by the relics of long
obsolete philosophies, or from the little bit of philosophy
compulsorily listened to at the University (which is not only
fragmentary, but also a medley of views of people belonging to
the most varied and usually the worst schools), or from uncritical
and unsystematic reading of philosophical writings of all kinds.
Hence they are no less in bondage to philosophy, but
unfortunately in most cases to the worst philosophy and those who
abuse philosophy most are slaves to precisely the vulgarised relics
of worst philosophy.

Natural scientists may adopt whatever attitude they

please, they are still under the domination ofphilosophy. It is
only a question whether they want to be dominated by a bad,
fashionable philosophy or by a form of theoretical thought
which rests on acquaintance with the history of thought and its
achievements.
"Physics, Beware of metaphysics" is quite right, but in a
different sense,
(Dialectics of Nature - Engels-p.213)

Real and Rational

No philosophical proposition has earned more gratitude

from narrow-minded governments and wrath from equally
narrow-minded liberals than Hegel's famous statement: "All that
is real is rational; and all that is rational real." That was tangibly a

51
sanctification of things that be, a philosophical benediction
bestowed upon despotism, police government, Star Chamber
proceedings and censorship. That is how Frederick William III
and how his subjects understood it. But according to Hegel
certainly not everything that exists is also real, without further
qualification. For Hegel the attribute of reality belongs only to that
which at the same time is necessary: "in the course of its
development reality proves to be necessity." That which is
necessary, however, proves itself in the last resort to be also
rational; and, applied to the Prussian state of that time, the
Hegelian proposition, therefore, merely means : this state is
rational, corresponds to reason, in so far as it is necessary ; and if
it nevertheless appears to us to be evil, but still, in spite of its evil
character, continues to exist, then the evil character of the
government is justified and explained by the corresponding evil
character of its subjects. The Prussians of that day had the
government that they deserved.

Now, according to Hegel, reality is,however, in no way an

attribute predicable of any given state of affairs, social or political,
in all circumstances and at all times. On the contrary. The Roman
Republic was real, but so was the Roman Empire, which
superseded it. In 1789 the French monarchy had become so
unreal, that is to say, so robbed of all necessity, so irrational, that
it had to be destroyed by the Great revolution, of which Hegel
always speaks with the greatest enthusiasm. In this case, therefore,
the monarchy was the unreal and the revolution the real. And so,
in the course of development, all that was previously real
becomes unreal, loses its necessity, its right of existence, its
rationality. And in the place of moribund reality comes a new,
52
viable reality - peacefully if the old has enough intelligence to go
to its death without a struggle; forcibly if it resists this necessity.
Thus the Hegelian proposition turns into its opposite through
Hegelian dialectics itself: All that is real in the sphere of human
history becomes irrational in the process of time, is therefore
irrational by its very destination, is tainted beforehand with
irrationality; and everything which is rational in the minds of men
is destined to become real, however much it may contradict
existing apparent reality. In accordance with all the rules of the
Hegelian method of thought, the proposition of the rationality of
everything which is real resolves itself into the other proposition;
All that exists deserves to perish.

But precisely therein lay the true significance and the

revolutionary character of the Hegelian philosophy, ... that it once
for all dealt the death blow to finality of all products of human
thought and action. Truth, the cognition of which is the business
ofphilosophy, was in the hands ofHegel no longer an aggregate
of finished dogmatic statements, which, once discovered, had
merely to be learned by heart. Truth lay now in the process
of cognition itself, in the long historical development ofscience,
which mounts from lower to ever higher levels of knowledge
without ever reaching, by discovering so-called absolute truth, a
point at which it can proceed no further, where it would have
nothing more to do than to fold its hands and gaze with wonder
at the absolute truth to which it had attained. And what hold
good for the realm ofphilosophical knowledge hold good also
for that of every other kind of knowledge and also for practical
action. Just as knowledge is unable to reach a complete
conclusion in a perfect, ideal condition of humanity, so is
53
 M.

+£, • f, «6
history unable to do so; a perfect society, a perfect 'state" are
things which can only exist in imagination. On the contrary, all
successive historical systems are only transitory stages in the
• I
endless course of development of human society from the lowe
to the higher. Each stage is necessary, and thereforejustifiedfor
the time and conditions to which it owes its origin. But in the
face of new, higher conditions which gradually develop in its
own womb, it loses its validity andjustification. It must give way
to a higher stage which will also in its turn decay and perish,
Just as the bourgeoisie by large-scale industry, competition and 1
the world market dissolves in practice all stable time-honored
institutions; so this dialectical philosophy dissolves all
conceptions of final, absolute truth and of absolute states of·
humanity corresponding to it. For it (dialectical philosophy)
nothing is final, absolute, sacred. It reveals the transitory I

character of everything and in everything; nothing can endure:

before it except the uninterrupted process of becoming and of
passing away, of endless ascendency from the lower to the
higher. And dialectical philosophy itself is nothing more than •
the mere reflection of this process in the thinking brain. It has,
of course, also a conservative side; it recognises that definite
. stages of knowledge and society are justified for their time and .
circumstances; but only so far; The conservatism of this mode of
outlook is relative; its revolutionary character is absolute - the •
only absolute dialectical philosophy admits.

(Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy-

Marx - Engels Selected Works - Vol. II - pp. 361/363 -(1888)

54
 Dialectical and Metaphysical Reasoning

Real natural science dates from the second half of the

fifteenth century, and thence onward it had advanced with
constantly increasing rapidity. The analysis of nature into its
individual parts, the grouping of the different natural processes
and objects in definite classes, the study of the internal anatomy of
organic bodies in their manifold forms these were the
fundamental conditions of the gigantic strides in our knowledge of
nature that have been made during the last four hundred years. But
this method of work has also left us as legacy the habit observing
natural objects and processes in isolation, apart from their
connection with the vast whole; of observing them in repose, not
in motion; as constants, not as essentially variables; in their death,
not in their life. And when this way looking at things was
transferred by Bacon and Locke from natural science to
philosophy, it begot the narrow, metaphysical mode of thought
peculiar to the last century.

To the metaphysician, things and their mental reflexes,

ideas, are isolated, are to be considered one after the other, and
apart from each other, are objects of investigation fixed, rigid,
given once and for all. He thinks in absolutely irreconcilable
antithesis. "His communication is 'yea, yea, nay, nay;' for
whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." For him a thing
either exists or does not exist; a thing cannot at the same time be
itself and something else. Positive and negative absolutely
exclude one another; cause and effect stand in a rigid antithesis
one to the other.

At first sight this mode of thinking seems to us very

luminous, because it is that of so-called sound common sense,
55
only sound common sense, respectable fellow that he is, in the·
homely realm of his own four walls, has very wonderful
adventures directly he ventures out into the wide world of
research. And the metaphysical mode of thought, justifiable and
necessary as it is in a number of domains whose extent varies
according to the nature of the particular object of investigation,
sooner or later reaches a limit, beyond which it becomes one.
sided, restricted, abstract, lost in insoluble contradictions.In the
contemplation of individual things, it forgets the connection
between them; in the contemplation of their existence, it forgets I

the beginning and end of that existence; of their repose, it

forgets their motion. It cannot see the wood for the trees. For
everyday purposes we know and can say, e.g., whether an animal]
is alive or not. But, upon closer inquiry, we find that this, in many
cases, a very complex question, as the jurists know very well.
They have cudgeled their brains in vain to discover a rational limit
beyond which the killing of the child in its mother's womb is,
murder. It is just as impossible to determine absolutely the.
moment of death, for physiology proves that death is not an
instantaneous, momentary phenomenon, but a very protracted
process.
In like manner, every organic being is every moment the
same and not the same; every moment it assimilates matter
supplied from without, and gets rid of other matter; every moment
some cells of its body die and others build themselves anew; in a
longer or shorter time the matter of its body is completely
renewed, and is replaced by other molecules of matter, so that
every organic being is always itself, and yet something other than
itself ....

56
 Further, we find upon closer investigation that the two
poles of antithesis, positive and negative, e.g., are as inseparable
as they are opposed, and the despite all their opposition, they
mutually interpenetrate. And we find, in like manner, that cause
and effect are conceptions which only hold good in their
application to individual cases; but as soon as we consider the
individual cases in their general connection with the universe as a
whole, they run into each other, and they become confounded
when we contemplate that universal action and reaction in which
causes and effects are eternally changing places, so that what is
effect here and now will be cause there and then, and vice versa.

None of these processes and modes of thought enters into

the framework of metaphysical reasoning. Dialectics, on the other
hand, comprehends things and their representations, in their
essential connection, concatenation, motion, origin, and ending ...
(Anti Duhring - Engels - pp. 34/36 ( 1878)

Freedom and Necessity

Hegel was the first to state correctly the relation between

freedom and necessity. To him, freedom is the appreciation of
necessity. "Necessity is blind only in so far as it is not
understood". Freedom does not consist in the dream of
independence from natural laws, but in the knowledge of these
laws, and in the possibility this gives of systematically making
them work towards definite ends. This holds good in relation both
to the laws of external nature and those which govern the bodily
and mental existence of men themselves - two classes of laws
which we can separate from each other at most only in thought but

57
not in reality. Freedom of the will therefore means nothing but th
capacity to make decisions with knowledge of the subject.
Therefore the freer a man's judgmentis in relation to a definite
9

question, the greater is the necessity with which the content this:
judgment will be determined; while the uncertainty, founded on
ignorance, which seems to make an arbitrary choice among many.
different and conflicting possible decisions, shows precisely by
this that it is not free, that it is controlled by the very object it
should itself control. Freedom therefore consists in the control
over ourselves and over external nature, a control founded on
knowledge of natural necessity; it is therefore necessarily a
product of historical development. The first men who separated
themselves from the animal kingdom were in all essentials as,
unfree as the animals themselves, but each step forward in the
field of culture was a step towards freedom. On the threshold of
human history stands the discovery that mechanical motion can be
transformed into heat; the production of fire by friction; at the
close of the development so far gone through stands the discovery
that heat can be transformed into mechanical motion: the steam
engme.
(Anti - Duhring - Engels- p. 157 ( 1878)

Negation ofthe Negation

... Thus, by characterising the process as the negation of

the negation, Marx does not intend to prove that the process was
historically necessary. On the contrary: only after he has proved
from history that in fact the process partially already occurred,
and partially must occur in the future, he in addition
characterises it as a process which develops in accordance with
58
a definite dialectical law. That is all. It is therefore once again a
pure distortion of the facts by Herr Diihring when he declares that
the negation of the negation has to serve here as the midwife to
deliver the future from the womb of the past. ...
(Anti- Duhring- Engels- p. 185 ( 1878)

* * *
Once again therefore, it is no one but HerrDuhring who is
mystifying us when he asserts that the negation of the negation is
a stupid analogy invented by Hegel, borrowed from the sphere of
religion and based on the story of the fall of man and his
redemption. Men thought dialectically long before they knew
what dialectics was,just as they spoke prose long before the term
prose existed. The law of negation of the negation, which is
unconsciously operative in nature and history until it has been
recognised, also in our heads, was only first clearly formulated by
Hegel. And if HerrDuhring wants to operate with it he himself on
the quiet and it is only that he cannot stand the name, and then let
him find a better name. But if his aim is to banish the process
itself from thought, we must ask him to be so good as first to
banish it from nature and history and to invent a mathematical
system in which a x a is not is not + a'and in which
differentiation and integration are prohibited under severe
penalties.
(Anti - Duhring - Engels- pp. 195/96 ( I 878)

Grand Style - A False Method

Historical depiction in the grand style and the summary

settlement with genus and type is indeed very convenient for Herr
59
Duhring, inasmuch as this method enables him to neglect a]
known facts as micrological and equate them to zero, so that
instead of proving anything he needs only use general phrases,
make assertions and thunder his denunciations. The method has
the further advantage that it offers no real foothold to an
opponent, who is consequently left with almost no other.
possibility of reply than to make similar summary assertions in the
grand style, to resort to general phrases and finally thunder back
denunciations at Herr Diihring - in a word, as they say, engage in
a slanging match, which is not to everyone's taste ....

(Anti- Duhring - Engels- p. 171 (1878)

Three Great Discoveries

... There are three great discoveries which have enabled our
knowledge of the interconnection of natural processes to advance
by leaps and bounds: first, the discovery of the cell as the unit
from whose multiplication and differentiation the whole plant and
animal body develops, so that not only is the development and
growth of all higher organisms recognised to proceed according to
a single general law, but also, in the capacity of the cell to change,
the way is pointed out by which organisms can change their
species and thus go through a more than individual development.
Second, the transformation of energy, which has demonstrated to
us that all the so-called forces operative in the first instance in
organic nature mechanical force and its complement, so- called
potential energy, heat, radiation (light, or radiant heat) electricity,
magnetism and chemical energy- are different forms of
manifestation of universal motion, which pass into one another in
definite proportions so that in place of a certain quantity of the
60
one which disappears, a certain quantity of another makes its
appearance and thus the whole motion of nature is reduced to this
incessant process of transformation from one form into another.
Finally, the proof which Darwin first developed in connected
form that the stock of organic products of nature environing us
today, including man, is result of a long process of evolution from
a few originally unicellular germs, and that these again have
arisen from protoplasm or albumen, which came into existence by
chemical means.
(Engels Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German
Philosophy- Marx Engels Selected Works Vol. II -p. 389 ( 1888)

Anybody who has any knowledge at all of Marx will

immediately perceive the utter falsity and sham of such methods.
One may not agree with Marx, but one cannot deny that he
formulated with utmost precision those of his views which
constitute "something new" in relation to the earlier socialists.
The "something new" consisted in the fact that the earlier
socialists thought that to substantiate their views it was enough to
show the oppression of the masses under the existing regime, to
show the superiority of a system under which every man would
receive what he himself had produced, to show that this ideal
system harmonized with 'human nature', with the conception of a
rational and moral life and so forth. Marx found it impossible to
content himself with such a socialism. He did not content himself
to describing the existing system, to judging it, and condemning
it; he gave a scientific explanation of it, reducing that existing
system, which differs in the different European and non-
European countries, to a common basis - the capitalist social
formation, the laws of the functioning and development of which

61
he subjected to an objective analysis (he showed the necessity of
exploitation under that system

(What the "Friends of the People" Are - Lenin- Collected Works _

Vol.1-p.157 (1894)

On Hegelian Triad

Engels says that Marx never dreamed of 'proving'

anything by means of Hegelian triads, that Marx only studied and
investigated the real process, and that the sole criterion of theory
recognised by him was its conformity to reality. If, however, it'
sometimes happened that the development of some particular
social phenomenon fitted in with the Hegelian scheme, namely,
thesis - negation - negation of the negation, there is nothing
surprising about that, for it is no rare thing in nature at all. And
Engels proceeds to cite examples from natural history... and the
social sphere. It is clear to everybody that the main weight of
Engels' argument is that materialist must correctly and accurately
depict the actual historical process, and that insistence on,
dialectics, the selection of examples to demonstrate the
correctness of the triad, is nothing but a relic of Hegelianism out
of which scientific socialism has grown, a relic of its manner of
expression, And, indeed, once it has been categorically declared
that to "prove" anything by triads is absurd, and that nobody even
thought of doing so, what significance can attach to examples of
"dialectical" processes?

(Lenin- Collected Works- Vol. 1- pp. 163/64 (1894)

62
 Dialectical Method

What Marx and Engels called the dialectical method- as

against the metaphysical is nothing else than the scientific
method in sociology, which consists in regarding society as a
living organism in a state of constant development (and not as
something mechanically concatenated and therefore permitting all
sorts of arbitrary combinations of separate social elements), and
organism the study of which requires an objective analysis of
production relations that constitute the given social formation and
an investgation of its laws of functioning and development.
( What the Friends of the People Are?- Lenin- Collected Works - Vol. I-
p. 165 (1894)

Predictions on Future

... Everybody knows that scientific socialism never

painted any prospects for the future as such: it confined itself to
analysing the present bourgeois regime, to studying the trends of
development of the capitalist social organisation, and that is all.
'We do not say to the world' Marx wrote as for back as 1843, and
he fulfilled this program to the letter, "We do not say to the
world: cease struggling - your whole struggle is senseless". All
we do is to provide it with a true slogan of struggle. We only
show the world what it is actually struggling for, and
consciousness is a thing which the world must acquire, whether
it likes it or not. Everybody knows that Capital, for instance the
chief and basic work in which scientific socialism is expounded
- restricts itself to the most general allusions to the future and
merely traces those already existing elements from which the
63
future system grows. Everybody knows that as far as prospects
for the future are concerned incomparably more as
contributed by the earlier socialists, who describedfuture society
in every detail, desiring to inspire mankind with a picture of a
system under which people get along without conflict and
under which their social relations are based not on exploitation
but on true principles ofprogress that conform to the condition
of human nature.
(Lenin-Collected Works-Vol. 1-p. 185 (1894)

What Marxist theory is Not

"The Marxists" he (Mr.M) says" are fully convinced that
there is nothing utopian in their forecasts of the future, and that
everything has been weighed and measured in accordance with the·
strict dictates of science"; finally and even more explicitly: the
Marxists "believe in , and profess the immutability of an abstract
historical scheme!"

In a word, we have before us that most banal and vulgar

accusation against the Marxists long employed by all who have
nothing substantial to bring against their views. "The Marxists
profess the immutability of an abstract historical scheme!

But this is a downright lie and invention!

No Marxist has ever argued anywhere that there "must be"

capitalism in Russia "because" there was capitalism in the west,
and so on.No Marxist has ever regarded Marx's theory as some
universally compulsory philosophical scheme of history, as
anything more than an explanation of a particular socio-
economic formation. Only Mr.M, the subjective philosopher, bas
64
managed to display such a lack of understanding of Marx as to
attribute to him a universal philosophical theory; and in reply to
this, he received from Marx the quite explicit explanation that he
was knocking at the wrong door. No Marxist has ever based his
Social- Democratic views on anything but the conformity of
theory with reality and the history of the given, i.e., the Russian
social economic relations ....
(Lenin- Collected Works- Vol.I-p. 192)

Marxism

We take our stand entirely on the Marxist theoretical

position: Marxism was the first to transform socialism from a
utopia into a science, to lay a firm foundation for this science, and
to indicate the path that must be followed in further developing
and elaborating it in all its parts. It disclosed the nature of modem
capitalist economy by explaining how the hire of the labourer, the
purchase of labour power, conceals the enslavement of millions of
propertyless people by a handful of capitalists, the owners of the
land, factories, mines, and so forth. It showed that all modem
capitalist development displays the tendency of large- scale
production to eliminate petty production and creates conditions
that make a socialist system of society possible and necessary. It
taught us how to discern, beneath the pall of rooted customs,
political intrigues, abstruse laws, and intricate doctrines- the class
struggle, the struggle between the propertied classes in all their
variety and the propertyless mass, the proletariat, which is at the
head of all the propertyless. It made clear the real task of a
revolutionary socialist party;not to draw up plans for refashioning
society, not to preach to the capitalist and their hangers-on about

65
improving the lot of the workers, not to hatch conspiracies, but to
organise the class struggle of the proletariat and to lead this
struggle, the ultimate aim of which is the conquest ofpolitical
power by the proletariat and the organization of a socialist
society.....

There can be no strong socialist party without a

revolutionary theory which unites all socialists, from which they·
draw all their convictions, and which they apply in their methods
of struggle and means of action. To defend such a theory, which
to the best of your knowledge you consider to be true, against
unfounded attacks and attempts to corrupt it is not to imply that
you are an enemy of all criticism. We do not regard Marx's
theory as something completed and inviolable; on the contrary,
we are convinced that it has only laid thefoundation stone ofthe
science which socialists must develop in all directions if they
wish to keep pace with life. We think that an independent
elaboration of Marx's theory is especially essential for Russian
socialists; for this theory provides only general guiding
principles which, in particular, are applied in England
differently than in France, in France differently than in
Germany, and in Germany than in Russia. We shall therefore
gladly afford space in our paper for articles on theoretical
questions and we invite all comrades openly to discuss
controversial points.
(Our Programme Lenin-Collected Works - Vol. 4 pp. 210/12(1899)

Truth Is Always Concrete

But the great Hegelian dialectics which Marxism made its
own, having first turned it right side up, must never be confused
66
with the vulgar trick of justifying the zigzags of politicians who
swing over from the revolutionary to opportunist wing of the
party, with the vulgar had it of lumping together particular
statements and particular development factors, belonging to
different stages of a single process. Genuine dialectics does not
justify the errors of individuals, but studies the inevitable turns,
proving that they were inevitable by a detailed study of the
process of development in all its concreteness. One of the basic
principles of dialectics is that there is no such thing as abstract
truth, truth is always concrete.

(One Step Forward, Two Steps Back-Lenin - Collected Works - Vol. 7- p. 412
(1904)

Dialectics and Sophitry

..... That all dividing lines, both in nature and society, are
conventional and dynamic, and that every phenomenon might,
under certain conditions, be transformed into its opposite, is, of
course, a basic proposition of Marxist dialectics. A national war
might be transformed into an imperialist war and vice versa ...

Only a sophist can disregard the difference between an

imperialist and a national war on the grounds that one might
develop into the other. Not infrequently have dialectics served-
the history of Greek philosophy is an example - as a bridge to
sophistry. But we remain dialecticians and we combat sophistry
not by denying the possibility of all transformations in general,

67
but by analysing the given phenomenon in its concrete setting
and development.

(Junius Pamphlet- Lenin- Collected Works- Vol.22- p. 309 (1916)

Materialism and Natural Science

In addition to the alliance with consistent materialists who

do not belong to the Communist Party, of no less and perhaps
even of more importance for the work which militant materialism
should perform is an alliance with those modern natural scientists
who incline towards materialism and are not afraid to defend and
preach it as against the modish philosophical wanderings into
idealism and scepticism which are prevalent in so-called educated
society.

The article by A. Timiryazev on Einstein's theory of

relativity published in pod znamenem Marxsizma No. 1-2
permits us to hope that the journal will succeed in effecting this
second alliance too .... It should be remembered that the sharp
upheaval which modem natural science is undergoing very often
gives rise to reactionary philosophical schools and minor schools,
trends and minor trends. Unless, therefore, the problems raised
by the recent revolution in natural science are followed, and
unless natural scientists are enlisted in the works of a
philosophical journal, militant materialism can be neither
militant nor materialism.
(On the Significance of Militant Materialism - Lenin - Collected Works
- Vol. 33-pp. 232/33 - 1922)

68
 *
Natural Science positively asserts that the earth once
existed in such a state that no man or any other creature existed or
could have exited on it. Organic matter is a later phenomenon, the
fruit of a long evolution. It follows that there was no sentient
matter, no "complexes of sensations" and noself that was
supposedly "indissolubly" connected with the environment in
accordance with Avanarius doctrine. Matter is primary, and
thought, consciousness, sensation are products of a very high
development. Such is the materialist theory of knowledge, to
which natural science instinctively subscribes.
(Materialism and Empirio - Criticism - Lenin - Collected Works - Vol. 14-p.
75 (1909

Materialism and Idealism

The doctrine of introjection is a muddle; it smuggles in

idealistic rubbish and is contradictory to natural science, which
inflexibly holds that thought is function of the brain, that
sensations, i.e., the images of the external world, exists within
us, produced by the action of things on our sense-organs. The
materialist elimination of the "dualism of mind and body" (i.e.,
materialist monism) consists in the assertion that the mind does
not exist independently of the body, that mind is secondary, a
function of the brain, a reflection of the external world. The
idealist elimination of the "dualism of mind and body" (i.e.,
idealist monism) consists in the assertion that mind is not a
function of the body, that consequently, mind is primary, that the
69
"environment" and the "self? exists only in an inseparable
connection of one and the same "complexes" of elements.Apart
from these two diametrically opposed methods of eliminating "the
dualism of mind and body", there can be no third method, not
counting eclecticism, which is a senseless jumble of materialism
and idealism.

(Materialism and Empirio-Criticism- Lenin-Collected Works-Vol. 14-

p. 90 (1909)

What is the kemal of Engel's objection? Yesterday we did

not know that coal tar contains alizarin. Today we have learned
that it does. The question is, did coal contain alizarin yesterday.

Of course it did? To doubt it would be to make a mockery

of modern science.

And, if that is so, three important epistemological

conclusions follow:

1) Things exist independently of our consciousness,

independently of our sensations, outside of us, for it is
beyond doubt that alizarin existed in coal tar yesterday and
it is equally beyond doubt yesterday we knew nothing of
the existence of this alizarin and received no sensation
from it.

2) There is definitely no difference in principle between the

phenomenon and the thing in-itself, and there cannot be
any such difference. The only difference is between what

70
 is known and what is not yet known. And philosophical
inventions of specific boundaries between the one and the
other, inventions to the effect that the thing-in-itself is
"beyond" phenomena (Kant), or that we can and must
fence ourselves off by some philosophical partition from
the problem of world which in one part or another is still
unknown but which exists outside us (Hume) all this is
the sheerest nonsence, SchruUe, crotchet, fantasy.

3) In the theory of knowledge, as in every other sphere of

science, we must think dialectically, that is, we must not
regard our knowledge as ready-made and unalterable, but
must determine how knowledge emerges from
ignorance,how incomplete, inexact knowledge becomes
more complete and more exact.

Once we accept the point of view that human knowledge

develops from ignorance, we shall find millions of examples of it
just as simple as the discovery of alizarin in coal tar, millions of
observations not only in the history of science and technology but
in the everyday life of each and every one of us that illustrate the
transformation of "thing-in themselves"into "things-for-us", the
appearance of "phenomena" when our sense-organs experience an
impact from external objects, the disappearance of "phenomena"
when some obstacle prevents the action upon our sense-organs of
an object which we know to exist. The sole and unavoidable
deduction to be made from this - a deduction which all of us make
in everyday practice and which materialism deliberately places at
the foundation of its epistemology - is that outside us, and

71
independently of us, there exists objects, things, bodies and that
our perceptions are images of the external world.

(Materialism and EmpirioCriticism -Lenin Collected Works - Vol. 14

- pp.I 03-104 (1909)

Idealist, Agnostic and Materialist

For the idealist the "factually given" is sensation, and the

outer world is declared to be a "complex of sensations". For the
agnostic the "immediately given" is also sensation, but the
agnostic does not go on either to the materialist recognition of the
reality of the outer world, or to the idealist recognition of the·
world as our sensation ... And from Engel's words it is perfectly
clear that for the materialist real being lies beyond the bounds of
the sense-perceptions", impressions and ideas of man, while for
the agnostic it is impossible to go beyond the bounds of these
perceptions ....

(Materialism and EmpirioCriticism - Lenin Collected Works - Vol.

I 4-p.112- (1909)

For the materialist the world is richer, livelier, more varied

than. it seems, for with each step in the development of science
new aspects are discovered. For the materialist, our sensations are
images of the sole and ultimate objective reality, ultimate not in
the sense that it has already been cognized to the end, but in the
sense that there is not and cannot be any other. This view
72
irrevocably closes the door not only to every species of fideism,
but also to that professorial scholasticism which, while not
recognising an objective reality as the source of our sensations,
"deduces" the concept of the objective by means of such artificial
verbal constructions as universal significance, socially-organised,
and so on and so forth, and which is unable and frequently
unwilling to separate objective truth from belief in spirits and
hobgoblins.
(Materialism and EmpirioCriticism-Lenin - Collected Works - Vol. 14
- p. 129-(1909)

Concept ofMatter

...Matter is a philosophical category denoting the

objective reality which is given to man by his sensations, and
which is copied, photographed and reflected by our sensations,
while existing independently of them. Therefore, to say that such
a concept can become "antiquated" is childish talk, a senseless
repetition of the arguments of fashionable reactionary
philosophy. Could the struggle between materialism and idealism,
the struggle between the tendencies or lines of Plato and
Democritus in philosophy, the struggle between religion and
science, the denial of objective truth and its assertion, the struggle
between the adherents of supersensible knowledge and its
adversaries, have become antiquated during the two thousand
years of the development of philosophy?

Acceptance or rejection of the concept matter is a question

of the confidence man places in the evidence of his sense organs,
a question of the sources of our knowledge, a question which has
been asked and debated from the very inception of philosophy,
73
which may be disguised in a thousand different garbs by
professorial clowns, but which can no more become antiquated
than the question whether the source of human knowledge is sight
and touch, hearing and smell. To regard our sensations as images
of the external world, to recognise objective truth, to hold the
materialist theory of knowledge - these are all one and the same
thing.

(Materialism and Empirio - Criticism -Lenin-Vol. 14- p.130 (1909)

* * *
The Machists contemptuously shrug their shoulders at the
"antiquated" view of the "dogmatists", the materialists, who still
cling to the concept matter, which supposedly has been refuted by
"recent science" and "recent positivism". We shall speak'
separately of the new theories of physics on the structure of
matter. But it is absolutely unpardonable to confuse, as the
Machists do, any particular theory of the structure of matter·
with the epistemological category, to confuse the problem of the
new properties of new aspects of matter (electrons, for example)
with the old problem of the theory of knowledge, with the
problem of the sources of our knowledge, the existence of
objective truth, etc.... Matter is a philosophical category denoting
the objective reality which is given to man by his sensations, and
which is copied, photographed and reflected by our sensations,
while existing independently of them.

(Materialism and Empirio - Criticism - Lenin - Collected Works - Vol. I4

- pp. 129/30 (I 909)

74
 Absolute truth and Relative Truth
Human thought then by its nature is capable of giving,
and does give, absolute truth, which is compounded of a sum-
total of relative truths. Each step in the development of science
adds new grains to the sum of absolute truth, but the limits of
the truth of each scientific proposition are relative, no
expanding, now shrinking with the growth ofknowledge.....

. . . . From the standpoint of modem materialism, i.e.,

Marxism, the limits of approximation of our knowledge to
objective, absolute truth are historically conditional, but the
existence of such truth is unconditional, and the fact that we are
approaching nearer to it is also unconditional.The contours of the
picture are historically conditional, but the fact that this picture
depicts an objectively existing model is unconditional. When and
under what circumstances we reached, in our knowledge of the
essential nature of things, the discovery of alizarin in coal tar or
the discovery of electrons in the atom is historically conditional;
but that every such discovery is an advance of "absolutely
objective knowledge"is unconditional. In a word, every ideology
is historically conditional, but it is unconditionally true that to
every scientific ideology, (as distinct, for instance from religious
ideology) there corresponds an objective truth, absolute nature.
(Materialism and Empirio- Criticism-Lenin - Collected Works - Vol.
14-p. 135/36 (1909)

Time and Space

Recognising the existence of objective reality, i.e., matter

in motion, independently of our mind, materialism must also

75
inevitably recognise the objective reality of time and space, i
contrast above all to Kantianism, which in this question sides Wit~
idealism and regards time and space not as objective realities but
as forms of human understanding . . . There is nothing in the
world but matter in motion, and matter and motion cannot mo»
otherwise than in space and time. Human conception of space
and time are relative, but these relative conceptions go to
compound absolute truth. These relative conceptions, in their
development, move towords absolute truth and approach nearer
and nearer to it. The mutability of human conceptions of space
and time no more refutes the objective reality of space and time,
than the mutability of scientific knowledge of the structure and
forms of matter in motion refutes the objective reality of the
external world.
(Materialism and Empirio-Criticism - Lenin-Collected Works-
p.175 (1909)

Engels and Theory ofKnowledge

Firstly, Engels at the very outset of his argument

recognises laws of nature, laws of external nature, the necessity of·
nature- i.e., all that Mach, Avanarius, Petzoldt and co.
characterize as "metaphysics" .

Secondly, Engels does not attempt to contrive"definitions"

of freedom and necessity, the kind of scholastic definitions with
which the reactionary professors (like Avenarius) and their
disciples (like Bogdanov) are most concerned. Engels takes the
knowledge and will of man, on the one hand, and the necessity of
nature, on the other, and instead of giving any definitions, simply

76
says that the necessity of nature is primary, and human will and
mind secondary. The latter must necessarily and inevitably adapt
themselves to the former. Engels regards this as so obvious that he
does not waste explaining his views .

Thirdly, Engels, does not doubt the existence of "blind

necessity". He admits the existence of a necessity unknown to
man....... The development of the collective knowledge of
humanity as a whole present us at every step with examples of the
transformation of the unknown "thing-in-itself', into the known
"thing for us", of the transformation of blind unknown necessity,
"necessity-in-itself' into the known "necessity for us" ...

Fourthly, in the above-mentioned argument Engels plainly

employs the salto-vitale method in philosophy, that is to say, he
makes a leap from theory to practice. Not a single one of the
learned (and stupid) professors of philosophy, in whose footsteps
our Machists follow, would ever permit himself to make such a
leap, for this would be disgraceful thing for a devotee of "pure
science" to do. For them the theory of knowledge, which demands
the cunning concoction of "definitions" is one thing, while
practice is another. For Engels all living human practice
permeates the theory of knowledge itself and provides an
objective criterion of truth.

(Materialism and EmpirioCriticism -Lenin-Collected Works-Vol.14-

pp.188/190 (1909)

77
 Dialectical Materialism
Dialectics and materialism are the basic elements in the
Marxist cognition of the world. But this does not mean at all that
they can be applied to any sphere of knowledge, like an ever-
ready master key. Dialectics cannot be imposed upon facts: I
has to be deduced from facts and from their nature and
development. Only painstaking work on a vast amount of material
enabled Marx to advance the dialectical system of economics to
the conception of value as social labour. Marx's historical works
were constructed in the same way and even his newspaper
articles likewise. Dialectical materialism can be applied to new
spheres of knowledge only by mastering them from within. The
purging of bourgeois science presupposes a mastery of bourgeois
science. You will get nowhere with sweeping criticism or bold
commands. Learning and application here go hand in hand with
critical reworking. We have the method, but there is enough work
for generations to do.

(Trotsky - Culture and Socialism - Problems of Everyday Life- P. 233)

Dialectics and Pragmatism

It was absolutely necessary to explain why the American
"radical" intellectuals accept Marxism without the dialectic (a
clock without a spring). The secret is simple. In no other country
has there been such rejection of the class struggle as in the land of
"unlimited opportunity". The denial of social contradictions as the
moving force of development led to the denial of the dialectic as
the logic of contradictions in the domain of the theoretical
thought. Just as in the sphere of politics it was thought possible

78
that everybody could be convinced of the correctness of a "just"
program by means of clever syllogisms and society could be
reconstructed through "rational" measures, so in the sphere of
theory it was accepted as proved that Aristotelian logic, lowered
to the level of "common sense", was sufficient for the solution of
all questions.

Pragmatism, a mixture of rationalism and empiricism

became the national philosophy of the United States. The
theoretical methodology of Max Eastman is not fundamentally
different from the methodology of Henry Ford - both regard
living society from the point of view of an "engineer" .
Historically the present disdainful attitude toward the dialectic is
explained simply by the fact that the grandfathers and great
grandmothers of Max Eastman and others did not need the
dialectic in order to conquer territory and enrich themselves. But
times have changed and the philosophy of pragmatism has entered
a period of bankruptcy just as has American capitalism.

(In Defense of Marxism - Leon Trotsky - pp.43/44 (1939)

Dialectics and the Petty Bourgeois Intellectuals

To demand that every party member occupy himself with

the philosophy of dialectics naturally would be lifeless pedantry.
But a worker who has gone through the school of the class
struggle gains from his own experience an inclination toward
dialectical thinking. Even if unaware of this term, he readily
accepts the method itself and its conclusions. With a petty
bourgeois it is worse. There are of course petty bourgeois
elements organically linked with the workers, who go over to the

79
 .

proletarian point of view without an internal revolution. But these

constitute an insignificant minority. The matter is quite different
with the academically trained petty bourgeoisie.Their theoretical
prejudices have already been given finished fonn at the school
bench. Inasmuch as they succeeded in gaining a great deal of
knowledge both useful and useless without the aid of dialectic,
they believe that they can continue excellently through life
without it. In reality they dispense with the dialectic only to the
extent they fail to check, to polish, and to sharpen theoretically
their tools of thought, and to the extent that they fail to break
practically from the narrow circle of their daily relationships.
When thrown against great events they are easily lost and relapse
again into petty bourgeois way of thinking.

(In Defense of Marxism - Leon Trotsky- p.45- 1939)

Dialectical Thinking

Dialectic is neither fiction nor mysticism, but a science of

the forms of our thinking in so far as it is not limited to the daily
problems of life, but attempts to arrive at an understanding of
more complicated and drawn-out processes. The dialectic and
formal logic bear a relationship similar to that between higher and
lower mathematics.

The fundamental flaw of vulgar thought lies in the fact that

it wishes to content itself with motionless imprints of a reality
which consists of eternal motion. Dialectical thinking gives to
concepts, by means of closer approximations, corrections,

80
concretisations, a richness of content and flexibility; I would even
say a succulence which to a certain extent brings them close to
living phenomena. Not capitalism in general, but a given
capitalism at a given stage of development. Not a workers' state
but a given workers' state in a backward country in an imperialist
encirclement, etc.

Dialectical thinking is related to vulgar thinking in the

same way that a motion picture is related to a still photograph.
The motion picture does not outlaw the still photograph but
combines a series of them according to the laws of motion.
Dialectics does not deny the syllogism, but teaches us to combine
syllogisms in such a way as to bring our understanding closer to
the eternally changing reality. Hegel in his Logic established a
series of laws; change of quantity into quality, development
through contradictions, conflict of content and form, interruption
of continuity, change of possibility into inevitability, etc., which
are just as important for theoretical thought as is the simple
syllogism for more elementary tasks ....

We call our dialectic, materialist, since its roots are neither

in heaven nor in the depths of our "free will", but in objective
reality, in nature. Consciousness grew out of unconscious,
psychology out of physiology, organic world out of the inorganic,
the solar system out of nebulae. On all the rungs of this ladder of
development, the quantitative changes were transformed into
qualitative. Our thought, including dialectical thought, is only one
of the forms of the expression of changing matter. There is place
within this system for neither God, nor Devil, nor immortal soul,
nor eternal norms of laws and morals. The dialectic of thinking,
81
having grown out of the dialectic of nature, possesses
consequently a thoroughly materialist character.

(A Petty Bourgeois Opposition in the Socialist Workers Party-In

Defense of Marxism-Leon Trotsky-pp.49/51( 1939)

Marxism and PsychoAnalysis

Marxist criticism in science must be not only vigilant but
also prudent, otherwise it can degenerate into mere sycophancy.
.... Take psychology, even. Pavlov's reflexology proceeds entirely
along the paths of dialectical materialism. It conclusively breaks
down the wall between physiology and psychology. The simplest
reflex is physiological, but a system of reflexes gives us
"Consciousness". The accumulation of physiological quantity
gives a new "psychological" quality. The method of Pavlov's
school is experimental and painstaking. Generalizations are won
step by step: from the saliva of dogs to poetry, that is to the mental
mechanics of poetry, not its social content - though the paths that
bring us to poetry have as yet not being revealed.

The school of the Viennese psychoanalyst Freud proceeds

in a different way. It assumes in advance that the driving force of
the most complex and delicate of the psychic processes is a
physiological need. In this general sense it is materialistic, if you
leave aside the question whether it does not assign too big a place
to the sexual factor at the expense of others , for this is already a
dispute within the frontiers of materialism but the psychoanalyst
does not approach problems of consciousness experimentally
going from the lowest phenomena to the highest, from the simple
reflex to the complex reflex; instead, he attempts to take all these

82
intermediate stages in one jump, from above downwards, from the
religious myth, the lyrical poem, or the- dream, straight to the
physiological basis of the psyche.

The idealists tell us that the psyche is an independent

entity, that the "soul" is a bottomless well. Both Pavlov and Freud
think that the bottom of the "Soul" is physiology. But Pavlov, like
a diver, descends to the bottom and laboriously investigate the
well from there upwards, while Freud stands over the well and
with a penetrating gaze tries to pierce its ever-shifting and
troubled waters and to make out or guess the shape of things down
below. Pavlov's method is experiment; Freud's is conjecture,
sometimes fantastic conjecture. The attempt to declare
psychoanalysis "incompatible" with Marxism and simply tum
one's back on Freudianism is too simple, or more accurately, too
simplistic. But we are in any case not obliged to adopt
Freudianism. It is a working hypothesis that can produce and
undoubtedly does produce deductions and conjectures that
proceed along the lines of materialist psychology. The
experimental procedure in due course will provide the tests for
these conjectures. But we have no grounds and no right to put a
ban on the other procedure, which, even though it may be less
reliable, yet tries to anticipate the conclusions to which the
experiential procedure is advancing only very slowly.

(Trotsky Culture and Socialism - Problems of Everyday Life- pp. 233/ 34

(1926)

Ideology
Ideology is a process accomplished by the so-called
thinker consciously, it is true, but with a false consciousness. The
83
real motive force impelling him remain unknown to him. 9

otherwise it simply would not be an ideological process. Hence he

imagines false or seeming motive-forces. Because it is a process
of thought he derives its form as well as its content from pure
thought, either his own or that of his predecessors. He works with
mere thought material, which he accepts without examination as
the product of thought, and does not investigate further for a more
remote source independent of thought; indeed this is a matter of
course to him, because, as all action is mediated by thought, it
appears to him to be ultimately based upon thought.

(Engels to F. Mehring-Selected Correspondence - p.459 (July 14,

1893)

* * *
It is above all this semblance of an independent history of
state constitutions, of system of law, of ideological conceptions in
every separate domain that dazzles most people. If Luther and
Calvin "overcome" the official Catholic religion or Hegel
"overcomes" Fichte and Kant or Rousseau with his republican
Contract Social indirectly "overcomes" the constitutional
Montesquieu, this is a process which remains within theology,
philosophy or political Science, represents a stage in the history of
these particular spheres of thought and never passes beyond the
sphere of thought.And since the bourgeois illusion of the eternity
and finality of capitalist production has been added as well, even
the overcoming of the mercantalists by the Physiocrats and Adam
Smith is accounted as a sheer victory of thought; not as the
reflection in thought of changed economic facts but as the finally
achieved correct understanding of actual conditions subsisting
always and everywhere- in fact, if Richard Coeur-de-Lion and
84
Philip Augustus had introduced free trade instead of getting mixed
up in the crusades we should have been spared five hundred years
of misery and stupidity.
(Engels to F. Mehring - Selected Correspondence - pp. 459/60 - July 14, 1893)

Stoics and Heraclitus

As regards the Stoics, I did not myself study their

relationship to Heraclitus in the matter of natural philosophy,
because of the novice like earnestness of their approach to this
discipline. Of Epicurus, on the other hand, it can be shown en
detail that, although he bases himself on the natural philosophy of
Democritus, he is for ever turning the argument inside out. Cicero
and Plutarch can hardly be blamed for not having grasped this
since it has eluded even men of intellect such as Bayle, not to
speak of Hegel's insissimus (his very Self). Nor, for that matter,
could one expect Hegel, the first to comprehend the entire history
of philosophy, not to commit errors of detail.

(Marx to Lassalle-Marx-Engels Selected Correspondence-p.269(1858)

Matter and Motion

The materialists before Herr Duhring spoke of matter and

motion. He reduces motion to mechanical force as its supposed
basic form, and thereby makes it impossible for him to understand
the real connection between matter and motion, which moveover
was also unclear to all former materialists. And yet it is simple
enough. Motion is the mode of existence of matter. Never
anywhere has there been matter without motion, nor can there be.

85
 ...

Motion in cosmic space, mechanical motion of smaller masses oj

the various celestial bodies, the vibration of molecules as heat or
as electrical or magnetic currents, chemical disintegration an{
combination, organic lifeat each given moment each individual
atom of matter in the world is in one or other of these forms of
motion, or in several forms at once. All rest, all equilibrium, is
only relative, only has meaning in relation to one or other definite
form of motion .... Matter without motion is just as inconceivable
as motion without matter. Motion is therefore as uncreatable and
indestructible as matter itself . . . Motion therefore cannot be
created; it can only be transferred. When motion is transferred
from one body to another, it may be regarded, in so far as it
transfers itself, is active, as the cause of Motion, in so far as the
latter is transferred, is passive, the manifestation of force ...
(Anti - Duhring - Engels - pp. 86-87)

Religion - Opium ofthe People

Man, who looked for a superhuman being in the fantastic

reality of heaven and found nothing there but the reflection of
himself, will no longer be disposed to find but the semblance of
himself, only an inhuman being, where he seeks his true reality.

The basis of irreligious criticism is; man makes religion,

religion does not make man. Religion is the self-consciousness
and self esteem of man who has either not yet found himself or
has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being
encamped outside the world. Man is the world of man, the state,
society. This state, this society, produce religion, an inverted
world-consciousness, because they are an inverted world,

86
Religion is the general theory of that world, its encyclopaedic
compendium, its logic in a popular form, its spiritualistic point
d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn
complement, its universal source of consolation and justification.It
is the fantastic realisation of the human essence because the
human essence has no reality. The struggle against religion is
therefore indirectly a fight against the world of which religion is
the spiritual aroma.

Religious distress is at the same time the expression of

real distress and also the protest against real distress. Religion is
the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of the heartless world,
just as it is the spirit of spiritless conditions. It is the opium of the
people.

To abolish religion as the illusory happiness of the people

is to demand their real happiness. The demand to give up illusions
about the existing state of affairs is the demand to give up a state
of affairs which needs illusions. The criticism of religion is
therefore in embryo the criticism of the vale of tears, the halo of
which is religion.

Criticism has torn up the imaginary flowers from the chain

not so that man shall wear the unadorned, bleak chain but so that
he will shake off the chain and pluck the living flower. The
criticism of religion disillusions man to make him think and act
and shape his reality like a man who has been disillusioned and
has come to reason, so that he will revolve round himself and
therefore round his true sun. Religion is only the illusory sun

87
 ►

which revolves round man as long as he does not revolve roun

himself.

The task of history, therefore, once the world beyond the

truth has disappeared, is to establish the truth of this world. The
immediate task of philosophy, which is at the service of history,
once the holy form of human self-estrangement has been
unmasked, is to unmask self estrangement in its unholy forms.
Thus the criticism of heaven turns into the criticism of the earth $

the criticism of religion into criticism of law, and criticism of

theology into criticism of politics.
(Manx Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Law.
MECW-Vol. 3- pp. 175/76 (1843-44)

All religion, however, is nothing but the fantastic reflection

in men's minds of those externalforces which control their daily
life, a reflection in which the terrestrial forces assume the form
of supernatural forces. In the beginnings of history it was the
forces of nature which were first so reflected, and which in the
course of further evolution underwent the most manifold and
varied personifications among the various peoples. This early
process has been traced back by comparative mythology, at least
in the case of the Inda-European peoples, to its origin in the
Indian Vedas, and in its further evolution it has been demonstrated
in detail among the Indians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Germans
and, so far as material is available, also among the Celts,
Lithuanians and Slavs. But it is not long before, side by side with
the forces of nature, social forces begin to be active - forces
which confront man as equally alien and at first inexplicable,
dominating him with the same apparent natural necessity as the

88
forces of nature themselves. The fantastic figures, which at first
only reflected the mysterious forces of nature, at this point acquire
social attributes, become representatives of the forces of history.
At a still further stage of evolution, all the natural and social
attributes of the numerous gods are transferred to one almighty
god, who is but a reflection of the abstract man. Such was the
origin of monotheism, which was historically the last product of
vulgarized philosophy of the later Greeks and found its
incarnation in the exclusively national god of the Jews, Jehovah.
In this convenient, handy and universally acceptable form,
religion can continue to exist as the immediate, that is, the
sentimental form of men's relation to the alien, natural and social
forces which dominate them, so long as men remain under the
control of these forces. However, we have seen repeatedly that in
existing bourgeois society men are dominated by the economic
conditions created by themselves, by the means of production
which they themselves have produced, as if by an alien force. The
actual basis of the reflective activity that give rise to religion
therefore continues to exist, and with it the religious reflection
itself. And although bourgeois political economy has given a
certain insight into the causal connection of this alien domination,
this makes no essential difference. Bourgeois economics can
neither prevent crisis in general, nor protect the individual
capitalists from losses, bad debts and bankruptcy, nor secure the
individual workers against unemployment and destitution. It is
still true that man proposes and God (that is, alien domination of
the capitalist mode of production) disposes. Mere knowledge,
even if it went much further and deeper than that of bourgeois
economic science, is not enough to bring social forces under the
domination of society. What is above all necessary for this, is a
89
social act. And when this act has been accomplished, whe,
society, by taking possession of all means of production and usin,
them on a planned basis, has freed itself and all its members fro#
the bondage in which they are now held by these means of
production which they themselves have produced but which
confront them as an irresistible alien force; when therefore man no
longer merely proposes, but also disposes - only then will the last
alien force which is still reflected in religion vanish; and with it
will also vanish the religious reflection itself, for the simple
reason that then there will be nothing to reflect.
Herr Duhring, however, cannot wait until religion dies
this, its natural, death. He proceeds in more deep-rooted
fashion. He out-Bismarcks Bismarck; he decrees sharper May
laws not merely against Catholicism, but against all religion
whatsoever; he incites his gendarmes of the future against
religion, and thereby helps it to martyrdom and a prolonged
lease of life. Wherever we tum, we find specifically Prussian
socialism.
(Anti - Duhring - Engels - pp. 433/35)

Religion and Hollowness ofMan

Carlyle complains about the emptiness and hollowness of
the age, about the inner rottenness. of all social institutions. The
complaint is fair; but by simply complaining one does not dispose
of the matter; in order to redress the evil, its causes must be
discovered; and if Carlyle had done this, he would have found that
this disultoriness and hollowness, this "soullessness", this
irreligion and this "atheism" have roots in religion itself. Religion
by its very essence drains man and nature of substance, and

90
transfers this substance to the phantom of an other-worldly God,
who in turn then graciously permits man and nature to receive
some of his superfluity. Now as long as faith in this other-worldly
phantom is vigorous and alive, thus long man will acquire in this
roundabout way at least some substance. The strong faith of the
Middle Ages did indeed give the whole epoch considerable energy
in this way, but it was energy that did not come from without but
was already present within human nature, though as yet
unperceived and undeveloped. Faith gradually weakened,
religion crumbled in the face of the rising level of civilisation,
but still man did not perceive that he had worshipped and deified
his own being in the guise of a being outside himself. Lacking
awareness and at the same time faith, man can have no
substance, he is bound to despair of truth, reason and nature,
and this hollowness and lack of substance, the despair of the
eternal facts of the universe will last until mankind perceives
that the being it has worshipped as God was its own, as yet
unknown being, until-but why should I copy Feuerbach.

The hollowness has long being there, for religion

represent man's action of making himself hollow, and you are
surprised that now, when the purple that concealed it has faded,
when the fog that enveloped it has passed away, that now, to your
consternation, it emerges in the full light of day.
(Engels-MECW-Vol. 3 -pp. 461/62 (1844)

Clergy

The clergy, that bearer of the medieval feudal ideology,

felt the influence of historic change just as acutely. Book-printing

91
 ►

and the claims of growing commerce robbed if of its monopoj

not only in reading and writing, but also in higher education. p,
division of labour also made inroads into the intellectual rean,
The newly rising juridical estate drove the clergy from a numb
of the most influential offices. The clergy was also on its way to
becoming largely superfluous, and demonstrated this by its ever
greater laziness and ignorance. But the more superfluous it
became, the more it grew in numbers, due to the enormous riches
that it still continuously augmented by all possible means.
There were entirely distinct classes among the clergy. The
clerical feudal hierarchy formed the aristocratic class; the
bishops and archbishops, abbots, priors, and other prelates. These
high church dignitaries were either imperial princes or reigned as
feudal lords under the sovereignty of other princes over extensive
lands with numerous serfs and bondsmen. They exploited their
dependents as ruthlessly as the knights and princes, and went at it
even more wantonly. In addition to brute force they applied all the
subterfuges of religion; in addition to the fear of the rack they
applied the fear of ex-communication and denial of absolution;
they made use of all the intrigues of the confessional to wring the
last penny from their subjects or to augment the portion of the
church. Forgery of documents was for these worthies a common
and favourite means of swindling. But although they received
tithes from their subjects in addition to the usual feudal services
and quitrents, these incomes were not enough for them. They
fabricated miracle-working sacred images and relics, set up
sanctifying prayer-houses, and traded in indulgences in order to
squeeze more money out of the people, and for quite sometime
with eminent success .....

92
 The plebeian part of the clergy consisted of rural and
urban preachers. These stood outside the feudal church hierarchy
and had no part in its riches ....
(Engels-The Peasant War in Germany -MECW-Vol. 10 -pp. 404/05
(1850)

Bible andartin Luther

Luther had put a powerful tool into the hands of the
plebeian movement by translating the Bible. Through the Bible he
contrasted the feudalised Christianity of his day with the moderate
Christianity of the first centuries, and the decaying feudal society
with a picture of a society that knew nothing of the ramified and
artificial feudal hierarchy. The peasants had made extensive use of
this instrument against the princes, the nobility, and the clergy.
Now Luther turned it against the peasants, extracting from the
Bible such a veritable hymn to the God-ordained authorities as no
bootlicker of absolute monarchy had ever been able to match.
(Engels-The Peasant War in Germany --MECW- Vol. 10- pp. 419 (1850)

Religion and State

The Social Democrats further demand that everybody shall

have full and unrestricted right to profess any religion he pleases
... Everybody must be perfectly free, not only to profess whatever
religion he pleases, but also to spread or change his religion. No
official should have the right even to ask anyone about his
religion; that is a matter for each person's conscience and no
one has any right to interfere. There should be no "established"
religion or church. All religions and all churches should have
equal status in law. The clergy of the various religions should be

93
 ►

paid salaries by those who belong to their religions, but the state
should not use state money to support any religion whateve
9
should not grant money to maintain any clergy.

( Lenin - To the Rural Poor - Collected Works -Vol.6 p. 404-(1903)

Religion - A Spiritual Booze

Religion is one of the forms of spiritual oppression which

everywhere weighs down heavily upon the masses of the people,
overburdened by their perpetual work for others, by want and
isolation. Impotence of the exploited classes in their struggle
against the exploiters just as inevitably gives rise to the belief in a
better life after death as impotence of the savage in his battle with
nature gives rise to the belief in gods, devils, miracles and the like.
Those who toil and live in want all their lives are taught by
religion to be submissive and patient while here on earth, and to
take comfort in the hope of heavenly reward. But those who live
by labour of others are taught by religion to practice charity while
on earth, thus offering them a very cheap way of justifying their·
entire existence as exploiter and selling them at a moderate price
tickets to well being in heaven. Religion is opium of the people.
Religion is a sort of spiritual booze, in which the slaves of capital
drown their human image, their demand for a life more or less
worthy of man.

(Socialism and Religion - Lenin - Collected Works - Vol. 10 - p. 83

(1905)

94
 Religion - A Private Affair

Religion must be declared a private affair. In these words

socialists usually express their attitude towards religion. But the
meaning of these words should be accurately defined to prevent
any misunderstanding. We demand that religion be held as a
private affair so far as the state is concerned. But by no means can
we consider religion a private affair so far as our party is
concerned. Religion must be of no concern to the state, and
religious societies must have no connection with governmental
authority. Everyone must be absolutely free to profess any
religion he pleases, or no religion whatever, i.e., to be an atheist,
which every socialist is, as a rule. Discrimination among citizens
on account of their religious convictions is wholly intolerable.
Even the bare mention of a citizen's religion in official
documents should unquestionably be eliminated. No subsidies
should be granted to the established church, nor state
allowances made to ecclesiastical and religious societies. These
should become absolutely free associations of like-minded
citizens, associations independent of the state . . . Complete
separation of church and state is what the socialist proletariat
demands of the modern state and the modern church.

(Socialism and Religion- Lenin -Collected Works Vol. 10 pp. 84/85 ( 1905)

Religion and Marxist Programme

Our programme is based entirely on the scientific, and
moreover the materialist, world outlook. An explanation of our
programme, therefore, necessarily includes an explanation of the
95
true historical and economic roots of the religious fog. Our
propaganda necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism, th
publication of the appropriate scientific literature, which the
autocratic feudal government has hitherto strictly forbidden and
persecuted, must now fonn one of the fields of our Party work.
We shall now probably have to follow the advice Engels once
gave to the German socialists; to translate and widely disseminate
the literature of the eighteenth century French Enlighteners and
atheists.

But under no circumstances ought we to fall into the error

of posing the religious question in an abstract, idealistic fashion,
as an "intellectual" question unconnected with the class struggle,
as is not infrequently done by the radical-democrats from among
the bourgeoisie. It would be stupid to think that, in a society
based on the endless oppression and coarsening of the worker
masses, religious prejudices could be dispelled by purely
propaganda methods. It would be bourgeois narrow-mindedness
to forget that the yoke of religion that weighs upon mankind is
merely a product and reflection of the economic yoke within
society. No number ofpamphlets and no amount of preaching
can enlighten the proletariat, if is not enlightened by it own
struggle against the dark forces of capitalism. Unity in this
really revolutionary struggle of the oppressed class for the
creation of a paradise on earth is more important to us than the
unity ofproletarian opinion on paradise in heaven.

That is the reason why we do not and should not setfort

our atheism in our programme; that is why we do not all
should not prohibit proletarians who still retain vestiges of thell

96
old prejudices from associating themselves with our party. We
shall always preach the scientific world-outlook, and it is essential
for us to combat the inconsistency of various "Christians".But
that does not mean in the least that the religious question ought
to be advanced to the first place, where it does not belong at
all; nor does it mean that we should allow the forces of
really revolutionary economic and political struggle to be split up
on account of third-rate opinions or senseless ideas, rapidly losing
all political importance, rapidly being swept out as rubbish by the
very course of economic development.
(Socialism and Religion- Lenin Collected Works Vol. 10- pp.
86/87 - 1905)

Marx's Accomplishments
Marx stands in the same relation to his predecessors in the
theory of surplus-value as Lavoisier stood to Priestly and Scheele.
The existence of that part of the value of products which we now
call surplus-value had been ascertained long before Marx. It has
also been stated with more or less precision what it consisted of,
namely, the product of the labour for which its appropriator had
not given any equivalent. But one did not get any further. Some -
the classical bourgeois economists - investigated at most the
proportion in which the product of labour was divided between
the labourer and the owner of the means of production. Others -
the socialists - found that this division was unjust and looked for
utopian means of abolishing this injustice. They all remained
prisoners of the economic categories as they had come down to
them.

97
 Now Marx appeared upon the scene. And he took a vie
directly opposite to that of all his predecessors. What they had
regarded as a solution, he considered but a problem. He saw th;
1e had to deal neither with dephlogisticated air nor with fire-A Ir,
but with oxygen- that here it was not simply a matter of stating an
economic fact or of pointing out the conflict between this fact and
eternal justice and true morality, but of explaining a fact which
was destined to revolutionise all economics, and which offered to
him who knew how to use it as the key to an understanding of all
capitalist production. With this fact as his starting-point he
examined all the economic categories which he found at hand, just
as Lavoisier proceeding from oxygen has examined the categories
of phlogistic chemistry which he found at hand. In order to,
understand what surplus-value was, Marx had to find out what
value was. He had to criticise above all the Ricardian theory of
value. Hence he analysed labour's value-producing property and
was the first to ascertain what labour it was that produced value,
and why and how it did so. He found that value was nothing but
congealed labour of this kind, and this is a point which Rodbertus
never grasped to his dying day. Marx then investigated the
relation of commodities to money and demonstrated how and
why, thanks to the property of value immanent in commodities,
commodities and commodity-exchange must endanger the
opposition of commodity and money. His theory of money,
founded on this basis, is the first exhaustive one and has been
tacitly accepted everywhere. He analysed the transformation of
money into capital and demonstrated that this transformation is
based on the purchase and sale of labour-power. By substituting
labour-power, the value-producing property, for labour he solved
with one stroke one of the difficulties which brought about the

98
downfall of the Ricardian school, viz, the impossibility of
harmonising the mutual exchange of capital and labour with the
Ricardian law that value is determined by labour. By establishing
the distinction of capital into constant and variable he was enabled
to trace the real course of the process of the fonnation of surplus-
value in its minutest details and thus to explain it, a feat which
none of his predecessors had accomplished. Consequently he
established a distinction inside of capital itself with which neither
Rodbertus nor the bourgeois economists knew in the least what to
do, but which furnishes the key for the solution of the most
complicated economic problems, as is strikingly proved again by
Book II and will be proved still more by Book III. He analysed
surplus-value further and found its two forms, absolute and
relative surplus-value. And he showed that they had played a
different, and each time a decisive role, in the historical
development of capitalist production. On the basis of this
surplus-value he developed the first rational theory of wages we
have, and for the first time drew up an outline of the history of
capitalist aceumulation and an exposition of its historical
tendency.
(Engel's Preface - Capital - Vol. 2 - pp. 15/16 (1893)

On Capital - Vol. I

At last, in 1867, there appeared in Hamburg: Capital. A

Critique of Political Economy, volume I. This work contains the
results of studies to which a whole life was devoted. It is the
political economy of the working class, reduced to its scientific
formulation. This work is concerned not with rabble-rousing
phrase mongering, but with strictly scientific deductions.

99
downfall of the Ricardian school, viz, the impossibility of
harmonising the mutual exchange of capital and labour with the
Ricardian law that value is determined by labour. By establishing
the distinction of capital into constant and variable he was enabled
to trace the real course of the process of the formation of surplus-
value in its minutest details and thus to explain it, a feat which
none of his predecessors had accomplished. Consequently he
established a distinction inside of capital itself with which neither
Rodbertus nor the bourgeois economists knew in the least what to
do, but which furnishes the key for the solution of the most
complicated economic problems, as is strikingly proved again by
Book II and will be proved still more by Book III. He analysed
surplus-value further and found its two forms, absolute and
relative surplus-value. And he showed that they had played a
different, and each time a decisive role, in the historical
development of capitalist production. On the basis of this
surplus-value he developed the first rational theory of wages we
have, and for the first time drew up an outline of the history of
capitalist accumulation and an exposition of its historical
tendency.
(Engel's Preface - Capital - Vol. 2 - pp. 15/16 (1893)

On Capital - Vol. I

At last, in 1867, there appeared in Hamburg: Capital. A

Critique of Political Economy, volume I. This work contains the
results of studies to which a whole life was devoted. It is the
political economy of the working class, reduced to its scientific
formulation. This work is concerned not with rabble-rousing
phrase mongering, but with strictly scientific deductions.

99
Whatever one's attitude to socialism, one will at any rate have to
acknowledge that in this work it is presented for the first time in a
scientific manner, and that it was precisely Germany that
accomplished this. Anyone still wishing to do battle wit4
socialism, will have to deal with Marx, and if he succeeds in that
then he really does not need to mention the de
minorumgentium. (Gods of lesser stock)
(Engels --MECW-Vol. 21 p. 63 (July 28, 1869)

On Capital - Vol. 3

The third book of Capital is receiving many and various

interpretations ever since it has been subject to public judgement.
It was not to be otherwise expected. In publishing it, what I was
chiefly concerned with was to produce as authentic a text as
possible, to demonstrate the new results obtained by Marx in
Marx's own words as possible, to intervene myself only where
absolutely unavoidable, and even then to leave the reader in no
doubt as to who was talking to him. This has been deprecated. It
has been said that I should have converted the material available
to me into systematically written book, en faire un livre, as the
French say; in other words, sacrifice the authenticity of the text to
the reader's convenience. But this was not how I conceived my
task. I lacked all justification for such a revision, a man like Man
has the right to be heard himself, to pass on his scientific
discoveries to posterity in the full genuineness of his own
presentation. Moreover, I had no desire thus to infringe-as it mus!
seem to me- upon the legacy of so pre-eminent a man; it would
have meant to me a breach of faith. And third, it would have been
quite useless. For the people who cannot or do not want to read,

100
ho, even in volume I, took more trouble to understand it
wrongly than as necessary to understand it correctly--for such
people it is altogether useless to put oneself out in any way. But
for those who are interested in real understanding, the original text
itself was precisely the most important thing; for them my
recasting would have had at most the value of a commentary, and
what is more, a commentary on something unpublished and
inaccessible. The original text would have had to be referred to at
the first controversy and at the second and third its publication in
extenso would have become quite unavoidable.
(Engels -Supplement to Capital Vol. 3 -p. 889)

Marx's Method ofQuoting

A word respecting the author's method of quoting may not

be out of place. In the majority of cases, the quoting serves, in the
usual way, as documentary evidence in support of assertions made
in the text. But in many instances, passages from economic
writers are quoted in order to indicate when, where and by whom
a certain proposition was for the first time clearly enunciated. This
is done in cases where the proposition quoted is of importance as
being a more or less adequate expression of the conditions of
social production and exchange prevalent at the time, and quite
irrespective of Marx's recognition, or otherwise of its general
validity. These quotations, therefore, supplement the text by a
running commentary taken from the history of the science.
(Engels- Preface to the first English Edition - Capital-Vol.1-p.5 ( 1886)

101
 In conclusion a few words on Marx's art of quotation
which is so little understood. When they are pure statements 4¢

fact or descriptions, the quotations, from the English Blue Books,

for example, serve of course as simple documentary proof. But
this is not so when the theoretical views of other economists are
cited. Here the quotation is intended merely to state where, when
and by whom an economic idea conceived in the course of
development was first clearly enunciated. Here the only
consideration is that the economic conception in question must b
of some significance to the history of science, that it is the more or
less adequate theoretical expression of the economic situation of
its time. But whether this conception still possesses any absolute
or relative validity form the standpoint of the author or whether it
already has become wholly past history is quite immaterial. Hence
these quotations are only a running commentary to the text, a
commentary borrowed from the history of economic science, and
establish the dates and originators of certain of the more important
advances in economic theory. And that was a very necessary thing
in a science whose historians have so far distinguished themselves
only by tendentious ignorance characteristic of careerists ....
(Engels- Preface to the First English Edition - Capital - Vol.1 -p. 24/

In book I we analysed the phenomena which constitute the

process of capitalist production as such, as the immediate
productive process, with no regard for any of the secondary
effects of outside influences. But this immediate process of
production does not exhaust the life span of capital. It is
supplemented in the actual world by the process of circulation,
which was the object of study in book II. In the latter, namely in
part III, which treated the process of circulation as a medium for

102
the process of social production it developed that the capitalist
process of production taken as a whole represents a synthesis of
the process of production and circulation. Considering what this
third book treats, it cannot confine itself to general reflection
relative to this synthesis. On the contrary, it must locate and
describe the concrete forms which grow out of the movement of
capital as a whole. In their actual movement capitals confront
each other in such concrete shape, for which the form of capital in
the immediate process of production, just as its form in the
process of circulation, appear only as special instances. The
various forms of capital, as evolved in this book, thus approach
step by step the form which they assume on the surface of society,
in the action of different capitals upon one another, in
competition, and in the ordinary consciousness of the agents of
production themselves.
(Marx Capital- Vol.3-p.25 (1894)

Technical Terms
There is, however, one difficulty we could not spare the
reader: the use of certain terms in a sense different from what they
have, not only in common life, but in ordinary Political Economy.
But this is unavoidable. Every new aspect of a science involves a
revolution in the technical terms of that science. This is best
shown by chemistry, where the whole of the terminology is
radically changed about once in twenty years, and where you will
hardly find a single organic compound that has not gone through a
whole series of different names. Political Economy has generally
been content to take, just as they were, the terms of commercial
and industrial life, and to operate with them, entirely failing to see
103
that by so doing, it confined itself within the narrow circle of ideas
expressed by those terms. Thus, though perfectly aware that both ,
profits and rent are but sub divisions, fragments of that unpaij
part of the product which the labourer has to supply to his
employer (its first appropriator, though not its ultimate exclusive •
owner) yet even classical Political Economy never went beyond
the received notions of profits and rents, never examined this
unpaid part of the product (called by Marx surplus - product) in its
integrity as a whole, and therefore never at a clear comprehension,
either of its origin and nature, or of the laws that regulate the
subsequent distribution of its value. Similarly all industry, not
agricultural or handicraft is indiscriminately comprised in the term
of manufacture, and thereby the distinction is obliterated between
two great and essentially different periods of economic history:
the period of manufacture proper, based on the division of manual
labour, and the period of modem industry based on machinery. It
is, however, self-evident that a theory which vies modern
capitalist production as a mere passing stage in the economic
history of mankind, must make use of terms different from those
habitual to writers who look upon that forms of production as
imperishable andfinal.
(Capital - Karl - Marx - Vol. 1 - pp.4/5 Engel's Preface)
Production
Whenever we speak of production, then, what is meant is
always production at a definite stage of social development -
production by social individuals. It might seem, therefore, that in
order to talk about production at all we must either pursue the
process of historic development through its different phases, or
declare beforehand that we are dealing with a specific histori
epoch such as, e.g. modem bourgeois production, which is indeed
104
our particular theme. However, all epochs of production have
certain common traits, common characteristics. Production in
general is an abstraction, but a rational abstraction, in so far as it
really brings out and fixes the common element and thus saves us
repetition. Still, this general category, this common element sifted
out by comparison, is itself segmented many times over and splits
into different determinations. Some determinations belong to all
epochs, others only to a few. Some detenninations will be shared
by the most modem epoch and the most ancient. No production
will be thinkable without them.
(Grundrisse-Marx-p.85)

The Capitalist Process ofProduction

. . . . The capitalist process of production is a historically

determined form of the social process of production in general.
The latter is as much a production process of material conditions
of human life as a process taking place under specific historical
and economic production relations, producing and reproducing
these production relations themselves, and thereby also the bearers
of this process, their material conditions of existence and their
mutual relations, i.e., their particular socio-economic form. For
the aggregate of these relations, in which the agents of this
production stand with respect to Nature and to one another, and in
which they produce, is precisely society, considered from the
standpoint of its economic structure. Like all its predecessors, the
capitalist process of production proceeds under definite material
conditions, which are, however, simultaneously the bearers of
definite social relations entered into by individuals in the process
of reproducing their life. These conditions, like these relations, are

105
 on the one hand prerequisites, on the other hand results an4
creations of the capitalist process of production; they produce{
and reproduced by it.We saw also that capital and the capitalist is
merely capital personified and functions in the process of
production solely as the agent of capital in its correspondin
social process of production, pumps a definite quantity of surplus
labour out of the direct producers, or labourers; capital obtains this
surplus labour without an equivalent, and in essence it always
remains forced labour - no matter how much it may seem to result
from free contractual agreement. This surplus labour appears as
surplus-value, and this surplus-value exists as a surplus product.
Surplus labour in general as labour performed over and above the
given requirements, must always remain. In the capitalist as well
as in the slave system, etc., it merely assumes an antagonistic
form and is supplemented by complete idleness of a stratum of
society. A definite quantity of surplus-labour is required as
insurance against accidents, and by the necessary and progressive
expansion of the process of reproduction in keeping with the
development of the needs and the growth of population,which is
called accumulation from the viewpoint of the capitalist. It is one
of the civilising aspects of capital that it enforces this surplus-
labour in a manner and under conditions which are more
advantageous to the development of the productive forces, social
relations, and the creation of the elements for a new and higher
form than under the preceding forms of slavery, serfdom, etc.
Thus it gives rise to a stage, on the one hand, in which coercion
and monopolisation of social development (including its material
and intellectual advantages) by one portion of society at the
expense of the other are eliminated; on the other hand, it creates
the material means and embryonic conditions, making it possibl

106
in a higher form of society to combine this surplus-labour with a
greater reduction of time devoted to material labour in general.
For, depending on the development of labour productivity,
surplus-labour may be large in a small total working-day, and
relatively small in a large total working-day ... The actual wealth
of society and the possibility of constantly expanding its
reproduction process, therefore, do not depend upon the duration
of surplus labour, but upon its productivity and the more or less
copious conditions of production under which it is performed. In
fact, the realm of freedom actually begins only where labour
which is determined by necessity and mundane considerations
ceases; thus in the very nature of things it lies beyond the sphere
of actual material production. Just as the savage must wrestle
with Nature to satisfy his wants, to maintain and reproduce life, so
must civilised man, and he must do so in all social formations and
under all possible modes of production. With his development this
realm of physical necessity expands as a result of his wants; but at
the same time, the forces of production which satisfy these wants
also increase. Freedom in this field can only consist in socialised
man, the associated producers, rational regulating their
interchange with Nature, bringing it under their common
control, instead of being ruled by it as by the blind forces of
Nature; and achieving this with the least expenditure of energy
and under conditions most fovourable to, and worthy of, their
human nature. But it nonetheless still remains a realm of
necessity. Beyond it begins that development of human energy
which is and in itself, the true realm of freedom, which, however,
can blossom forth only with this realm of necessity as its basis.
The shortening of the working - day is its basic prerequisite.
(Marx-Capital-Vol. 3-pp. 818/20)

107
 Capitalism and Waste ofLife

Capitalist production, when considered in isolation frorn

the process of circulation and the excesses of competition, is very
economical with the materialized labour incorporated in
commodities. Yet, more than any other mode of production, it
squanders human lives, or living labour, and not only blood and
flesh, but also nerve and brain. Indeed, it is only by dint of the
most extravagant waste of individual development that the
development of the human race is at all safeguarded and
maintained in the epoch of history immediately preceeding the
conscious organisation of society. Since all of the economising
here discussed arises from the social nature of labour. it is indeed
just this directly social nature of labour which causes the waste of
life and health.
(Marx-Capital- Vol. 3-p. 88)

Slave Trade

With the development capitalist production during the

manufacturing period, the public opinion of Europe had lost the
last remnant of shame and conscience. The nations bragged
cynically of every infamy that served them as a means of
capitalistic accumulation. Read, e.g., the naive Annals of
commerce of worthy A.Anderson. Here it is trumpeted forth as a
triumph of English statecraft that at the Peace of Utrecht, England
extorted from the Spaniards by the Asiento Treaty the privilege of
being allowed to ply the Negro trade, until then only carried on
between Africa and the English West Indies, between Africa and

108
Spanish America as well. England thereby acquired the right of
supplying Spanish America until 1743 with 4800 negroes yearly.
This threw, at the same time, an official cloak over British
smuggling. Liverpool waxed fat on the slave trade. This was its
method of primitive accumulation .... Liverpool employed in the
slave-trade, in 1730, 15 ships; in 1751, 53; in 1760, 74; in 1770,
96 and 1 792, 132.
(Marx-Capital - Vol. 1 -p. 759 (1867)

Money, Capital, Blood and Dirt

Tantae molis erat, to "establish the eternal laws of

Nature" of the capitalist mode of production, to complete the
process of separation between labourers and conditions of labour,
to transform, at one pole, the social means of production and
subsistence into capital, at the opposite pole, the mass of the
populations into wage-labourers, into "free labouring poor", that
artificial product of modem society. If money, according to
Augier, "comes in to the world with a congenital blood - stain
on one cheek", capital comes dripping from head to foot, from
every pore, with blood and dirt.
(Marx-Capital-Vol. I-pp. 760 (1867)

Bourgeois Society

By bourgeois society, we understand that phase of social

development in which the bourgeoisie, the middle class, the class
of industrial and commercial capitalists, is, socially and
politically, the ruling class; which is now the case more or less in
all the civilized countries of Europe and America. By the

109
 ,.

expressions: Bourgeois society, and; industrial and commercial

and commercial society; we therefore propose to designate the
same stage of social development; the first expression referij
however, more to the fact of the middle class bei_ng the rulin~
class, in opposition either to the class whose rule m superseded
(the feudal nobility), or to those classes which it succeeds in
keeping under its social and political dominion (the proletariat or
industrial working class, the rural population, etc.) while the
designation of commercial and industrial society more particularly
bears upon the mode of production and distribution characteristic
of this phase of social history.

(Marx - MECW - Vol.21 - p.191)

Three Cardinal Facts of Capitalist Production

01. Concentration of means of production in a few hands,

whereby they cease to appear as the property of the
immediate labourers and turn into social production
capacities. Even if initially they are the private property of
capitalists. These are the trustees of bourgeois society, but
they pocket all the proceeds of this trusteeship.

02. Organisation of labour itself into social labour: through co·

operation, division of labour, and the uniting of labour
with the natural sciences.In these two senses, the capitali
mode of production abolishes private property and private
labour, even though in contradictory forms.

03. Creation of the world market

----------------------~
110
 The stupendous productivity developing under the
capitalist mode of production relative to population, and the
increase, if not in the same proportion, of capital - values (not just
of their material substance), which grow much more rapidly than
the population, contradict the basis, which constantly narrows in
relation to the expanding wealth, and for which all this immense
productiveness works. They also contradict the conditions under
which this swelling capital augments it value. Hence the crisis.

(Marx- Capital -Vol.3- p.266)

Component Parts of Capital

.... Capital consists of raw materials, instruments of labour

and means of subsistence of all kinds, which are utilised in order
to produce new raw materials, new instruments of labour and new
means of subsistence. All these component parts of capital are
creations of labour, products of labour, accumulated labour.
Accumulated labour which serves as a means of new production is
capital.

So say the economists. What is a Negro slave? A man of

black race. The one explanation is good as the other.

A Negro is a Negro. He only becomes a slave in certain

relations. A cotton - spinning jenny is a machine for spinning
cotton. It becomes capital only in certain relations. Tom from
these relationships it is no more capital than gold in itself is
money or sugar the price of sugar.
111
 In production men enter into relation not only with natn,
. e,
They produce only by co-operating in a certain way and mutu4n
'y
exchanging their activities. In order to produce, they enter into
definite connections and relations with one another and on]
within these social connections and relations does their relatio:
with nature, does production, take place.

These social relations into which the producers enter with

one another, the connections under which they exchange their
activities and participate in the whole act of production, will
naturally vary according to the character of the means of
production. With the invention of a new instrument of warfare,
firearms, the whole internal organization of the army necessarily
changed; the relationships within which individuals can constitute
an army and act as an army were transformed and the relations of
different armies to one another also changed.

Thus the social relations within which individuals

produce, the social relations of production change, are
transformed, with the change and development of the material
means of production, the productive forces. The relations of
production in their totality constitute what are called the social
relations, society, and, specifically, a society at a definitive stage
of historical development, a society with a peculiar, distinctive
character. Ancient society, feudal society, bourgeois society are
such totalities of production relations, each of which at the sam
time denotes a special stage of development in the history of
mankind.

112
 Capital also, is a social relation of production. It is
bourgeois production relation, a production relation of bourgeois
society....

Capital consists not only of means of subsistence,

instruments of labour, and raw materials, not only of material
products; it consists just as much of exchange values. All the
products of which it consists are commodities. Capital is,
therefore, not only a sum of material products; it is a sum of
commodities, of exchange values, of social magnitudes.
(Marx - Wage Labour and Capital - MECW- Vol. 9-p.211/12 (I 849)

Capital - A Social Power

To be a capitalist is to have not only a purely personal, but
a social status in production. Capital is a collective product, and
only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort,
only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in
motion.

Capital is, therefore, not a personal, it is a social power.

When, therefore, capital is converted into common

property, into the property of all members of society, personal
property is not thereby, transformed into social property. It is only
the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its
class character.
(Marx-Engels -- Manifesto of the Communist Party- MECW- Vol. 6 -
p. 499 ( 1848)

113
 p»

Usurer's Capital

Interest-bearing capital, or, as we may call it in its

antiquated form usurer's capital belong together with its twin.
brother, merchant's capital, to the antediluvian forms of capital
9

which long preceeded the capitalist mode of production and are to

be found in the most diverse economic formations of society.

The existence of usurer's capital merely requires that at

least a portion of products should be transfonned into
commodities, and money should have developed in its various
functions along with trade in commodities.

The development of usurer's capital is bound up with the

development of merchant's capital and especially that of money-
dealing capital. In ancient Rome, beginning with the last years of
the Republic, when manufacturing stood far below its average
level of development in the ancient world, merchant's capital,
money-dealing capital, and usurer's capital developed to their
highest point within the ancient form .

. . . hoarding necessarily appears along with money. But the

professional hoarder does not become important until he is
transformed in to a usurer.
(Capital- Vol.III -p.593)

Usurer's Capital in Pre-Capitalist Systems

The characteristic forms, however, in which usurer's

capital exists in periods antedating capitalist production are of tW"

114
kinds. I purposely say characteristic forms. The same forms repeat
themselves on the basis of capitalist production, but as mere
subordinate forms. They are then no longer the forms which
determine the character of interest-bearing capital. These two
forms are: first, usury by lending money to extravagant members
of upper classes, particularly land owners: secondly, usury by
lending money to small producers who possess their own
conditions of labour - this include the artisan, but mainly the
peasant, since particularly under pre-capitalist conditions, in so far
as they permit of small independent individual producers, the
peasant class necessarily constitutes the overwhelming majority of
them ....
Usurer's capital as the characteristic form of interest-
bearing capital corresponds to the predominance of small-scale
production of the self-employed peasant and small master
craftsman. When the labourer is confronted by the conditions of
labour and by the product of labour in the shape of capital, as
under the developed capitalist mode of production he has no
occasion to borrow any money as a producer. When he does any
money borrowing, he does so, for instance, at the pawnshop to
secure personal necessities. But wherever the labourer is the
owner, whether actual or nominal, of his conditions of labour and
his product, he stands as a producer in relation to the money-
lenders capital, which confronts him as usurer's capital.
(Capital -Vol.3 -p.594)

The Circular Movement of Capital

The circular movement of capital takes place in three
stages, which ... form the following series.

115
 First stage: The capitalist appears as a buyer on the
commodity and the labour market. His money is transformed int,
commodities, or it goes through the circulation act M-C.

Second stage: Productive consumption of the purchase

commodities by the capitalist. He acts as a capitalist producer of
commodities; his capital passes through the process of production.
The result is a commodity of more value than that of the elements
entering into its production.

Third stage: The capitalist returns to the market as a seller;

his commodities are turned into money; or they pass through the
circulation act C-M.

Hence the formula, for the circuit of money - capital is

M-C .... P .... C' - M', the dots indicating that the process of
circulation is interrupted, and C' M' designating C and M
increased by surplus - value.
(Marx- Capital - Vol. 2 - p. 23)

The Starting Point of Capital

The circulation of commodities is the starting of capital.

The production of commodities, their circulation and that more
developed form of their circulation called commerce; these
formed the historical ground-work from which it rises. The
modem history of capital dates from the creation in the
16"century of a world embracing commerce and world embracinE
market.
(Marx-Capital-Vol. l-p.146)

116
 The Starting Point of Capitalist Production

Capitalist production only then really begins ..... when each

individual capital employs simultaneously a comparatively large
number of labourers; when consequently the labour -process is
carried on an extensive scale and yields, relatively, large
quantities of products. A greater number of labourers working
together at the same time, in one place (or, if you will, in the
same field of labour), in order to produce the same sort of
commodity under the mastership of one capitalist, constitutes,
both historically and logically, the starting point of capitalist
production. With regard to the mode of production itself,
manufacture, in its strict meaning, is hardly to be distinguished, in
its earliest stages, from handicraft trades of the guilds, otherwise
than by the greater number of workmen simultaneously employed
by one and the same individual capital. The workshop of the
medieval master handicraftsman is simply enlarged.
(Marx- Capital - Vol.1 -p. 322)

The Law of Capitalist Accumulation

The law of capitalist production, that is at the bottom of
the pretended "natural law of production" reduces itself simply to
this: the correlation between accumulation of capital and rate of
wages is nothing else than the correlation between the unpaid
labour transformed into capital, and the additional paid labour
necessary for the setting in motion of this additional capital. It is
therefore in no way a relation between two magnitudes,

117
independent one of the other; on the one hand, the magnitude
. Of
capital; on the other, the number of the 1 ab ourmg population; it is
rather, at bottom, only the relation between the unpaid and 4.
paid labour of the same labouring population . If the quantity of
unpaid labour supplied by the working class, and accumulated b
the capitalist class, increases so rapidly that its conversion int~
capital requires an extraordinary addition of paid labour, then
wages rise, and, all other circumstances remaining equal, the
unpaid labour diminishes in proportion. But as soon as this
diminution touches the point at which the surplus-labour that
nourishes capital is no longer supplied in normal quantity, 4
reaction sets in; a smaller part of revenue is capitalised.
'
accumulation lags, and the movement of rise in wages receives a
check. The rise of wages therefore is confined within limits that
not only leave intact the foundations of the capitalist system, but
also secures its reproduction on a progressive scale. The law of
capitalistic accumulation, metamorphosed by economists into a
pretended law of Nature, in reality merely states that the very
nature of accumulation excludes every diminution in the degree of
exploitation of labour, and every rise in the price of labour, which
could seriously imperil the continual reproduction, on an ever-
enlarging scale, of the capitalistic relation. It cannot be otherwise
in a mode of production in which labourer exists to satisfy the
needs of self-expansion of existing values, instead of, on the
contrary, material wealth existing to satisfy the needs of
development on the part of the labourer. As, in religion, man is
governed by the products of his own brain, so in capitalistic
production, he is governed by the product of his own hand.
(Marx-Capital- Vol.I -pp.620/21)

118
 Primitive Accumulation

•• •• the accumulation of capital presupposes

surplus-value; surplus-value pre-supposes capitalistic production;
capitalistic production presupposes the pre-existence of
considerable masses of capital and of labour-power in the hands
of producers of commodities. The whole movement, therefore,
seems to turn in a vicious circle, out of which we can only get by
supposing a primitive accumulation (previous accumulation of
Adam Smith) preceeding capitalistic accumulation; and
accumulation not the result of the capitalist mode of production
but its starting-point.

This primitive accumulation plays in Political Economy

about the same part as original sin in theology. Adam bit the
apple, and thereupon sin fell on the human race. Its origin is
supposed to be explained when it is told as an anecdote of the
past. In times long gone by there were two sorts of people; one,
the diligent, intelligent, and above all, frugal elite; the other, lazy
rascals, spending their substance, and more, in riotous living. The
legend of theoretical original sin tells us certainly how man came
to be condemned to eat his bread in the sweat of his brow; but the
history of economic original sin reveals to us that there are people
to whom this is by no means essential. Never mind! Thus it came
to pass that the former sort accumulated wealth, and the latter sort
had at last nothing to sell except their own skins. And from this
original sin dates the poverty of the great majority, despite all its
labour, has up to now nothing to sell but itself, and the wealth of
the few that increase constantly although they have long ceased to
work. Such insipid childishness is every day preached to us in the
119
 t»

defence of property... But as soon as the question of proper

crops up, it becomes a sacred duty to proclaim the intellect,
food of the infant as the one thing fit for all ages and for all stage
. . . s
of development. In actual history it is notorious that conque
enslavement, robbery, murder, briefly force, play the great Part
In the tender annals of Political Economy, the idyllic reigns fr,
time immemorial. Right and "labour" were from all time the sole
means of enrichment, the present year of course always excepted.
As a matter of fact, the methods of primitive accumulation are
anything but idyllic.

. . . the so-called primitive accumulation, therefore, is

nothing else than the historical process of divorcing the producer
from the means of production.

(Marx-Capital-Vol. 1 - pp. 713/14)

Accumulation of Capital
The spoliation of the church's property, the fraudulent
alienation of the state domains, the robbery of the common lands:
the usurpation of feudal and clan property, and its transformation
into modem private property under circumstances of reckless
terrorism, were just so many idyllic methods of primitive
accumulation. They conquered the field for capitalistic
agriculture, made the soil part and parcel of capital, and createo
for the town industries the necessary supply of a "free" an
outlawed proletariat.

(Marx-Capital - Vol. 1 -p. 732/33)

120
 Commodity
A commodity is, in the first place, an object outside us, a
thing that by its properties satisfy human wants of some sort or
another. The nature of such wants, whether, for instance, they
spring from the stomach or from fancy, makes no difference.
(Marx- Capital - Vol. I-p. 35)

Circulation ofCommodities
The simplest form of the circulation of commodities is
C-M-C, the transformation of commodities into money, and the
change of the money back again into commodities; or selling in
order to buy. But alongside of this form we find another
specifically different form; M-C- M, the transformation of
money into commodities, and the change of commodities back
again into money; or buying in order to sell. Money that circulates
in the latter manner is thereby transformed into, becomes capital,
and is already potentially capital.
(Marx- Capital-- Vol. - 1- p. 146/47)

Cost Price of Commodity

What the commodity costs the capitalist and its actual
production cost are two quite different magnitudes. That portion
of the commodity-value making up the surplus value does not cost
the capitalist anything simply because it costs the labourer unpaid
labour. Yet, on the basis of capitalist production, after the labourer
enters the production process he himself constitutes an ingredient
of operating productive capital, which belongs to the capitalist.
Therefore, the capitalist is the actual producer of the commodity.
121
 b-

For this reason, the cost price of the commodity necessan

appears to capitalist as the actual cost of the commodity.

(Marx - Capital -Vol. - 3 -p.26)

Fetishism of Commodities
A commodity is therefore a mysterious thing, simply
because in it the social character of men's labour appears to
them as an objective character stamped upon the product of that
labour; because the relation of the producers to the sum total of
their own labour is presented to them as a social relation,
existing not between themselves, but between the products of
their labour. This is the reason why the products of labour
become commodities, social things whose qualities are at the
same time perceptible and imperceptible by the senses. In the
same way the light from an object is perceived by us not as the
subjective excitation of our optic nerve, but as the objective fonn
of something outside the eye itself. But in the act of seeing, there
is at all events, an actual passage of light from one thing to
another, from the external object the eye. There is a physical
relation between physical things. But it is different with
commodities. There, the existence of the things qua commodities,
and the value relation between the products of labour which stamp
them as commodities, have absolutely no connection with their
physical properties and with the material relations arising
therefrom. There it is a definite social relation between men, thal
assumes, in their eyes, the fantastic form of a relation between
things. In order, therefore, to find an analogy, we must have
recourse to the mist--enveloped regions of the religious world. II
that world the productions of the human brain app!!_!!!!!,,
122
independent beings endowed with life, and entering into relation
both with one another and the human race. So it is in the world
of commodities with the products of men's hands. This I call the
Fetishism which attaches itself to the products of labour so soon
'
as they are produced as commodities, and which is therefore
inseparable from the production of commodities.

The Fetishism of commodities has its ongm, as the

foregoing analysis has already shown, in the peculiar social
character of the labour that produces them.
(Marx- Capital- Vol .1- p. 72)

Use- Value

The utility of a thing makes it a use-value. But this utility

is not a thing of air. Being limited by the physical properties of the
commodity, it has no existence apart from that commodity. A
commodity, such as iron, com, or a diamond, is therefore, so far
as it is a material thing, a use-value, something useful. This
property of a commodity is independent of the amount of labour
required to appropriate its useful qualities ... Use values become a
reality only by use or consumption; they also constitute the
substance of all wealth, whatever may be the social form of that
wealth. In the form of society we are about to consider, they are,
in addition, the material depositories of exchange value.
(Marx - Capital Vol.-1-p. 36)

* * *
A use-value has value only in use, and is realised only in
the process of consumption. One and the same use-value can be
used in various ways. But the extent of its possible applications is
123
limited by its existence as an object with distinct properties. It is
moreover > determined not only qualitatively but al IS'
quantitatively. Different use-values have different measun
appropriate to their physical characteristics; for example, a bush
of wheat, a quire of paper, a yard of linen.
(Marx-A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy - p. 27 (1859)

* * *
... Although use-values serve social needs and therefore
exists within the social framework, they do not express the social
relations of production. For instance, let us take as a use-value a
commodity such as diamond. We cannot tell by looking at it that
the diamond is a commodity. Where it serves as an aesthetic or
mechanical use-value on the neck of a courtesan or of in the hand
of a glass-cutter, it is a diamond and not a commodity. To be a
use-value is evidently a necessary prerequisite of the commodity,
but it is immaterial to the use-value whether it is a commodity.
Use-value as such, since it is independent of determinate
economic form, lies outside the sphere of investigation of political
economy. It belongs in this sphere only when it is itself a
determinate form. Use-value is the immediate physical entity in
which a definite economic relationship - exchange value-is
expressed.
(Marx-A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy -p.28)

Exchange - Value

Exchange value, at first sight, presents itself as a

quantitative relation, as the proportion in which values in use of

124
one sort are exchanged for those of another sort, a relation
constantly changing with time and place. Hence the exchange-
value appears to be something accidental and purely relative, and
consequently an intrinsic value, i.e., an exchange-value that is
inseparably connected with, inherent in commodities, seems a
contradiction in terms.
(Marx-Capital -Vol. l-p. 36)

k
* *
Exchange-value seems at first to be a quantitative
relation, the proportion in which use-values are exchanged for
one another. In this relation they constitute equal exchangeable
magnitudes. Thus one volume of Propertius and eight ounces of
snuff may have the same exchange-value, despite the dissimilar
use-values of snuff and elegies. Considered as exchange value,
one use-value is worth just as much as another, provided the two
are available in the appropriate proportion ..... Quite irrespective,
therefore, of their natural form of existence and without regard to
the specific character of the needs they satisfy as use-values,
commodities is in definite quantities are congruent, they take one
another's place in the exchange process, are regarded as
equivalents, and despite their motley appearance have a common
denominator.

(Marx - A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy - p .28)

Labour Embodied in Exchange Value

Let us suppose that one ounce of gold, one ton of iron, one
quarter of wheat and twenty yards of silk are exchange-value of
equal magnitude. As exchange-value in which the qualitative

125
 ►

difference between their use-values is eliminated, they repre

· 'Sen
equal amounts of the same kind of labour. The labour which .
uniformly materialised in them must be uniform, homogene,
simple labour; it matters as little whether this is embodied in go!~,
iron, wheat or silk, as it matters to oxygen whether it is found;
rusty iron, in the atmosphere, in the juice of grapes or in human
blood. But digging gold, mining iron, cultivating wheat and
weaving silk are qualitatively different kinds of labour. In fact'
what appears objectively as diversity of the use-values appears,
when looked at dynamically, as diversity of the activities which:
produce those use values. Since the particular material of which
the use values consist is irrelevant to the labour that creates
exchange value, the particular form of this labour is equally
irrelevant. Different use-values are, moreover, products of the
activity of different individuals, and therefore the result of
different kinds of labour. But as exchange-values they represent
the same homogeneous labour, i.e., labour in which the individual
characteristics of the workers are obliterated. Labour which
creates exchange-value is thus abstract general labour.
(Marx-A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy- p. 29)

General Formula of Capital

The general formula of capital is M- C-M. In other words

a sum of value is thrown into circulation to extract a larger sum
out of it. The process which produces this larger sum is capitalisi
production. This process that realises it is circulation of capital.
The capitalist does not produce a commodity for its own sake, nor
for the sake of its use-value, or his personal consumption. The
product in which the capitalist is really interested is not the

126

►
palpable product itself, but the excess value of the product over
the value of the capital consumed by it. The capitalist advances
the total capital without regard to the different roles played by its
components in the production of surplus-value. He advances all
these components uniformly, not just to reproduce the advanced
capital, but rather to produce value in excess of it. The only way
in which he can convert the value of his advanced variable capital
into a greater value is by exchanging it for living labour and
exploiting living labour. But he cannot exploit this labour unless
he makes a simultaneous advance of the conditions for performing
this labour, namely means of labour and subjects of labour,
machinery and raw-materials, i.e., unless he converts a certain
amount of value in his possession into the form of conditions of
production: for he is a capitalist and can undertake the process to
exploiting labour only because, being owner of the conditions of
labour, he confronts the labourer as owner of only labour-
power. .... It is precisely the fact that non-workers own the means
of production which turns labourers into wage-workers and non-
workers into capitalists.
(Marx - Capital Vol. 3-p. 41)

Variable and Constant Capital

The capitalist does not care whether it is considered that he
advances constant capital to make a profit out to his variable
capital, or that he advances variable capital to enhance the value
of the constant capital; that he invests money in wages to raise the
value of his machinery and raw materials, or that he invests
money in machinery and raw materials to able to exploit labour.
Although it is only the variable portion of the capital which
creates surplus value, it does so only if the other portions, the
127
conditions ofproduction, are likewise advanced. Seeing that,
. e
d
capitalist can exploit labour only by advancing constant capi
and that he can turn his constant capital to good account on1
by advancing variable capital, he lumps them altogether in his
imagination, much more since the actual rate of his gain is not
determined by its proportion to the variable, but to the total
capital, not by the rate of surplus-value but by the rate ofprofit
And the latter, as we shall see, may remain the same and yet
express different rates of surplus value.
(Marx-Capital -Vol. 3 -p. 42)

Organic Composition of Capital

The organic composition of capital depends at any given

time on two circumstances: first, on the technical relation of
labour power employed to the mass of the means of production
employed; secondly, on the price of these means of production.

(Marx- Capital- Vol. 3-p.154)

Paid and Unpaid Labour

The value contained in a commodity is equal to the

labour-time expended in its production, and the sum of this labour
consists of paid and unpaid portions. But for the capitalist the
costs of the commodity consist only of that portion of the labour -
materialised in it for which he has paid. The surplus-labour
contained in the commodity costs the capitalist nothing, although,
like the paid portion, it costs the labourer his labour, and although
it creates value and enters into the commodity as a valuecreatiE
element quite like paid labour. The capitalist's profit is ~
128
from the fact that he has something to sell for which he has paid
nothing. The surplus-value, or profit, consists precisely in the
excess value of a commodity over its cost-price, i.e., the excess of
the total labour embodied in the commodity over the paid labour
embodied in it. The surplus-value, whatever its origin, is thus a
surplus over the advanced total capital. The proportion of this
surplus to the total capital is therefore expressed by the fraction ~
C
in which C stands for total capital. We thus obtain the rate of
fi s s ,as d.listinct
profit;
. from the rate of surplus value -s
C C+v Cc

(Marx Capital - Vol.3 - p.42)

The Rate ofSurplus value and

The Rate ofProfit
The rate of surplus-value measured against the variable
capital is called the rate the surplus- value. The rate ofsurplus-
value measured against the total capital is called the rate of
profit. These are two different measurements of the same entity,
and owing to the difference of the two standards of measurement
they express different proportions or relations of this entity.

The transformation of surplus value into profit must be

deduced from the transformation of the rate of surplus-value into
the rate of profit, not vice versa. And in fact it was the rate of
profit which was the historical point of departure. Surplus-value
and rate of surplus value are, relatively the invisible and unknown
essence that wants investigating, while the rate of profit and

129
 •
therefore the appearance of surplus-value in the form of profit are
revealed on the surface of phenomenon.

So far as the individual capitalist is concerned, it ;

evident that he is only interested in the relation of the surplus.
value, or the excess value at which he sells his commodities, to
the total capital advancedfor the production of the commoditier
while the specific relationship and inner connection of this' ,
surplus with the various components of capital fail to interest
1
him, and it is, moreover, rather in his interest to draw the veil
over this specific relationship and this intrinsic connection.
(Marx- Capital- Vol.- 3-p.43)

Demand for Labour

Since the demand for labour is determined not by the
amount of capital as a whole, but by its variable constituent alone,
that demand falls progressively with the increase of the total
capital, instead of, as previously assumed , rising in proportion to
it. It falls relatively to the magnitude of the total capital, and at an 1

accelerated rate, as the magnitude increases. With the growth of

the total capital, its variable constituent or the labour incorporated
in it,also does increase, but in a constantly diminishing proportion.
(Marx - Capital Vol. 1-p .629)

Labour and Labour-Power

The capitalist buys labour power in order to use it; and

labour power in use is labour itself. The purchaser of labour
power consumes it by setting the seller of it to work. By workinE

130
the latter becomes actually, what before he only was potentially,
labour-power in action, a labourer. In order that his labour may
re-appear in a commodity, he must, before all things, expend it on
something useful, on something capable of satisfying a want of
some sort. Hence, what the capitalist sets the labourer to produce
is a particular use-value, a specified article. The fact that the
production of use-values, or goods, is carried on under the control
of a capitalist and on his behalf, does not alter the general
character of that production .....

Labour is, in the first place, a process in which

both man and Nature participate, and in which man of his own
accord starts, regulates, and controls the material reactions,
between himself and Nature. He opposes himself to Nature as one
of her own forces, setting in motion arms and legs, head and
hands, the natural forces of his body, in order to appropriate
Nature's production in a form adapted to his own wants. By thus
acting on the external world and changing it, he at the same time
changes his own nature. He develops his slumbering powers and
compels them to act in obedience to his sway. We are not now
dealing with those primitive instinctive forms of labour that
remind us of the mere animal. An immeasurable interval of time
separates the state of things in which a man brings his labour-
power to market for sale as a commodity, from that state in which
human labour was still in its first instinctive stage. We pre-
suppose labour in a form that stamps it as exclusively human. A
spider conducts operations that resemble those of a weaver, and
a bee puts to shame many an architect in the construction of her
cells. But what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of
bees is this, that architect raises his structure in imagination

131
before he erects it in reality. At the end of every labour proce
we get a result that already existed in the imagination of t4
labourer at its commencement. He not only effects a change of
form in the material on which he works, but he also realizes a
purpose of his own that gives the law to his modus operandi, and 1

to which he must subordinate his will. And this subordination is

no mere momentary act. Besides the exertion of the bodily organs ,
the process demands that, during the whole operation, the
workman's will be steadily in consonance with his purpose.

(Marx - Capital - Vol. 1- pp.177/78)

Labour and wealth

Labour is not the source of all wealth. Nature is just as :

much the source of use values (and it is surely of such that
material wealth consists!) as labour, which itself is only the
manifestation of a force of nature, human labour power. The
above phrase is to be found in all children's primers and is correct
in so far as is implied that labour is performed with the
appurtenant subjects and instruments. But a socialist programme
cannot allow such bourgeois phrases to pass in silence the
conditions that along give them meaning. And in so far as man
from the beginning behaves towards nature, the primary source of
all instruments and subjects of labour, as an owner, treats her as
belonging to him, his labour becomes the source of use values,
therefore also of wealth. The bourgeois have very good grounds
for falsely ascribing supernatural creative power to laboUi
since precisely from the fact that labour depends on nature "

132
follows that the man who possesses no other property than his
labour power must, in all conditions of society and culture, be
slave of other men who have made themselves the owners of the
material conditions of labour. He can work only with their
permission, hence live only with their permission.
(Marx - Marx Engels Selected Works-- Vol.2- P. 18--( 1875)

Labour and Raw Materials

........ All raw materials is the subject of labour, But not

every subject of labour is raw material; It can only become so,
after it has undergone some alteration by means of labour.
(Marx-Capital- Vol. 1- 178/79)

Instruments ofLabour

An instrument of labour is a thing, or a complex of things,

which the labourer interposes between himself and the subject of
his labour and which serves as the conductor of his activity. He
makes use of the mechanical, physical and chemical properties of
some substances in order to make other substances subservient to
his aims. Leaving out of consideration such ready-made means of
subsistence as fruits, in gathering which a man's own limbs serve
as the instruments of his labour, the first thing of which the
labourer possess himself is not the subject of labour but it's
instrument. Thus Nature becomes one of the organs of his activity,
one that he annexes to his own bodily organs, adding stature to
himself in spite of the Bible. As the earth is the original larder, so
too it is his original tool house. It supplies him, for instance, with
stones for throwing, grinding, pressing, cutting, etc. The earth

133
 itself in an instrument of labour, but when used as such .
agriculture implies a whole series of other instruments and':
comparatively high development of labour. No sooner does labo,
undergo the least development than it requires specially prepare4
instruments. Thus in the oldest caves we find stone implement
and weapons. In the earliest period of human history domesticated
animals, i.e., animals which have been bred for the purpose, and
have undergone modifications by means of labour, play the chief
part as instruments of labour along with specially prepared stones
wood, bones, and shells. The use and fabrication of instruments of'
labour, although existing in the germ among certain species of
animals, is specifically characteristic of human labour-process,
and Franklin therefore defines man as tool making animal. Relics
of bygone instruments of labour possess the same importance for
the investigation of extinct economic forms of society, as do fossil 1

bones for the determination of extinct species of animals. It is not

the articles made, but how they are made, and by what
instruments, that enable us to distinguish different economic
epochs. of labour not only supply a standard of the degree
of development to which human labour has attained, but they
are also indicators of the social conditions under which that
labour is carried on. Among the instruments of labour, those of a
mechanical nature which, taken as a whole, we may call the bone
and muscles of production, offer much more decided
characteristics of a given epoch of production, than those which,
like pipes, tubs, baskets, jars etc., serve only to hold the materials
for labour, which latter class, we may in a general way, call the
vascular system of production. The latter first begins to play an
important part in the chemical industries.

134
 In a wider sense we may include among the instruments of
labour, in addition to those things that are used for directly
transferring labour to its subject, and which therefore, in one way
or another, serve as conductors of activity, all such objects as are
necessary for carrying on the labour process. These do not enter
directly into the process, but without them it is either impossible
for it to take place at all, or possible only to a partial extent. Once
more we find the earth to be a universal instrument of this sort, for
it furnishes a locus standi to the labourer and a field of
employment for its activity. Among instruments that are the result
of previous labour and also belong to this class, we find
workshops, canals, roads and so forth.

In the labour process, therefore, man's activity, with the

help of the instruments of labour, effects an alteration, designed
from the commencement, in the material worked upon. The
process disappears in the product; the latter is a use value,
Nature's material adapted by a change of form to the wants of
man ...
(Marx-Capital - Vol. 1- p. 179/80)

The labour-process, turned into the process by which the

capitalist consumes labour - power, exhibits two characteristic
phenomena. First, the labourer works under the control of the
capitalist to whom his labour belongs .

Secondly, the product is the property of the capitalist, not

that of the labourer its immediate producer.. •
'
(Marx-Capital-Vol. l - pp. 184/85)

* *
135
*
 The life-time of an instrument of labour, therefore > is s pen
in the repetition of a greater or lesser number of sin;j
· Illar
operations. Its life may be compared with that of a human bein
Everyday brings a man 24 hours nearer to his grave; but how
many days he has still to travel on that road, no man can tell •
accurately by merely looking at him. This difficulty, however
does not prevent life insurance offices from drawing, by means 0~
the theory of averages, very accurate, and at the same time very
profitable conclusions. So it is with the instruments of labour. It is
known by experience how long on the average a machine of a
particular kind will last. Suppose its use-value in the labour
process to last only six days. Then, on the average, it loses each
day one sixth of its use-value, and therefore parts with one-sixth
of its value to the daily product. The wear and tear of all
instruments, their daily loss of use-value, and the corresponding
quality of value they part with to the product, are accordingly
calculated upon this basis.

It is thus strikingly clear, that means ofproduction never

transfer more value to the product than they themselves lose
during the labour-process by the destruction of their on uS-
value. If such an instrument has no value to lose, if, in other
words, it is not the product of human labour, it transfers 110
value to the product. It helps to create use-value without
contributing to the formation of exchange-value. In this class
are included all means ofproduction supplied by Nature without
human assistance, such as land, wind, water, metals in situ, al"
timber in virgin forest.
(Marx Capital- Vol. 1 --pp. 203/04)

136
 Necessary Labour - Time

That portion of the working day, then, during which this

reproduction takes place, I call "necessary" labour-time, and the
labour expended during that time I call "necessary" labour.
Necessary, as regards the labourer, because independent of the
particular social form of his labour; necessary, as regards capital,
and the world of capitalists, because on the continued existence of
the labourer depends their existence also.

(Marx- Capital Vol. 1- pp. 216/17)

The essential difference between the various economic

forms of society, between for instance, a society based on slave-
labour, and one based on wage labour, lies only in the mode in
which this surplus-labour is in each case extracted from the actual
produce, the labourer.

(Marx - Capital- Vol.1 -p. 217)

Measuring the Labour 'Ti

me

The question now arises, how can these amounts be

measured? Or rather the question arises, what is the quantitative
form of existence of this labour, since the quantitative differences
of the commodities as exchange value are merely the quantitative
differences of the labour embodied in them. Just as motion is
measured by time, so is labour by labour time. Variations in the
duration of labour are the only possible difference that can occur
137
if the quality of labour is assumed to be given. Labour time .
. f . . IS
measured in terms of the natura 1 umts o time, 1.e., hours d
the : · " "ays,
weeks, etc. Labour-time is the living state o1 existence of lab3
irrespective of its form, its content and its individual features; ~;
the quantitative aspect of labour as well as its inherent measure. 1

The labour-time materialised in the use-values of commodities is

both the substance that turns them into exchange-values and
therefore into commodities, and the standard by which the precise
magnitude of their value is measured. The corresponding
quantities of different use-values containing the same amount of
labour-time are equivalents; that is, all use-values are equivalents
when taken in proportions which contain the same amount of
expended, materialised labour-time. Regarded as exchange -
values all commodities are merely definite quantities of congealed
labour-time.

The following basic propositions are essential for an

understanding of the determination of exchange - value by labour
time. Labour is reduced to simple labour, labour, so to speak,
without any qualitative attributes; labour which creates exchange
- value, is specifically social - labour; finally, labour in so far as
its results are use-values is distinct from labor in so far as its
results are exchange values.

To measure the exchange-value of commodities by the

labour-time they contain, the different kinds of labour have to be
0
reduced to uniform, homogeneous, simple labour, in short 1.
labour of uniform quality, whose only difference therefore is
quantity.

138
 This reduction appears to be an abstraction, but it is an
abstraction which is made every day in the social process of
production. The conversion of all commodities into labour - time
is no greater an abstraction, and is no less real, than the resolution
of all organic bodies into air. Labour, thus measured by time, does
not seem, indeed, to be the labour of different persons, but on the
contrary the different working individuals seemed to be mere
organs of this labour. In other words the labour embodied in
exchange-values could be called human labour in general. This
abstraction, human labour in general, exists in the form of average
labour which, in a given society, the average person can perform,
productive expenditure of a certain amount of human muscles,
nerves, brain, etc. It is simple labour which any average
individual can be trained to do and which in one way or another
he has to perform. The characteristics of this average labour are
different in different countries and different historical epochs, but
in any particular society it appears as something given. The
greater part of the labour performed in bourgeois society is simple
labour as statistical data show. Whether A works 6 hours
producing iron and 6 hours producing linen, or A works 12 hours
producing iron and B 12 hours producing linen is quite evidently
merely a different application of the same labour - time. But what
is the position with regard to more complicated labour which,
being labour of greater intensity and greater specific gravity, rises
above the general level? This kind of labour resolves itself into
simple labour; it is simple labour raised to a higher power, so that
for example one day of skilled labour may equal three days of
simple labour. The laws governing this reduction do not concern
us here. It is, however, clear that the reduction is made, for, as

139
exchange-value, the product of highly skilled labour is equivalen
in definite proportions, to the product of simple average labour.

The determination of exchangevalue by labour tin

moreover, presupposes that the same amount of labour is
materialised in a particular commodity .... that is to say, different
individuals expend equal amounts of labour-time to produce use_
values which are qualitatively and quantitatively equal. In other
words, it is assumed that the labour-time contained in a
commodity is the labour-time necessary for its production ,
namely, the labour - time required, under the generally prevailing
conditions of production, to produce another unit of the same
commodity.

From the analysis of exchange-value it follows that the

conditions of labour which creates exchange - value are social
categories of social-labour, social however not in the general
sense but in the particular sense, denoting a specific type of
society. Uniform simple labour implies first of all that the labour
of different individuals is equal and that their labour is treated as
equal by being in fact reduced to homogeneous labour. The labour
of every individual in so far as it manifest itself in exchange
values possesses this social character of equality, and it manifests
itself in exchange - value only in so far as it is equated with
labour of all other individuals.

Furthermore, in exchange-value the labour-time of a

particular individual is directly represented as labour time in
general, and this general character of individual labour appears '
as the social character of this labour. The labourtime express

140
 in exchange-value is the labour-time of an individual, but of an
individual in no way differing from the next individuals in so far
as they perform equal labour; the labour-time, therefore, which
one person requires for the production of a given commodity is
the necessary labour-time which any other person would require
to produce the same commodity. It is the labour-time of an
individual, his labour-time, but only as labour-time common to
all; consequently it is quite immaterial whose individual labour-
time this is. This universal labour-time finds it expression in a
universal product, a universal equivalent, a definite amount of
materialised labour-time, for which the distinct form of the use-
value in which it is manifested as the direct product of one person
is a matter of complete indifference, and it can be converted at
will into any other form of use-value, in which it appears as the
product of any other person. Only as such a universal magnitude
does it represent a social magnitude. The labour of an individual
can produce exchange-value only if it produces universal
equivalents, that is to say, if the individual's labour-time
represents universal labour-time. The effect is the same as if the
different individuals had amalgamated their labour-time and
allocated different portions of the labour-time at their joint
disposal to various use-values. The labour-time of the individual
is thus, in fact, the labour- time required by society, to produce as
particular use - value that is to satisfy a particular want. But what
matters here is only the specific manner in which the social
character of labour is established. A certain amount of a spinner's
labour time is materialised, say, in 100 lbs. of linen yam. The
same amount of labour - time is assumed to be represented in I 00
yards of linen, the product of a weaver. Since these two products
represent equal amounts of universal labour- time, and are
141
therefore equivalents of any use value which contains the sam
amount of labour - time, they are equal to each other. On]
because the labour - time of the spinner and the labour- time r
the weaver represent universal labour - time, and their product
. 1 s
are thus universal equivalents, is the socia, aspect of the labour of
the two individuals represented for each of them by the labour of
the other, that is to say, the labour of the weaver represents it for
the spinner, and the labour of the spinner represents it for the
weaver. On the other hand, under the rural patriarchal system of
production, when the spinner and weaver lived under the same
roof - the women of the family spinning and the men weaving say
for the requirements of the family - yarn and linen were social
products, and spinning and weaving social labour within the
framework of the family. But their social character did not appear
in the form of yam becoming a universal equivalent exchanged
for linen as a universal equivalent, i.e., of the two products
exchanging for each other as equal and equally valid expressions I

of the same universal labour - time. On the contrary. The product

of labour bore the specific social imprint of the labour. Or let us
take the service and dues in king of the Middle Ages. It was the
distinct labour of the individual in its original form, the particular
features of his labour and not its universal aspect that formed the
social ties at that time. Or finally let us take communal labour in
its spontaneously evolved forms as we find it among all civilised
nations at the dawn of their history. In this case the social
character of labour is evidently not effected by the labour of the
individual assuming the abstract form of universal labour or his
product assuming the form of universal equivalent. The communal
system on which this mode of production is based prevents ("
labour of an individual from becoming private labour and h"

142
product the private product of a separate individual; it caused
individual labour to appear rather as the direct function of a
member of the social organisation. Labour which manifests itself
in exchange - value appears to be the labour of an isolated
individual. It becomes social labour by assuming the form of its
direct opposite, of abstract universal labour.

Lastly, it is a characteristic feature of labour which posits

exchange value that it causes the social relations of individuals
to appear in the perverted form of social relation between things.
The labour of different persons is required and treated as universal
labour only by bringing the use-value into relation with another
one in the guise of exchange-value. Although it was thus correct
to say that exchange-value is a relation between persons, it is
however necessary to add that it is a relation hidden by a material
veil. Just as a pound of iron and a pound of gold have the same
weight despite their different physical and chemical properties, so
two commodities which have different use values but contain the
same amount of labour - time have the same exchange-
value.Exchange value thus appears to be a social determination of
use - values, a determination which is proper to them as things
and in consequence of which they are able in definite proportions
to take one another's place in exchange process .... Only the
conventions of our everyday life make it appear commonplace and
ordinary that social relations of production should assume the
shape of things, so that relations into which people enter in the
course of their work appear as the relations of things to one
another and of things to people. This mystification is still a very
simple one in the case of a commodity. Everybody understands
more or less clearly that the relations of commodities as exchange

143
- values are really the relations of people to the producr
. 1· . lVe
activities of one another. The semtbl lance otf simplicity disapp
.
in more advanced relations d "
of production. th illusions
All the ill .:.
of"Gs
Monetary System arise from the failure to perceive that mone e
though a physical object with distinct properties represent ,
social relation of production. As soon as the moden1 economist s,
who sneer at the illusions of the Monetary System, deal with the
more complex economic categories, such as capital, they display
the same illusions.

(A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy- Marx pp.29/35 (1859)

The Productive Forces

It is superfluous to add that men are not free to choose

their productive forces which are the basis of all their history -
for every productive force is an acquired force, the product of
former activity. The productive forces are there/ore the result of
practical human energy; but this energy is itself conditioned by
the circumstances, by the productive forces already acquired, by
the social form which exist before they do, which they do not
create, which is the product of the preceding generation,
Because of this simple fact every succeeding generation finds
itself in possession of the productive forces acquired by the
previous generation, which serve it as the raw material for new
production, a coherence arises in human history, a history of
humanity takes shape which is all the more a history of humanity
as the productive forces of man and therefore his social relations
have been more developed. Hence it necessarily follows that the

144
social history of men is never anything but the history of their
individual development, whether they are conscious of it or not.
Their material relations are the basis of all their relations. These
material relations are only the necessary form in which their
material and individual activity is realized.
( Marx to P.V.Avenkov - The Poverty of Philosophy- p.173)

Absolute and Relative Surplus - value

The surplus-value produced by prolongation of the working

day, I call absolute surplus-value. On the other hand, the
surplus-value arising from the curtailment of the necessary labour-
time, and from the corresponding alteration in the respective
lengths of the two components of the working-day, I call relative
surplus-value.
(Marx-Capital - Vol. 1-p. 315)

Division ofLabour
The foundation of every division of labour that is well
developed, and brought about by the exchange of commodities, is
the separation between town and country. It may be said, that the
whole economic history of society is summed up in the movement
of this antithesis.
(Marx-Capital - Vol.- p. 352)

The division of labour in the workshop implies

concentration of the means of production in the hands of one
capitalist; the division of labour in society implies their dispersion
among many independed producers of commodities.
(Marx-Capital-Vol.1-p. 355)

145
 Value

Every beginning is difficult, holds in all sciences.

·+,,
1
Nevertheless, the human mind has for more than 2000 Years
sought in vain to get to the bottom of it (value form), whilst on the :
other hand, to the successful analysis of much more composite
and complex forms, there has been at least an approximation.
Why? Because the body, as an organic whole, is more easy of
study than are the cells of that body. In the analysis of economic
forms, moreover, neither microscopes nor chemical reagents are
of use. The force of abstraction must replace both. But in 1

1
bourgeois society the commodity-form of product of labour-or
the value form of the commodity - is the economic cell-form. To I
the superficial observer, the analysis of these forms seems to tum .
upon minutiae. It does in fact deal with the minutiae, but they are
the same order as those dealt with in microscopic anatomy ....

The physicist either observes physical phenomena when

they occur in their most typical form and most free from
disturbing influence, or, wherever possible, he makes experiments
under conditions that assure the occurrence of the phenomenon in
its normality. In this work I have to examine the capitalist mode of
production, and the conditions of production and exchange
corresponding to that mode. Upto their present time, their classic ,
ground is England. That is reason why England is used as the
chief illustration in the development of my theoretical ideas....

(Marx -Capital- Preface to the First German Edition- Vol.1-pp. 7/8 (1867)

146

•
 Value and Labour

Some people might think that if the value of a commodity

is determined by the quantity of labour spent on it, the more idle
and unskillful the labourer, the more valuable would his
commodity be, because more time would be required in its
production. The labour, however, that forms the substance of
value, is homogenous human labour, expenditure of one uniform
labour-power. The total labour-power of society, which is
embodied in the sum total of the values of all commodities
produced by that society, counts here as one of homogenous mass
of human labour power, composed though it be of innumerable
individual units. Each of these units is the same as any other, so
far as it has the character of the average labour power-power of
society-and takes effect as such; that is, so far as it requires for
producing a commodity, no more time than is needed on an
average, no more than is socially necessary. The labour-time
socially necessary is that required to produce an article under
the normal conditions of production, and with the average
degree of skill and intensity prevalent at the time. The
introduction of power-looms into England probably reduced by
one half the labours required to weave a given quaintity of yam
into cloth. The handloom weavers, as a matter of fact, continued
to require the same time as before; but for all that, the product of
one hour of their labour represented after the change only half an
hour's social labour, and consequently fell to one-half its former
value.
. ...commodities, therefore, in which equal quantities of
labour are embodied, or which can be produced in the same time,
have the same value ....
147
 The value of a commodity would therefore rern .
. ·ed fe :, 1am
constant, if the labour-time require for 1ts production al«4
remained constant. But the latter changes with every variation ;
the productiveness of labour. The productiveness is detenninect b~ 1

various circumstances, amongst others, by the average amount of

skill of the workman, the state of science and the degree of its
practical application, the social organization of production, the
extent and capabilities of the means of production, and by
physical conditions ..... If we could succeed at a small expenditure
of labour, in converting carbon into diamonds, their value might
fall below that of bricks. In general, the greater the productiveness
of labour, the less is the labour-time required for production of an
article, less is the amount of labour crystalised in that article, and
the less is its value; and vice versa, the less the productiveness of
labour, the greater is the labour-time required for the production
of an article, and the greater is its value. The value of a
commodity, therefore, varies directly as the quantity, and
inversely as the productiveness, of the labour incorporated in it.
(Marx-Capital-Vol. 1-pp.39/40)

Rate ofSurplus Value and the Rate ofProfit

The rate of surplus-value measured against the variable

capital is called rate of surplus-value. The rate of surplus value
measured against the total capital is called rate ofprofit. These
are two different measurements of the same entity, and owing"O
the difference of the two standards of measurement they express
different proportions or relations of this entity.

148
 The transformation of the rate of surplus-value into profit
must be deduced from the transfonnation of the rate of surplus-
value into the rate of profit, not vice versa. And in fact it was rate
of profit which was the historical point of departure. Surplus-
value and rate of surplus-value are, relatively, the invisible and
unknown essence that wants investigating, while the rate of profit
and therefore the appearance of surplus-value in the form of profit
are revealed on the surface of the phenomenon.

So far as the individual capitalist is concerned, it is evident

that he is only interested in the relation of the surplus-value, or
the excess value at which he sells his commodities, to the total
capital advanced for the production of the commodities, while the
specific relationship and inner connection of this surplus with the
various components of capital fail to interest him, and it is,
moreover, rather in his interests to draw the veil over this specific
relationship and this intrinsic connection.

Although the excess value of a commodity over its cost-

price is shaped in the immediate process of production, it is
realised only in the process of circulation, and appears all the
more readily to have arisen from the process of circulation, since
in reality, under competition, in the actual market, it depends on
market conditions whether or not and to what extent this surplus is
realised ....

. . . . In the process of circulation the time of circulation

comes to exert its influence alongside the working-time, thereby
limiting the amount of surplus value realisable within a given time
span. Still other elements derived from circulation intrude

149
decisively into the actual production process. The actual proce
of production and the process of circulation intertwine au~
intermingle continually, and thereby adulterate their typicat
distinctive features. The production of surplus-value and of value
in general, receives new definition in the process of circulation....
Capital passes through the circuit of its metamorphoses. Finally,
stepping beyond its inner organic life, so to say, it enters in to
relations with outer life, into relations in which it is not capital and
labour which confront one another, but capital and capital in one
case, and individuals, again simply as buyers and sellers, in the
other. The time of circulation and working time cross paths and
thus both seem to determine the surplus value. The original fom
in which capital and wage-labour confront one another is
disguised through the intervention of relationships seemingly
independent of it. Surplus-value itself does not appear as the
product of the appropriation of labour time, but as an excess of the
selling price of commodities over their cost price, the latter thus
being easily represented as their actual value, while profit appears
as an excess of the selling price of commodities over their
imminent value.
(Marx- Capital- Vol.3- pp. 43/44)

Trade
When the economic Luther Adams Smith criticised past,
' '
economic things had changed considerably. The century had been
humanised; reason had asserted itself; morality began to claim its
eternal right. The exhorted trade treaties the commercial wars, the
'
strict isolation of the nations, offended too greatly against
advanced consiousness. Protestant hypocrisy took the place "
catholic condour. Smith proved that humanity, too , was rooted"
150

►
the nature of commerce; that commerce must become "among
nations, as among individuals, a bond of union and friendship"
instead of being " the most fertile source of discord and animosity;
that after all it lay in the nature of things for trade, taken overall,
to be advantageous to all parties concerned.

Smith was right to eulogies trade as humane. There is

nothing absolutely immoral in the world. Trade, too has an aspect
where in it pays homage to morality and humanity. But what
homage! The law of the strong hand, the open highway robbery of
the Middle Ages became humanized when its first stage
characterized by the prohibition of the export of money passed
over into the mercantile system. Then the mercantile system itself
was humanized. Naturally, it is in the interests of the trader to be
on good terms with the one from whom he buys cheap as well as
with the other to whom he sells dear. A nation therefore acts very
imprudently if it fosters feeling of animosity in its suppliers and
customers. The more friendly, the more advantageous. Such is the
humanity of trade. And this hypocritical way of misusing morality
for immoral purpose is the pride of the free- trade system. "Have
we not overthrown the barbarism of the monopolies?" exclaim the
hypocrites. "Have we not carried civilization to distant parts of the
world? Have we not brought about the fraternisation of the
peoples, and reduced the number of wars?" Yes, all this you have
done- but how! You have destroyed the small monopolies so that
the one great basic monopoly, property, may function the more
freely and unrestrictedly. You have civilized the ends of the earth
to win new terrain for the deployment of your vile avarice. You
have brought about the fraternization of the people but the
fraternity is the fraternity of thieves. You have reduced the

151
number of wars - to earn all the bigger profits in peace :
intensify to the utmost the enmity between individuals ' to
.
ignominious war of competition! When have you done anyth,
' th
out of pure humanity, from consciousnous of the futility or
opposition between the general and the individual interest? W»
have you been moral without being interested, without honourinn .
at the back of your mind immoral, egoistical motives? "

By dissolving nationalities, the liberal economic system had

done its best to universalize enmity, to transform mankind into a
horde of ravenous beasts (for what else are competitors?) wh 1

devour one another just because each has identical interests with 1
all the others - after this preparatory work there remained but one ;
step to take before the goal was reached, the dissolution of the:
family. To accomplish this, economy's own beautiful invention,
the factory system came to its aid. The last vestige of common
interests, the community of goods in the possession of the family,
has been undermined by the factory system ...

(Engels - Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy - Vol.3 pp. 422/24)

Competition and Monopoly

The opposite of competition is monopoly. Monopoly was
the war cry of the Mercantilists; competition the battle-cry of the
liberal economists. It is easy to see that this antithesis is again 3
quite hollow antithesis. Every competitor cannot but desire to
have the monopoly, be the worker, capitalist or landowner. Each
smaller group of competitors cannot but desire to have the
monopoly for itself against all others. Competition based on self·
interest and self - interest in turn breeds monopoly. In shot

152
 competition passes over into monopoly. On the other hand
monopoly cannot stem the tide of competition indeed, is itself'
breeds competition; just as a prohibition of imports, for instance,
or high tariffs positively breeds the competition of smuggling. The
contradiction of competition is exactly the same as that of private
property. It is in the interest of each to possess everything, but in
the interest of the whole that each possesses an equal amount.
Thus, the general and the individual interests are diametrically
opposed to each other. The contradiction of competition is that
each cannot but desire the monopoly, whilst the whole as such is
bound to lose by monopoly and must therefore remove it.
Moreover, competition already presupposes monopoly - namely,
the monopoly of property (and here the hypocrisy of the liberals
comes once more to light) ; and as long as the monopoly of
property exists, for so long the possession of monopoly is equally
justified for monopoly, once it exists, is also property. What a
pitiful half-measure, therefore, to attack the small monopolies and
to leave untouched the basic monopoly! And if we add to this the
economists' proposition mentioned above, that nothing has value
which cannot be monopolised - that nothing, therefore which does
not permit of such monopolization can enter this arena of
competition - then our assertion that competition presupposes
monopoly is completely justified.

(Engels -Outline of a Critique of Political Economy MECW- Vol.3-

pp.432/33)

Money and Stealing

Money is the god of this world; the bourgeois takes the
proletarian's money from him and so makes a practical atheist

153
o)
• N IO wonder then '> if the proletarian retains his atheisn
if Ihm. "Ulan{
no longer respects the sacredness and power of the earthly G
And when the poverty of the proletarian is intensified to the po;
of actual lack of the barest necessaries of life, to want and hunger
the temptation to disregard all social order does but gain Powe/
...Want leaves the working man the choice between starvii,
slowly, killing himself speedily, or takmg what he needs where he
finds it- in plain English stealing. There is no cause for surprise
that most of them prefer stealing to starvation and suicide.

(Engels- The Condition of the Working Class in England -MECW-Vol. 4-4

412 (1845)

Money

Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no

other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man - and
turns them into commodities. Money is the universal self-
established value of all things. It has therefore robbed the whole
world- both the world of men and nature - of its specific value.
Money is the estranged essence of man's work and man's
existence, and this alien essence dominates him, and he
worships it.

The god of the Jews has become secularized and has

become the god of the world. The bill of exchange is the real god
of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange.

154
 The view of nature attained under the dominion of private
property and money is a real contempt for and practical
debasement of Nature; in the Jewish religion Nature exists, it is
true, but it exists only in imagination ...
Contempt for theory, art, and history and for man as an end
in himself, which is contained in an abstract form in the Jewish
religion, is the real, conscious standpoint, the virtue of the man of
money. The species- relation itself, the relation between man and
woman, etc., becomes an object of trade! The woman is bought
and sold.
The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of
the merchant, of the man of money in general.
(Marx- On the Jewish Question MECW- Vol. 3p. 172 (1843)

Money and Christ

Christ represents originally:
1. Men before God;
2. God for men;
3. Men to man.
Similarly, money represents originally, in accordance with the
idea of money
1. Private property for private property;
2. Society for private property;
3. Private property for society.
But Christ is alienated God and alienated man. God has value
only insofar as he represents Christ, and man has value only
insofar as he represents Christ. It is the same with money.

(Marx- Comments on James Mill- MECW-Vol. 3 -p. 212 (1844)

155
 The Circulation ofMoney

The circulation of money as capital is, on the contrary, an en4

in itself, for the expansion of value takes place only within this
constantly renewed movement. The circulation of capital has
I
therefore no limits.

As the conscious representative of this movement, the :

possessor of money becomes a capitalist. His person, or rather his
pocket, is the point from which the money starts and to which it
returns. The expansion of value, which is the objective basis or
mainspring of the circulation. M - C - M, becomes his subjective
aim, and it is only in so far as the appropriation of ever more and
more wealth in the abstract becomes the sole motive of his
operations, that he functions as a capitalist, that is, as capital
personified and endowed with consciousness and a will. Use-
values must therefore never be looked upon as the real aim of the
capitalist; neither must the profit on any single transaction. The
restless never - ending process of profit-making alone is what he
aims at. This boundless greed after riches, this passionate chase
after exchange-value, is common to the capitalist and the miser;
but while the miser is merely a capitalist gone mad, the capitalist
is a rational miser. The never-ending augmentation of
exchange-value, which the miser strives after, by seeking to save
his money from circulation, is attained by the more acul
capitalist, by constantly throwing it afresh into circulation.
(Marx- Capital - Vol. I-pp.151/153)

156
 Money market
The money market man sees the movement of industry and of
the world market only in the inverted reflection of the money and
stock market and so effect becomes cause to him. I noticed that
already in the forties in Manchester; the London stock exchange
reports were utterly useless for understanding the course of
industry and its periodical maxima and minima because these
gentry tried to explain everything by crises on the money market,
which of course were themselves generally only symptoms. At
that time the point was to disprove temporary over-production as
the origin of industrial crises, so that the thing had in addition its
tendentious side, provocative of distortion. This point now ceases
to exist - for us, at any rate, for good and all besides which it is
indeed a fact that the money market can also have its own crises,
in which direct disturbances of industry play only a subordinate
part or no part at all. Here there is still much to be established
and examined, especially in the history ofthe last twenty years.

Where there is division of labour on a social scale there the

separate labour processes become independent of each other. In
the last instance production is the decisive factor. But as soon as
trade in products becomes independent of production proper, it
follows a movement of its own, which, while governed as a whole
by that production, still in particulars and within this general
dependence again follows laws of its own inherent in the nature of
this new factor; this movement has phases of its own and in its
tum reacts on the movement of production ....

. . . . So it is, too, with the money market. As soon as trade in

money becomes separate from trade in commodities it has under
157
 certain conditions imposed by production and commodity trad,
and within these limits a development of its own, special 1,
8
determined by its own nature and separate phases. If to this .
added that money trade, developmg - furth er, comes to inciuctIs
trade in securities and that these securities are not o
government papers but also industrial and transport stocks, so th:i
money trade gains direct control over a portion of the production
by which, taken as a whole, it is itself controlled, then the reaction
of money trading on production becomes still stronger and mo
complicated. The traders in money are the owners of railways,
mines, iron work etc. These means of production take on a double
aspect; their operation has to be directed sometimes in the
interests of direct production but sometimes also according to the
requirements of the shareholders, sofar as they are money traders.
With these few indications of my conception of the relation of
production to commodity trade and of both to money trade, I have
answered, in essence, your questions about "historical
materialism" generally ...
(Engels to C. Schmidt - Selected Correspondence - pp.419/420-( 1890)

Rent and Socialism

His (Henry George's) fundamental dogma is that
everything would be all right if ground rent were paid to the state
... This idea originated with the bourgeois economists; it was firs
put forward (apart from a similar demand at the end of the
eighteenth century) by the earliest radical disciples of Ricardo,
just after his death ...
But the first person to turn this desideratum of the radical
English bourgeois economists into the socialist panacea, to
declare this procedure to be the resolution of the antagonS"
'ms
158

►
involved in the present mode of production, was Collins, an old
ex-officer ofNapolean's Hussars .

All these "Socialists" since Collins have this much in

common, that they leave wage labour and hence capitalist
production in existence and try to bamboozle themselves or the
world into believing that by transforming land rent into a state tax
all the evils of capitalist production would vanish themselves. The
whole thing is thus simply a socialistically decked out attempt to
save capitalist rule and actually re-establish it on an even wider
basis than its present one.
(Marx to Sorge- Marx-Engels- Selected Correspondence - pp. 342/43 ( 1881)

Stock - Exchange
The stock exchange is an institution where the bourgeoisie
exploit not the workers but one another. The surplus value which
changes hands on the stock exchange is surplus value already in
existence, the product of past exploitation of labour. Only when
the process is finished can the surplus value serve the ends of
stock exchange swindling. The stock exchange interests us
primarily only indirectly just as its influence, its reaction on the
capitalist exploitation of the workers, is felt only indirectly, asserts
itself only in a roundabout way. To ask that the workers should
take a direct interest and wax indignant over the way the Junkers,
manufacturers and petty bourgeois are fleeced on stock exchange
means demanding that the workers should take to arms in order to
protect their direct exploiters in the possession of the surplus
value which they had filched from these selfsame workers. No,
thank you. But as the finest fruit of bourgeois society, as the
hearth of extreme corruption, as the hothouse of the Panama and
159
other scandals, and therefore also as an excellent mediurn D •
. of capitals,
concentration . 1 • the • and a·lissolution op
h d'lisintegrat1on
• or the '
last remnants of naturally formed interconnections in b4"
society and at the same time tor the
• no the anm1ln1lation and conver:
·ih il ". &eoi
Tio»
into their opposites of all orthodox moral conceptions a ,
' San
incomparable element of destruction, as a most powerfu
1
accelerator of the impending revolution- in this historical se ;
nse ,
the stock exchange is also direct interest to us.

(Engels to A. Bebel- Marx - Engels Selected Correspondence - pp. 454/

55
(1893)

* * *
The perpetual fluctuations of price such as is created by
the condition of competition completely deprive trade of its last
vestige of morality. It is no longer a question of value; the same
system which appears to attach such importance to value, which
confers on the abstraction of value in money form the honour of
having an existence of its own, this very system destroys by
means of competition the inherent value of all things, and daily
and hourly changes the value - relationship of all things to one
another. Where there is any possibility remaining in this whirlpool
of an exchange based on a moral foundation? In this continuous
up-and down, everyone must seek to hit upon the most
favourable moment for purchase and sale; everyone mul
become a speculator - that is to say, must reap where he has not
sown; must enrich himself at the expense of others, mil"l
calculate on the misfortune of others, or let chance win for /ttll~ •
The speculator always counts on disasters, particularly on;
harvests. He utilizes everything for instance, the Ne Yo!"$,
in its time - and immorality's culminating point ".,,
speculation on the Stock Exchange, where history, an~
160

...
mankind, is demoted to a means ofgratifying the avarice of the
calculation or gambling speculator. And let not the honest
"respectable" merchant rise above the gambling on the stock
Exchange with a Pharisaic "I thank thee, 0 Lord," Etc. He is as
bad as the speculators in stock and shares. He speculates just as
much as they do. He has to: competition compels him to. And his
trading activity therefore implies the same immorality as theirs.
The truth of the relation of competition is the relation of
consumption to productivity. In a world worthy of mankind there
will be no other competition than this. The community will have
to calculate what it can produce with the means at this disposal;
and in accordance with the relationship of this productive power
to the mass of consumers it will determine how far it has to raise
or lower production, how far it has to give way to, or curtail
luxury.
(Engels - Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy-MECW-Vol.3-
pp.434/35)

Machines and Value

Machinery, like every other component of constant capital,

creates no new value, but yields up its own value to the product
that it serves to beget. In so for as the machine has value, and, in
consequence, parts with value to the product, it forms an element
in the value of that product. Instead of being cheapened, the
product is made dearer in proportion to the value of the machine.
And it is clear as noon-day, that machine and systems of
machinery, the characteristic instruments of labour of Modem
Industry, are incomparably more loaded with value than the
implements used in handicrafts and manufactures.

161
 In the first place, it must be observed that the machine,,
while always entering as a whole into the labour-process, ente,
into the value-begetting process only by bits. It never adds more
value than it loses, on an average, by wear and tear. Hence there ;
a great difference between the value of a machme, and the val
. e
transferred in a given time by that mac hme to the product. The ,
longer the life of the machine in the labour-process, the greater is 1

that difference. 1

(Marx-Capital -Vol. 1-p. 387)

Private Property
. . . We by no means intend to abolish this personal
appropriation of the products of labour, an appropriation that is
made for the maintenance and reproduction of human labour,
and that leaves no surplus wherewith to command the labour of
others. All that we want to do away with is the miserable
character of this appropriation, under which the labourer lives
merely to increase capital, and is allowed to live only in so far as
the interest of the ruling class requires it.

In bourgeois society, living labour is but a means to

increase accumulated labour. In communist society,
accumulated labour is but a means to widen, to enrich, to
promote the existence of the labourer.

In bourgeois society, therefore, the past dominates the

present; in communist society, the present dominates the past• ]ti

162
bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality,
while the living person is dependent and has no individuality.

And the abolition of this state of things is called by the

bourgeois abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly
so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois
independence and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at ...

You are horrified at our intending to do away with private

property. But in your existing society private property is already
done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for
the few is solely due to the non-existence in the hands of those
nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away
with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose
existence is the non-existence of any property for immense
majority of society ....
Communism deprives no man of the power to
appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive
him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of
such appropriation.
(Marx - Engels - Manifesto of the Communist Party- MECW - Vol.6-
pp. 498/500 --(1848)

Slavery

But alongside this process of formation of classes another

was also taking place. The natural division of labour within the
family cultivating the soil made possible, at a certain level of
well-being, the introduction of one or more strangers as additional
labour forces. This was especially the case in countries where the

163
old common ownership of the land had already disintegrated or4
least the former joint cultivation had given place to the separa
cultivation of parcels of land by the respective familie S,e
Production had developed so far that the labour-power of a man
could now produce more than was necessary for its mere
maintenance; the means of maintaining additional labour force
existed; likewise the means of employing them; labour-power
acquired a value. But the community itself and the association to
which it belonged yielded no available, superfluous labour forces.
On the other hand, such forces were provided by war, and war
was as old as the simultaneous existence alongside each other of
several group of communities. Up to that time one had not known
what to do with prisoners of war, and had therefore simply killed
them; at an even earlier period, eaten them. But at the stage of the
"economic situation" which had now been attained the prisoners
acquired a value; one therefore let them live and made use of their
labour. Thus force, instead of controlling the economic situation,
was on the contrary pressed into the service of the economic
situation. Slavery has been invented. It soon become the dominant
form of production among all peoples who were developing
beyond the old community, but in the end was also one of the
chief causes of their decay. It was slavery that first made possible
the division of labour between agriculture and industry on a larger
scale, and thereby also Hellenism, the flowering of the ancient
world. Without slavery, no Greek state, no Greek art and science;
without slavery, no Roman Empire. But without the basis laid by
Grecian culture, and the Roman Empire, also no modem Europe.
We should never forget that our whole economic, political and
intellectual development presupposes a state of things in whi"
slavery was as necessary as it was universally recognized. In tll
164
sense we are entitled to say: Without the slavery of antiquity no
modern socialism.

It is very easy to inveigh against slavery and similar things

in general terms, and to give vent to high moral indignation at
such infamies. Unfortunately all that this conveys is only what
everyone knows, namely, that these institutions of antiquity are no
longer in accord with our present conditions and our sentiments
which these conditions determine. But it does not tell us one word
as to how these institutions arose, why they existed, and what role
they played in history. And when we examine these questions, we
are compelled to say - however contradictory and heretical it may
sound - that the introduction of slavery under the conditions
prevailing at that time was a great step forward. For it is a fact that
man sprang from the beasts, and had consequently to use barbaric
and almost bestial means to extricate himself from barbarism.
Where the ancient communes have continued to exist, they have
for thousands of years formed the basis of the cruelest form of
state, Oriental despotism, from India to Russia. It was only where
these communities dissolved that the people made progress of
themselves, and their next economic advance consisted in the
increase and development of production by means of slave labour.
It is clear that so long as human labour was still so little
productive that it provided but a small surplus over and above the
necessary means of subsistence, any increase of the productive
forces, and extension of trade, development of the state and of
law, or foundation of art and science, was possible only by means
of a grater division of labour. And the necessary basis for this
was the great division of labour between the masses discharging
simple manual labour and the few privileged persons directing
165
 p»

labour conducting trade and public affairs, and at a later st

• . . age,
occupying themselves with art and science. The simplest and n
1
natural f01m of this division of labour was in fact slavery. In :t
historical conditions of the ancient world, and particularly e
Greece, the advance to a society based on class antagonis;:
could be accomplished only in the form of slavery. This was an 1

advance even for the slaves; the prisoners of war, from whom the
mass of the slaves was recruited, now at least saved their live s,
instead of being killed as they had been before, or even roasted a
' s
at a still earlier period ....

When, therefore, Herr Duhring turns up his nose at 1

Hellenism because it was founded on slavery he might with equal
justice reproach the Greeks with having had no steam engines or :
I

electrics or telegraphs.
(Engels-Anti-Di.ihring-pp. 248/252)

Slave, Serfand Wage Labourer

Labour was not always a commodity. Labour was not always
wage-labour, that is, free labour. The slave did not sell his labour
to the slave owner, any more than the ox sells its services to the
peasant. The slave, together with his labour is sold once and for
all to his owner. He is a commodity which can pass from the hand
of one owner to that of another. He is himself a commodity but
the labour is not his commodity. The serf sells only a part of his
labour. He does not receive a wage from the owner of the 1and
rather the owner of the land receives a tribute from him. The serf
belongs to the land and turns over to the owner of the land the
fruits thereof. The free labourer, on the other hand, sells himself
and, indeed, sells himself piecemeal. He sells at auction ~
166
twelve, fifteen hours of his life, day after day, to the highest
bidder, to the owner of the raw materials, instruments of labour
and means of subsistence, that is, to the capitalist. The worker
belongs neither to an owner nor to the land but eight ten twelve
' ' ' '
fifteen hours of his daily life belong to him who buys them. The
worker leaves the capitalist to whom he hires himself whenever he
likes, and the capitalist discharges him whenever he thinks fit, as
soon as he no longer gets any profit out of him, or not the
anticipated profit. But the worker, whose sole source of livelihood
is the sale of his labour, cannot leave the whole class of
purchasers, that is, the capitalist class, without renouncing his
existence. He belongs not to this or that bourgeois, but to the
bourgeoisie, the bourgeois class, and it is his business to dispose
of himself, that is to find a purchaser within the bourgeois class
(Marx- Wage Labour and Capital -- MECW- Vol.9-p. 203 -(1849)

The Value ofLabour Power and Machinery

The value of labour-power was determined, not only by the

labour time necessary to maintain the individual adult labourer,
but also by that necessary to maintain his family. Machinery, by
throwing every member of that family on to the labour-market,
spreads the value of the man's labour-power over his whole
family. It thus depreciates his labour-power. To purchase the
labour-power of a family of four workers may, perhaps, cost more
than it formerly did to purchase the labour-power of the head of
the family, but, in return, four days' labour takes the place of one,
and their price falls in proportion to the excess of the surplus-
labour of four over the surplus-labour of one. In order that the
family may live, four people must now, not only labour, but
167
 »

expend surplus-labour for the capitalist. Thus we see, 4

machinery, while augmenting the human material that for
principle object of capital's exploiting power, at the same tin,
raises the degree of exploitation.
(Marx- Capital- Vol. I - p. 395)

Machinery andAgriculture

In the sphere of agriculture, modem industry has a mo

revolutionary effect than elsewhere, for this reason, that it
annihilates the peasant, that bulwark of the old society, and.
replaces him by the wage-labourer. Thus the desire for social.
changes and the class antagonisms are brought to the same level in
the country as in the towns. The irrational, old-fashioned methods
of agriculture are replaced by scientific ones. Capitalist production
completely tears asunder the old bond of union which held
together agriculture and manufacture in their infancy. But at the
same time it creates the material conditions for a higher synthesis
in the future, viz., the union of agriculture and industry on the
basis of the more perfected forms they have each acquired during
their temporary separation. Capitalist production, by collecting the
population in great centers, and causing an ever increasing
preponderance of town population, on the one hand concentrates
the historical motive power of society; on the other hand, it·
disturbs the circulation of matter between man and the soil, i.e.,
prevents the return to the soil of its elements consumed by man in ,
the form of food and clothing; it therefore violates the conditions
necessary to lasting fertility of the soil. By this action it destroYs
at the same time the health of the town labourer and the
intellectual life of the rural labourer. But while upsetting the

168

.
naturally grown conditions for the maintenance of that circulation
of matter, it imperiously calls for its restoration as a system, as a
regulating law of social production, and under a form appropriate
to the full development of the human race. In agriculture as in
manufacture, the transformation ofproduction under the sway
of capital, means, at the same time, the martyrdom of the
producer; the instrument of labour becomes the means of
enslaving, exploiting, and impoverishing the labourer; the social
combination and organisation of labour processes is turned into
an organised mode of crushing out the workman's individual
vitality, freedom and independence. The dispersion of the rural
labourers over larger areas breaks their power of resistance
while concentration increases that of the town operatives. In
modern agriculture, as in the urban industries, the increased
productiveness and quantity of the labour set in motion are
bought at the cost of laying waste and consuming by disease
labour-power itself. Moreover, all progress in capitalistic
agriculture is a progress in the art, not only of robbing the
labourer, but of robbing the soil; all progress in increasing the
fertility of the soil for a given time, is a progress towards ruining
the lasting sources of that fertility. The more a country starts its
development on the foundation of modem industry, like the
United States, for example, the more rapid is this process of
destruction. Capitalist production, therefore, develops technology,
and the combining together of various processes into a social
whole, only by sapping the original sources of all wealth-the soil
and the labourer.

(Marx- Capital- Vol. I- P .505/7)

169
 Productive Labour

On the other hand, however, our notion of productive lab

• l' producton
becomes narrowe d . CCapitalist d t' o)if commodities
• is our
of di. , ;
merely the production of commodities; it is essentially ,
no
production of surplus- value... If we may take an example fr,
outside the sphere of production of matenal objects, a .
schoolmaster is a productive labourer, when, in addition to
belabouring the heads of his scholars, he works like a horse to
enrich the school proprietor. That the latter has laid out his capital
in a teaching factory, instead to in a sausage factory, does not alter
the relation. Hence the notion of a productive labourer implies not
merely a relation between work and useful effect, between
labourer and product of labour, but also a specific social relation
of production, a relation that has sprung up historically and stamps
the labourer as the direct means of creating surplus-value. To be a
productive labourer is, therefore, not a piece of luck, but a
misfortune.(Marx - Capital- Vol. 1- P.509)

Productive Labour and Unproductive Labour

The capitalist process therefore is not merely the
production of commodities. It is a process which absorbs unpaid
labour, which makes raw materials and means of labour - the
means of production - into means for the absorption of unpaid
labour.

It follows from what has been said that the designation of ·

labour as productive labour has absolutely nothing to do with the
•
d e termman t content o f the labour, its special . utI·1·1ty, or the
particular use- value in which it manifests itself.
--------------------------
170

►
 The same kind of labour may be productive or
unproductive.

For example, Milton, who wrote Paradise Lost for five

Pounds, was an unproductive labourer. On the other hand the
writer, who turns out stuff for his publisher in factory style, is a
productive labourer. Milton produced Paradise Lost for the same
reason that a silk worm produced silk. It was an activity of his
nature. Later he sold the product for 5 Pounds. But the literary
proletarian of Leipzig, who fabricates books, (for example,
Compendia of Economics) under the direction of his publisher, is
a productive labourer, for his product is from the outset
subsumed under capital , and comes into being only for the
purpose of increasing the capital . A singer who sells her song for
her own account is an unproductive labourer. But the same
singer commissioned by an entrepreneur to sing in order to make
money for him is a productive labourer; for she produced capital.

(Marx - Theories of Surplus Value- Part I Vol. IV of Capital -

pp.388/89)

Public Debt

The system of public credit, i.e., of national debts, whose

origin we discover in Genoa and Venice as early as the Middle
Ages, took possession of Europe generally during the
manufacturing period. The colonial system with its maritime trade
and commercial wars served as a forcing house for it. Thus it first
took root in Holland. National debt, i.e., the alienation of the state
whether despotic, constitutional or republican marked with its
stamp the capitalist era. The only part of the so-called national
wealth that actually enters into the collective possessions of
171
 modern people is - their national debt. Hence, as a nece 1
. "S8any
consequence, the modem doctrine that a nation becomes the rich
the more deeply it is in debt. Public credit becomes the credo er
. the risk
capital. And with . of national l debt ki
debt-making, want of faith;Of

the national debt takes the place of the blasphemy against the
Holy Ghost, which may not be forgiven.

The public debt becomes one of the most powerful levers r

primitive accumulation. As with the stroke of an enchanter's
wand, it endows barren money with the power of breeding and
thus turns it into capital, without the necessity of its exposing
itself to the troubles and risks inseparable from its employment
in industry or even in usury. The state creditors actually give
nothing away, for the sum lent is transformed into public bonds,
easily negotiable, which go on functioning in their hands just as
so much hard cash would. But further, apart from the class of
lazy annuitants thus created, and from the improvised wealth the
financiers, middlemen between the government and the nation -
as also apart from the tax farmers, merchants, private
manufacturers, to whom a good part of every national loan renders
the service of a capital fallen from heaven the national debt has :
given rise to joint-stock companies, to dealings in negotiable
effects of all kinds and to agiotate, in a word, to stock-exchange
gambling and the modem bankocracy. (Marx- Capital- Vol. 1- p
754/55)

Foreing Market

• ... Why a capitalist country needs a foreign market. Certainly

not because the product cannot be realised at all under the

172
capitalist system. That is nonsense. A foreign market is needed
because it is inherent in capitalist production to strive for
unlimited expansion- unlike all the old modes of production,
which were limited to the village community, to the patriarchal
estate, to the tribe, to the territorial area, or state. Under all the old
economic systems production was every time resumed in the same
form and on the same scale as previously; under the capitalistic
system, however, this resumption in the same form becomes
impossible, and unlimited expansion, perpetual progress,
becomes the law of production.
(A Characterisation of Economic Romanticism- Lenin- Collected Works-
Vol.2- p.164 (1897)

Foreign Trade

Since foreign trade partly cheapens the elements of

constant capital, and partly the necessities of life for which the
variable capital is exchanged, it tends to raise the rate of profit by
increasing the rate of surplus value and lowering the value of
constant capital. It generally acts in this direction by permitting an
expansion of the scale of production. It thereby hastens the
process of accumulation, on the one hand, but causes the variable
capital to shrink in relation to the constant capital, on the other,
and thus hastens a fall in the rate of profit.
(Marx- Capital- Vol. 3- p. 237)

Foreign Trade & Rate ofProfit

Capitals invested in foreign trade can yield the higher rate

of profit, because, in the first place, there is competition with
commodities produced in other countries with inferior production
173
 facilities, so that the more advanced country sells its goods ab
. ovc
h the
their value even though cheaper than h competing countrie
s. In
so far as the labour of the more advanced country is here real·
· Ise{
as labour of a higher specific weight, the rate of profit ~.
. . Iser
because labour which has not been paid as being of a high
quality is sold as such. '
I
1
This same foreign trade develops the capitalist mode of
production in the home country, which implies the decrease of
variable capital in relation to constant, and on the other hand
. ,
causes over-production in respect to foreign markets, so that in
the long run it again has an opposite effect. ,
(Marx-Capital-Vol. 3-pp. 238/39)

Economic Crises
So far as crises are concerned, all those writers who
describe the real movement of prices, or all experts, who write in .
the actual situation of a crisis, have been right in ignoring the
allegedly theoretical twaddle and in contenting themselves with
the idea that what may be true in abstract theory - namely, that no
gluts of the market and so forth are possible is, nevertheless
wrong in practice. The constant recurrences of crises has in fact
reduced the rigmorale of J.B.Say and others to a phraseology.
which is now only used in times of prosperity but is cast aside in
times of crisis.

In the crisis of the world market the contradictions and

antagonisms of bourgeois production are strikingly revealed.
. . .
In s tea d o!f Investigating h . . Iert1ents
tle nature of the confhctmg e 1"
h• h erupt in
whucl
· . . h
the catastrophe, the apologists content them%
elves

174
with denying the catastrophe itself and insisting, in the face of
their regular and periodic recurrence, that if production were
carried on according to the textbooks, crises would never occur.
Thus the apologetics consist in the falsification of the simplest
economic relations, and particularly in clinging to the concept of
unity in the face of contradiction .

In order to prove that capitalist production cannot lead to

general crises, all its conditions and distinct forms, all its
principles and specific features in short capitalist production
itself are denied. In fact it is demonstrated that if the capitalist
mode of production had not developed in a specific way and
become a unique form of social production, but were mode of
production dating back to the most rudimentary stages, then its
peculiar contradictions and conflicts and hence also their eruption
in crises would not exist .....

Here therefore, firstly commodity, in which the

contradiction between exchange-value and use-value exist,
becomes mere product (use-value) and therefore the exchange of
commodities is transformed into mere barter of products, of
simple use-values. This is a return not only to the time before
capitalist production, but even to the time before there was simple
commodity production: and the most complicated phenomenon of
capitalist production the world market crisis is flatly denied,
by denying the first condition of capitalist production, namely,
that the product must be a commodity and therefore express itself
as money and undergo the process of metamorphosis. Instead of
speaking of wage-labour, the term "services" is used. This word
again omits the specific characteristic of wage labour and its use -
namely, that it increases the value of the commodities against
175
 ►

which it is exchanged, that it creates surplus-value and in d .

at10ns hi1p t throug mh which m"Om
so, it disregards the specific re ·l""
• • 1 'S
and commodities are transforme d mto capita . iervice? is lab
ney
. h . .d . our
seen only as use-value (whicl h is s1de issue in capita];
, d • ° £;1 IS!
production) just as the term pro uct10ns 1at s to express the
essence of commodity and its inherent contradiction. It is q . e
[uIte
consistent that money is then regarded merely as an intermediary
in the exchange of products and not as an essential and necess
form of existence of the commodity which must manifest itself:
exchange-value, as general social labour. Since the transformation
of the commodity into mere use-value (product) obliterate the
essence of exchange-value, it is just as easy to deny, or rather it is
necessary to deny, that money is an essential aspect of the
commodity and that in the process of metamorphosis it is
independent of the original form of the commodity.

Crisis are thus reasoned out of existence here by forgetting

or denying the first elements of capitalist production: the existence
of the product as a commodity, the duplication of the commodity
in commodity and money, the consequent separation which takes
place in the exchange of commodities and finally the relation of
money or commodities to wage labour.

Incidentally, those economists are no better who (like John

Stuart Mill) want to explain the crisis by simple possibilities of
crisis contained in the metamorphosis of commodities - such 85
•h
the separation between purchase and sale. These factors whic
explain the possibility of crises, by no means explain their actual
occurrence. They do not explain why the phases of the process
•
come mto n· · · ·
sue h con lict that their inner unity can only ass@ rt itself
• • through
th roughh a crisis, h a violent process. This · sepa"" ration
176
appears in the crisis; it is the elementary form of the crisis. To
explain the crisis on the basis of this, its elementary form, is to
explain the existence of the crisis by describing its most abstract
form, that is to say, to explain the crisis by the crisis.

. . . In the first place, no capitalist produces in order to

consume his product. And when speaking of capitalist production,
it is right to say that: "no man produces with a view to consume
his own product", even if he uses portions of his product for
industrial consumption. But here the point in question is private
consumption. Previously it was forgotten that the product is a
commodity. Now even the social division of labour is forgotten.
In a situation where men produce for themselves, there are indeed
no crises, but neither is there capitalist production. Nor have we
ever heard that the ancients, with their slave production ever knew
crises, although individual producers among the ancients too, did
go bankrupt. The first part of the alternative is nonsense. The
second as well. A man who has produced, does not have the
choice of selling or not selling. He must sell. In the crisis there
arises the very situation in which he cannot sell or can only sell
below the cost-price or must even sell at a positive loss. What
difference does it make, therefore, to him or to us that he has
produced in order to sell? The very question we want to solve is
what has thwarted this good intention of his?

... Ricardo even forgets that a person may sell in order to

pay, and that these forced sales play a very significant role in the
crises. The capitalist's immediate object in selling, is to tum his
commodity, or rather his commodity capital, back into money
capital, and thereby to realise his profit. Consumption - revenue
- is by no means the guiding motive in this process, although it is
177
 ►

for the person who only sells commodities in order to trans,

them into means of subsistence. But this is not the cap;4, :
· - "tali
production, in which revenue appears as the result and as the
determining purpose. Everyone sells first of all in order to
. . . en '
d
that is to say, in order to transform commodities 1to money.'
I

During the crisis, a man may be very pleased, if he h 1

sold his commodities without immediately think~ng of a purchas~

1

On the other hand, if the value that has been realized is again to be :
used as capital, it must go through the process of reproduction
that is it must be exchanged for labour and commodities, But he
crisis is precisely the phase of disturbance and interruption of the
process of reproduction. And this disturbance cannot be explained •
by the fact that it does not occur in those times when there is no •
CI1S1S....

With regard the contradiction between partial and

universal over-production, in so far as the existence of the fonner
is affirmed in order to evade the latter, the following observation
maybe made.

Firstly: Crises are usually preceded by a general inflation

in prices of all articles of capitalist production. All of them
therefore participate in the subsequent crash and at their for
prices they cause a glut in the market. The market can absorb a :
larger volume of commodities at falling prices, at prices whic~ ;
have fallen below their cost-prices, than it could absorb at the
former prices. The excess of commodities is always relative, "
other words, it is an excess at particular prices. The prices
th
which the commodities are then absorbed are ruinous for e
producer or merchant.

178
 Secondly: For a crisis (and therefore also • for over-
production) to be general, it suffices for it to affect the principal
commercial goods ...

In periods of over-production a large part of the nation

(especially the working class) is less well provided than ever with
com, shoes, etc., not to speak of wine and furniture. If over-
production could only occur when all the members of a nation had
satisfied even their most urgent needs, there could never, in the
history of bourgeois society up to now, have been a state of
general over-production or even of partial over-production. When,
for instance, the market is glutted by shoes or calicoes or wines or
colonial products, does this perhaps mean that four-sixths of the
nations have more than satisfied their needs in shoes, calicoes,
etc? What after all has over-production to do with needs? It is
only concerned with demand that is backed by ability to pay. It is
not a question of absolute over-production - over production as
such in relation to the absolute need or the desire to possess
commodities. In this sense there is neither partial nor general
over-production; and the one is not opposed to the other.

But Ricardo will say- when there are a lot of people

who want shoes and calicoes, why do they not obtain the means to
acquire them, by producing something which will enable them to
buy shoes and calicoes? Would it not be even simpler to say: Why
do they not produce shoes and calicoes for themselves.And even
stranger aspect ofover-production is that the workers, the actual
producers of the very commodities which glut the market, are in
need ofthese commodities. It cannot be said here that they should
produce things in order to obtain them, for they have produced
them and yet they have not got them.Nor can it be said that a
179
 particular commodity gluts the market, because no one is in wa
of it. If, therefore, it is even impossiliblele to explain
»le nt
that partij
over-production arises because the demand for the commoditj
that glut the market has been more than satisfied, it is quite
impossible to explain away universal over-production b
declaring that needs, unsatisfied needs, exist for many of th~
commodities which are on the market. ..

The possibility of crisis, which became apparent in the

simple metamorphosis of the commodity, is once more
demonstrated, and further developed, by the disjunction between
the (direct) process of production and the process of circulation.
As soon as these processes do not merge smoothly into one
another, but become independent of one another, the crisis is
there.

The possibility of crisis is indicated in the metamorphosis

of the commodity like this.

Firstly, the commodity which actually exists as use-value,

and nominally, in its price, as exchange-value, must be
transformed into money.CM. If this difficulty, the sale, is solved
then the purchase, M-C, presents no difficulty, since money is
directly exchangeable for everything else. The use-value of the
commodity, the usefulness of the labour contained in it, must be
assumed from the start, otherwise it is no commodity at all. ....

... Crisis results from the impossibility to sell. The

difficulty of transforming the commodity - the particular product
of individual labor - into its opposite, money, i.e., abstract general
social labour, lies in the fact that money is not the particular

180
product of individual labour, and that the person who has effected
a sale, who therefore has commodities in the form of money, is
not compelled to buy again at once, to transform the money again
into a particular product of individual labour. In barter this
contradiction does not exist: no one can be a seller without being a
buyer or a buyer without being a seller. The difficulty of the seller
- on the assumption that his commodity has use-value - only stems
from the ease with which the buyer can defer the retransformation
of money into commodity. The difficulty of converting the
commodity into money, of selling it, only arises from the fact that
the commodity must be turned into money but the money need not
be immediately turned into commodity, and therefore sale and
purchase can be separated. We have said that this form contains
the possibility of crisis, that is to say, the possibility that elements
which are correlated, which are inseparable, are separated and
consequently are forcibly reunited, their coherence is violently
asserted against their mutual independence. Crisis is nothing but
the forcible assertion of the unity of phases of the production
process which have become independent of each other.

The general, abstract possibility of crisis denotes no more

than the most abstract form of crisis, without content, without a
compelling motivating factor. Sale and purchase may fall apart.
They thus represent potential crisis and their coincidence always
remain a critical factor for the commodity. The transition from
one to the other may, however, proceed smoothly. The most
abstract form of crisis (and therefore the formal possibility of
crisis) is thus the metamorphosis of the commodity itself; the
contradiction of exchange-value and use-value, and furthermore
of money and commodity, comprised within the unity of the

181
 $

commodity, exists in metamorphosis only as an invo]

movement. The factors which turn this possibility of crisis into ,4,
actual) crisis are not contained in this form itself; it only implj
that the framework for a crisis exists.

And in consideration of the bourgeois economy, that is the

important thing. The world trade crisis must be regarded as the
real concentration and forcible adjustment of all the contradictions
of bourgeois economy. The individual factors, which are
condensed in these crisis, must therefore emerge and must be
described in each sphere of the bourgeois economy and the further
we advance in our examination of the latter, the more aspects of
this conflict must be traced on the one hand, and on the other hand
it must be shown that its more abstract forms are recurring and are
contained in the more concrete forms.

It can therefore be said that the crisis in its first form is the
metamorphosis of the commodity itself, the falling asunder of
purchase and sale.

The crisis in its second form is the function of money as a

means of payment, in which money has two different functions
and figures in two different phases, divided from each other in
time. Both these forms are as yet quite abstract, although the
second is more concrete than the first. ..

The general possibility of crisis is in the process of

metamorphosis of capital itself, and in two ways in so far as
money functions as means of circulation (the possibility of crisis
lies in) the separation of purchase and sale; and in so far as
money functions as means of payment, it has two different

182
aspects, it acts as measure of value and as realisation of value.
These two aspects (may) become separated. If in the interval
between them the value has changed, if the commodity at the
moment of its sale is not worth what it was worth at the moment
when money was acting as a measure of value and therefore as a
measure of the reciprocal obligations, then the obligation cannot
be met from the proceeds of the sale of the commodity, and
therefore the whole series of transactions which retrogressively
depend on this one transaction, cannot be settled. If even for only
a limited period of time the commodity cannot be sold then,
although its value has not altered, money cannot function as
means of payment, since it must function as such in a definite
given period of time. But as the same sum of money acts for a
whole series of reciprocal transactions and obligations here,
inability to pay occurs not only at one, but at many points, hence
a crisis arises.

These are the fonnal possibilities of crisis. The form

mentioned first is possible without the latter, that is to say, crises
are possible without credit, without money function as a means of
payment. But the second form is not possible without the first,
that is to say, without the separation between purchase and sale.
But in the latter case, the crisis occurs not only because the
commodity is unsaleable, but because it is not saleable within a
particular period of time, and the crisis arises and derives its
character not only from the unsaleability of the commodity, but
from the non-fulfillment of a whole series of payments which
depend on the sale of this particular commodity within this
particular period of time. This is the characteristic form of
money crises.

183
 If the crisis appears, therefore, because purchase and
.. Sal
become separated, it becomes a money cr1s1s, as soon as m
' ney
has developed as means of payment, and this second for......
I Of

crisis follow as a matter of course, when the first occurs. 1

investigating why the general possibility of crisis turns into a re
crisis, in investigating the conditions of crisis, it is therefore qui:
superfluous to concern oneself with the forms of crisis Which
arise out of the development of money as a means of payment.
• This is precisely why economists like to suggest that this obvious
form is the cause of crises....

In so far as crisis arise from changes in prices and

revolutions in prices, which do not coincide with changes in the
values of commodities, they naturally cannot be investigated
during the examination of capital in general, in which the prices of
commodities are assumed to be identical with the values
commodities.

The general possibility of cns1s 1s the fonnal

metamorphosis of capital itself, the separation, in time and space,
of purchase and sale. But this is never the cause of the crisis. For I
it is nothing but the most general form of crisis, i.e. the crisis
itself m its most generalised expression. But it cannot be said l
that the abstract form of crisis is the cause of crisis. If one asks I
what its cause is, one wants to know why its abstract form, the
form of its possibility, turns from possibility into actuality

(Marx - Theories of Surplus Value - Volume IV of Capital - part II·

pp.500/515)

184
 Sismondi says; crises are possible, because the
manufacturer does not know the demand; they are inevitable,
because under capitalist production there can be no balance
between production and consumption (ie., the product cannot be
realised.)Engels says: Crises are possible, because the
manufacturer does not know the demand: they areinevitable, but
certainly not because the product cannot be realised at all. For it is
not true. The product can be realised, Crises are inevitable
because the collective character of production comes into conflict
with the individual character of appropriation. (A Characterisation of
Economic Romanticism - Lenin-Collected Works-Vol.2 -p.172 ( 1897)

Surplus Population

The analysis showed that surplus population, being

undoubtedly a contradiction (along with surplus production and
surplus consumption) and being an inevitable result of capitalist
accumulation, is at the same time an indispensable component
part of the capitalist machine. The further the large scale industry
develops the greater is the fluctuation in the demand for workers,
depending upon whether there is a crisis or boom in national
production as a whole, or in any one branch of it. This fluctuation
is a law of capitalist production, which could not exits,if there
were no surplus population (i.e., a population exceeding
capitalism's average demand for workers ) ready at any given
moment to provide hands for any industry, or any factory. The
analysis showed that a surplus population is formed in all
industries into which capitalism penetrates and in agriculture as
well as in industry- and that the surplus population exists in

185
different forms. There are three. chief forms: 1) Flo .
• atin
overpopulation. To this category belong the unemployed Wo k g.
h • numbers
b . . r ers·
in industry. As industry develops their inevitably gr
2) Latent overpopulation. To thus h. category b elong the' \Vs
.• . Tura]
population, who lose their farms with the development 4
capitalism and are unable to find non-agncultural emploYtnent
This population is always ready to provide hands for any facto •
3) Stagnant overpopulat10n. • It h as ' extremely irregular'ry,
employment, under conditions below the average level including
both the rural and urban. To this category belong, mainly, people
work at home for manufacturers and stores, inhabitants. The sum.
total of all these strata of the population constitutes the relative
surplus population, or reserve army. The latter term distinctly
shows what population is referred to.
. They are the workers needed
.

by capitalism for the potential expansion of enterprises, but who

can never be regularly employed.

(A Characterisation of Economic Romanticism - Lenin- Vol. 2 -

pp.179/80 ( 1897)

Impossibility of Capitalism?

On the subject of surplus population, the Narodniks adhere

entirely to the viewpoint of romanticism, which is diametrically
opposite to that of the modem theory. Capitalism gives no
1
employment to displaced workers, they say. This means that
capitalism is impossible, a "mistake" etc. But it does not me
that at all. Contradiction does not mean impossibility. !
(Wiederspruch is not the same as wiedersinn.) Capital""
15
accumulation, i.e., real production for the sake of production,

186
also a contradiction. But this does not prevent it from existing and
from being the law of a definite system of economy. The same
must be said of all the other contradictions of capitalism .The
Narodnik argument we have quoted merely "means" that the
Russian Intelligentsia have become deeply imbued with the vice
of using empty phrases to get over all these contradictions.

(Lenin- Collected Works- Yol.2- p.180 ( 1897)

Russia's Exceptionalism

The doctrine of Russia's exceptionalism induced the

Narodniks to seize upon out-dated West European theories,
prompted them to regard many of the achievements of Western
culture with amazing levity: The Narodniks reassured themselves
with the thought that, if we lacked some of the features of
civilized humanity, "we are destined" on the one hand, to show
the world new modes of economy, etc. Not only was the analysis
of capitalism and all its manifestation given by progressive West
European thought not accepted in relation to Holy Russia; every
effort was made to invent excuses for not drawing the same
conclusions about Russian capitalism as were made regarding
European capitalism. The Narodniks bowed and scraped to the
authors of this analysis and - calmly continued to remain
romanticists of the same sort as these authors had all their lives
contended against. Again, this doctrine of Russia's exceptional ism
which is shared by all the Narodniks, far from having anything in
common with the "heritage", runs directly counter to it. The
"sixties" on the contrary, desired to Europeanise Russia, believed
that she should adopt the general European culture, were

187
concerned to have the institutions of this culture transferred to
anything but exceptional soil. Any doctrine that teaches t~ur
. . at
Russia is exceptional is completely l at variance with the sn;;
· 'rit
and tradition of the sixties. Even more at variance with this
tradition is Narodnism's idealisation and over- embellishment~r
the countryside. This false idealisation, which desired at all co
to see something specific in our rural system, something quite
unlike the rural systems in every other country in the period of
pre-capitalist relations, is in naked contradiction to the
traditions of the sober and realistic heritage. The wider and
more deeply capitalism developed, the more distinctly did the
countryside display the contradictions, common to every
capitalist society, the more and more glaringly did the antithesis
stand out between the Narodnik's honeyed talk about the
peasant's community spirit, artel spirit, etc. on the one hand,
and the actual division of the peasantry into a rural bourgeoisie 1

and a rural proletariat on the other... Their false idealization of

the countryside and romantic dreams about the "community
spirit" led the Narodniks to adopt an extremely frivolous attitude
towards the peasants' real needs arising from the existing course
of economic development. In theory one might talk to one's heart
content about the strength of the foundations, but in practice every
Narodnik sensed very well that the elimination of the relics of the
past, the survivals of the pre-Reform system, which to this day
bind our peasantry from head to foot, would open the way to 1

precisely the capitalist course of development, and no other.

(The Heritage We Renounce - Lenin- Collected Works-Vol.2-pp. 371 (1897)

188
 Nature and Man

Speaking generally, it is as impossible for human labour

to supersede the forces of nature as it is to substitute pounds for
yards. Both in industry and in agriculture, man can only utilize the
forces of Nature when he has learned how they operate, and he
can facilitate this utilisation by means of machinery, tools, etc.
That primitive man obtained all he required as a free gift of
Nature is a silly fable for which Mr. Bulgakov would be howled
down even by first term students. Our age was not preceded by a
golden age; and primitive man was absolutely crushed by the
burden of existence, by the difficulties of the struggle against
Nature. The introduction of machinery and of improved
methods of production immeasurably eased man's struggle
against Nature generally, and the production of food in
particular. It has not become more difficult to produce food; it
has become more difficult for workers to obtain it, because
capitalist development has inflated ground-rent and the price of
land, has consecrated agriculture in the hands of large and small
capitalist, and, to a still large extent, has concentrated machinery,
implements, and money, without which successful production is
impossible. To explain the aggravation of the workers' condition
by the argument that Nature is reducing her gifts can mean only
that one has become a bourgeois apologist.
(The Agrarian Question and the 'Critics' of Marx - Lenin - Collected Works
Vol. 5-p.111-(1901)

189
 The Law ofDiminishing Returns

... Thus the 'law of diminishing returns' does not at 4j

apply to cases in which technology is progressing and methods r

production are changing; it has only an extremely relative an
restricted applications to conditions in which technology remain
unchanged. That is why neither Marx nor the Marxists speak of
this 'law', and only representatives of bourgeois science like
Brentano make so much noise about it, since they are unable to
abandon the prejudices of the old political economy, with it's
abstract, eternal and natural 'laws'

(The Agrarian Question and the Critics of Marx- Lenin-Collected

Works - Vol. 5-p. l 10-(1901)

Town and Country

The fact that we definitely recognise the progressive

character of big cities in capitalist society, however, does not in
the least prevent us from including in our ideal (and in our '
Programme of Action .... ) the abolition of the antithesis between I
town and country. It is not true to say that this is tantamount to
abandoning the treasures of science and art. Quite the contrary;
this is necessary in order to bring these treasures within the reach
of the entire people, in order to abolish the alienation from
culture of millions of the rural population, which Marx aptly
described as "idiocy rural life." And at the present time, when it
is possible to transmit electric power over long distances, when
the technique of transport has been so greatly improved that it is

190
possible at less cost (than at present) to carry passengers at a
speed of more than 200 Versts an hour, there are absolutely no
technical obstacles to the enjoyment of the treasures of science
and art, which for centuries have been concentrated in a few
centers, by the whole of the population spread more or less
evenly over the entire country.
(The Agrarian Question and the 'Critics' of Marx--Lenin - Collected Works -
Vol.5- p. 154 1901)

Savings

What follows from the increase in the number of small

depositors is not the reassuring philistine deduction about an
increase in the number of wealthy people, but the revolutionary
conclusion of the growing dependence of the small depositors of
the big, on the mounting contradiction between the increasingly
socialized nature of the enterprises and the preservation of private
ownership of the means of production. The more the savings
banks develop, the more interested do the small depositors
become in the socialist victory of the proletariat, which alone will
make them real, and not fictitious "sharers" in and administrators
of social wealth.
(From the Economic Life of Russia - Collected Works- Vol. 6- p.96 (1903)

Consumer Societies

Yes , the revolutionaries answer, we agree that in a way

consumers' societies do constitute a bit of socialism. In the first
place, socialist society is one big consumer society with
production for consumption organized according to plan. In the
second place, socialism cannot be achieved without a powerful,
191
many-sided working class movement, and consumers' soci .
id . eie
will inevitably be one of these many s1tes. But that is not h
point at all. While power remains in the hands of the bourgeoi:iee
consumers' societies will remain a paltry fragment, ensuring +,
serious changes whatever, introducing no decisive alterat
. . . fr ns
whatever, and sometime even diverting attention rom a seri
struggle for revolution.
(Lenin-Collected Works - Vol. - p.371)

Differential Rent and absolute Rent

Marx's theory distinguishes two forms of rent: differential

rent and absolute rent. The first springs from the limited nature of
land, its occupation by capitalist economies quite irrespective of
whether private ownership of land exists, or what the form of
landownership is. Between the individual farms there are
inevitable differences arising out of differences in soil fertility,
location in regard to markets, and the productivity of additional
investments of capital in the land. Briefly, those differences may
be summed up (without, however, forgetting that they spring from
different causes) as the differences between better and worse soils.
To proceed ; The price of production of the agricultural product is
determined by the condition of production not on the average soil,
but on the worst soil, because the produce from the best soil alone
is insufficient to meet the demand. The difference between the
individual price of production and the highest price of production 1

is differential rent. (We remind the reader that by price of

production Marx means the capital expended on the production of
the product, plus average profit on capital.)

192
 Differential rent inevitably arises in capitalist agriculture
even if the private ownership of land is completely abolished.
Under the private ownership of land, this rent is appropriated by
the landowner, for competition between capitals compels the
tenant farmer to be satisfied with the average profit on capital.
When the private ownership of land is abolished, the rent will go
to the state. That rent cannot be abolished as long as the capitalist
mode of production exists.

Absolute rent arises from the private ownership of land.

That rent contains an element of monopoly, an element of
monopoly price. Private ownership of land hinders free
competition, hinders the levelling of profit, the formation of
average profit in agricultural and non-agricultural enterprises. And
as agriculture is on a lower technical level than industry, as the
composition of capital is marked by a larger proportion of variable
capital than of constant capital, the individual value of the
agricultural product is above the average. Hence, by hindering the
free levelling of profit in agricultural enterprises on a par with
non- agricultural enterprises, the private ownership of land makes
it possible to sell the agricultural product not at the highest price
of production, but at still higher individual value of the product
(for the price of production is determined by the average profit on
capital, while absolute rent prevents the formations of this
"average" by monopolistically fixing the individual value at a
level higher than the average)

Thus the differential rent is inevitably an inherent feature

'
of every form of capitalist agriculture. Absolute rent is not; it
arises only under the private ownership of land, only under the

193
historically created backwardness of agriculture, a backward
Vess
that becomes fixed by monopoly.

(Agrarian Programme of Social Democracy--LeninCollected Won

Vol.13pp. 297/98 (1907)

* * *
Capitalism is progressive because it destroys the old
methods of production and develops productive forces, yet at the
same time, at a certain stage of development, it retards the growth
of productive forces. It develops, organises, and disciplines the
workers, and it crushes, oppresses, leads to degeneration, poverty,
etc. Capitalism creates its own grave digger, itself creates the
elements of a new system, yet, at the same time, without a "leap"
these individual elements change nothing in the general state of
affairs and do not affect the rule of capital. It is Marxism, the
theory of dialectical materialism, that is able to encompass these
contradictions of living reality, of the living history of capitalism
and the working class movement. But, needless to say, the masses ,
learn from life and not from books, and therefore certain
individuals or groups constantly exaggerate, elevate to a one-sided
theory, to a one-sided system of tactics, now one and now another
feature of capitalist development, now one and now another
"lesson" of this development.

Bourgeois ideologists, liberals and democrats, not

understanding Marxism, and not understanding the modem labour
movement, are constantly jumping from one futile extreme to
another. At one time they explain the whole matter by asserting
that evil-minded persons "incite" class against class, at another

194
they console themselves with the idea that the workers' party is a
"peaceful party of reform." Both anarcho-syndicalism and
reformism must be regarded as a direct product of this bourgeois
world outlook and its influence. They seize upon one aspect of the
labour movement, elevate one sidedness to a theory, and declare
mutually exclusive those tendencies or features of this movement
that are a specific peculiarity of a given period, of given
conditions of working class activity. But real life, real history,
includes these different tendencies, just as life and development
in nature include both slow evolution and rapid leaps, breaks in
continuity.

The revisionists regards as phrase-mongering all

arguments about "leaps" and about the working class movement
being antagonistic in principle to the whole of the old society.
They regard reforms as a partial realisation of socialism. The
anarcho-syndicalists reject "petty - work", especially the
utilization of the parliamentary platform. In practice, the latter
tactics amount to waiting for "great days" along with an inability
to muster the forces which create great events. Both of them
hinder the thing that is most important and most urgent, namely,
to unite the workers in big, powerful and properly functioning
organizations, capable of functioning well under all
circumstances, permeated with the spirit of the class struggle,
clearly realising their aims and trained in the true Marxist world
outlook.

(Differences in the European Labour Movement - Lenin - Collected

Works-Vol.16- pp. 348/49- 1910)

195
 Imperialism

.... Imperialism emerged as the development and dire

continuation of the fundamental characteristics of capitalism :
. . . 1n
general. But capitalism only b ecame capitalist 1 imperialism at ,
definite and very high stage of its development, when certain of
its fundamental characteristics began to change into their
opposites, when the features of the epoch of transition from
capitalism to a higher social and economic system had taken
shape and revealed themselves in all spheres. Economically, the
main thing in this process is the displacement of capitalist free
competition by capitalist monopoly. Free competition is the basic
feature of capitalism, and of commodity production generally;
monopoly is the exact opposite of free competition, but we have
seen the latter being transformed into monopoly before our eyes,
creating large-scale industry and forcing out small industry,
replacing large-scale by still large scale industry, and carrying
concentration of production and capital to the point where out of it
has grown and is growing monopoly; cartels, syndicates and
trusts, and merging with them, the capital of a dozen or so banks,
which manipulate thousands of millions. At the same time the
monopolies, which have grown out of free competition, do not
eliminate the latter, but exist above it and alongside it, and thereby
give rise to a number of very acute, intense antagonisms, :frictions
and conflicts. Monopoly is the transition from capitalism to a
higher system.
If it were necessary to give the briefest possible
definition of imperialism we should have to say that imperialism
is the monopoly stage of capitalism ...

196
 But very brief definitions, although convenient, for they
sum up the main points, are nevertheless inadequate, since we
have to deduce from them some especially important features of
the phenomenon that has to be defined. And so, without
forgetting the conditional and relative value of all definitions in
general, which can never embrace all the concatenations of a
phenomenon in its full development, we must give a definition of
imperialism that will include thefollowing basicfeatures:

1) the concentration of production and capital has

developed to such a high stage that it has created
monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life;
2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and
the creation, on the basis of this "finance capital", of a
financial oligarchy;
3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of
commodities acquires exceptional importance;
4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist
associations which share the world among themselves,
and
5) the territorial division of the whole world among the
biggest capitalist powers is completed.

(Imperealism - TheHighest Stage of Capitalism - Lenin - Collected

Works- Vol. 22- pp. 265/66 (1916)

Struggle against Imperialism

Why must "we actively resist" suppression of a national

uprising? P. kievsky advances only one reason. "We shall thereby
197
be combatting imperialism, our mortal enemy." All the strengn
of this argument lies in the strong word "mortal." And this is .
. In
keeping with his penchant for strong word s, mstead of stron
arguments - high sounding phrases like "driving a stake into th!
quivering body of the bourgeoisie" and similar Alexinsk,
flourishes.
But this kievsky argument is wrong. Imperialism is as much
our "mortal" enemy as is capitalism. That is so. No Marxist will
forget, however, that capitalism is progressive compared with
feudalism, and that imperialism is progressive compared with pre-
monopoly capitalism. Hence, it is not every struggle against
imperialism that we should support. We will not support a
struggle of the reactionary classes against imperialism; we will
not support an uprising of the reactionary classes against
imperialism and capitalism .....
(A Caricature of Marxism - Lenin - collected works - Vol. 23 - p. 63-
(1916)

Nationalization ofland
Can the majority of the peasants in Russia demand and
carry out the nationalization of the land? Certainly it can. Would
this be a socialist revolution. It would not. It would still be a
bourgeois revolution, for the nationalization of the land is a
measure that is not incompatible with the existence of capitalism.
It is, however, a blow to private ownership of the most important
means of production. Such a blow would strengthen the
proletarians and semi-proletarians far more than was the case
during the revolutions of the seventeenth, eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries.
(A Basic Question - Lenin - Collected Works Vol. 24-p. 194- (1917)

198
 Banks

Capitalism has created an accounting apparatus in the

shape of the banks, syndicates, postal service, consumer's
societies, and office employees' unions. Without big banks
socialism would be impossible.

The big banks are the "state apparatus" which we need to

bring about socialism, and which we take ready-made from
capitalism; our task here is to lop off what capitalistically
mutilates this excellent apparatus, to make it even bigger, even
more democratic, even more comprehensive. Quantity will be
transformed into quality. A single State Bank, the biggest of the
big, with branches in every rural district, in every factory, will
constitute as much as nine-tenths of socialist apparatus.

(Can the Bolsheviks Retain State Power - Lenin - Collected Works - Vol. 26
-p. 106-( 191 7)

Trade, Communism and Gold

Communism and trade? It sounds strange. The two seem

to be unconnected, incongruous, poles apart. But if we study it
from the point of view of economics, we shall find that the one is
no more remote from the other than communism is from small-
peasant, patriarchal farming.

When we are victorious on a world scale, I think we shall

use gold for the purpose of building public lavatories in the streets
199
of some of the largest cities of the world. This would be the
1110st
"just"and most educational way of utilising gold for the ben
e 6It Of
those generations which have not forgotten how , for the sal
e an d t thi'irty m1·ill10n maimed • cot
gold > ten million men were ktilled 1
mnth,
"great war of freedom", the war of 1914- 18, the war that
. h Was
waged to decide the great question of wh1c peace was worst th
. , at
of Brest (Litovsk) or that of Versailles; and how, for the sake
this same gold, they certainly intend to kill twenty million m f
en
and maim sixty million in a war, say, in 1925, or 1928, betwee
say Japan and the U.S.A., or between Britain and the U.S.A., 0;
something like that.

But however "just", useful, or humane it would be to

utilize gold for this purpose, we nevertheless say that we must
work for another decade or two with the same intensity and with
the same success as in 1917 - 21 period, only in much a wider
field, in order to reach this stage. Meanwhile, we must save the
gold in the R.S.F.S.R., sell it at the highest price, buy goods with I
it at the lowest price. When you live among wolves, you musl
howl like a wolf, while as for exterminating all the wolves, as •
should be done in a rational human society, we shall act up to the
1
wise Russian proverb: "Boast not before but after the battle"

(The Importance of Gold - Lenin - Collected Works -Vol. 33-pp. 13

(1921 I

Surplus Value-A Mistaken Idea

This theory, that the entire product of capitalist so}

• o two parts, the workers' part (wages, or vana~
consists ·atl cap

200
to use modem terminology) and the capitalists' part (surplus
value) is not peculiar to Sismondi. It does not belong to him. He
borrowed it in its entirety from Adam Smith, and even took a step
backward from it. The whole of subsequent political economy
(Ricardo, Mill, Prondhon and Rodbertus) repeated this mistake,
which was disclosed only by the author of Capital, in part III of
volume II . . . .. This mistake is repeated by our Narodnik
enonomists. It is of special interest to compare them with
Sismondi, because they draw from this fallacious theory the very
same conclusions that Sismondi himself drew; the conclusion
that surplus value cannot be realized in capitalist society; that
social wealth cannot be expanded; that the foreign market must be
resorted to because surplus value cannot be realised within the
country; and lastly, that crises occur because the product, it is
alleged, cannot be realised through consumption by the workers
and the capitalists.
(A Characterisation of Economic Romaticism - Lenin - Collected Works -
Vol. 2-p. 145)

Capitalist Equilibrium

..... Capitalist equilibrium is an extremely complex

phenomenon. Capitalism produces this equilibrium, disrupts it,
restores it anew in order to disrupt it anew, concurrently
extending the limits of its domination. In the economic sphere
these constant disruptions and restorations of the equilibrium take
the shape of crises and booms. In the sphere of inter-class
relations the disruption of equilibrium assumes the form of strikes,
lockouts, revolutionary struggle. In the sphere of state relations
the disruption of equilibrium means_ war, or- in a weaker form-

201
 '

tariff war, economic war or blockade. Capitalism thus possess,

dynamic equilibrium, one which is always in the process of eit#,
disruption or restoration. But at the same time this eqmhbriurn h
a great power of resistence, the best proof of which is the fat4
the capitalist world has not toppled to this day.
(The First Five Years of the Communist International- Leon Trotsl_
Vol.1-p.174)

Crises and Booms

Bourgeois and reformist economists who have an !

ideological interest in embellishing the plight of capitalism say: h
and of itself the current crisis proves nothing whatever; on the I

contrary, it is a normal phenomenon. Following the war we

witnessed an industrial boom, and now- a crisis; it follows that ~
capitalism is alive and thriving. I

As a matter offact, capitalism does live by crises and '

booms, just as a human being lives by inhaling and exhaling. 1
First there is a boom in industry, then a stoppage, next a
crisis,followed by a stoppage in the crisis, then an improvement, •.
another boom, another stoppage and so on.

Crisis and boom blend with all the transitional phases to I

constitute a cycle or one of the great cycles of industrial ;
development. Each cycle lasts from 8 to 9 or 1 O to 11 years. y
force of its internal contradictions capitalism thus develops l
along a straight line but in a zigzag manner, through ups a
downs. This is what provides the ground for the following clai//1
of the apologists of capitalism, namely: since we observe after t
the war a succession of boom and crisis it follows that all things
1

202
are working together for the best in this best of all capitalist
worlds. It is otherwise in reality. The fact that capitalism
continues to oscillate cyclically after the war merely signifies
that capitalism is not yet dead, that we are not dealing with a
corpse. So long as capitalism is not overthrown by the
proletarian revolution, it will continue to live in cycles, swinging
up and down. Crises and booms were inherent in capitalism at
its very birth; they will accompany it to its grave. But to
determine capitalism's age and its general condition -to establish
whether it is still developing or whether it has matured or whether
it is in decline one must diagnose the character of the cycles. In
much the same manner the state of human organism can be
diagnosed by whether the breathing is regular or spasmodic, deep
or superficial, and so on.
(The First Five Years of the Communist International -Leon Trotsky Vol.I
-pp. 198/99 ( I 9 I 9)
How are the cyclical fluctuations blended with the primary
movement of the capitalist curve of development? Very simply. In
periods of rapid capitalist development the crises are brief and
superficial in character, while the booms are long-lasting and far-
reaching. In periods of capitalist decline, the crises are of a
prolonged character while the booms are fleeting, superficial and
speculative. In periods of stagnation the fluctuations occur upon
one and the same level.

This means nothing else but that it is necessary to

determine the general condition of the capitalist organism by the
specific way in which it breaths, and the rate at which its pulse
beats.
(The First Five Years of the Communist International- Leon Trotsky-
Vol.1- pp.201/202 (1919)
203
 US imperialist Ambitions

The world war has completely dislodged the United State

from its continental conservatism ("isolationism").p,
programme of an ascending national capitalism- "America for th:
Americans" (the Monroe Doctrine) has been supplanted by the
programme of imperialism, the "whole world for the Americans".
After exploiting the war commercially, industrially and througl
stock market speculation, after coining European blood into
neutral profits, America went on to intervene in the war, played
the decisive role in bringing about Germany's debacle and has
poked its fingers into all the question of European and world
politics.

Under the "League of Nations" flag the United States

made an attempt to extend to the other side of the ocean its
experience with a federated unification large, multinational
masses -an attempt to chain to its chariot ofgold, the peoples of
Europe and other parts of the world, and bring them under
Washington's rule. In essence the League of Nations was
intended to be a world monopoly corporation, "Yankee & co."

The president of the United States, the great prophet of

platitudes, has descended from Mount Sinai in order to conquer
Europe,"14 points" in hand. Stockbrokers cabinet members and
)

businessmen never deceived themselves for a moment about the

1

meaning of this new revelation. But by way of compensation the

"European "Socialists" with doses of Kautskyan brew have

204
attained a condition of religious ecstasy and accompanied
Wilson's sacred ark, dancing like king David.

When the time came to pass to practical questions, it

became clear to the American prophet that despite the Dollar's
excellent foreign exchange rate,the first place on all sea lanes,
which connect and divide the nations continued as heretofore to
belong to Great Britain, for she possesses a more powerful navy,
longest transoceanic cables and a far older experience in world
pillage.Moreover on his travels Wilson encountered the Soviet
Republic and communism.The offended American Messiah
renounced the League of Nations, which England had converted
into one of her diplomatic chancelleries and turned his back upon
Europe.
(The First Fire Years of the Communist International- Trotsky-
Vol.1 pp. I 04/05 (1919)

* * *
It would, however, be childish to assume that American
imperialism beaten back by England during its first offensive, will
withdraw into the shell of Monroe Doctrine. No, by continuing to
subordinate the Western Hemisphere to itself more and more
violently, by transforming the countries of Central and South
America into its colonies, the United States through its two ruling
parties -the Democrats and the Republicans -is preparing to
create as a counterweight to the English League of Nations, a
League of its own, i.e.,a league with North America as the Centre
of the world system.
(The First Five Years of the Communist International-Trotsky-Vol. I-
p. I 05 (1919)

205
 Utopian Socialists

The utopians . . . . were utopians because they could b

nothing else at a time when capitalist production was as y
little developed .... They necessarily had to construct the eleme so
nts
of a new society out of their own heads, because within the old
society the elements of the new were not as yet generaII
apparent; for the basic plan of the new edifice could only appe:i
to reason, just because they could not as yet appeal to
contemporary history. But when now, almost eighty years after
their time, Herr Diihring steps onto the stage and puts forward his
claim to an "authoritative" system of a new social order - not
evolved out of the historically developed material at his disposal,
as its necessary result, oh, no!- but constructed in his sovereign
head, in his mind, pregnant with ultimate truths then he, who
scents epigones everywhere, is himself nothing but the epigones
of the utopians, the latest utopian. He calls the great utopians
"social alchemists". That may be so. Alchemy was necessary in its
epoch. But since that time modern industry has developed the
contradictions lying dormant in the capitalist mode of production
into such crying antagonisms that the approaching collapse of this
mode of production is, so to speak, palpable; that new productive
forces themselves can only be maintained and further developed
by the introduction of a new mode of production corresponding to
their present stage of development; that the struggle between the
two classes endangered by the hitherto existing mode of
production and constantly reproduced in ever sharper antagonism
has affected all civilized countries and is daily becoming more
violent, and that these historical interconnections, the conditions
of the social transformation which they make necessary, and ("
206
basic features of this transformation likewise determined by them
have also already been apprehended. And if Herr Duhring now
manufacture a new social order out of his sovereign brain instead
of from the economic material available, he is not practicing mere
"social alchemy." He is acting rather like a person who, after the
discovery and establishment of the laws of modern chemistry,
attempts to restore the old alchemy and to use atomic weights,
molecular formulas, the quantivalence of atoms, crystallography
and spectral analysis for the sole purpose of discovering - the
philosopher's stone.
(Anti-Duhring Engels pp. 303/04)

Fourier
Fourier proceeds directly from the teaching of the French
materialists. The Babouvists were crude, uncivilized materialists,
but developed communism, too, derives directly from French
materialism. The latter returned to its mother-country, England
in the form Helvetius gave it. Bentham based his system of
correctly understood interests on Helvetius morality and Owen
proceeded from Bentham's system to found English communism.
Exiled to England the Frenchman Cabet came under the influence
of communist ideas there, and on his return to France became the
most popular, if the most superficial, representative of
communism. Like Owen the more scientific French communists
Dezamy, Gay and others, developed the teaching of materialism
as the teaching of real humanism and the logical basis of
communism.

(Marx - The Holy Family - MECW - Vol. 4 -P.131)

207
 If in Saint _ Simon we find a comprehensive breadth i •

view by virtue of which almost all the ideas of later Socialist hof I
> . . . . Sthat
are not strictly economic are found in him in embryo, we fin4:
Fourier a criticism of then existing conditions of soc· in
Iety,
genuinely French and witty, but not upon that account any the le
thorough . Fourier takes the bourgeoisie, their inspired pro#,,
before the Revolution and, their interacted eulogists after it , at
their own word. He lays bare remorselessly the material and moral
misery of the bourgeois world. He confronts it with the earlier
philosopher's dazzling promises of a society in which reason
alone should reign, of a civilisation in which happiness should be
universal, of an illimitable human perfectibility, and with the rose-
coloured phraseology of the bourgeois ideologists of his time. He
points out how everywhere the most pitiful reality corresponds 1
with the most high-sounding phrases, and he overwhelms this
hopeless fiasco of phrases with his mordant sarcasm.

Fourier is not only a critic; his imperturbably serene nature ,

makes him a satirist, and assuredly one of the greatest satirists of
all times. He depicts, with equal power and charm, the swinding
speculations that blossomed out upon the downfall of the
Revolution, and the shopkeeing spirit prevalent in, and
characteristic of, French commerce at that time. Still more
masterly is his criticism of the bourgeois form of the relations
between the sexes, and the position of woman in bourgeois
society. He was the first to declare that in any given society the
degree of woman's emancipation is the natural measure of the
general emancipation.

208
 But Fourier is at his greatest in his conception of the
history of society. He divides its whole course thus far into four
' '
stages of evolution: savagery, barbarism, the patriarchate,
civilisation ....

Fourier, as we see, uses the dialectical method in the same

masterly way as his contemporary, Hegel. Using these same
dialectics, he argues against the talk about illimitable human
perfectibility, that every historical phase has its period of ascent
and also its period of descent, and he applies this observation to
the future of the whole human race. As Kant introduced into
natural science the idea of the ultimate destruction of the earth,
Fourier introduced into historical science that of the ultimate
destruction of the human race.

(Engels - Socialism: Utopian and Scientific - Marx-Engels Selected

Works- Vol.2- pp.123/24 (1892)

Fourier and Saint-Simon

Saint - Simonism, after having excited, like a brilliant
meteor, the attention of the thinking, disappeared from the social
horizon. Nobody now thinks of it, or speaks of it: its time is past.

Nearly at the same time with Saint-Simon, another man

directed the activity of his mighty intellect to the activity of social
state of mankind - Fourier. Although Fourier's writings do not
display those bright sparks of genius which we find in Saint -
Simon's and some of his disciples; although his style is hard, and
shows to a considerable extent the toil with which the author is
'
209
always labouring to bring out his is ideas; and to speak out th·
· . Ung
for which no words are provided in the French languag
e-
nevertheless, we read his works with greater pleasure; and finct
more real value in them, than in those of the preceding school
There is mysticism, too, and as extravagent as any, but this yo
may cut off and throw it aside, and there will remain somethin
not to be found among the Saint-Simonies scientific resea#
cool, unbiased, systematic thought; in short, social philosophy'
whist Saint-Simonism can only be called social-poetry. '

(Progress of Social Reform on the Continent Engels -Vol. 3 - p

394 (1843)

Robert Owen

At this juncture there came forward as a reformer a

manufacturer, 29 years old - a man of almost sublime, childlike
simplicity of character, and at the same time one of the few born ,
leaders of men. Robert Owen had adopted the teaching of the
materialistic philosophers; that man's character is the product,
on the one hand, of heredity; on the other, of the environment of
the individual during his lifetime, and especially during his
period of development. In the industrial revolution most of his
class saw only chaos and confusion, and the opportunity of fishing
in these troubled waters and making large fortunes quickly. He
saw in it the opportunity of putting into practice his favorite
theory, and so of bringing order out of chaos. He had already tried
it with success, as superintendent of more than five hundred men
in a Manchester factory. From 1800 to 1829, he directed the great
cotton mill at New Lanark, in Scotland, as managing partner,
along the same lines but with greater freedom of action and with a
210
success that made him a European reputation. A population
originally consisting of the most diverse and, for the most part,
very demoralized elements, a population that gradually grew to
2500, he turned into a model colony in which drunkenness, police,
magistrates, lawsuits, poor laws, charity were unknown. And all
this simply by placing the people in conditions worthy of human
beings, and especially by carefully bringing up the rising
generation. He was the founder of infant schools and introduced
them first at New Lanark. At the age of two the children came to
school, where they enjoyed themselves so much that they could
scarcely be got home again. Whilst his competitors worked
their people thirteen or fourteen
hours a day, in New Lenark the working day was only ten and a
half hours. When a crisis in cotton stopped work for four months,
his workers received their full wages all the time. And with all this
the business more than doubled in value and to the last yielded
large profits to its proprietors.

In spite of all this Owen was not content. The existence

which he secured for his workers was, in his eyes, still far from
being worthy of human beings. "The people were slaves at my
mercy".

Owen's communism was based upon this purely business

foundation, the outcome, so to say, of commercial calculation.
Throughout.
> 3
it maintained this practical character. Thus in 1823,
Owen proposed the relief of the distress in Ireland by communist
colonies, and drew up complete estimates of costs of founding
them, yearly expenditure, and probable revenue. And in his
definite plan for the future, the technical working out details is
211
managed with such practical knowledge-ground plan, front anq
side and bird's-eye views all included -- that the Owen method 4
social reform once accepted, there is from the practical point of
view little to be said against the actual arrangement of details.

His advance in the direction of communism was the turning

point of Owen's life. As long as he was a philanthropist, he was
rewarded with nothing but wealth, applause, honour and glory. He
was the most popular man in Europe. Not only men of his class
but statesmen and princes listened to him approvingly. But when'
he came out with his communist theories that was quite another
thing. Three great obstacles seemed to him especially to block the
path to social reform: private property, religion, the present form
of marriage. He knew what confronted him if he attacked these-
outlawry, excommunication from official society, the loss of his
whole social position. But nothing of this prevented him from
attacking them without fear of consequences, and what he had
foreseen happened. Banished from official society, with
conspiracy of silence against him in the press, ruined by his
unsuccessful communist experiments in America, in which he
sacrificed all his fortune, he turned directly to the working class
and continued working in their midst for thirty years. Every social
movement, every real advance in England on behalf of the
workers links itself on the name of Robert Owen. He forced
through in 1819, after five years of fighting, the first law limiting
the hours of labour of women and children in factories. He was
president of the first congress at which all the trade unions of
England united in a single great trade association. He introduced
as transition measures to the complete communistic organisation
of society, on the one hand, cooperative societies for retail trade

212
and production. These have since that time, at least, given
practical proof that the merchant and the manufacturer are socially
quite unnecessary. On the other hand he introduced labour bazaars
for the exchange of the products of labour through the medium of
labour-notes, whose unit was a single hour of work; institutions
necessarily doomed to failure .....

The Utopian mode of thought has for a long time governed the
socialist ideas of the nineteenth century and still governs some of
them. Until very recently all French and English socialists did
homage to it. The earlier German communism, including that of
Weitling, was of the same school. To all these socialism is the
expression of absolute truth, reason and justice, and has only to be
discovered to conquer all the world by virtue of its own power.
And as absolute truth is independent of time, space, and of
historical development of man, it is a mere accident when and
where it is discovered with all this absolute truth, reason and
justice are different with the founder of each different schools .....
To make a science of socialism, it had first to be placed upon a
real basis.
(Engels Socialism: Utopian and Scientific-Marx- Engels- Selected Works
- Vol. 2- pp.125/28 (1880)

Misery ofthe Worker

When society is in a state of decline, the worker suffers
most severely. The specific severity of his burden he owes to his
position as a worker, but the burden as such to the position as a
society.
But when a society is in a state of progress, the ruin and
impoverishment of the worker is the product of his labour and of
213
the wealth produced by him. The misery results, therefore, fro#
the essence of present-day labour itself.

Society in a state of maximum wealth an ideal, but on

which is approximately attained, and which at least is the aim of
political economy as of civil society means for the worker static
misery.

It goes without saying that the proletarian, i.e., the man

who, being without capital and rent, lives purely by labour, and by
a one-sided, abstract labour, is considered by political economy
only as a worker. Political economy can therefore advance the
proposition that the proletarian, the same as any horse, must get as
much as will enable him to work. It does not consider him when
he is not working, as a human being, but leaves such consideration
to criminal law, to doctors, to religion, to the statistical tables, to
politics and to the poor-house overseer. (Marx- Economic and
Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844- Vol. 3- MECW - p. 241

Slave, Serfand Proletariat

Question I 0: In what way does the proletarian differ from the

slave?
Answer: The slave is sold once and for all, the proletarian has to
sell himself by the day and by the hour. The slave is the property
of one master and for that very reason has a guaranteed
subsistence, however wretched it may be. The proletarian is, so to
speak, slave of the entire bourgeois class, not of one master, and
therefore has no guaranteed subsistence, since nobody buys his
214
labour if he does not need it. The slave is accounted a thing and
not a member of civil society. The proletarian is recognized as a
person, as a member of civil society. The slave may, therefore,
have a better subsistence than the proletarian, but the latter stands
at a higher stage of development. The slave frees himself by
becoming a proletarian abolishing from the totality of property
relationships only the relationship of slavery. The proletarian can
free himself only by abolishing property in general.

Question 11: In what way does the proletarian differ from

serf?
Answer : The serf has the use of a piece of land, that is, of an
instrument of production, in return for handing over a greater or
lesser portion of the yield. The proletarian works with instruments
of production which belong to someone else who, in return for his
labour, hands over to him a portion, determined by competition, of
the products. In the case of the serf, the share of the labourer is
determined by his own labour, that is, by himself. In the case of
the proletarian it is determined by competition; therefore in the
first place by the bourgeois. The serf has guaranteed subsistence,
the proletarian has not. The serf frees himself, by driving out his
feudal lord and becoming a property owner himself, thus entering
in to competition and joining for the time being the possessing
class, the privileged class. The proletarian frees himself by doing
away with property, competition, and all class differences.

Question 12: In what way does the proletarian differ from the
handicraftsman?
Answer: As opposed to the proletarian, the so-called
handicraftsman, who still existed nearly everywhere during the

215
last century and still exists here and there, is at most a tempo+
proletarian. His aim is to acquire capital himself and so to expl ~
other workers. He can often achieve h. h' .
this aim where the or4
011

guilds still exist or where freedom to follow a trade has not yet lq
to the organisation of handwork on a factory basis and to inten
competition. But as soon as the factory system is introduced into
handwork and competition is in full swing, this prospect is
eliminated and the handicraftsman becomes more and more a
proletarian. The handicraftsman therefore frees himself either by
becoming a bourgeois or in general passing over into the middle
class, or, by becoming a proletarian as a result of competition (as
now happens in most cases) and joining the movement of the 1

proletariat, i.e., the more or less conscious communist movement.

(Engels-The Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith-MECW-Vol. 6-

pp.100/101 (1847)

Role ofthe proletariat

Of all the classes that stand face to face with the
bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary
class. The other classes decay and finally disappear in the face of
Modern Industry; the proletariat is its special and essential
product.

The lower middle classes, the small manufacturer, the

shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the
bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of
the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but
conservative. Nay more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll
back the wheel of history. If by chance they are revolutionar)',

216
they are so only in view of their impending transfer into the
proletariat, they thus defend not their present, but their future
interests, they desert their own standpoint to place themselves at
that of the proletariat. ...

The "dangerous class", the social scum, that passively

rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of old society may,
here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian
revolution; its conditions of life, however, prepare it far more for
the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue.
(Marx-Engels- Manifesto of the Communist Party- MECW -Vol.6 - p.494)

Unique Role ofthe Proletariat

All the preceding classes that got the upper hand, sought to
fortify their already acquired status by subjecting society at large
to their conditions of appropriation. The proletarians cannot
become masters of the productive forces of society, except by
abolishing their own previous mode of appropriation, and thereby
also every other previous mode of appropriation. They have
nothing of their own to secure and fortify; their mission is to
destroy all previous securities for, and insurance of, individual
property.
All previous historical movements were movements of
minorities or in the interest of minorities. The proletarian
movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the
immense majority, in the interest of immense majority. The
proletariat, the lowest stratum of our present society cannot stir,
cannot raise itself up, without the whole superincumbent strata of
official society being sprung into the air.

217
 Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of {4
proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. T»
proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle
matters with its own bourgeoisie.

(MarxEngels- Manifesto of the Communist party MECW-Vol ._

pp. 494/95 ( 1848)

Proletariat and wealth are opposites; as such they fonn a

single whole.They are both creations of the world of private
property.The question is exactly what place each occupies in the
antithesis.It is not sufficient to declare them two sides of a single 1

whole.
Private property as private property, as wealth, is compelled to
maintain itself, and thereby its opposite, the prolrtariat, in
existence. That is the positive side of the antithesis, self-satisfied
private property.
The proletariat on the contrary, is compelled as proletariat to
abolish itself and thereby its oppsite, private property, which
determines its existence, and which makes it proletariat. It is the
negative side of the antithesis, its restlessness within its very self,
dissolved and self-dissolving private property.
The propertied class and the class of of the proletariat present
the same human self-estrangement. But the former class feels at
ease and strengthened in this self-estrangement, it recognizes
estrangement as its own power and has in it the semblance of a
human existence. The latter feels annihilated in estrangement; it
sees in it its own powerlessness and the reality of an inhuman
existence. It is, to use an expression of Hegel, in its abasement the

218

4
indignation at that abasement, an indignation to which it is
necessarily driven by the contradiction between its human nature
and its condition of life which is the outright, resolute and
comprehensive negation of that nature.
Within this antithesis the private property owner is therefore
the conservative side, the proletarian the destructive side. From
the fonner arises the action of preserving the antithesis, from the
latter the action of annihilating it, ....
When the proletariat is victorious, it is by no means becomes
the absolute side of society, for it is victorious only by abolishing
itself and its opposite. Then the proletariat disappears as well as
the opposite which determines it, private property.

When socialist writers ascribe this world-historic role to the

proletariat, it is not at all, as Critical Criticism pretends to
believe,because they regard the proletarians as gods. Rather the
contrary. Since in the fully-formed proletariat the abstraction of
all humanity, even of the semblance of humanity, is practically
complete; Since the conditions of life of the proletariat sum up all
the conditions of life of society today in their most inhuman form;
since man has lost himself in the proletariat, yet at the same time
has not only gained theoretical consciousness of that loss, but
through urgent, no longer removable, no longer disguisable,
absolutely imperative need - the practical expression of necessity-
is driven directly to the revolt against this inhumanity, it follows
that the proletariat can and must emanicipate itself. But it cannot
emanicipate itself without abolishing the conditions of its own
life. It cannot abolish the conditions of its own life without
abolishing all the inhuman conditions of life of society today
which are summed up in its own situation.Not in vain does it go
219
 ¥I
I
through the stem but steeling school of labour. It is not
· a
question of what this or that proletarian, or even the who]
proletariat, at the moment regards as its aim. It is a question of
what the proletariat is, and what, in accordance with this being
it will historically be compelled to do. Its aim and historic
action is visibly and irrevocably foreshadowed in its own Iif
situation as well as the whole organization of bourgeois society
today.
( Marx and Engels - The Holy Family - MECW -Vol.4- pp.35/37.
1844)

Lumpen Proletariat

The lumpen proletariat, this scum of depraved elements

from all classes, with headquarters in the big cities, is the worst of
all the possible allies. This rabble is absolutely venal and
absolutely brazen. If the French workers, in every revolution,
inscribed on the houses; Mort aux voleurs! Death to thieves! and
even shot some, they did so not out of reverence for property, but
because they rightly considered it necessary above all to keep that
gang at bay. Every leader of the workers who uses these
scoundrels as guards or relies on them for support proves himself
by this action alone a traitor to the movement. (Engels- Preface to the
second edition- Peasant War in Germany --MECW-Vol. 21- pp. 98/99
(February 11, I 870)

Dictatorship ofthe Proletariat

And now as to myself, no credit is due to me for

discovering the existence of classes in modem society or the

220
struggle between them. Long before me bourgeois historians had
described the historical development of this class struggle and
bourgeois economists the economic anatomy of the classes. What
I did that was new was to prove:

1) that the existence of classes is only bound up with

particular historical phases in the development of
production.

2) That the class struggle necessarily leads to the

dictatorship of the proletariat.

3) that this dictatorship itself only constitute the transition

to the abolition of all classes and to a classless
society.

(Marx to J. Weydemeyer- Marx Engels Selected

Correspondence - pp. 69 ( 1852)

On ''Holy Family"

The critical criticism ... is quite outstanding. Your

expositions of the Jewish question, the history of materialism and
the Mystery are splendid and will make an excellent impact. But
for all that the thing is too long. The supreme contempt we two
evince toward to Literatur-Zeitung is in glaring contrast to the
twenty two sheets we devote to it. In addition most of the criticism
of speculation and of abstract being in general will be
incomprehensible to the public at large, nor will it be of general
interest. Otherwise the book is splendidly written and enough to
make you split your sides.
(Engels to Marx - MECW -- Vol. 38- p.28 ( 1845)

221
 1

Bonapartism

Bonaparte would like to appear as the patriarch4

benefactor of all classes. But he cannot give to one class without
taking from another. Just as the time of the Fronde it was said or
the Duke of Guise that he was the most obligeant man in France
because he had turned all his estates into his partisan's obligation
to him, so Bonaparte would fain to be the most obligeant man in
France and tum all the property, all the labour of France into a
personal obligation to himself. He would like to steal the whole of
France in order to be able to make a present of her to France, or,
rather, in order to be able to buy France anew with French money,
for as the chief of the society of December 10 he must needs buy
what ought to belong to him. And all the state institutions, the
senate, the council of state, the legislative body, the legion of
honour, the soldier's medals, the wash houses, the public works,
the railways, the General staff of the National Guard excluding
privates, and the confiscated estates of the House of Orleans all
become parts of the institution of purchase. Every place in the
army . and in the government machine becomes a means of
purchase. But the most important feature of this process, whereby
France is taken in order to be given back, is the percentage that
find their way into the pockets of the head and the members of the
Society of December 10 during the transaction . . . A gang of
shady characters push their way forward to the court, into the
ministries, to the head of the administration and the anny, a crowd
of the best of whom it must be said that no one knows whence he
comes, a noisy, disreputable, rapacious boheme that crawls into
braided coats with the sane grotesque dignity as the high
dignitaries of Soulonque ....
222
 Driven by the contradictory demands of his situation and
being at the same time, like a conjurer, under the necessity of
keeping the public gaze fixed on himself, as Napoleon's
substitute, by springing constant surprises, that is to say, under the
necessity of executing a coup detect en miniature every day.
Bonaparte throws the entire bourgeois economy into confusion,
violate everything that seemed inviolable to the revolution of
I 848, makes some tolerant of revolution, others desirous of
revolution, and produces actual anarchy in the name of order,
while at the same time stripping its halo from the entire machine,
profanes it and makes it at once loathsome and ridiculous. ...But
when the imperial mantle finally falls on the shoulders of Louis
Bonaparte, the bronze statue of Napoleon will crash from the top
of the Vendome column .

. (Marx The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte- MECW-

Vol.11- pp.195/(1852))

Meat Diet
Labour begins with the making of tools. And what are the
most ancient tools that we find - the most ancient judging by the
heirlooms of prehistoric man that have been discovered, and by
the mode of life of the earliest historical peoples and of the rawest
of contemporary savages? They are hunting and fishing
implements, the fonner at the same time serving as weapons. But
hunting and fishing presuppose the transition from an exclusively
vegetable diet to the concomitant use of meat, and this is another
important step in the process of transition from ape to man.
A meat diet contained in an almost ready state the most essential
ingredients required by the organism for its metabolism. By

223
shortening the time required for digestion, it also shortened the
other vegetative bodily processes that correspond to those of plant
life, and thus gained further time, material and desire for the
active manifestation of animal life proper. And the farther man in
the making moved from the vegetable kingdom the higher he rose
above the animal. Just as becoming accustomed to a vegetable diet
side by side with meat converted wild cats and dogs into the
servants of man, so also adaptation to a meat diet, side by side
with a vegetable diet, greatly contributed towards giving bodily
strength and independence to man in the making. The meat diet,
however, had its greatest effect on the brain, which now received
a far richer flow of the materials necessary for its nourishment and
development, and which, therefore, could develop more rapidly
and perfectly from generation to generation. With all due respect
to the vegetarians man did not come into existence without a meat
diet, and if the latter, among all peoples known to us, has led to
cannibalism at some time or other (the forefathers of the Berliners,
the Weletabians or Wilzians, used to eat their parents as late as the
tenth century), that is of no consequence to us today.

The meat diet led to two new advance of decisive

importance: the harnessing of fire and the domestication of
animals. The first still further shortened the digestive process as it
provided the mouth with food already as if it were half digested.

The second made meat more copious by opening up a new

more regular source of supply in addition to hunting and moreover
provided in milk and other products a new article of food at least
as valuable as meat in its composition. Thus both these advances
were in themselves new means for the emancipation of man. It
would lead us too far afield to dwell here in detail on their indirect
224
effects notwithstanding the great importance they have had for
the development of man and society.

(Engels - Part Played by Labour in Transition from Ape to Man Dialectics of

Nature p.p. 178/180 (1876)

Bourgeois - Labour Parties

The fact is that "bourgeois labour parties", as a political
phenomenon, have already been fanned in all the foremost
capitalist countries , and that unless a determined and relentless
struggle is waged all along the line against these parties or groups,
trends, etc. it is all the same, there can be no question of a struggle
against imperialism.... There is not the slightest reason for
thinking that these parties will disappear before the social
revolution. On the contrary, the nearer the revolution approaches,
the more strongly it flares up and the more sudden and violent the
transitions and leaps in its progress, the greater will be the part
the struggle of the revolutionary mass stream against the
opportunist petty bourgeois stream will play in the labour
movement.

(Imperialism and the Split in Socialism- Lenin Collected Works-Vol.23-

pp.118/19 (1916)

Pacifism

Actually, both the policy of Kautsky and that of Sembat

and Henderson help their respective imperialist governments by
focusing attention on the wickedness of their rival and enemy,
while throwing a veil of vague, general phrases and sentimental
225
wishes around the equally imperialist conduct of "their own»
bourgeoisie. We would cease to be Marxists; we would cease to
be Socialists in general, if we confined ourselves to the Christian
so to speak, contemplation of the benignity of benign genera]
phrases and refrained from exposing their real political
significance. Do we not constantly see the diplomacy of all the
imperialist powers flaunting magnanimous "general" phrases and
"democratic" declarations in order to conceal their robbery,
violation and strangulation of small nations ... ?
(Bourgeois Pacifism-Lenin- Collected Works-Vol.23-p.182 ( 1917)

Against "Mass" Intoxication

. . . . But the "masses" have now succumbed to the craze of
"revolutionary" defencism. Is it not more becoming for
internationalists at this moment to show that they can resist
"mass" intoxication rather than to "wish to remain" with the
masses, i.e., to succumb to the general epidemic? Have we not
seen how in all the belligerent countries of Europe the chauvinists
tried to justify themselves on the grounds that they wished to
"remain with the masses"? Must we not be able to remain for a
time in the minority against the "mass" intoxication? Is it not the
work of the propagandists at the present moment that fonns the
key point for disentangling the proletarian line from the
defencists and petty-bourgeois "mass" intoxication? It was this
fusion of the masses, proletarian and non-proletarian, regardless
of class differences within the masses that formed one of the
conditions for defencist epidemic.
(Letter on Tactics-Lenin-Collected Works-Vol.24-p.54 ( 1917)

226
 How History Should Be Written

In the whole conception of history up to the present this

real basis of history has either been totally disregarded or else
considered as a minor matter quite irrelevant to the course of
history. History must, therefore, always be written according to an
extraneous standard; the real production of life appears as non-
historical, while the historical appears as something separated
from ordinary life, something extra-superterrestrial. With this the
relation of man to Nature is excluded from history and hence the
antithesis of Nature and history is created. The exposition of this
conception of history have consequently only been able to see in
history the spectacular political events and religious and other
theoretical struggles, and in particular with regard to each
historical epoch they were compelled to share the illusion of that
epoch. For instance, if an epoch imagines itself to be actuated by
purely "political" or "religious" motives , although "religion" and
"politics" are only forms of its true motives, the historian accepts
this opinion ....

While the French and the English at least stick to the

political illusion, which is after all closer to reality, the Germans
move in the realm of the "pure spirit" and make religious illusion
the driving force of history. The Hegelian philosophy of history is
the last consequence, reduced to its "clearest expression", of all
this- German historiography for which- is not a question of real,
nor even of political, interests, but of pure thoughts ...

(Marx- German Ideology - MECW- Vol.5-p.55)

227
 Monarchical Principle

It is said of Napoleon that he pointed to the crowd of

drowning people below him and exclaimed to his companion:
Voyesces crapauds! (Just look at these toads.) This is probably a
fabrication, but it is nonetheless true. Despotism's sole idea is
comtempt for man, the dehumanised man, and this idea has the
advantage over many others of being at the same time a fact
The despot always sees degraded people. They drown before his
eyes and for his sake in the mire of ordinary life, from which,
like toads, they constantly make their appearance anew. If such a
view comes to be held by people who were capable of great aims,
such as Napoleon before his dynastic madness, how can a quite
ordinary king in such surroundings be an idealist?

The monarchical principle in general is the despised, the

despicable, the dehumanised man; and Montesquieu was quite
wrong to allege that it is honour. He gets out of the difficulty by
distinguishing between monarchy, despotism and tyranny. But
those are names for one and the same concept, and at most they
denote differences in customs though the principle remains the
same. Where the monarchical principle has a majority behind it,
human beings constitute the minority; where the monarchical
principle arouses no doubt, there human beings do not exist at
all.
(Marx to Ruge - Vol.3 - MECW- p.138 (May 1843)

Criticism
....... On the other hand, it is precisely the advantage of
the new trend that we do not dogmatically anticipate the world,
228
but only want to find the new world through criticism of the old
one. Hitherto philosophers have had the solution of all riddles
lying in their writing-desks, and the stupid, exoteric world had
only to open its mouth for the roast pigeons of absolute
knowledge to fly into it. No philosophy has become mundane,
and the most striking proof of this is that philosophical
consciousness itself has been drawn into the torment of the
struggle, not only externally but also internally. But, if
constructing the future and setting everything for all times are
not our affair, it is all the more clear what we have to accomplish
at present: I am referring to ruthless criticism of all that exists,
ruthless both in the sense of not being afraid of the result it arrives
at and in the sense of being just as little afraid of conflict with the
powers that be.

Therefore I am not in favour of raising any dogmatic

banner. On the contrary, we must try to help the dogmatists to
clarify their propositions for themselves. Thus, communism, in
particular, is a dogmatic abstraction; in which connection,
however, I am not thinking of some imaginary and possible
communism, but actually existing communism as taught by Cabet,
Dezamy, Weitling, etc. This communism is itself only a special
expression of the humanistic principle, an expression which is still
infected by its antithesis the private system. Hence the
abolition of private property and communism are by no
means identical, and it is not accidental but inevitable that
communism has seen other socialist doctrines such as those of
Fourier, Proudhon etc. - arising to confront it because it is itself
only a special one-sided realisation of the socialist principle.

229
 ...... Hence, nothing prevents us from making criticism of
politics, participation in politics, and therefore real struggles the
starting point of our criticism, and from identifying our criticism
with them. In that case we do not confront the world in
doctrinaire way with a new principle; here is the truth, kneel
don before it! We develop new principles for the world out of
the world's own principles. We do not say to the world: Cease
your struggles; they are foolish; we will give you the true slogan
of struggle. We merely show the world what it is really fighting
for, and consciousness is something that it has to acquire, even
ifit does not want to ...

. . . . . . Hence, our motto must be: reform of consciousness

not through dogmas, but by analysing the mystical
consciousness that is unintelligible to itself, whether it manifests
itself in a religious or a political form. It will then become
evident that the world has long dreamed of possessing something
of which it has only to be conscious in order to possess it in
reality. It will become evident that it is not a question of drawing a
great mental dividing line between past and future, but of
realising the thoughts of the past. Lastly it will become evident
that mankind is not beginning a new work, but is consciously
carrying into effects its old work.
(Marx to Ruge - MECW-- Vol.3 - pp.142/45 (September 1843)

Level of Scholarship among Professors

England is the homeland of political economy, but what

about the level of scholarship among professors and practical
politicians? Adam Smith's free trade has been pushed to the

230
insane conclusions of the Malthusian theory of population and has
produced nothing but a new, more civilised form of the old
monopoly system, a form which finds its representatives among
the present-day Tories, and which successfully combated the
Malthusian nonsense, but in the end arrived once more at
Malthusian conclusions. Everywhere there is inconsistency and
hypocrisy, while the striking economic tracts of the Socialists and
partly also of the Chartists are thrown aside with contempt and
find readers only among the lower classes. Strauss' DasLeben
Jesu was translated into English. Not a single "respectable" book
publisher wanted to print it; finally it appeared in seperate parts,
3d. Per part, and that was done by the publishing house of a minor
but energetic antiquarian. The same thing occurred with
translations of Rousseau, Voltaire, Holbach, etc.; Byron and
Shelly are read almost exclusively by the lower classes; no
"respectable" person could have the works of the latter on his desk
without coming into the most terrible disrepute. It remains true:
blessed are the poor, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven and,
however long it may take, the kingdom of this earth as well.

(Engels - Letters from London - MECW- Vol.3- p. 380 (1843)

Dinner Parties

... I forsook the company and the dinner-parties, the port

wine and champagne of the middle classes, and devoted my
leisure-hours almost exclusively to the intercourse with plain
Working-Men: I am both glad and proud of having done so".
Glad, because thus I was induced to spend many a happy hour in
obtaining a knowledge of the realities of life- many an hour,
231
which else would have been wasted in fashionable talk anct
tiresome etiquette; proud, because thus I got an opportunity of
doing justice to an oppressed and calumniated class of men Who
with all their faults and under all disadvantages of their situation9

yet command the respect of every one but an English money

monger; proud, because thus I was placed in a position to save the
English people from the growing contempt which on the continent
has been the necessary consequence of the brutally selfish policy
and general behavior of your ruling middle class.
(Engels-The Condition of the Working Class in England -MECW
Vol. 4-p.297 (1845)

French Revolution

Despite the face of the French Republic having been

superseded", the Communists of all countries are fully justified
in celebrating it. Firstly, all the nations which were stupid enough
to let themselves be used to fight against the Revolution have
owed the French a public apology ever since they realized what a
sottise ( stupidity) they committed out of loyalty; secondly the
whole European social movement today is only the second act of
the revolution, only the preparation for the denouement of the
drama which began in Paris in 1789, and now has the whole of
Europe for its stage; thirdly, it is time, in our cowardly, selfish,
beggarly bourgeois epoch, to remember those great years when a
whole people all at once threw aside all cowardice. sefishness, and
'
beggarliness, when there were men courageous enough to defy the
law, who shrank from nothing and whose iron energy ensured that
from May 31, 1793 to July 26, 1791, not a single coward, petty

232
shopkeeper or stockjobber, in short, not a single bourgeois dared
show his face in the whole of France.

(Engels The Festival of Nations in London - MECW - Vol-6- p.5

(1845)

English Revolution and French Revolution

In 1648 the bourgeoisie was allied with the modern
aristocracy against the monarchy, the feudal aristocracy and
established church.
In 1789 the bourgeoisie was allied with the people against
the monarchy, the aristocracy and the established church .....
In both revolutions the bourgeoisie was the class that
really headed the movement. The proletariat and the non-
bourgeois strata of the middle class had either not yet any
interests separate from those of the bourgeoisie or they did not yet
constitute independent classes or class sub-divisions. Therefore,
where they opposed the bourgeoisie, as they did in France in 1793
and 1794, they fought only for the attainment of the aims of the
bourgeoisie, even if not in the manner of the bourgeoisie. All
French terrorism was nothing but a plebian way of dealing with
the enemies of the bourgeoisie, absolutism, feudalism and
philistinism.

The revolutions of 1648 and 1789 were not English and

French revolutions; they were revolutions of a European type.
They did not represent the victory of a particular class of society
over the old political order; they proclaimed the political order of
the new European society. The bourgeoisie was victorious in these
revolutions, but the victory of the bourgeoisie was at that time
233
the victory of a new social order, the victory of bourgeois
ownership over feudal ownership, of nationality over
provincialism, of competition over the guild, of the division or
land over primogeniture, of the rule of the landowner over the
domination of the owner by the land, of enlightenment over
superstition, of the family over the family name, of industry over
heroic idleness, of bourgeois law over medieval privileges. The
revolution of 1648 was the victory of the seventeenth century over
the sixteenth century; the revolution of 1789 was victory of the
eighteenth century over the seventeenth. These revolutions
reflected the needs of the world at that time rather than the needs
of those part of the world where they occurred, that is England
and France.
(Marx - The Bourgeoisie and the Counter Revolution- MECW
Vol.8- p.161 (1848)
Terrorism
The sabre can terrorise, but its power goes no further
than that. The terrorism exercised by the sabre is the stupidest
and most brainless of all. But the fact that a revolution has been
put down by grape-shot does not mean that anything has been
accomplished; it is easy to proclaim and put into effect a state of
siege, but to emerge from it again, that is after all the chief thing,
and that requires more than just a moustache.

(Engels - Military Dictatorship in Austria - MECW- Vol.9 - p.107

(1849)

Professional Conspirators
. . . The whole way of life of these professional
conspirators has a most decidedly bohemian character. Recruitit
234
sergeants for the conspiracy, they go from marchand do vin to
marchand de vin, feeling the pulse of the workers, seeking out
their men, cajoling them into the conspiracy and getting either the
society's treasury or their new friends to foot bill for the litres
inevitably consumed in the process. Indeed it is really the
marchand de vin who provides a roof over their heads. It is with
him that the conspirator spends most of his time; it is here he has
his rendezvous with his colleagues, with the members of his
section and with prospective recruits; it is here, finally, that the
secret meetings of sections (groups) and section leaders take
place. The conspirator, highly sanguine in character any way like
all Parisian proletarians, soon develop into absolute bamboocheur
(boozer) in this continual tavern atmosphere. The sinister
conspirator, who in secret session exhibits a Spartan self-
discipline, suddenly thaws and is transformed into a tavern regular
whom everybody knows and who really understands how to enjoy
his wine and women. This conviviality is further intensified by the
constant dangers the conspirator is exposed to: at any moment he
may be called to the barricades, where he may be killed; at every
turn the police set snares for him which may deliver him to prison
or even to the galleys. Such dangers constitute the real spice of the
trade; the greater the insecurity, the more the conspirator hastens
to seize the pleasures of the moment. At the same time familiarity
with danger makes him utterly indifferent to life and liberty. He is
at home in prison as in the wine-shop. He is ready for the call to
action any day. The desperate recklessness which is exhibited in
every insurrection in Paris is introduced precisely by these veteran
professional conspirators, the hommes de coups de main. They
are the ones who throw up and command the first barricades, who
organise resistance, lead the looting of arms-shops and the seizure

235
of arms, and ammunition from houses, and in the midst of the
uprising carry out those daring raids which so often throw the
government party into confusion. In a word, they are the officers
of the insurrection.

It need scarcely be added that the conspirators do not

confine themselves to the general organising of the revolutionary
proletariat. It is precisely their business to anticipate the process
of revolutionary development, to bring it artificially to crisis-
point, to launch a revolution on the spur of the moment without
the conditions for a revolution. For them the only condition for
revolution is the adequate preparation of their conspiracy. They
are the alchemists of the revolution and are characterized by
exactly the same chaotic thinking and blinkered obsessions as the
alchemists of the old. They leap at inventions which are supposed
to work revolutionary miracles; incendiary bombs, destructive
devices of magic effect, revolts which are expected to be all the
more miraculous and astonishing in effect as their basis are less
rational. Occupied with such scheming, they have no other
purpose than the most immediate one of overthrowing the existing
government and have the profoundest contempt for more
theoretical enlightenment of the proletariat about their class
interests.
(A Chenu - Les Conspirators - MECW - Vol.10- pp.317-18 (April
1850)

How People Make History

Hegel remarks somewhere that all facts and personages of

great importance in world history occur, as it were, twice. He

236
forgot to add: The first time as tragedy, the second as farce.
Caussdiere for Danton, Laius Blanc for Robespierre, Montagne of
1848 to 1851 for Montagne of 1793 to 1795, the nephew for the
uncle. And the same caricature occurs in the circumstances
attending the second edition of eighteenth Brumaire.

Men make their own history, but they do not make it just
as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by
themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given
and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all the dead
generations weighs like nightmare on the brain of the living. And
just when they seem engaged in revolutionising themselves and
things, in creating something that has never yet existed, precisely
in such periods of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up
the spirits of the past to their service and borrow from them
names, battle-cries and consumes in order to present the new
scene of world history in this time-honoured disguise and this
borrowed language. Thus Luther donned the mask of the Apostle
Paul, the revolution of 1789 to 1814 draped itself alternately as
the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire, and the revolution of
1848 knew nothing better to do than to parody now 1789, now the
revolutionary tradition of 1793 to 1795. In like manner a beginner
who has learnt a new language always translates it back into his
mother tongue, but he has assimilated the spirit of the new
language and can freely express himself in it only when he finds
his way in it without recalling the old and forgets his native
tongue in the use of the new.

(Marx - The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte - MECW-

Vol.11-pp. l 03/04 (1850

237
 Nature of the German Bourgeoisie

A great inconvenience (obstacle) affecting the German

bourgeois in his striving for industrial wealth is his idealisn
professed hitherto. How is it that this nation of the "spirit",
suddenly comes to find the supreme blessings of mankind in
calico, knitting yam, the self-acting mule, in a mass of factory
slaves, in the materialism of machinery, in the full money bags of
Messers the factory owners? The empty, shallow, sentimental
idealism of the German bourgeois, beneath which lies hidden (is
concealed) the pettiest, dirtiest and most cowardly shopkeeper's
spirit (soul), has arrived at the epoch when this bourgeois is
inevitably compelled to divulge his secret. But again he divulges
it in a truely German high-flown manner. He divulges it with an
idealistic Christian sense of shame. He disavows wealth while
striving for it. He clothes spiritless materialism in an idealistic
disguise and only then ventures to purse it....

The German bourgeois is religious even when he is an

industrialist. He shrinks form speaking about the nasty exchange
values which he covets and speaks about productive forces; he
shrinks from speaking about competition and speaks of a national
confederation of national productive forces; he shrinks from
speaking of his private interests and speaks about the national
interests. When one looks at the frank, classic cynicism with
which the English and French bourgeoisie, as represented by its
first- at least at the beginning of its domination - scientific
spokesmen of political economy, elevated wealth into a god and
ruthlessly sacrificed everything else to it, to this Moloch, in

238
science as well, and when on the other hand one looks at the
'
idealizing phrase mongering bombastic manner of Herr List.

The Gennan idealizing philistine who wants to become

wealthy must of course, create for himself a new theory of wealth,
one which makes wealth worthy of his striving for it. The
bourgeois in France and England see the approach of the storm
which will destroy in practice the real life of what has hitherto
been called wealth, but the German bourgeois, who has not yet
arrived at this inferior wealth, tries to give a new "spiritualistic"
interpretation of it. He creates for himself an "idealizing" political
economy, in order to justify to himself and the world that he, too,
wants to become wealthy. The German bourgeois begins his
creation of a high-flown hypocritically idealizing political
economy ....

Being a true German Philistine, Herr List, instead of

studying real history, looks for the secret, bad aims of individuals,
and, owing to his cunning he is very well able to discover them
(puzzle them out). He made great discoveries such as that Adam
smith wanted to deceive the world by his theory, and that the
whole world let itself be deceived by him until the great Herr List
woke it from its dream, rather in the way that a certain Dusseldorf
counselor of Justice made out that Roman history had been
invented by medieval monks in order to justify the domination of
Rome.

But just as the German bourgeois knows no better way of

opposing his enemy than by casting a moral slur on him, casting
aspersions on his frame of mind, and seeking bad motives for his
actions, in short, by bringing him into bad repute and making

239
him personally an object of suspicion, so Herr List casts
aspersions on the English and French economists, and retails
gossip about them. And just as the German philistine does not
disdain the pettiest profit-making and swindling in trade, so Herr
List does not disdain to juggle with words from the quotations he
gives in order to make them profitable. He does not disdain to
stick the trade mark of his rival on to his own bad products; in
order to bring his rival's products into disrepute by falsifying
them, or even to invent downright lies about his competitor in
order to discredit him.

(Marx On Friedlich List's Book - MECW Vol.4 - P.265/268)

Idiotic Worshiping ofthe Past

The greatest boast of these burly Ur-Swiss was that from
time immemorial they had never deviated by a hair's breadth from
customs of their forefathers, that they had retained the simple,
chaste, upright and virtuous customs of their fathers unsullied
throughout the centuries. And this is true.. Every attempt at
civilisation was defeated by the granite walls of their mountains
and of their heads. From the days when Winkelried's first ancestor
led his cow, with the inevitable little pastoral bell around its neck,
on to the virgin pastures of the Vierwaldstatter Lake, up to the
present day, when the latest descendant of Winkelried has his gun
blessed by the priest, all houses have been built in the same way,
all cows milked in the same way, all pigtails plaited in the same
way, all cheese prepared according to the same recipe, all children
made in the same way. Here, in the mountains, is Paradise, here

240
the Fall of Man has not yet come to pass. And should some
innocent Alpine lad happened to find his way to the great outside
world and allow himself to be tempted for a moment by the
seductions of the big cities, by the artificial charms of a decadent
civilisation, by the vices of sinful countries, which have no
mountains and where corn thrives - his innocence is so deep-
rooted that he can never quite succumb. A sound strikes his ear,
just two of those notes of the Alpine's cowherd's call that sound
like a dogs howling, and he falls on his knees, weeping and
overwhelmed with remorse, and at once tears himself from the
anns of seduction and will not rest until he lies at the feet of his
father! "Father, I have sinned against my ancient mountains
and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son"

In recent times two invasions against these artless customs

and primitive power have been attempted. The first was by the
French in 1789. But these French, who spread a little civilisation
everywhere else, failed with these Ur-Swiss. No trace of their
presence has remained; they were unable to eliminate one single
jot of the old customs and virtues. The second invasion took place
about twenty years later and did at least bear a little fruit. This was
the invasion of English travellers, of London lords and squires and
the hordes of chandlers, soap manufacturers, grocers and bone
merchants who followed them. The invasion at least ended the old
hospitality and transformed the honest inhabitants of the Alpine
huts, who previosly hardly knew what money was, into the most
mean and rascally swindlers anywhere to be found. But this
advance made no impact at all on the old simple customs. This not
so very virtuous chicanery fitted in perfectly with the patriarchal
virtues of chastity, skill, probity and loyalty. Even their piety

241
suffered no injury; the priests were delighted to give them
absolution for all the deception practiced on British heretics.

The Ur-Swiss must be fought with weapons different from

mere ridicule. Democracy has to settle accounts with them about
matters quite different from their patriarchal virtues.

Through its industry, its commerce and its political

institutions, the bourgeoisie is already working everywhere to
drag the small, self-contained localities which only live for
themselves out of their interests, to bring them into contact with
one another, to merge their interests, to expand their local
horizons, to destroy their local habits, strivings and ways of
thinking, and to build up a great nation with common interests,
customs and ideas out of the many hitherto mutually
independent localities and provinces. The bourgeoisie is already
carrying out considerable centralization. The proletariat, far
from suffering any disadvantage from this, will as a result itself
rather be in a position to unite, to feel itself a class, to acquire a
proper political point of view within the democracy, and finally
to conquer the bourgeoisie. The democratic proletariat not only
needs the kind of centralisation begun by the bourgeoisie but will
have to extend it very much further. During the short time when
the proletariat was at the helm of state in the French Revolution,
during the rule of Mountain party, it used all means - including
grape-shot and the guillotine - to effect centralization. When the
democratic proletariat again comes to power, it will not only have
to centralize every country separately but will have to centralize
all civilized countries together as soon as possible

242
 Ur-Switzerland, on the other hand, has never done anything
but obstruct centralization; with really brutish obstinacy it has
insisted on its isolation from the whole outside world, on its local
customs, habits, prejudices, narrow-mindedness and seclusion. It
has stood still in the center of Europe at the level of its original
barbarism, while all other nations, even the other Swiss, have
gone forward. It stands pat on Cantonal Sovereignty with all the
obduracy of the crude primitive Germans, that is, on the right to
be eternally stupid, bigoted, brutal, narrow-minded, recalcitrant
and venal if it so wishes,whether its neighbors like it or not. If
their own brutish situation comes under discussion, they no longer
recognize such things as majorities, agreements or obligations.
But in the nineteenth century it is no longer possible for two parts
of one and the same country to exist side by side without any
mutual intercourse and influence.
(Engels- The Civil War in Switzerland- MECW-Yol 6-pp .369/73 (1847)

England, France and Germany

Without intending to deprecate in any manner the heroic
efforts of the French Revolution, and the immense gratitude the
world owes to the great men of the Republic, we think that the
relative position of France and England with regard to
cosmopolitanism, is not at all justly delineated in the above sketch
(of Louis Blanc). We entirely deny the cosmopolitan character
ascribed to France before the revolution, and the times of Louis
XI and Richelieu may serve as proofs. But what is Mr. Blanc
ascribes to France? That she never could make predominant any
idea, except it was to benefit the whole world.Well, we should
think Mr. Louis Blanc could not show us any country which could

243
do otherwise than France is said to have done. Take England, for
instance, which M. Blanc places in direct opposition to France.
England invented the steam- engine; England erected the railway;
two things which, we believe, are worth a good many ideas. Well,
did England invent them for herself, or for the world. The French
glory in spreading civilisation everywhere, principally in Algeria.
Well, who has spread civilisation in America, Asia, Africa and
Australia, but England? Who founded the very Republic, in the
freeing of which France took some part? England, always
England. If France assisted in freeing the American Republic from
English tyranny, England freed the Dutch republic, just two
hundred years sooner, from Spanish oppression; if France gave, at
the end of the last century, a glorious example to the world, we
cannot silently pass by the fact that England, a hundred and fifty
years sooner, gave that example, and found at that time, not even
France prepared to follow. And, as far as ideas are concerned,
those very ideas, which the French philosophers of the
18"century- which Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot, D'Alembert and
others, did so much to popularize - where had these ideas first
been originated but, in England. Let us not forget Milton, the first
defender of regicide, Algernon, Sydney, Bolingbroke, and
Shaftesbury, over their more brilliantFrench followers ..... Compare
Germany. Germany is the fatherland of an immense number of
inventions-of the printing press, for instance. Germany has
produced - and this is recognised upon all hands- a far greater
number of generous and cosmopolitan ideas than France and
England put together. And Germany, in practice, has always been
humiliated, always been deceived in all her hopes.

(Engels - Reforms Movement in France - MECW- Vol 6- pp398/399)

244
 Californian Gold
The most important thing to have occurred here, more
important even than the February Revolution (1848), is the
discovery of the Californian gold-mines. Already now, after
barely eighteen months, one may predict that this discovery will
have nuch more impressive consequences than the discovery of
America itself. For three hundred and thirty years the whole of
Europe's trade with the Pacific Ocean has been carried with the
most moving patience around the Cape of Good Hope or Cape
Horn. All Proposals for cutting through the Isthmus of Panama
have come to grief because of the petty jealousies of the trading
nations. Since the Californian gold-mines were discovered, and
the Yankees have already started work on a railway, a large
highway and a canal from the Gulf of Mexico, steamships are
already making regular trips from New York to Chagres and from
Panama to San Francisco, the Pacific trade is already becoming
concentrated on Panama and the route around Cape Honn is
obsolete. A coast thirty degrees of latitude in length, one of the
most beautiful and fertile in the world, hitherto as good as
uninhabited, is visibly being trasformed into a rich and civilised
country, densely populated by people of all races, from Yankees.
Chinaman, from Negro to Indian and Malay, from Creole and
Mestizo to European. Rivers of Californian gold are pouring over
America, and Asiatic coast of the PacificOcean and dragging the
most reluctant barbarian nations into world trade, into civilisation.
For the second time world trade is taking a new direction. The role
played by Tyre, Carthage and Alexandria in antiquity, and Genoa
and Venice in the Middle Ages, the role of London and Liverpool
245
until now - that of the empona of world trade - is now been
assumed by New York and San - Francisco, San Juan of
Nicaragua and Leon, Chagres and Panama. The center of gravity
in world commerce, Italy in The Middle Ages, England in modem
times, is now the Southern half of the North American Peninsula.

(Marx and Engels - MECW-Vol.10- p.265)

Poetry of the Revolution

Thus the resurrection of the dead in those revolutions served the
purpose of glorifying the new struggles, not of parodying the old;
of magnifying the given task in imagination, not of fleeing from
its solution in reality; of finding once more the spirit of revolution,
not of making its ghosts walk about again.

From 1848 to 1851 only the ghosts of the old revolution

walked about, from Marrast, the republican en gnats Jaunes
(Republican in yellow gloves), who disguised himself as the old
Bailey, down to the adventurer who hides his commonplace
repulsive features under the iron mask of Napoleon. An entire
people, which had imagined that by means of a revolution it had
imparted to itself an accelerated power of motion, suddenly finds
itself set back into a defunct epoch and, in order that no doubt as
to the relapse may be possible, the old dates arise again, the old
chronology, the old names, the old edicts, which had long become
a subject of antiquarian erudition, and the old myrmidons of the
law, who had seemed long decayed. The nation feels like that mad
Englishman in Bedlam who fancies that he lives in the times of
the ancient pharaohs and daily bemoans the hard labour that he
246
must perform in the Ethiopian mines as a gold digger, immured in
this subterranean prison, a dimly burning lamp fastened to his
head, the overseer of the slaves behind him with a long whip, and
at the exits a confused welter of barbarian mercenaries, who
understand neither the forced labourers in the mmes nor one
another, since they speak no common language. ''And all this is
expected of me" sighs the mad Englishman, "of me, a freeborn
Briton, in order to make gold for the old pharaohs." "In order to
pay the debts of the Bonaparte family," sighs the French nation.
The Englishman, so long as he was in his right mind, could not get
rid of the fixed idea of making gold. The French, so long as they
were engaged in revolution could not get rid of the memory of
Napoleon, as the election of December 10 proved. They hankered
to return from the perils of revolution to the fleshpots of Egypt,
and on December 2, 1851 was the answer. They have not only a
caricature of the old Napoleon, they have the old Napoleon
himself, caricatured as he must appear in the middle of the
nineteenth century.

The social revolution of the nineteenth century cannot

draw its poetry from the past, but only from the future. It cannot
begin with itself before it has stripped off all superstition about the
past. Earlier revolutions required recollections of past world
history in order to dull themselves to their own content. In order to
arrive at its own content, the revolution of the nineteenth century
must let the dead bury their dead. There the words went beyond
the content; here the content goes beyond the words.
(Marx - The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte - MECW
Vol.l l-pp. l 05-06 (I 850)

247
 Bonapartist Thugs
Organised as Self-Employed Societies

This Society (Society of December 10) dates from the year

1849. On the pretext of founding a benevolent society, the lumpen
proletariat of Paris had been organised into secret sections, each
section being led by Bonapartist agents, with a Bonapartist
general at the head of the whole. Alongside decayed roues with
dubious means of subsistence and of dubious origin, alongside
ruined and adventurous offshoots of the bourgeoisie were
vagabonds, discharged soldiers, discharged jailbirds, escaped
gally slaves, rogues, mountbanks, lazzaront, pickpockets,
tricksters, gamblers, procurers, brothel keepers, porters, literati,
organ-grinders, rag- pickers, knife-grinders, tinkers, beggars - in
short, the whole indefinite, disintegrated mass, thrown hither and
thither, with the French term la boheme; from this kindred
element Bonaparte formed the core of the Society of December
10. A "benevolent Society"- in so far as, like Bonaparte, all its
members felt the need of benefiting themselves at the expense of
the labouring nations. This Bonaparte who constitute himself
chief of the lumpen proletariat, who here alone rediscovers in
mass from the interests which he personally pursues, who
recognizes in this scum, offal, refuse of all classes the only class
upon which he can base himself unconditionally, is the real
Bonaparte, the Bonaparte sanphrase. An old crafty rouge, he
conceives the historical life of the nations and their performances
of state as a comedy in the most vulgar sense, as a masquerade
where the grand costumes, words and postures merely serve to
mask the pettiest knavery. Thus on his expedition to Strasbourg,
where a trained Swiss vulture had played the part of the
248
Napoleonic eagle. For his irruption into Boulogne he puts some
London lackeys into French uniforms. They represent the army. In
his Society of December I 0, he assembles 10,000 rogues who are
to play the part of the people. Only when he has eliminated his
solemn opponent, when he himself now takes his imperial role
seriously and under the Napoleonic mask, imagines he is the
real Napoleon, does he become the victim of his own conception
of the world, the serious buffoon who no longer takes world
history for a comedy but his comedy for world history. On his
journeys the detachments of this society packing the railways
had to improvise a public for him, stage public enthusiasm, roar
Vive l'Empereur, insult and beat up republicans, of course
under the protection of the police. On his return journeys to
Paris they had to from the advanced guard, forestall counter-
demonstrations or disperse them. The Society of December 1O
belonged to him; it was his work, his very own idea. Whatever
else he appropriates is put into his hands by the force of
circumstances; whatever else he does, the circumstances do for
him or he is content to copy from the deeds of others. But
Bonaparte with official phrases about order, religion, family
and property in public, before the citizens and with the secret
society of the Schufterles and Spiegelbergs, the society of
disorder, prostitution and theft, behind him - that is Bonaparte
himself as original author, and the history of the Society of
December 10 is his own history. Now it had happened by way of
exception that people's representatives belonging to the Party of
Order came under cudgels of the Decembrists. A parliamentary
enquiry into the Society of December I 0, that is, the profanation
of the Bonaparte's secret world, seemed inevitable. Just before the
meeting of the National Assembly providently disbanded his
249
society, naturally only on paper, for in a detailed memoir at the
end of 1851 Police Prefect Carlies still sought in vain to move him
to really break up the Decembrists.

The Society of December 10 was to remain the private

army of Bonaparte until he succeeded in transforming the public
army into a Society of December 10. Bonaparte made the first
attempt at this shortly after the adjournment of the National
Assembly, and precisely with the money just wrested from it. As a
fatalist he lives in the conviction that there are certain higher
powers which man and the soldiers in particular, cannot
withstand. Among these power he counts, first and foremost,
cigars and champagne, cold poultry and garlic sausage.
Accordingly, to begin with he treats officers and non -
commissioned officers in his Elyse apartments to cigars and
champagne, to cold poultry and garlic sausage. On October 3 he
repeats this manoeuvre with the mass of the troops at the St. Maur
review, and on October 10 the same manoeuvre on still larger
scale at the Saxony army parade. The uncle remembered the
campaigns of Alexander in Asia, the nephew the triumphal
marches of Bacchus in the same land. Alexander was a demigod,
to be sure, but Bacchus was a god and moreover the tutelary deity
of the Society of December 10.

(Marx - The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte - MECW - Vol.11-

pp. 148/ 151(1852)

Conquering the Nature

It is the working millions of Great Britain who first have
laid down the real basis of new society - modern industry which
transformed the destructive agencies of nature into the productive
250
power of man. The English working class, with invincible
energies, by the sweat of their brows and brains, have called to
life the material means of ennobling labour itself, and of
multiplying its fruits to such a degree as to make general
abundance possible.

By creating the inexhaustible productive powers they have

fulfilled the first condition of the emancipation of labour. They
have now to realise its other condition. They have to free those
wealth producing powers from the infamous shackles of
monopoly, and subject them to the joint control of the producers,
who, till now, allowed the very products of their hands to tum
against them and be transformed into as many instruments of their
own subjugation.

The labouring classes have conquered nature; they have

now to conquer man. To succeed in this attempt they do not want
strength, but the organisation of the labouring classes on national
scale .
(Marx Letter to the Labour Parliament - MECW- Vol. 13-pp.57/58
(9 March 1845)

British Constitution
This British constitution, what is but a superannuated
compromise, by which the general governing power is abandoned
to some sections of the middle class, on condition that the whole
of the real Government, the Executive in all its details, even to the
executive department of the legislative power- or that is the
actual law making in the two Houses of Parliament is secured to
the landed aristocracy? This aristocracy which, subject to general

251
principles laid down by the middle class, rules supreme in the
Cabinet, the Parliament, the Administration, the Army and the
Navy-- this very important half of the British constitution has now
been obliged to sign its own death warrant. It has been compelled
to confess its incapacity any longer to govern England. Ministry
after ministry is formed, only to dissolve itself after a few weeks'
reign. The crisis is permanent; The Government is but provisional.
All political action is suspended: nobody professed to do more
than to keep the political machine greased well enough to prevent
it from stopping. That pride of the constitutional Englishmen, the
House of common itself is brought to a dead stand. It knows itself
no longer, since it is split up in numberless factions, attempting all
the arithmetical combinations and variations, of which a given
number of units is capable. It can no longer recognise itself in the
various Cabinets, which it makes in its own image, for no other
purpose than to unmake them again. The bankruptcy is complete.
(Marx - The Crisis In England - MECW- Vol.I4 pp.59/60 (March
2, 1855)

Parliamentary Quorum
One of the most curious of English parliamentary devices
is the count out. What is the count out? If less than 40 members
are present in the Lower House, they do not form a quorum, that
is, an assembly competent to adopt resolutions. If a motion is
introduced by an independent parliamentarian, which is equally
irksome to both orligarchical factions, the Ins and Outs (those in
office and those in opposition), they come to an agreement that on
the day of the debate parliamentarians from both sides will
gradually slip off, alias absent themselves. When the emptying of

252
the benches has reached the necessary maximum, the government
whip, that is, the parliamentarian entrusted with party discipline
by the ministry of the day, then tips the wink to a brother
previously chosen for this purpose. The brother parliamentarian
gets up and quite nonchalantly requests the chairman to have the
House counted. The counting takes place and, behold, it is
discovered that there are less than 40 members assembled. Here
with the proceedings come to an end. The obnoxious motion is got
rid of with the government party or the opposition party having
put itself in the awkward and compromising position of being
obliged to vote it down.
(Marx A Suppressed Debate on Mexico -- MECW - Vol. 16- p.223 ( 1859)

Panslavism
Panslavism as a political theory has had its most lucid
and philosophic expression to in the writings of Count Gurowski.
But that learned and distinguished publicist, while regarding
Russia as the natural pivot around which the destinies of this
numerous and vigorous branch of the human family can alone find
a large historical development, did not conceive of Panslavism as
a league against Europe and European civilisation. In his view the
legitimate outlet for the expensive force of Slavonic energies was
Asia. As compared with the stagnant desolation of that old
continent, Russia is a civilising power, and her contact could not
be other than beneficial. This manly and imposing generalisation
has, however, not been accepted by all the inferior minds which
have adopted its fundamental idea. Panslavism has assumed a
variety of aspects; and now, at last, we find it employed in a new
form; and with great apparent effect, as a warlike threat.
(Marx Austria's Weakness - MECW-Vol. I4 - pp.689/90

253
 Fanciful Victories

General Clausewitz, in his work on the Austrian-French

campaign of 1799, remarks that the reason why Austria was so
often defeated was that its battle plans, strategically as well as
tactically, were designed not so much for actually winning the
victory as for exploiting the anticipated victory. Turning the
enemy on both flanks, encirclement, dispersion of one's own army
to the most distant places in order to block all the places where the
enemy, already imagined as defeated, might hide those and similar
measures for exploiting the fanciful victory were in every case the
most practical way of ensuring defeat. What was true of Austria's
way of waging war holds good for Prussia's diplomacy .... Prussia
undoubtedly strove to play a big role with low cost of production.

(Marx - Quid Pro Quo MECW Vol. 16- P. 445 (Aug 1859)

MilitaryAffairs
As to politics, I should mix them up as little as possible
with military criticism. There is but one good line of policy in
war; to go at it with the greatest rapidity and energy, to beat your
opponent, and force him to submit to your terms. If the allied
governments do this I should acknowledge it, if they should
cripple or tie the hands of their commanders, I should speak out
against it. I do wish the Russians may get a good beating, but if
they fight well, I am that much of a soldier, that I should give the
devil his due. For the remainder, I should stick to the principle,
that military science, like mathematics or geography, has no
particular political opinion.
(Engels to H.J. Lincoln - MECW- Vol.39 -p. 425)

254
 Society
What is society, irrespective of its form? The product of
man's interaction upon man. Is man free to choose this or that
form of society? By no means. If you assume a given state of
development of man's productive faculties, you will have a
corresponding form of commerce and consumption. If you assume
given stages of development in production, commerce or
consumption, you will have a corresponding form of social
constitution, a corresponding organisation, whether of the family,
of the estates or of the classes or in a word, a corresponding civil
society. If you assume this or that civil society, you will have this
or that political system, which is but the official expression of
civil society. This is something Mr. Proudhon will never
understand, for he imagines he is doing something great when he
appeals from the state to civil society, i.e., to official society from
the official epitome of society.

Needless to say, man is not free to choose his productive

forces upon which his whole history is based for every
productive force is an acquired force, the product of previous
activity. Thus the productive forces are the result of man's
practical energy, but that energy is in turn circumscribed by the
conditions in which man is placed by the productive forces
already acquired by the form of society which exists before him,
which he does not create, which is the product of the preceding
generation. The simple fact that every succeeding generation finds
productive forces acquired by the preceeding generation and
which serve it as the raw material of further production, engenders

255
a relatedness in the history of man, engenders a history of
mankind, which is all the more a history of mankind as man's
productive forces, and hence his social relations, have expanded.
From this it can only be concluded that the social history of man is
never anything else than the history of his individual
development, whether he is conscious of this or not. His material
relations forms the basis of all his relations. This material
relations are but the necessary forms in which his material and
individual activity is realized.

. . . Man never renounces what has gained, but this does not
mean that he never renounces the form of society in which he has
acquired certain productive forces. On the contrary.If he is not to
be deprived of the results obtained or to forfeit the fruits of
civilisation, man is compelled to change all his traditional social
fonns as soon as the mode of commerce ceases to correspond to
the productive forces acquired... Thus, the economic fonns in
which man produces, consumes and exchanges are transitory and
historical. With the acquisition of new productive faculties man
changes his mode of production and with the mode of production
he changes all the economic relations which were but the
necessary relations of that particular mode of production.

It is this that Mr. Proudhon has failed to understand, let

alone demonstrate. Unable to follow the real course of history,
Mr. Proudhon provides a phantasmagoria which he has the
presumption to present as a dialectical phantasmagoria. He no
longer feels any need to speak of the seventeenth, eighteenth or
nineteenth centuries, for his history takes place in the nebulous
realm of the imagination and soars high above time and place. In a

256
word, it is Hegelian trash, it is not history, it is not profane history
- history of mankind, but sacred history history of ideas. As
seen by him, man is but the instrument used by the idea or eternal
reason in order to unfold itself. The evolutions of which Mr.
Proudhon speaks are presumed to be evolutions such as take place
in the mystical bosom of the absolute idea. If the veil of this
mystical language be rent, it will be found that what Mr. Proudhon
gives us is the order in which economic categories are arranged
within his mind. It would require no great effort on my part to
prove to you that this arrangement is the arrangement of a very
disorderly mind.

( Marx to Annenkov-- MECW-- Vol.38 pp. 96/97 (28- 12- 1846

Party
As long as we again have the opportunity the first time
in ages - to show that we need neither popularity, nor the support
of any party in any country, and that our position is completely
independent of such ludicrous trifles. From now on we are only
answerable for ourselves and, come the time when then gentry
need us, we shall be in a position to dictate our own terms. Until
then we shall at least have some peace and quiet... How can
people like us, who shun official appointments like the plague, fit
into a 'party'? And what have we, who spit on popularity, who
don't know what to make of ourselves if we show signs of
growing popular, to do with a 'party'? i.e., a herd ofjackasses who
swear by us because they think we are of the same kidney as they?
Truly, it is no less if we are no longer held to be the right and
adequate expression of the ignorant curs with whom we have been
thrown together over the past few years?
257
 A revolution is a purely natural phenomenon which is
subject to physical laws rather than to the rules that determine the
development of society in ordinary times. Or rather, in revolution,
these rules assume a much more physical character, the material
force of necessity makes itself more strongly felt. And as soon as
one steps forward as the representative of a party, one is dragged
into this whirlpool of irresistible natural necessity. By the mere
fact of keeping oneself Independent, being in the nature of
things more revolutionary than the others, one is able at least for a
time to maintain one's independence from this whirlpool,
although one does, of course, end up by being dragged into it.
This is the position we can and must adopt on the next
occasion. Not only no official government appointments but also,
and for as long as possible, no official party appointments, no
seat on committees, etc., no responsibility for jackasses, merciless
criticism of everyone, and, besides, that serenity of which all the
conspiracies of blockheads cannot deprive us.
And this much we are able to do. We can always, in the
nature of things, be more revolutionary than the phrase- mongers
because we have learnt our lesson and they have not, because we
know what we want and they do not, and because after what we
have seen for the last three years, we shall take it a great deal
more coolly than anyone who has an interest in the business.

(Marx to Engels- MECW - Vol. 38-p. 290- February 23, 1851)

Polemics
.. To give up fighting our adversaries in the political field
would mean to abandon one of the most powerful means of
258
struggle, particularly m the sphere of organisation and
propaganda. Universal suffrage provides us with an excellent
means of struggle. In Germany the workers, firmly organised as a
political party, have succeeded in sending six deputies to the so-
called national representation; and the opposition which our
friends Bebel and Liebknecht have been able to offer there against
a war of conquest has worked more powerfully in the interest of
our international propaganda than meetings and years of
propaganda in the press would have. At present in France too
workers representatives have been elected and would loudly
proclaim our principles. At the next elections the same thing will
happen in England.
(Engels to Spanish Federal Council Marx Engels- Selected
Correspondence-pp. 260)

The State andAnarchism

.... Bakunin maintains that it is the state which has capital,

that the capitalist has his capital only by the grace of the state.
As, therefore, the state is the chief evil, it is above all the state
which must be done away with and then capitalism will go to
blazes of itself. We, on the contrary say:

Do away with capital, the concentration of all means of

production in the hands of the few, and the state will fall of itself.
The difference is an essential one: Without a previous social
revolution the abolition of the state is nonsense; abolition of
capital is precisely the social revolution and involves a change in
the whole mode of production. Now then, inasmuch as to Bakunin
the state is the main evil, nothing must be done which can keep

259
the state - that is, any state, whether it be a republic, monarchy or
anything else alive. Hence complete abstention from all
politics. To commit a political act, especially to take part in an
election, would be a betrayal of principle. The thing to do is to
carry on propaganda, heap abuse upon the state, organise, and
all the workers, hence the majority, are won over, depose all the
authorities, abolish the state, and replace it with the organisation
of the International. This great act, with which the millennium
begins, is called social liquidation.

All this sounds extremely radical and is so simple that it

can be learnt by heart in five minutes; that is why the Bakuninist
theory has speedily found favor also in Italy and Spain among
young lawyers, doctors and other doctrinaires. But the mass of the
workers will never allow itself to be persuaded that the public
affairs of their countries are not also their own affairs; they are
naturally politically-minded and whoever tries to make them
believe that they should leave politics alone will in the end be left
in the lurch. To preach to the workers that they should in all
circumstances abstain from politics is to drive them into the anns
of the priests or the bourgeois republicans.

(Engels to T. Cuno- Marx - Engels Selected Correspondence-

pp.273/74-January 24. 1872)

Unity
One must not allow oneself to be misled by the cry for
unity"". Those who have this word most often on their lips are the

260
ones who sow the most dissension, just as at present the Jura
Bakuninists in Switzerland, who have provoked all the splits,
clamour for nothing so much as for unity. These unity fanatics are
either people of limited intelligence who want to stir everything
into one nondescript brew, which, the moment it is left to settle,
throws up differences again but in much sharper contrast because
they will then be all in one pot. .. or else they are people who
unconsciously or consciously want to adulterate the movement.
For this reason the biggest sectarians and the biggest brawlers and
rouges at times shout loudest for unity. Nobody in our lifetime has
given us more trouble and been more treacherous than the
shouters for unity.

Naturally every party leadership wants to see successes,

and this is quite a good thing. But there are circumstances in
which one must have the courage to sacrifice momentary success
for more important things. Especially for a party like ours, whose
ultimate success is so absolutely certain, and which has developed
so enormously in our own lifetime and before our own eyes,
momentary success is by no means always and absolutely
necessary. Take the International, for instance. After the
Commune it had a colossal success. The bourgeois, struck all of a
heap, ascribed omnipotence to it. The great mass of the
membership believed things would stay like for eternity. We knew
very well that the bubble must burst. All the riff-raff attached
themselves to it. The sectarians within it became arrogant and
misused the International in the hope that the meanest and most
stupid actions would be permitted them. We did not allow that.
Knowing well that the bubble must burst some time our concern

261
was not to delay the catastrophe but to take care that the
International emerged from it pure and unadulterated.
(Engels to A.Bebel- Selected Correspondence -pp.283/84-June 20, 1873)

The Peoples' State

The " peoples" state has been thrown in our faces by the
Anarchists to the point of disgust, although already Marx's book
against Proudhon and later the Communist Manifesto directly
declare that with the introduction of the socialist order of society
the state will dissolve of itself and disappear. As, therefore, the
state is only a transitional institution which is used in the
struggle, in the revolution, to hold down one's adversaries by
force, it is pure nonsense to talk of a free people's state: so long
as the proletariat still uses the state, it does not use it in the
interest offreedom but ill order to hold down its adversaries, and
as soon as it becomes possible to speak offreedom the state as
such ceases to exist .
(Engels to Beble - Selected Correspondence -pp. 293/94-March 18-28
, 1875)

Personality Cult

Neither of us cares a straw for popularity. A proof of

this is, for example, that, because of aversion to any personality
cult, I have never permitted the numerous expressions of
appreciation from various countries, with which I was pestered
during the existence of the International, to reach the realm of
publicity and have never answered them, except occasionally by a
rebuke. When Engels and I joined the secret Communist Society
we made it a condition that everything tending to encourage

262
superstitious belief in authority was to be removed from the
statute.
(Mark to W. Blos- Selected Correspondence- p.310-November I 0,
1877)

Sects
The International was founded in order to replace the
socialist or semi-socialist sects by a real organisation of the
working class for struggle. The original Rules and the Inaugural
Address show this at a glance. On the other hand the International
could not have maintained itself if the course of history had not
. already smashed sectarianism. The development of socialist
sectarianism and that of the real working-class movement always
stand in inverse ratio to each other. Sects are justified
(historically) so long as the working class is not yet ripe for an
independent historical movement. As soon as it has attained this
maturity all sects are essentially reactionary. Nevertheless, what
history exhibits everywhere was repeated in the history of the
International. What is antiquated tries to re-establish itself and
maintains its position within the newly acquired form.

(Marx to F. Bolte- Selected Correspondence- p. 269- November 23, 1871)

Sectarianism
.......Moreover, like everyone who maintains that he has
a panacea for the sufferings of the masses in his pocket, he
(Lassalle), gave his agitation from the outset a religious and
sectarian character. Every sect is in fact religious. Furthermore,
just because he was the founder of a sect, he denied all natural
connection with the earlier working class movement, both inside
263
 and outside of Germany. He fell into the same mistake as
Proudhon: instead of looking among the genuine elements of
the class movementfor the real basis ofhis agitation, he wanted
to prescribe the course to be followed by this movement
according to a certain doctrinaire recipe.

Most of what I am now saying, post factum, I had already

told Lassalle in 1862, when he came to London and urged me to
place myself with him at the head of the new movement.

You yourself have experienced in your own person the

opposition between the movement of a sect and the movement of
a class. The sect sees the justification for its existence and its point
of honour not in what it has in common with the class movement
but in the particular shibboleth which distinguishesit from the
movement....

Instead of this you actually demanded of the class

movement that it should subordinate itself to the movement of a
particular sect. Those who are not your friends have concluded
from this that whatever happens you want to preserve your 'own
workers' movement."

(Marx to J.B. Schweitzer - Selected Correspondence pp. 214/15 (October

13,1868)

Parliamentary Wisdom
... But these shallow people (I mean the governmental
men) stultified by their own parliamentary ways of talking and
thinking, do not even desire to see clear, to realise the whole
264
extent of the imminent danger! To delude others and by deluding
them to delude yourself this is; parliamentary wisdom in a
nutshell! Tant Mieux! (So much the better.)

(Marx to N.F. Danielson Selected Correspondence- p. 337-

February 19, 1881)

The International
It is my conviction that the critical juncture for a new
international workingmen's association has not yet arrived and for
this reason I regard all worker's congresses or socialist
congresses, in so far as they are not directly related to the
conditions existing in this or that particular nation, as not merely
useless but actually harmful. They will always fade away mn
innumerable stale, general banalities.
(Marx to V .I. Sasulich Selected Correspondence p.339 (March 8, 1881)

Socialism and Pseudo Socialism

To describe every interference of the state in free
competition protective tariffs, guilds, tobacco monopoly,
nationalisation of branches of industry, the Seehandlung, the
Royal porcelain factory as ''socialism'' is a sheer falsification by
the Manchester bourgeoisie in their own interests. We should
criticise this but not believe it. If we do the latter and develop a
theory on the basis of this belief our theory will collapse together
with its premises upon simple proof that this alleged socialism is
nothing but, on the one hand, feudal reaction and, on the other, a
pretext for squeezing out money, with the subordinate intention of
converting as many proletarians as possible into officials and
pensioners dependent upon the state of organising alongside of the

265
disciplined army of soldiers and civil officials a similar army of
workers. Pressure on voters exercised by superiors in the state
apparatus instead of by factory overseers- a fine sort of
socialism! but that's where you get if you believe the bourgeoisie
what they don't believe themselves but only pretend to believe:
that the state means socialism ... "
(Engels to E.Bernstein Selected Correspondence p.340- March 12, 1881)

United Fronts
You reject on principle any and every collaboration, even
the most transient, with other parties. I am enough of a
revolutionary not to allow even this means to be absolutely
forbidden to me when under the circumstances it is the more
advantageous or at least the less harmful way.

We are agreed on this; that the proletariat cannot conquer

its political domination, the only door to the new society, without
violent revolution. For the proletariat to be strong enongh to win
on the decisive day it must- and this Marx and I have been
arguing ever since 1847-- form a separate party distinct from all
others and opposed to them, a conscious class party.

But that does not mean that this party cannot at certain
moments use other parties for its purposes. Nor does this mean
that it cannot support parties for short periods in securing
measures which either are directly advantageous to the
proletariat or represent progress by way of economic
development or politicalfreedom. Whoever wages a real struggle
in Germany for the abolition of primogeniture and other feudal

266
survivals, of the bureaucracy, protective tariffs, the Anti-Socialist
Law, of restrictions on the right of assembly and organisation will
be getting my support. If our German Progressive Party or your
Danish Venstre were real radical bourgeois parties and did not
simply consist of wretched windbags who take to the bushes at the
first threat of a Bismarck or Estrup, I would by no means be
absolutely opposed to any and every momentary collaboration
with them for definite purposes. When our deputies cast their
votes for a proposal which was submitted by the other side - and
that they have to do often enough this is accounted
collaboration. But I am for this only if the historical development
of the country in the direction of the economic and political
revolution is indisputable and worthwhile; and provided that the
proletarian class character of the party is not jeopardized
thereby. For me this is the absolute limit. You find this policy set
forth as early as 1847 in the Communist Manifesto; we pursued
it in 1848; in the International everywhere.
(Engels to G.Trier - Selected Correspondence - pp. 408/09 (December 1889)

Fabians
You see something unfinished in the Fabian Society. On
the contrary, this crowd is only too finished, a clique of bourgeois
Socialists' of diverse calibres, from careerists to sentimental
Socialists and philanthropists, united only by their fear of the
threatening rule of the workers and doing all in their power to
spike this danger by making their own leadership secure, the
leadership exercised by the' eddicated' '. If afterward they
admit a few workers in to their central board in order that they
may play their the role of the worker Albert of 1848, the role of
constantly outvoted minority, this should not deceive any one.
267
 The means employed by the Fabian Society are just the
same as those of the corrupt parliamentary politicians: money,
intrigues, careerism. That is, the English way, according to which
it is self-understood that every political party ( only among the
workers it is supposed to be different!) pays its agents in someway
or other or reward them with posts. These people are immersed up
to their necks in the intrigues of the Liberal party, hold Liberal
party jobs, as for instance Sidney Webb, who in general is a
genuine British politician. These gentry do everything that the
workers have to be warned against.

In spite of all these I do not ask you to treat these people as

enemies. Neither ought you in my opinion to shield them from
criticism, just as you don't shield anybody else. (Engels to K.
Kautsky- Selected Correspondence- pp.447/48-september 4, 1892)

United Action - Yes;

Coalition Government - No

Evidently it is not our business directly to prepare a

movement which strictly speaking, is not a movement of the class
we represent. If the republicans and radicals believe the hour for
action has struck, let them give free rein to their impetuosity. As
for ourselves we have been deceived too often by the high-
sounding promises of these gentlemen to let ourselves be taken in
once more. Neither their proclamations nor their conspiracies need
move us in the least. If we are obliged to support every real
popular movement we are no less obliged to see that the scarcely

268
formed nucleus of our party is not sacrified in vain and that the
proletariat is not decimated in futile local revolts.

But if on the contrary the movement is genuinely national

our people will not stay in biding nor will they need a
password .... At such time however it must be clearly understood,
and we must loudly proclaim it, that we are participating as an
independent party, allied for the moment with radicals and
republicans but wholly distinct from them; that we entertain no
illusions whatever as to the result of the struggle in case of
victory; that far from satisfying us this result will only mean to us
another stage won, a new base of operations for further conquests;
that on the very day of victory our ways will part; that from that
day on we shall constitute the new opposition to the new
government, an opposition that is not reactionary but progressive,
the opposition of the extreme Left, which will press on to new
conquests beyond the ground already gained.

After the common victory we might be offered some seats

in the new government, but they will always be a minority. That
is the greatest danger. After February 1848 the French socialist
democrats (of the Reform, Ledru Rollin, Louis Blanc, Flocon,
etc.) made the mistake of accepting such posts. Constituting a
minority in the government they voluntarily shared the
responsibility for all the infamies and treachery which the
majority, composed ofpure Republicans, committed against the
working class, while their presence in the government
completely paralysed the revolutionary action of the working
class which they claimed they represented.
(Engels to F.Turati Selected Correspondence- pp. 471/72- January 26, 1894)

269
 Republic
With respect to the proletariat the republic differs from the
monarchy only in that it is the ready-for-use political form for the
future rule of the proletariat. You are at an advantage compared
with us in already having it; we for our part shall have to spend
twenty four hours to make it. But a republic, like every other
form of government is detennined by its content. So long as it is a
form of bourgeois democracy it is as hostile to us as any
monarchy (except for the forms of this hostility). It is therefore a
wholly baseless illusion to regard it as essentially socialist in form
or to entrust socialist tasks to it while it is dominated by the
bourgeoisie. We shall be able to wrest concessions from it but
never to put in its charge the execution of what is our concern,
even if we should be able to control it by a minority strong enough
to change the majority overnight. ....

(Engels to P. Lafargue - Selected Correspondence -p. 4 72 - ( 1894)

Monogamy

.... (Monogamy) was not in any way the fruit of individual

sex love, with which it had absolutely nothing in common, for the
marriages remained marriages of convenience, as before. It was
the first form of the family based not on natural but on economic
conditions, namely, on the victory of private property over
original, naturally developed common ownership. The rule of the
man in the family, the procreation of children who could only be
his, destined to be the heirs of his wealth - these alone were
frankly avowed by the Greeks as the exclusive aims of
monogamy. For the rest, it was a burden, a duty to the gods, to the
270
state, and to their ancestors, which just had to be fulfilled. In
Athens the law made not only the marriage compulsory, but also
the fulfillment by the man of a minimum of the so-called conjugal
duties.

Thus, Monogamy does not by any means make its

appearance in history as the reconciliation of man and woman,
still less as the highest form of such a reconciliation. On the
contrary, it appears as the subjection of one sex by the other, as
the proclamation of a conflict between the sexes entirely
unknown hitherto in prehistoric times. In an old unpublished
manuscript, the work of Marx and myself in 1846, I find the
following: "The first division of labour is that between man and
woman for child breeding." And today I can add: The first class
antagonism which appears in history coincides with the
development of antagonism between man and woman 1n
monogamian marriage, and the first class oppression with that of
the female sex by the male. Monogamy was a great historical
advance, but at the same time it inaugarated along with slavery
and private wealth, that epoch, lasting until today, in which
every advance is likewise a relative regression, in which the
well-being and development of the one group are attained by the
misery and repression of the other. It is the cellular form of
civilised society, in which we can already study the nature of the
antagonisms and contradictions which develop fully in the latter.

(Engels Origin of Family, Private Property and State- Marx -Engels-

Selected Works- Vol. II- pp. 224/25 (1884

271
 The State
The state is, therefore, by no means a power forced on
society from without; Just as little is it "the reality of the ethical
idea, 'the image and reality of reason'' as Hegel maintains.
Rather, it is a product of society at a certain stage of development;
it is the admission that this society has become estranged in an
insoluble contradiction with itself, that it is cleft into
irreconcilable antagonisms which it is powerless to dispel. But in
order that these antagonisms, classes with conflicting economic
interests, might not consume themselves and society in sterile
struggle, a power seemingly standing above society
became necessary for the purpose of moderating the conflict, of
keeping it within the bounds of "order"; and this power, arisen
out of society, but placing itself above it, and increasingly
alienating itseljfrom, is the state.

In contradistinction to the old' gentile organization, the

state, first, divides its subjects according to territory. As we have
seen, the old gentile associations, built upon and held together by
ties of blood, became inadequate, largely because they
presupposed that the members were bound to a given territory, a
bond which had long ceased to exist. The territory remained, but
the people had become mobile. Hence, division according to
territory was taken as the point of departure, and citizens were
allowed to exercise their public rights and duties wherever they
settled, irrespective of gens and tribe. This organization of citizens
according to locality is a feature common to all states. That is why
it seems natural to us .

272
 The second is the establishment of a public power which
no longer directly coincided with the population organizing itself
as an armed force. This special public power is necessary, because
a self-acting armed organisation of the population has become
impossible since the cleavage into classes .... This public power
exists in every state; it consists not merely of armed people but
also of material adjuncts, prisons and institutions of coercion of all
kinds, of which gentile society knew nothing. It may be very
insignificant, almost infinitesimal, in societies where class
antagonisms are still undeveloped and in out-of-the-way places as
was the case at certain times and in certain regions in the United
States of America. It grows stronger, however, in proportion as
class antagonisms within the state become more acute and as
adjacent states become larger and more populated ....

As the state arose from the need to hold class

antagonisms in check, but as it arose, at the same time, in the
midst of the conflict of these classes, it is, as a rule, the state of
the most powerful, economically dominant class, which, through
the medium of the state, becomes also the politically dominant
class, and thus acquires new means of holding down and
exploiting the oppressed class ... By way of exception, however,
periods occur in which the warring classes balance each other so
nearly that the state power, as ostensible mediator, acquires, for
the moment, a certain degree of independence of both.

(Engels Origin of Family, Private Property and State- Marx Engels

Selected Works-Vol. II-pp. 318-( 1884)

273
 Petty- Bourgeoisie
The petty bourgeoisie, great in boasting, is very impotent
for action and very shy in risking anything. The mesquin
(niggardly) character of its commercial transactions and its credit
operations is eminently apt to stamp, its character with a want of
energy and enterprise; it is, then to be expected that similar
qualities will mark its political career. Accordingly, the petty
bourgeoisie encouraged insurrection by big words and great
boasting as to what it as going to do; it was eager to seize upon
power as soon as the insurrection, much against its will, had
broken out; it used this power to no other purpose, but to destroy
the effects of insurrection. Wherever an armed conflict
had brought matters to a serious crisis, there the shopkeepers
stood aghast at the dangerous situation createdfor them; aghast
at the people ho had taken their boasting appeals to arms in
earnest; aghast at the power thus thrust into their own hands;
aghast, above all, at the consequences for themselves, for their
social positions, for their fortunes, of the policy in which they
were forced to engage themselves. Were they not expected to risk
"life and property" as they used to say, for the cause of the
insurrection? Were they not forced to take official positions in the
insurrection, whereby, in case of defeat, they risk the loss of their
capital? And in case of victory, were they not sure to be
immediately turned out of office and see their entire policy
subverted by the victorious proletarians who formed the main
body of their fighting army? Thus placed between opposing
dangers which surrounded them on every side, the petty
bourgeoisie knew not to tum its power to any other account than
to let everything take its chance, whereby, of course, there was

274
lost what little chance of success there might have been, and thus
to ruin the insurrection altogether.
(Engels Revolution and counter Revolution in Germany - MECW Vol.1I-
P.89 (1850)

Peasants
The small-holding peasants form a vast mass, the members
of which live in similar conditions but without entering into the
manifold relations with one another. Their mode of production
isolates them from one another instead of bringing them into
mutual intercourse. The isolation is increased by France's bad
means of communication and by the poverty of the peasants.
Their field of production, the smallholding, admits of no division
of labor in its cultivation, no application of science and therefore,
no diversity of development, no variety of talent, no wealth of
social relationships. Each individual peasant family is almost self-
sufficient; it itself directly produces the major part of its
consumption and thus acquires its means of life more through
exchange with nature than in intercourse with society. A small-
holding, a peasant and his family; alongside them another
smallholding, another peasant and another family; A few score
ofthese make up a village, and a few score of villages make up a
department. In this way, the great mass of the French nation is
formed by simple addition of homologous magnitudes, much as
potatoes in a sack form a sack ofpotatoes. Insofar as millions of
families live under economic condition of existence that separate
their mode of life, their interests and their culture from those of
the other classes, and put them in hostile opposition to the latter,
they fonn a class. Insofar as there is merely a local
interconnection among these small-holding peasants, and the

275
 identity of their interests begets no community, no national bond
and no political organisation among them, they do not fonn a
class. They are consequently incapable of enforcing their class
interests in their own name, whether through a parliament or
through a convention they cannot represent themselves, they
must be represented. Their representative must at the same time
appear as their master, as an authority over them, as an
unlimited governmental power that protects them against the
other classes and sends them rain and sunshinefrom above. The
political influence of the small-holding peasants, therefore,
finds its final expression in the executive power subordinating
society to itself.

(Marx- The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte- MECW Vol.II-

pp.187/88 (I 850)

Agreements with Bourgeois Parties

In practice, we would have turned out to be a dumb
appendage of the Cadets. Secondly, by entering into an agreement
we would undoubtedly, tacitly or openly and formally - it makes
no difference - have undertaken before the proletariat a certain
amount of responsibility for the Cadets; we would have vouched
for them being better than all others; we would have guaranteed
that their Cadet Duma would help the people; we would have been
responsible for the whole of their Cadet policy. Whether we
would have been able to disclaim any responsibility for any
particular steps taken by the Cadets, by means of subsequent
"declarations", is an open question; and besides, the declarations

276
would have remained mere declarations, whereas the election
agreement would have remained a fact.
(Victory of Cadets and the Tasks of Worker's Party - Lenin - Collected Works -
Vol. 10 p. 236-1906)

Electoral Agreements
The Menshevik's main argument is the Black Hundred
danger. The first and fundamental flaw in this argument is that the
Black Hundred danger cannot be combated by Cadet tactics and a
Cadet policy. The essence of this policy lies in reconciliation
with Tsarism, that is, with Black Hundred danger ... Therefore,
by helping to elect Cadets to the Duma, the Mensheviks are not
only failing to combat the Black Hundred danger, but are
hoodwinking the people, are obscuring the real significance of the
Black Hundred danger. Combating the Black Hundred danger by
helping to elect the Cadets to the Duma is like combating pogroms
by means of the speech delivered by the lackey Rodichev .....

The second flaw in this stock argument is that it means

that the Social - Democrats tacitly surrender hegemony in the
democratic struggle to the Cadets. In the event of a split vote that
secures the victory of a Black Hundred, why should we be blamed
for not having voted for the Cadet, and not the Cadets for not
having voted for us. "We are in a minority", answer the
Mensheviks, in a spirit of Christian humility. "The cadets are
more numerous. You cannot expect the Cadets to declare
themselves revolutionaries."

Yes! But that is no reason why Social Democrats should

declare themselves Cadet.
277
 But everywhere, in all countries, the first independent
entry of the Social Democrats in an election campaign has been
met by the howling and barking of the liberals, accusing the
socialists of wanting to let the Black Hundreds - By refusing to
fight the Cadets you are leaving under the ideological influence of
the Cadets masses of proletarians and semi-proletarians who are
capable of following the lead of social Democrats. Now or later,
unless you cease to be socialists, you will have to fight
independently, in spite of the Black Hundred danger. And it is
easier and more necessary to take the right step now than it will be
later on.... But for the Mensheviks the most important thing is a
solid Cadet Duma with a large number of Social-Democrats
elected as Semi-Cadets. Two types of Duma:200 Black
Hundreds, 280 Cadets and 20 Social-Democrats; or 400 Cadets
and 100 Social Democrats. We prefer first type and we think it is
childish to imagine that the elimination ofBlack Hundreds from
the Duma means the elimination of the Black Hundred danger.

(Blocks with the Cadets - Lenin - Collected Works - Vol. II - pp.

313/14 (1906)

Real BlackHundred Danger

So you reduce the Black Hundred danger to the danger of
a Black Hundred victory in elections faked by the government!
Cannot you understand, gentlemen, that by putting the question in
this way, you are admitting that the government is already
victorious, that the cause of liberty, which you prattle about so
much, is already lost? You yourself do not see, and you are
preventing the masses of the people from seeing the real Black
Hundred danger, which is manifested not in the voting, but in the
278
definition of the conditions of voting .... , in the nullification of the
results of voting (the dissolution of the Duma). You are entirely
adopting the vulgar liberal point of view and are concentrating
your minds - and the minds of the mass of the people whom you
are misleading on a struggle within the limits of a fake law which
is being still further faked ... By instilling into the minds of the
people the idea that the Black Hundred danger is the danger of
an increased Black Hundred vote, you are perpetuating the
ignorance of the most backward masses as to the real source
and real nature of the Black Hundred danger.
(When You Hear the Judgment ofa Fool - Lenin - Collected Works - Vol. I1--
p. 46 I ( 1907)

No Permanent Agreements
No, gentlemen, we shall not even discuss permanent
agreements, or co-ordinated action in general. You must first
agree with us on the policy of fighting both the Black Hundreds
and the Cadets - agree in deed. That is our ultimatum. That is our
line of policy in the democratic revolution. We shall declare in
regard to any question arising in the present revolution, as we
declared during the St. Petersburg elections the proletariat goes
unhesitatingly into battle both against the Black Hundreds and
against the Cadets.

(Petty Bourgeois Tactics - Lenin - Collected Works - Vol. 12 - pp. 166/67

(1907)
Coalition Governments
Revolution enlightens all classes with a rapidity and
thoroughness unknown in normal, peaceful times. The capitalists
better organised and more experienced than anybody else in

279
matters of class struggle and politics, learnt their lesson quicker
than the others. Realising that the government's position was
hopeless, they resorted to a method which for many decades, ever
since I 848, has been practiced by the capitalists of other countries
in order to fool, divide and weaken the workers. The method is
known as a"coalition" government, i.e., a joint cabinet formed
of members of the bourgeoisie and turncoats from socialism.
In countries where freedom and democracy have long
existed side by side with a revolutionary labour movement, in
Britain and France, the capitalists have repeatedly and very
successfully resorted to this method. When the "socialist" leaders
entered a bourgeois cabinet, they invariably proved to be
figureheads, puppets, screens for the capitalists, instrument for
deceiving the workers. The "democratic and republican"
capitalists of Russia resorted to this very method. The socialist -
Revolutionaries and Mensheviks let themselves be fooled at once,
and the "coalition" cabinet joined by Chernov, Tsereteli and co.,
became a fact on May 6.

The simpletons of the Socialist Revolutionary and

Menshevik parties were jubilant and fatuously bathed in the
rays of the ministerial glory of their leaders. The capitalists
gleefully rubbed their hands at having found helpers against
the people in the persons of the "leaders of the Soviets" and at
having secured their promise to support "offensive operations at
the front", i.e., a resumption of the imperialist predatory war,
which had come to a standstill for a while. The capitalists were
well aware of the puffed-up impotence of these leaders, they knew
that the promises of the bourgeoisie- regarding control over

280
production, and even the organization of production, regarding a
peace policy, and so forth would never be fulfilled...

While Peslzekhonov and Skobelev were deceiving

themselves and the people with florid speeches to the effect that
one hundred percent of the profits of the capitalists would be
taken away from them, that their "resistance was broken" and
so forth, the capitalists continued to consolidate their position.
Nothing, absolutely nothing, was undertaken during this period
to curb the capitalists. The ministerial turncoats from socialism
proved to be mere talking machines for distracting the attention
of the oppressed class, while tlze entire apparatus of state
administration actually remained in the hands of the
bureaucracy (the officialdom) and the bourgeoisie .....
(Lessons of the Revolution - Lenin - Collected Works - Vol. 25 -
pp. 232/34 ( 1917)

The Logic of Coalition Politics

Down the ladder, step by step. Having once set foot on the
ladder of compromise with the bourgeoisie, the Socialist-
Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, slid irresistibly downwards, to
rock bottom. On February 28, in the Petrograd Soviet, they
promised conditional support to the bourgeois government. On
may 6 they saved it from collapse and allowed themselves to be
made its servants and defenders by agreeing to an offensive. On
June 9 they united with the counter revolutionary bourgeoisie in a
campaign of furious rage, lies and slander against the
revolutionary proletariat. On June 19 they approved the
resumption of the predatory war. On June 3 they consented to the
summoning of reactionary troops, which was the beginning of the
281
 complete surrender of power to the Bonapartists. Down the
ladder, step by step.

This shameful finale of the Social Revolutionary and

Menshevik parties was not fortuitous but a consequence of the
economic status of the small owners, the petty bourgeoisie, as has
been repeatedly borne out by experience in Europe.

(Lessons of the Revolution - Lenin - Collected Works - Vol. 25 - pp.

237/38 (1917)

The Art ofInsurrection

To be successful, insurrection must rely not upon
conspiracy and not upon a party, but upon the advanced class.
That is the first point. Insurrection must rely upon a
revolutionary upsurge of the people. That is the second point.
Insurrection must rely upon that turning point in the history of
the growing revolution when the activity of the advanced ranks of
the people is at its height, and when the vacillations in the ranks
of the enemy and in the ranks of the weak, half-hearted and
irresolute friends of the revolution are strongest. That is the
third point. And these three conditions for raising the question of
insurrection distinguish Marxism from Blanquism.

Once these conditions exist, however, to refuse to treat

insurrection as an art is a betrayal of Marxism and a betrayal of
the revolution.
(Marxism and Insurrection - Lenin - Collected Works - Vol. 26- pp. 22/23
- 19 1 8)

282
 Bourgeois and Peasant Revolutions
Every peasant revolution directed against medievalism,
when the whole of the social economy is of a capitalist nature, is
a bourgeois revolution. But not every bourgeois revolution is a
peasant revolution. If, in a country where agriculture is organised
on fully capitalist lines, the capitalist farmers with the aid of the
hired labourers, were to carry out an agrarian revolution by
abolishing the private ownership of land, for instance, that would
be a bourgeois revolution, but by no means a peasant revolution.
Or if a revolution took place in a country where the agrarian
system had become so integrated with the capitalist economy in
general that system could not be abolished without abolishing
capitalism, and if, say, that revolution put the industrial
bourgeoisie in power in place of the autocratic bureaucracy-that
would be a bourgeois revolution, but by no means a peasant
revolution. In other words, there can be a bourgeois country
without a peasantry, and there can be a bourgeois revolution in
such a country without a peasantry. A bourgeois revolution
may take place in a country with a considerable peasant
population and yet not be a peasant revolution; that is to say, it is a
revolution which does not revolutionize the agrarian relations that
especially affect the peasantry, and does not bring the peasantry to
the fore as a social force that is at all active in creating the
revolution.

(Agrarian Programme of Social Democracy - Lenin - Collected Works -

Vol. 13-pp. 351/52 (1907)

283
 Proletarian Method
The proletarian method is exclusively that of clearing the
path of all that is medieval, clearing it for the class struggle.
Therefore the proletarian can leave it to the small proprietors to
discuss "norms" of landownership; the proletarian is interested
only in the abolition of the landlord latifundia, the abolition of
private ownership of land, that last barrier to the class struggle in
agriculture. In the bourgeois revolution we are interested not in
petty - bourgeois reformism, not in future "nest" of tranquillised
small farmers, but in the conditions for the proletarian struggle
against all petty - bourgeois tranquility on a bourgeois basis.

(Agrarian Programme of Social Democracy - Lenin - Collected Works

- Vol. 13-p. 362 (1907)

Premature Risings
Marx knew how to warn the leaders against a premature
rising. But his attitude towards the heaven-storming proletariat
was that of a practical adviser, of a participant in the struggle of
the masses, who were raising the whole movement to a higher
level in spite of the false theories and mistakes of Blanqui and
Proudhon ...

Kugelmann apparently replied to Marx expressing certain

doubts, referring to the hopelessness of the struggle and to realism
as opposed to romanticism - at any rate, he compared the
Commune, an insurrection, to the peaceful demonstration is Paris
on June 13, 1849.

284
 Marx immediately (April 17, 1871) severely lectured
Kugelmann. "World history", he wrote "would indeed be very
easy to make, if the struggle were taken up only on condition
of infallibly favourable chances."

In September 1870, Marx called the insurrection an act of

desperate folly. But, when the masses rose, Marx wanted to march
with them, to learn with them in the process of the struggle, and
not to give them bureaucratic admonitions. He realized that to
attempt in advance to calculate the chances with complete
accuracy would be quackery or hopeless pedantry. What he
valued above everything else was that the working class
heroically and self-sacrificingly took the initiative in making
world history. Marx regarded world history from the standpoint of
those who make it without being in a position to calculate the
chances infallibly beforehand, and not from the standpoint of an
intellectual philistine who moralizes. "It was easy to foresee ...
they should not have taken up .. "

Marx was also able to appreciate that there are moments in

history when a desperate struggle of the masses, even for a
hopeless cause, is essential for the further schooling of these
masses and their training for the next struggle.
(Lenin- Collected Works- Vol - pp. 111/12)

Bourgeois Democratic Revolution

Marxists are absolutely convinced of the bourgeois
character of the Russian Revolution. What does that mean? It
means that the democratic reform in the political system, and the

285
 social and economic reforms that have become a necessity for
Russia, do not in themselves imply the undermining of capitalism,
the undermining of bourgeois rule; on the contrary, they will, for
the first time, really clear the ground for a wide and rapid,
European and not Asiatic, development of capitalism; they will,
for the first time, make it possible for the bourgeois to rule as a
class. The socialist revolutionaries cannot grasp this idea, for they
do not know the ABC of the laws of development of commodity
and capitalist production; they fail to see that even the complete
success of a peasant insurrection, even the redistribution of the
whole land in favor of the peasants in accordance with their desire
("general redistribution" or something of the kind) will not
destroy capitalism at all, but will, on the contrary, give an impetus
to its development and hasten the class disintegration of the
peasantry itself. Failure to grasp this truth makes the socialist
revolutionaries unconscious ideologists of the petty bourgeois.
Insistence on this truth is of enormous importance for Social
Democracy not only from the standpoint of theory but also from
that of practical politics, for it follows therefrom that complete
class independence of the party of the proletariat in the present
"general democratic" movement is an indispensable condition.
(Two Tactics of Social Democracy in the Democratic Revolution-Lenin-
Collected Works-Vol. 9-p. 48 (1905)

Bourgeois Revolution
A bourgeois revolution which does not depart from the
framework of the bourgeois, i.e., capitalist, socio-economic
system. A bourgeois revolution expresses the deeds of capitalist
development, and, far from destroying the foundations of
capitalism, it affects the contrary - it broadens and deepens them.

286
This revolution, therefore, expresses the interests not only of the
working class but of the entire bourgeoisie as well. Since the rule
of the bourgeoisie over the working class is inevitable under
capitalism, it can well be said that a bourgeois revolution
expresses the interests not so much of the proletariat as of the
bourgeoisie. But it is quite absurd to think that a bourgeois
revolution does not at all express proletarian interests. This
absurd idea boils down either to the hoary Narodnik theory that a
bourgeois revolution runs counter to the interest of the proletariat,
and that therefore, we do not need bourgeois political liberty; or to
anarchism which denies any participation of the proletarian in
bourgeois politics, in a bourgeois revolution and in bourgeois
parliamentarianism.

(Lenin- Collected Works - Vol.9- p49)

Who is not a Revolutionary

A person who is flabby and shaky on questions of theory,
who has a narrow outlook, who pleads the spontaneity of the
masses as an excuse for his own sluggishness, who resembles a
trade union secretary more than a spokesman of the people, who is
unable to conceive of a broad and bold plan that would command
the respect even of opponents and who is inexperienced and
clumsy in his own professional art- the art of combating the
political police such a man is not a revolutionary, but a wretched
amateur!
(What Is To Be Done Lenin - Collected Works- Vol. 5-p.466-
(1902)

287
 Peaceful Development ofa Revolution
The peaceful development of any revolution is generally
speaking, extremely rare and difficult, because revolution is the
maximum exacerbation of the sharpest class contradictions; but a
peasant country, at a time when the proletariat with the peasantry
can give peace to people worn out by a most unjust and criminal
war, when that union can give peasantry all the land , in that
country, at that exceptional moment in history, a peaceful
development of the revolution is possible and probable, if all
power is transferred to the Soviets. The struggle of parties for
power within the soviets may proceed peacefully, if the soviets
are made fully democratic, and petty "thefts" and violations of
democratic principles, such as giving the soldiers one
representative to every five hundred, while the workers have one
Representative to every thousand voters, are eliminated. In a
democratic republic such petty thefts will have to disappear.
(Russian Revolution and Civil War - Lenin - Collected - Works - Vol. 26 -
pp.3637--(1917)

Revolutionary Stratagem

When in February 1918 the German imperialist vultures

hurled their forces against unarmed, demobilized Russia, who had
relied on the international solidarity of the proletariat before the
world revolution had fully matured, I did not hesitate for a
moment to enter into an "agreement" with the French
monarchists. Captain Sadoul, a French army officer who, in
words, sympathized with the Bolsheviks, but was in deeds a loyal
and faithful servant of French imperialism, brought the French

288
officer de Lubersac to see me; "I am not a monarchist. My only
aim is to secure the defeat of Germany" de Lubersac declared to
me. "That goes without saying", I replied. But this did not in the
least prevent me from entering into an "agreement" with de
Lubersac concerning certain services that French army officers,
experts in explosives, were ready to render us by blowing up
railway lines in order to hinder the German invasion. This is an
example of an "agreement" of which every class conscious worker
will approve, an agreement in the interests of socialism. The
French monarchist and I shook hands, although we knew that
each of us would willingly hang his ''partner". But for a time our
interests coincided. Against the advancing rapacious Germans,
we, in the interests of the Russian and the world socialist
revolution utilized the equally rapacious counter-interests of other
imperialists. In this way we served the interests of the working
class of Russia and of other countries, we strengthened the
proletariat and weakened the bourgeoisie of the whole world, we
resorted to the methods, most "legitimate" and essential in every
war, of manoeuver, stratagem, retreat, in anticipation of the
moment when the rapidly maturing proletarian revolution in
number of advanced countries completely matured.

(Letter to American Workers - Lenin Collected Works - Vol. 28-

pp.66-67-(1919)

Strikes
There exists a class of philanthropists, and even of
socialists, who consider strikes as very mischievous to the
interests of the "workingman himself' and whose great aim
consists in finding out a method of securing permanent average
289
 wages. Besides, the fact of the industrial cycles, with its various
phases, putting every such average wages out of the question. I
am, on the contrary, convinced that the alternative rise and fall of
wages, and the continual conflicts between masters and men
resulting therefrom, are, in present organization of industry , the
indispensable means of holding up the spirit of the labouring
classes, of combining them into one great association against the
encroachments of the ruling class, and of preventing them from
becoming apathetic, thoughtless, more or less well-fed
instruments of production. In a state of society founded upon the
antagonism of classes, if we want to prevent slavery in fact as
well as in name, we must accept war. In order to rightly appreciate
the value of strikes and combinations, we must not allow
ourselves to be blinded by the apparent insignificance of their
economical results, but hold, above all things, in view of their
moral and political consequences. Without the great alternative
phases of dullness, prosperity, over-excitement, crisis and
distress, which modem industry traverses in periodically recurring
cycles, with the up and down of wages resulting from them, as
with the constant warfare between masters and men closely
corresponding with those variations in wages and profits, the
working classes of Great Britain, and of all Europe, would be a
heart-broken, a weak-minded, a worn out, unresisting mass,
whose self-emanicipation would prove as impossible as that of the
slaves of Ancient Greece and Rome. We must not forget that
strikes and combinations among the serfs were the hot-beds of the
medieval communes, and that those communes have been in their
tum, the source of life of the now ruling bourgeoise.
(Marx - Russian Policy against Turkey-MECW-Vol. 12-p. 169(1853)

%
* 290 *
 In particular, the Communist Party and all advanced
proletarians must give all-round and unstinted support especially
to the spontaneous and mass strike movement, which, under the
yoke of capital, is alone capable of really rousing, educating and
organising the masses, of imbuing them with complete confidence
in the leadership of the revolutionary proletariat. Without such
preparation, no dictatorship of the proletariat is possible; those
who are capable of publicly opposing strikes, such as Kautsky in
Germany and Turati in Italy, cannot possibly be tolerated in the
rank of parties affiliated to the Third International. This applies
even more, of course to those trade union and parliamentary
leaders who so often betray the workers by using the experience
of strikes to teach them reformism, and not revolution (for
instances, in Britain and in Francs in recent years.)
(Thesis on Comintern's Fundamental Tasks - Lenin - Collected
Works -Vol. 31 -pp. 194/195 (1920)

Certain Terms of Comintern Membership

1. Day-by-day propaganda and agitation must be genuinely

communist in character. All press organs belonging to the parties
must be edited by reliable Communists who have given proof of
their devotion to the cause of the proletarian revolution. The
dictatorship of the proletariat should not be discussed merely as a
stock phrase to be learned by rote; it should be popularized in
such a way that the practical facts systematically dealt with in our
press day by day, will drive home to every rank- and-file working
man and working women, every soldier and peasant, that it is
indispensable to them. Third international supporters should use
all media to which they have access- the press, public meetings,
291
trade unions and cooperative societies - to expose systematically
and relentlessly, not only the bourgeoisie but also its accomplices
- the reformists of every shade.

2. Any organisation that wishes to join the Communist

International must consistently and systematically dismiss
refonnists and "Centrists" from positions of any responsibility in
the working class movement (party organisations, editorial boards,
trade unions, parliamentary groups, co-operative societies,
municipal councils, etc. ) replacing them by reliable Communists.
The fact that in some cases rank-and-file workers may at first have
to replace "experienced" leaders should be no deterrent.

3. In countries where state of siege or emergency legislation

makes it impossible for Communists to conduct their activities
legally, it is absolutely essential that legal and illegal work should
be combined. In almost all the countries of Europe and America
the class struggle is entering the phase of civil war. In these
countries, communists can place no trust in bourgeois legality.
They must everywhere built up a parallel illegal organisation,
which, at the decisive moment, will be in a position to help the
party fulfill its duty to the revolution.

4. Persistent and systematic propaganda and agitation must be

conducted in the armed forces, and the communist cells formed in
every military unit. In the main Communists will have to do this
work illegally; failure to engage in it would be tantamount to a
betrayal of their revolutionary duty and incompatible with
membership in the Third International.

292
5. Regular and systematic agitation is indispensable in the
countryside. The working class cannot consolidate its victory
without support from at least a section of the farm labourers and
poor peasants, and without neutralising, through it policy, part of
the rest of the rural population. In the present period communist
activity in the countryside is of primary importance. It should be
conducted, in the main, through revolutionary worker-communists
who have contacts with the rural areas. To forgo this work or
entrust it to unreliable semi-reformist elements is tantamount to
renouncing the proletarian revolution.

6. It is the duty of any party wishing to belong to the Third

International to expose, not only avowed social-patriotism, but
also the falsehood and hypocrisy of social-pacifism. It must
systematically demonstrate to the workers that, without the
revolutionary overthrow of capitalism, no international arbitration
court, no "democratic" organisation of the League of Nations will
save mankind from new imperialist wars.

7. It is duty of the parties wishing to belong to the Communist

International to recognize the need for a complete and absolute
break with reformism and "Centrist " policy, and to conduct
propaganda among the Party membership for that break. Without
this, a consistent communist policy is impossible.

The Communist International demands imperatively and

uncompromisingly that this break be affected at the earliest
possible date. It cannot tolerate a situation in which avowed
refonnists, such as Turati, Modigliani and others, are entitled to
consider themselves members of the Third International. Such a

293
state of affairs would lead to the Third International strongly
resembling the defunct Second International.

8. Parties in countries whose bourgeoisie possess colonies and

oppress other nations must pursue a most well-defined and clear-
cut policy in respect of colonies and oppressed nations. Any party
wishing to join the Third International must ruthlessly expose the
colonial machinations of the imperialists of its "own" country,
must support - in deed not merely in words - every colonial
liberation movement demands the expulsion of its compatriot
imperialists from the colonies, inculcate in the hearts of the
workers of its own country an attitude of true brotherhood with
the working population of the colonies and oppressed nations, and
conduct systematic agitation among the armed forces against all
oppression of the colonial peoples.

9. It is the duty of any party wishing to join the Communist

International to conduct systematic and unflagging communist
work in the trade unions, co-operative societies and other mass
workers organisations. Communist cells should be formed in the
trade unions, and, by their sustained and unflagging work, win the
unions over to the communist cause. In every phase of their day-
by-day activity these cells must unmask the treachery of the social
-patriots" and the vacillations of the "centrists." The cells must be
completely subordinate to the party as a whole.

10. It is the duty of any party belonging to the Communist

International to wage a determined struggle against the
Amsterdam "International" of yellow trade unions. Its
indefatigable propaganda should show the organised workers the
need to break with the yellow Amsterdam International. It must

294
give every support to the emerging International federation of Red
trade unions, which are associated with the Communist
International.

11. It is the duty of the parties wishing to join the Third

International to re-examine the composition of their parliamentary
groups, eliminate unreliable elements and effectively subordinate
these groups to the party Central Committees. They must demand
that every Communist proletarian should subordinate all his
activities to the interests of truly revolutionary propaganda and
agitation.

(Lenin - Collected Works - Vol. 32 - pp. 207/211 (1920)

Legal and Illegal Revolutionary Work

Inexperienced revolutionaries often think that legal

methods of struggle are wrong ..... But revolutionaries who are
incapable of combining illegal forms of struggle with every form
of legal struggle are poor revolutionaries indeed. It is not difficult
to be a revolutionary when revolution has already broken out and
is in spate, when all people are joining the revolution just because
they are carried away, because it is the vogue, and sometimes
even from careerist motives. After its victory the proletariat has to
make most strenuous efforts, even the most painful, so as to
"liberate" itself from such pseudo-revolutionaries. It is far more
difficult - and far more precious -to be a revolutionary when the
conditions for direct, open, really mass and really revolutionary
struggle do not yet exist, to be able to champion the interests of
the revolution (by propaganda, agitation and organization) in non-
revolutionary bodies, and quite often in downright reactionary

295
 bodies, in a non-revolutionary situation among the masses who
are incapable of immediately appreciating the need for
revolutionary methods of action.
(Left -Wing Communism - An Infantile Disorder - Lenin-Collected
Works-Vol.31 pp.96/97(1920)

Marxist Erudition and

Revolutionary Practice

That which happened to such leaders of the Second

International, such highly erudite Marxists devoted to Socialism
as Kautsky, Otto Bauer and others, could (and should) provide a
useful lesson. They fully appreciated the need for flexible tactics;
They themselves learned Marxist dialectic and taught it to others
and much of what they have done in this field will always remain
a valuable contribution to socialist literature; however, in the
application of this dialectic they committed such an error, or
proved to be so undialectical in practice, the rapid change of
forms and the rapid acquisition of new content by the old forms,
that their fate is not much more enviable than that of Hyndman,
Guesde and Plekhanov. The principal reason for their bankruptcy
was that they were hypnotized by a definite form of growth of the
working class movement and socialism, forgot all about the one-
sidedness of that form, were afraid to see the break-up which
objective conditions made inevitable and continue to repeat
simple and, at first glance, incontestable axioms that had been
learn by rote like: "three is more than two". But politics is more
like algebra than arithmetic, and is more like higher than
elementary mathematics. (Left-Wing-Communism- An Infantile Disorder
- Lenin- Collected Works - Vol. 31-p.102)

296
 The differences between the Churchill's and the Lloyd
Georges, with significant national distinctions, these political
types exists in all countries on the one hand, and between the
Hendersons and Lloyd Georges on the other, are quite minor and
unimportant from the standpoint of pure (i.e. abstract)
communism, i.e. communism that has not yet matured to the stage
of practical political action by the masses, To take due account of
these differences, and to determine the moment when the
inevitable conflicts between these "friends", which weaken and
enfeeble all the "friends" taken together, will have come to a
head - that is the concern, the task, of a communist who wants to
be, not merely a class-conscious and convinced propagandist of
ideas, but a practical leader of the masses in the revolution. It is
necessary to link the strictest devotion to the ideas of communism
with the ability to affect all the necessary practical compromises,
tacks, conciliatory manoeuvres, zigzags, retreats and so on ...
(Left-WingCommunism- An Infantile Disorder - Lenin- Collected Works - Vol.
31-pp.94/95 (1920)

The Fundamental Law ofRevolution

The fundamental law of revolution, which has been
confirmed by all revolutions and especially by all three Russian
revolutions in the twentieth century, is as follows: for a revolution
to take place it is a not enough for the exploited and oppressed
masses to realise the impossibility of living in the old way, and
demand changes: for a revolution to take place it is essential that
the exploiters should not be able to live and rule in the old way. It
is only when the "lower classes" do not want to live in the old
way and the - upper classes cannot carry on in the old way that
the revolution can triumph. This truth can be expressed in other
297
words: revolution is impossible without a nation-wide crisis
(affecting both the exploited and the exploiters.) It follows that,
for a revolution to take place, it is essential, first , that a majority
of the workers (or at least a majority of the class-conscious,
thinking, and politically active workers) should fully realise that
revolution is necessary, and they should be prepared to die for it;
second, that the ruling classes should be going through a
governmental crisis, which draws even the most backward masses
into politics (symptomatic of any genuine revolution is a rapid,
tenfold or even hundredfold increase in the size of the working
and oppressed masses - hitherto apathetic - who are capable of
waging the political struggle), weakens the government, and
makes it possible for the revolutionaries to rapidly overthrow it.
(Left- Wing Communism - An Infantile Disorder Lenin Collected
Works Vol. 31 -pp.84/85 (1920)

No Impossible Situation
Comrades, we have now come to the question of the
revolutionary crisis as the basis of our revolutionary action. And
here we must first of all note two widespread errors. On the one
hand, bourgeois economists depict this crisis simply as "unrest",
to use the elegant expression of the British. On the other hand,
revolutionaries sometimes try to prove that the crisis is absolutely
insoluble.

This is a mistake. There is no such thing as an

absolutely hopeless situation. The bourgeoisie are behaving like
barefaced plunderers who have lost their heads; they are
committing folly after folly, thus aggravating the situation and
hastening their doom. All that is true.But nobody can prove that it
298
is absolutely impossible for them to pacify a minority of the
exploited with some petty concessions, and suppress some
movement or uprising of some section of the oppressed and
exploited. To try to prove in advance that there is absolutely no
way out of the situation would be sheer pedantry, or playing with
concepts and catchwords. Practice alone can serve as real proof
in this and similar questions. All over the world, the bourgeois
system is experiencing a tremendous revolutionary crisis. The
revolutionary parties must now prove in practice that they have
sufficient understanding and organisation, contact with the
exploited masses, and determination and skill to utilise this crisis
for a successful victorious revolution.
(Report on the International Situation and the Fundamental Tasks of the
Communist International - Lenin-Collected Works-Vol. 31-pp. 226/27 (1920)

Forms ofStruggle
.... What are the fundamental demands which every
Marxist should make of an examination of the question of forms
of struggle? In the first place Marxism differs from all primitive
forms of socialism by not binding the movement to any one
particular form of struggle. It recognises the most varied forms
of struggle; and it does not "concoct" them, but only
generalises, organises, gives conscious expression to those
forms of struggle of the revolutionary classes which arise of
themselves in the course of the movement. Absolutely hostile to
all abstract fonnulas and to all doctrinaire recipes, Marxism
demands an attentive attitude to the mass struggle in progress,
which, as the movement develops, as the class consciousness of
the masses grows, as economic and political crises become acute,
continually gives rise to new and more varied methods of defense
299
and attack. Marxism, therefore, positively does not reject any
form of struggle. Under no circumstances does Marxism confine
itself to the forms of struggle possible and in existence at the
given moment only, recognising as it does that new forms of
struggle, unknown to the participants of the given period,
inevitably arise as the given social situation changes. In this
respect Marxism learns, if we may so express it, from mass
practice, and makes no claim whatever to teach the masses forms
of struggle invented by "systematisers" in the seclusion of their
studies ...

In the second place, Marxism demands an absolutely

historical examination of the question of the forms of struggle. To
treat this question apart from the concrete historical situation
betrays a failure to understand the rudiments of dialectical
materialism. At different stages of economic evolution, depending
on differences in political, national-cultural, living and other
conditions, different fonns of struggle come to the fore and
become the principal forms of struggle; and in connection with
this, the secondary, auxiliary forms of struggle undergo change in
their turn. To attempt to answer yes or no to the question
whether any particular means of struggle should be used,
without making a detailed examination of the concrete situation
of the given movement at the given stage of its development,
means completely to abandon the Marxist position.

(Guerilla Warfare - Lenin - Collected Works- Vol. II - pp. 213/14 (1906)

300
 Guerilla Warfare
.... Guerrilla warfare is an inevitable form of struggle at a
time when the mass movement has actually reached the point of
an uprising and when fairly large intervals occur between the "big
engagements" in the civil war.

It is not guerilla actions which disorganise the movement,

but the weakness of a party which is incapable of taking such
actions under its control. That is why the anathemas which we
Russians usually hurl against guerrilla actions go hand in hand
with secret, casual, unorganized guerrilla actions which really
disorganize the Party. Being incapable of understanding what
historical conditions give rise to this struggle, we are incapable of
neutralising its deleterious aspects. Yet the struggle is going on. It
is engendered by powerful economic and political causes. It is not
in our power to eliminate these causes or to eliminate this
struggle. Our complaints against guerrilla warfare are complaints
against our Party weakness in the matter of an uprising.
What we have said about disorganization also applies to
demoralisation. It is not guerrilla warfare which demoralizes, but
unorganized, irregular, non-party guerrilla acts. We shall not rid
ourselves one least bit of this most unquestionable
demoralization by condemning and cursing guerrilla actions, for
condemnation and curses are absolutely incapable of putting a
stop to a phenomenon which has been engendered by profound
economic and political causes. It may be objected that if we are
incapable of putting a stop to an abnormal and demoralising
phenomenon, this is no reason why the Party should adopt
abnormal and demoralising methods of struggle. But such an

301
objection would be a purely bourgeois-liberal and not a Marxist
objection, because a Marxist cannot regard civil war, or guerrilla
warfare, which is one of its forms, as abnormal and demoralising
in general. A Marxist bases himself on the class struggle, and
not social peace.
(Guerilla Warfare - Lenin Collected Works- Vol. 1Ip. 219 (1906)

Insurrection

The slogan of insurrection is a slogan for deciding the

issue by material force, which in present-day European
civilisation can only be military force. This slogan should not be
put forward until the general prerequisites for revolution have
matured, until the masses have definitely shown that they have
been roused and are ready to act, until the external circumstances
have led to an open crisis. But once such a slogan has been issued,
it would be an arrant disgrace to retreat from it, back to moral
force again, to one of the conditions that prepare the ground for an
uprising to "possible transition", etc. No, once the die is cast, all
subterfuges must be done with; it must be explained directly and
openly to the masses what the practical conditions for a successful
revolution are at present time.

Words andAction
Vulgar revolutionism fails to see that words are action,
too; this proposition is indisputable when applied to history in
general, or to those periods of history when no open political mass
action takes place. No putsches of any sort can replace, or
artificially evoke such action. Tailist revolutionaries fail to

302
understand that when a revolutionary period has set in, when the
old "superstructure" has cracked from top to bottom, when open
political action by the classes and masses that are creating a new
superstructure for themselves has become a fact, and when civil
war has begun it is apathy, lifelessness, pedantry, or else
betrayal of the revolution and treachery to it to confine words in
the old way, without advancing the direct slogan on the need to
pass over to "action" and try to avoid action by pleading the need
for "psychological conditions" and "propaganda" in general. The
democratic bourgeoisie's Frankfurt windbags are a memorable
historical example of just such treachery or of just such pedantic
stupidity. (Two Tactics of Social Democrats in the Democratic Revolution
Lenin Vol. 9- p.70 (1905)
Revolutions
Revolutions are the locomotives of history, said Marx.
Revolutions are festivals of the oppressed and exploited. At no
other time are the mass of the people in a position to come
forward so actively as creators of a new social order, as at a time
of revolution. At such times the people are capable of performing
miracles, if judged by the limited philistine yardstick of gradualist
progress. But it is essential that leaders of the revolutionary
parties, too, should advance their aims more comprehensively and
boldly at such a time, so that their slogans shall always be in
advance of the revolutionary initiative of the masses, serve as
beacon, reveal to them our democratic and socialist ideals in all its
magnitude and splendour, and show them the shortest and most
direct route to complete, absolute and decisive victory.
(Two Tactics of S.D.S in the Democratic Revolution - Lenin - Collected
Works- Vol.9 p. I I 3)

303
 Class Struggle
The struggle of the workers becomes a class struggle only
when all the foremost representatives of the entire working class
of the whole country are conscious of themselves as a single
working class and launch a struggle that is directed, not against
individual employees, but against the entire class of capitalist and
against the government that supports that class. Only when the
individual worker realises that he is a member of the entire
working class. Only when he recognises the fact that his petty
day-to-day struggle against individual employers and the
individual government officials is a struggle against the entire
bourgeoisie and the entire government, does his struggle becomes
a class struggle.
(Our Programme Lenin Collected Works- Vol. 4- pp. 215/16(1899)

Art ofInsurrection

Now, insurrection is an art quite as much as war or any

other, and subject to certain rules of proceeding, which, when
neglected, will produce the ruin of the party neglecting them.
Those rules, logical deductions from the nature of the parties and
the circumstances one has to deal with in such a case, are so plain
and simple that the short experience of 1848 had made Germany
pretty well acquainted with them. Firstly, never play with
insurrection unless you are fully prepared to face the
consequences ofyour play. Insurrection is a calculus with very
indefinite magnitudes, the value of which may change every
day; the forces opposed to you have all the advantages of
organisation, discipline and habitual authority; unless you bring
304
strong odds against them, • you are defeated and ruined.
Secondly, the insurrectionary career once entered upon, act with
the greatest determination, and on the offensive. The defensive
is the death of every armed rising; it is lost before it measures
itself with its enemies. Surprise your antagonists while their
forces are scattering, prepare new successes, however small but
daily; keep up the moral ascendant which the first successful
rising has given to you; rally thus those vacillating elements to
your side which always follow the strongest impulse, and which
always look out for the safer side; force your enemies to retreat
before they can collect their strength against you; in words of
Danton, the greatest master of revolutionary policy yet known; de
l'audace, de l'audace, encore de l'audace. (dare, dare, and dare
again)
(Engels-Revolution and Counter Revolution in Germany - MECW-Vol.
11- pp. 85/86 ( 1852)
Revolution

We are convinced not only of the uselessness but even of

the harmfulness of all conspiracies. We are also aware that
revolutions are not made deliberately and arbitrarily but that
everywhere and at all times they are the necessary consequence of
circumstances which are not in any way whatever dependent
either on the will or on the leadership of individual parties or of
whole classes. But we also see that the development of the
proletariat in almost all countries of the world is forcibly
repressed by the possessing classes and that thus a revolution is
being forcibly worked for by the opponents of communism. If, in
the end, the oppressed proletariat is thus driven into a revolution,

305
there we will defend the cause of the proletariat just as well by our
deeds as now by our words .

(Engels- Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith- MECW Vol.6 -

pp.101/102 (1847)

Class Struggle
The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of
class struggles.

Freeman and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf,

guild master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed,
stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an
uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time
ended, either in a revolutionary re-construction of society at
large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.

In the earlier epoch of history, we find almost everywhere

a complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a
manifold gradation of social rank. In ancient Rome we have
patricians, knights, plebeians, slaves; in the middle ages, feudal
lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs; in
almost all of these classes, again, subordinate gradations.

The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the

ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms.
It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression,
new forms of struggle in place of the old ones.

306
 Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses,
however, this distinctive feature; it has simplified the class
antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up
into two great classes directly facing each other: Bourgeoisie and
proletariat.
(MarxEngels Manifesto of the Communist Party MECW Vol. 6
- pp. 483/85 ( 1848)

As for ourselves, in view of our whole past there is only

one road open to us. For almost forty years we have stressed the
class struggle as the immediate driving power of history, and in
particular the class struggle between bourgeoisie and proletariat as
the great lever of the modern social revolution; it is, therefore,
impossible for us to co-operate with people who wish to expunge
this class struggle from the movement. When the International
was formed we expressly formulated the battle-cry: The
emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the
working classes themselves. We cannot therefore co-operate with
people who openly state that the workers are too uneducated to
emancipate themselves and must be freed from above by
philanthropic big bourgeois and petty bourgeois .....
(Marx to F.A. Sorge Selected Correspondence p. 327- September
19, (1879)

Revolutions and the Past

It is one of the peculiarities of revolutions that just as the

people seem about to take a great start and to open a new era, they
suffer themselves to be ruled by the delusions of the past and

307
surrender all the power and influence they have so dearly won into
the hands of men who represent, or are supposed to represent, the
popular movement of a bygone epoch.

(Engels- Esparato --MECW Vol. 13- p. 340- Aug. 4, 1854)

Traits ofa Revolutionary

In the final analysis, revolutionaries are made of the
same social stuff as other people. But they must have had
certain very different personal qualities to enable the historical
process to separate them from the rest into a distinct group;
Association with one another, theoretical work, the struggle
under a definite banner, collective discipline, the hardening
under the fire of danger, these things gradually shape the
revolutionary type.
(My life - Trotsky p.503 ( 1929)

The Fundamental Premise ofa Revolution

The fundamental premise of a revolution is that the
existing social structure has become incapable of solving the
urgent problems of development of the nation. A revolution
becomes possible, however, only in case the society contains a
new class capable of taking the lead in solving the problems
presented by history. The process of preparing a revolution
consists of making the objective problems involved in the
contradictions of industry and of classes find their way into the

308
consciousness of living human masses, change this consciousness
and create new correlation of human forces.
The ruling classes, as a result of their practically manifested
incapacity to get the country out of its blind alley, lose faith in
themselves; the old parties fall to pieces; a bitter struggle of
groups and cliques prevails; hopes are placed in miracles or
miracle workers. All this constitutes one of the political premises
of a revolution, a very important though a passive one.
(History of the Russian Revolution - Trotsky- Vol. 3 - P. 165)

How Revolutions Happen

Revolutions do not happen in accordance with the most
advantageous sequence. Revolutions in general do not happen
arbitrarily. If it ere possible to plan a revolutionary line of
march rationally, then it would probably be possible to avoid
revolution altogether. But the point is precisely this; revolution
is the expression of the impossibility of transforming class
society by rational methods. Logical arguments, even if carried
by Russell to the status of mathematicalformulas, are powerless
against material interests. The ruling classes will condemn the
hole of civilisation to destruction - together with its
mathematics - sooner than renounce their privileges ....

The irrational factors in human history operate most

harshly of all through class contradictions. These irrational factors
cannot be ignored. Just as mathematics, using irrational quantities,
arrives at perfectly realistic conclusions, so politics can rationalize
the social system, i.e., put rational order into it, only by clearly
taking into account the irrational contradictions of society in order

309
to overcome them once and for all: not by avoiding revolution,
but with its help.
(Where is Britain Going? - Leon Trotsky on Britain - pp. 203/04 (1925)

What is a Revolutionary Situation

The economic and social prerequisites for a revolutionary
situation take hold, generally speaking, when the productive
powers of the country are declining; when the specific weight of a
capitalist country on the world market is systematically lessened
and the incomes of the classes are likewise systematically
reduced; when unemployment is not merely the result of a
conjunctural fluctuation but a permanent social evil with a
tendency to increase. This characterise the situation in England
completely, and we can say that the economic and social
prerequisites for a revolutionary situation exist and are daily
becoming more and more acute. But we must not forget that we
define a revolutionary situation politically, not only
sociologically, and this includes the subjective factor. And the
subjective factor is not only the question of the party of the
proletariat. It is a question of the consciousness of all the classes,
mainly of course of the proletariat and its party.

A revolutionary situation, however, begins only when the

economic and social prerequisites for a revolution produce abrupt
changes in the consciousness of society and its different classes.
What changes?

a) For our analysis we must distinguish the three social

classes: the capitalist, the middle class or petty
bourgeoisie, the proletariat. The required changes in
310
 mentality of these classes are very different for each of
them.

b) The British proletariat, far better than all the

theoreticians, knows very well that the economic situation
is very acute. But the revolutionary situation unfolded
only when the proletariat begins to search for a way out,
not on the basis of the old society, but along the path of a
revolutionary insurrection against the existing order. This
is the most important subjective condition for a
revolutionary situation. The intensity of the revolutionary
feelings of the masses is one of the most important
indications of the maturity of the revolutionary situation.

c) But a revolutionary situation is one which must in the next

period permit the proletariat to become the ruling power
of society, and that depends to some extent, although less
in England than in other countries, on the political thinking
and mood of the middle class; its loss of confidence in all
the traditional parties (including the Labour Party , a
reformist, that is, a conservative party) and its hope in a
radical, revolutionary change in society (and not a
counter-revolutionary change, namely, a fascist) the
changes in the mood of the ruling class when it sees that it
is unable to save its system, loses confidence in itself,
begins to disintegrate, splits into factions and cliques.

d) At what point in these processes the revolutionary

situation is totally ripe cannot be known in advance or
indicated mathematically. The revolutionary party can

311
 establish that fact only through struggle, through the
growth of its forces and influence on the masses, on the
peasants and the petty bourgeoisie of the cities, etc; and by
weakening of the resistance of the ruling classes.
(Writings of Leon Trotsky - 1930-31- pp. 352/53)

Rules ofRevolutionary Policy

There are also other rules of revolutionary policy that it is
advisable to recall: do not get frightened needlessly and do not
frighten others without cause; do not make false accusations; do
not look for capitulation where there is none; do not replace
Marxist discussion with unprincipled squabbles. Long experience
has shown that, precisely at the time when an organisation is
getting ready to get out of the narrow alley on to a wider arena,
elements can always be found who have grown accustomed to
their alley, know all their neighbors, are used to carry news and
rumors, and are busy with the terribly important affairs of the
"change of ministries" in their own alley. These conservative
and sectarian elements are very much afraid that on a wider
arena their art willfind no application. They grab, therefore, the
wagon by its wheels and try to turn it back and they justify their,
in essence, reactionary work by terribly "revolutionary' and
"principled" arguments .....
(Writings of Leon Trotsky 1933-34- P.83)

Revolutions and the Masses

The most indubitable feature of a revolution is the direct

interference of the masses in historic events. In ordinary times
the state, be it monarchical or democratic, elevates itself above
312
the nation, and history is made by specialists in that line of
business - kings, ministers, bureaucrats, parliamentarians,
journalists. But at those critical moments when the old order
becomes 110 longer endurable to the masses, they break over the
barriers excluding them from political arena, sweep aside their
traditional representatives, and create by their own interference
the initial groundwork for a new regime. Whether this is good or
bad we leave to the judgment of moralists. We ourselves will take
t/ze facts as they are given by the objective course of
development. The history of a revolution is for us first of all a
history of the forcible entrance of the masses into the realm of
rulership over their own destiny.

In a society that is seized by revolution, classes are in

conflict. It is perfectly clear, however, that the changes introduced
between the beginning and the end of a revolution in the economic
bases of the society and its social substratum of classes are not
sufficient to explain the course of the revolution itself, which can
overthrow in a short interval age-old institutions, create new ones,
and again overthrow them. The dynamic of revolutionary events is
directly determined by swift, intense and passionate changes in
the psychology of classes which have already formed themselves
before the revolution.

The point is that society does not change its institutions as

need arises, the way a mechanic changes his instruments. On the
contrary, society actually takes the institutions which hang upon it
as given once and for all. For decades the oppositional criticism is
nothing more than a safety valve for mass dissatisfaction, a
condition of the stability of the social structure. Such in principle,

313
for example, was the significance acquired by the social
democratic criticism. Entirely exceptional conditions, independent
of the will of persons or parties, are necessary in order to tear off
from discontent the fetters of conservatism and bring the mass to
insurrection.

The swift changes of mass views and moods in an epoch

of revolution thus drive, not from the flexibility and mobility of
man's mind, but just the opposite, from its deep conservatism. The
chronic lag of ideas and relations behind new objective
conditions, right up to the moment when the latter crash over
people in the form of a catastrophe, is what creates in a period of
revolution that leaping movement of ideas and passions which
seems to the police mind a mere result of the activities of
"demagogues".

The masses go into a revolution not with a prepared plan

of social reconstruction, but with a sharp feeling that they cannot
endure the old regime. Only the guiding layers of a class have a
political programme, and even this still requires the test of events,
and the approval of the masses. The fundamental political process
of the revolution thus consists in the gradual comprehension by a
class of the problems arising from the social crisis the active
orientation of the masses by a method of successive
approximations. The different stages of a revolutionary process,
certified by a change of parties in which the more extreme always
supersedes the less, express the growing pressure to the left of the
masses so long as the swing of the movement does not run into
objective obstacles. When it does, there begins a reaction;
disappointments of different layers of the revolutionary class,

314
growth of indifferentism, and therewith a strengthening of the
position of the counter- revolutionary forces. Such, at least, is the
general outline of the old revolutions.

Only on the basis of a study of political processes in the

masses themselves, can we understand the role of parties and
leaders, whom we least of all are inclined to ignore. They
constitute not an independent, but nevertheless a very important,
element in the process. Without a guiding organisation the
energy of the masses would dissipate like steam not enclosed in
a piston-box. But nevertheless what moves things is not the
piston or the box, but the steam.

(History of the Russian Revolution - Trotsky -Vol. l-pp 15-17 (1929)

Insurrections Cannot he Created

An insurrection of the masses, gentlemen of the bench, is
not made; it accomplishes itself. It is the result of social
relations, not the product of a plan. It cannot be created; it can
be foreseen. For reasons which depended on us as little as they
did on Tsardom, an open conflict became inevitable. It drew
closer day by day. To prepare for it meant, for us, doing
everything possible to minimise the casualties of this inevitable
conflict. Did we think that for this purpose we had first of all to
lay in stocks of arms, prepare a plan of military operations, assign
the participants of the rising to particular places, divide the town
up into sectors - in other words, do all the things which the
military authorities do in anticipation of "disorders", when to
divide Petersburg up into sectors, appoint colonels in charge of
315
each sector, and equip them with a certain number of machine
guns and ammunition? No, that is not how we interpreted our role.
To prepare for an inevitable insurrection -and, gentlemen of the
court, e never prepared an insurrection as the prosecution
thinks and says; we prepared for an insurrection- meant to us,
first and foremost, enlightening the people, explaining to them
that open conflict was inevitable, that all that had been given to
them would be taken away again, that only might can defend
right, that a powerful organization of the working masses was
necessary, that the enemy had to be met head on, that the
struggle had to be continued to the end, that there was no other
way. That is what preparing for an insurrection meant to us.

Under what conditions did we think an insurrection might

lead us to victory? The condition of the army's sympathy. The
first requisite was to bring the army over to our side. To force the
soldiers to recognize the shameful role they were playing, to
persuade them to work with the people and for the people that
was the first task we set ourselves. I have already said that the
November strike, a disinterested impulse of direct fraternal
solidarity with the sailors under threat of the death penalty, also
had tremendous political significance in that it drew the army's
sympathetic attention towards the proletariat. That is where the
prosecutor should have looked for preparations for armed
insurrection. But, of course, a demonstration of sympathy and
protest could not, by itself, settle the matter. Under what
conditions, then, did we think- and do we think now- that the
army can be expected to pass to the side of the revolution? What
is the prerequisite for this? Machine and rifles? Of course, if the
working masses possessed machine guns and rifles they would

316
wield great power. Such power would even largely remove the
inevitability of an insurrection. The undecided army would lay
down its arms at the feet of the armed people. But the masses did
not, do not, and cannot possess arms in large quantities. Does that
mean that the masses are doomed to defeat? No, it does not.
However important weapons are, it is not in weapons that the
most essential strength lies. No, not in weapons; Not the
capacity of the masses to kill, but their great readiness to die,
that, gentlemen of the court, is what we believe ensures, in the
last count, the success ofpeople's rising.
(1905- Trotsky pp. 409/411)

Insurrection and Conspiracy

People do not make revolution eagerly any more than
they do war. There is this difference; however, that in a war
compulsion plays the decisive role, in revolution there is no
compulsion except that of circumstances. A revolution takes
place only when there is 110 other way out. And the insurrection,
which rises above a revolution like a peak in the mountain chain
of its events, can no more be evoked at will than the revolution
as a whole. The masses advance and retreat several times before
they make up their minds to the final assault.

Conspiracy is ordinarily contrasted to insurrection as the

deliberate undertaking of a minority to spontaneous movement of
the majority. And it is true that a victorious insurrection, which
can only be the act of a class called to stand at the head of the
nation, is widely separated both in method and historic
significance from a governmental overturn accomplished by
conspirators acting in concealment from the masses.
317
 In every class society there are enough contradictions so
that a conspiracy can take root in its cracks. Historic experience
proves, however, that a certain degree of social disease is
necessary- as in Spain, for instance, or Portugal, or South America
- to supply continual nourishment for a regime of conspiracies. A
pure conspiracy even when victorious can only replace one
clique of the same ruling class by another - or still less, merely
alter the governmental personages. Only mass insurrection has
ever brought the victory of one social regime over another.
Periodical conspiracies are commonly an expression of social
stagnation and decay, but popular insurrections on the contrary
come usually as a result of some swift growth which has broken
down the old equilibrium of the nation. The chronic "revolutions"
of South American republics have nothing in common with the
Permanent Revolution; they are in a sense the very opposite thing.

This does not mean, however, that popular insurrection

and conspiracy are in all circumstances mutually exclusive. An
element of conspiracy almost always enters to some degree into
any insurrection. Being historically conditioned by a certain stage
in the growth of a revolution, a mass insurrection is never purely
spontaneous. Even when it flashes out unexpectedly to a majority
of its own participants, it has been fertilised by those ideas in
which the insurrectionaries see a way out of the difficulties of
existence. But a mass insurrection can be foreseen and prepared. It
can be organised in advance. In this case the conspiracy is
subordinate to the insurrection, serves it, smoothes its path,
hastens its victory. The higher the political level of a revolutionary

318
movement and the more serious its leadership, the greater will be
the place occupied by conspiracy in a popular insurrection.

It is · very necessary to understand the relations between

insurrection and conspiracy, both as they oppose and they
supplement each other. It is especially so, because the very use of
the word conspiracy, even in Marxian literature, contains a
superficial contradiction due to the fact that it sometimes implies
an independent undertaking initiated by the minority, at others a
preparation by the minority, of a majority insurrection.

History testifies, to be sure, that in certain conditions a

popular insurrection can be victorious even without a conspiracy.
Arising "spontaneously" out of the universal indignation, the
scattered protests, demonstrations, strikes, street fights, an
insurrection can draw in a part of the anny, paralyses the forces of
the enemy, and overthrow the old power. ...

To overthrow the old power is one thing; to take the power

into one's hand is another. The bourgeoisie may win the power in
a revolution not because it is revolutionary. But because it is
bourgeoisie. It has in its possession property, education, the press,
a network of strategic positions, a hierarchy of institutions. Quite
otherwise with the proletariat. Deprived in its nature of things of
all social advantages, an insurrectionary proletariat can count only
on its numbers, its solidarity, its cadres, its official staff.

Just as a blacksmith cannot seize the red hot iron m his

naked hand, so the proletariat cannot directly seize the power. It
has to have an organisation accommodated to this task. The

319
coordination of the mass insurrection with the conspiracy, the
subordination of the conspiracy to the insurrection, the
organisation of the insurrection through the conspiracy,
constitute that complex and responsible department of
revolutionary politics which Marx and Engels called "the art of
insurrection". It presupposes a correct general leadership of the
masses, a flexible orientation in changing conditions, a thought-
out plan of attack, cautiousness in technical preparation; and a
daring blow.

Historians and politicians usually give the name

spontaneous insurrection to a movement of the masses united by
a common hostility against the old regime, but not having a clear
aim, deliberated methods of struggle, or a leadership consciously
showing the way to victory. This spontaneous insurrection is
condescendingly recognized by official historians at least those
of democratic temper- as a necessary evil the responsibility for
which falls upon the old regime. The real reason for their attitude
of indulgence is that "spontaneous" insurrection cannot transcend
the framework of the bourgeois regime.

The social democrats take a similar position. They do not

reject revolution at large as a social catastrophe, any more than
they reject earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, eclipses and
epidemics of the plague. What they do reject - calling it
Blanquism, or still worse, Bolshevism - is the conscious
preparation of an overturn, the plan, the conspiracy. In other
words, the social democrats are ready to sanction - and that only
ex post facto - those overturns which hand the power to the
bourgeoisie, but they implacably condemn those methods which

320
might alone bring the power to the proletariat. Under this
pretended objectivism they conceal a policy of defence of the
capitalist society ....

Insurrection is an art, and like all arts it has its laws. The
rules of Blanqui were the demands of a military revolutionary
realism. Blanqui's mistake lay not in his direct but his inverse
theorem. From the fact that tactful weakness condemns an
insurrection to defeat, Blanqui inferred that an observance of the
rules of insurrectionary tactics would itself guarantee the victory.
Only from this point on is it legitimate to contrast Blanquism with
Marxism. Conspiracy does not take the place of insurrection. An
active minority of the proletariat, no matter how well organized,
cannot seize the power regardless of the general conditions of
the country. In this point history has condemned Blanquism. But
only on this. His affirmative theorem retains all its force. In order
to conquer the power, the proletariat needs more than a
spontaneous insurrection. It needs a suitable organisation, it needs
a plan; It needs a conspiracy. Such is the Leninist view of this
question.

Blanqui's mistake in principle was to identify

revolution with insurrection. His technical mistake was to
identity insurrection with the barricade. The Marxian criticism
has been directed against .both mistakes. Although at one with
Blanquism in regarding insurrection as an art, Engels
discovered not only the subordinate place occupied by
insurrection in a revolution, but also the declining role of the
barricade in an insurrection.
(History of the Russian Revolution- Trotsky -- Vol.3- pp. 159/ l 62)

321
 But if it is true that an insurrection cannot be evoked at
will, and that nevertheless in order to win it must be organized in
advance, then the revolutionary leaders are presented with a task
of correct diagnosis. They must feel out the growing insurrection
in good season and supplement it with a conspiracy. The
interference of the midwife in labor pains - however this image
may have been abused- remains the clearest illustration of this
conscious intrusion into as elemental process. Herzen once
accused his friend Bakunin of invariably in all his revolutionary
enterprises taking the second month of pregnancy for the ninth.
Herzen himself was rather inclined to deny even in the ninth that
pregnancy existed.

(History of the Russian Revolution-Trotsky- Vol.3- p.164)

Intuition and experience are necessary for revolutionary

leadership, just as for all other kinds of creative activity. But much
more than that is needed. The art of the magician can also
successfully rely upon intuition and experience. Political magic is
adequate, however, only for epochs and periods in which routine
predominates. An epoch of mighty historic upheavals has no use
for witch doctors. Here experience, even illuminated by intuition,
is not enough. Here you must have a synthetic doctrine
comprehending the interactions of the chief historic forces. Here
you must have a materialistic method permitting you to discover,
behind the moving shadows of programme and slogan, the actual
movement of social bodies.

(History of the Russian Revolution- Trotsky- Vol.3 p. I 65)

322
 Justification ofa Revolution
Enemies are gleeful that fifteen years after the revolution
the Soviet country is still but little like a kingdom of universal
well-being. Such an argument, if not really to be explained as due
to a blinding hostility, could only be dictated by an excessive
worship of the magic power of socialist methods. Capitalism
required a hundred years to elevate science and technique to the
heights and plunge humanity into the hell of war and crisis. To
socialism its enemies allow only fifteen years to create and furnish
a terrestrial paradise. We took no such obligations upon ourselves.
We never set these dates. The process of vast transformation must
be measured by an adequate scale.

But the misfortunes which have overwhelmed living

people? The fire and bloodshed of the Civil war? Do the
consequences of a revolution justify in general the sacrifices it
involves? The question is teleological and therefore fruitless. It
would be as well to ask in face of the difficulties and griefs of
personal existence: is it worthwhile to be born? Melancholy
reflections have not so far, however, prevented people from
bearing or being born. Even in the present epoch of intolerable
misfortune only a small percentage of the population of our planet
resorts to suicide. But the people are seeking the way out of their
unbearable difficulties in revolution.

Is it not remarkable that those who talk most indignantly

about the victims of social revolutions are usually the very ones
who, if not directly responsible for the victims of the world war,
prepared and glorified them, or at least accepted them? It is our

323
turn to ask: Did the war justify itself? What has it given us? What
has it taught?

It will hardly pay now to pause upon the assertions of

injured Russian proprietors that the revolution led to the cultural
decline of the country. That aristocratic culture overthrown by the
October revolution was in the last analysis only a superficial
imitation of higher western models. Remaining inaccessible to the
Russian people, it added nothing essential to the treasure-store of
humanity. The October revolution laid the foundation of a new
culture taking everybody into consideration, and for that very
reason immediately acquiring international significance. Even
supposing for a moment that owing to unfavourable circumstances
and hostile blows the Soviet regime should be temporarily
overthrown, the inexpugnable impress of the October revolution
would nevertheless remain upon the whole future development of
mankind.

The language of the civilised nations has clearly marked

off to epochs in the development of Russia. Where the
aristocratic culture introduced into world parlance such
barbarisms as czar, pogrom, knout, October has
internationalised such words as Bolshevik, soviets and
piatiletka. This alone justifies the proletarian revolution, ifyou
imagine that it needs justification.
(History of the Russian Revolution-Trotsky-Vol.3-pp. 322/23)

Time Factor
A revolutionary uprising that spreads over a number of
days can develop victoriously only in case it ascends step by step,
324
and scores one success after another. A pause in its growth is
dangerous; a prolonged marking of time, fatal. But even successes
by themselves are not enough; the masses must know about them
in time, and have time to understand their value. It is possible to
let slip a victory at the very moment when it is within arm's reach.
This has happened in history.
(History of the Russian Revolution Trotsky Vol.- I p. 117)

Soldiers and Revolution

There is no doubt that the fate of every revolution at a
certain point is decided by a break in the disposition of the army.
Against a numerous, disciplined, well-anned and ably led military
force, unarmed or almost unarmed masses of the people cannot
possibly gain a victory. But no deep national crisis can fail to
affect the army to some extent. Thus along with the conditions of
a truly popular revolution there develops a possibility not, of
course, a guarantee of its victory; However, the going over of
the army to the insurrection does not happen of itself, nor as a
result of mere agitation. The army is heterogeneous, and its
antagonistic elements are held together by the terror of
discipline. On the very eve of the decisive hour, the
revolutionary soldiers do not know how much power they have,
or what influence they can exert. The working masses, of course,
are also heterogeneous. But they have immeasurably. more
opportunity for testing their ranks in the process of preparation for
the decisive encounter. Strikes, meetings, demonstrations, are not
only acts in the struggle, but also measures of its force. The whole
mass does not participate in the strike. Not all the strikers are
ready to fight. In the sharpest moments the most daring appear
325
in the streets. The hesitant, the tired, the conservative, sit at
home. Here a revolutionary selection takes place of itself; people
are sifted through the sieve of events. It is otherwise with the
army. The revolutionary soldiers - sympathetic, wavering or
antagonistic - are all tied together by a compulsory discipline
whose threads are held, up to the last moment, in the officer's
fist. The soldiers are told off daily into first and second files, but
how are they to be divided into rebellious and obedient?

The psychological moment when the soldiers go over to

the revolution is prepared by a long molecular process, which,
like other processes of nature, has its point of climax.But how to
determine this point? A military unit may be wholly prepared to
join the people, but may not receive the needed stimulus. The
revolutionary leadership does not yet believe in the possibility of
having the army on its side, and lets slip the victory. After this
ripened but unrealised mutiny, a reaction may seize the army. The
soldiers lose the hope which flared in their breasts; they bend their
necks again to the yoke of discipline, and in a new encounter with
the workers, especially at a distance, will stand opposed to the
insurrection. In this process there are many elements
imponderable or difficult to weigh, many cross currents, collective
suggestions and auto suggestions. But out of this complicated web
of material and psychic forces one conclusion emerges with
irrefutable clarity: the more the soldiers in their mass are
convinced that the rebels are really rebelling - that this is not a
demonstration after which they will have to go back to the
barracks and report, that this is a struggle to the death, that the
people may win if they join them, and that this wining will not
only guarantee impunity, but alleviate the lot of all - the more

326
they realise this, the more willing they are to turn their bayonets,
or go over with them to the people. In other words, the
revolutionists can create a break in the soldiers' mood only if
they themselves are actually ready to seize the victory at any
price whatever, even the price of blood. And the highest
determination never can, or will, remain unanned.
(History of the Russian Revolution- Trotsky - Vol.l-pp.126/27)

Dual Power
The political mechanism of revolution consists of the
transfer of power from one class to another. The forcible overturn
is usually accomplished in a brief time. But no historic class lifts
itself from a subject position to a position of rulership suddenly in
one night, even though a night of revolution. It must already on
the eve of the revolution have assumed a very independent
attitude towards the official ruling class; moreover, it must have
forcussed upon itself the hopes of intermediate classes and layers,
dissatisfied with the existing state of affairs, but not capable of
playing an independent role. The historic preparation of a
revolution brings about in the pre-revolutionary period, a situation
in which the class which is called to realize the new social system,
although not yet master of the country, has actually concentrated
in its hands a significant share of the state power, while the
official apparatus of the government is still in the hands of the old
lords. That is the initial dual power in every revolution.
(History of the Russian Revolution - Trotsky - Vol. I- pp. 202/203)

Force
Nevertheless, with Lansbury's permission, certain facts in
the world have been brought about with the aid of force. Whether
327
 Mr. Lansbury believes in the British navy or not, the Hindus know
that this fleet exists. In April 1919, the English General Dyer,
without having issued any previous warnings, gave orders to shoot
an unarmed Hindu meeting at Amritsar, with the result that 450
persons were killed and 1500 wounded. Leaving the dead out of
consideration, we may feel safe in declaring that the wounded
cannot afford "not to believe" in force. But even as a believing
Christian, Lansbury should know enough to understand that if the
cunning Hebrew priesthood, together with the cowardly Roman
proconsul Pontius Pilate, a political predecessor of MacDonald,
had not applied force to Jesus Christ, we should not have had the
crown of thorns, nor the resurrection, nor the ascension; and even
Mr. Lansbury would not have had the opportunity to be born a
good Christian and to become a bad socialist.

A disbelief in violence is equivalent to a disbelief in

gravitation. All life is build up on various forms offorce, on the
opposition of one mode offorce to another, and renunciation of
the use offorce for purposes of liberation is equivalent to giving
support to force usedfor oppression, which now rules the world.
(Leon Trotsky on Britain - p. 82 ( 1925)

International Revolution
References to the international revolution as a precondition
for the overthrow of the bourgeois state in one's own country
represent nothing but the renunciation of revolution. For what is
the international revolution? It is a chain and moreover not a
continuous one - of national revolutions, each of which nourishes
the others with its successes and in turn suffers from their failures.
(Where is Britain Going?- Leon Trotsky on Britain- p. 197 ( 1925)

328
 Historical Forecasts
There is no need for a reminder that historical forecasting,
unlike those of astronomy, are always conditional, containing
options and alternatives. Any claims to powers of exact prediction
would be ridiculous where a struggle between living forces is
involved. The task of historical prediction is to differentiate
between the possible and the impossible, and to separate the most
likely variants out from all those that are theoretically possible .

The course of the revolutionary process is much more

complex than that of a mountain stream. But in both cases what
may seem a highly paradoxical change of direction is actually
quite normal, that is in conformity with natural laws. There is no
reason to expect schematic or superficial conformity with such
laws. One must proceed from the normality of nature as
determined by the mass of the water's flow, the local geological
relief, prevailing wind patterns, and so on. In politics, that means
being able to see beyond the highest upsurges of the revolution to
forecast the possibility and even probability of sudden, sometimes
prolonged periods of subsidence ; and on the other hand at times
of greatest decline, for example, during the Stolypin
counterrevolution (1907-1910) being able to distinguish what the
preconditions are for a new upsurge. (Where is the Soviet Republic
Going? - Writings of Leon Trotsky - 1929-pp.45/46)

Certain Victory?
No revolutionist who weighs his words will contest that a
victory would have been guaranteed by proceeding along this
line. But a victory was possible only on this road. A defeat on this
329
road was a defeat on a road that could lead later to victory. Such a
defeat educates, that is, strengthens the revolutionary ideas in the
working class ....

Even the most correct strategy cannot by itself, always

lead to victory. The correctness of a strategic plan is verified by
whether it follows the line of the actual development of class
forces and whether it estimates the elements of this development
realistically.
(A Balance Sheet of the Anglo-Russian Committee- Leon Trotsky on
Britain-pp. 301/03 (1928)

Consciousness ofthe Masses

The balance of political power at any given moment is

determined under the influence of fundamental and secondary
factors of differing degrees of effectiveness, and only in its most
fundamental quality is it determined by the stage of the
development of production. The social structure of a people is
extraordinarily behind the development of its productive forces.
The lower middle classes, and particularly the peasantry, retain
their existence long after their economic methods have been made
obsolete, and have been condemned, by the technical development
of the productive powers of society. The consciousness of the
masses in its turn, is extraordinarily behind the development of
their social relations, the consciousness of the old Socialist
parties is a whole epoch behind the state of mind of the masses,
and the consciousness of the old parliamentary and trade union
leaders more reactionary than the consciousness of their party,
represents a petrified mass which history has been unable

330
hitherto either to digest or reject. In the parliamentary epoch,
during the period of stability of social relations, the psychological
factor without great error - was the foundation upon which all
current calculations were based. It was considered that
parliamentary elections reflected the balance of power with
sufficient exactness. The imperialist war, which upset all
bourgeois society, displayed the complete uselessness of the old
criteria. The latter completely ignored those profound historical
factors which has gradually being accumulating in the preceding
period, and have now, all at once, appeared on the surface, and
have begun to determine the course of history.
(Terrorism and Communism - Trotsky - pp. 15/16)

* * *
The political worshippers of routine, incapable of
surveying the historical process in its complexity, in its internal
clashes and contradictions, imagined to themselves that history
was preparing the way for the Socialist order simultaneously and
systematically on all sides, so that concentration of production and
development of a communist morality in the producer and the
consumer mature simultaneously with the electric plough and a
parliamentary majority. Hence the purely mechanical attitude
towards parliamentarism, ... indicated the degree to which society
was prepared for Socialism as accurately as the manometer
indicates the pressure of steam. Yet there is nothing more
senseless than this mechanized representation of the development
of social relations.

331
 If, beginning with the productive bases of society, we
ascend the stages of the superstructure - classes, the State, laws,
parties, and so on - it may be established that the weight of each
additional part of the superstructure is not simply to be added to,
but in many cases to be multiplied by, the weight of all the
preceding stages. As a result, the political consciousness of groups
which long imagined themselves to be among the advanced,
displays itself, at a moment of change, as a colossal obstacle in the
path of historical development.

The great forces of production - that shock factor in

historical development - were in those obsolete institutions of the
superstructure (private property and the national State) in which
they found themselves locked by all preceding development.
Engendered by capitalism, the forces of production were knocking
at all the walls of the bourgeois national State, demanding their
emancipation by means of the Socialist organisation of economic
life on a world scale . . . Human technical skill, the most
revolutionary factor in history, arose with the might accumulated
during scores of years against the disgusting conservatism and
criminal stupidity of the Scheidmanns, Kautskys, Renaudel,
Vanderveldes and Longuets, and, by means of its howitzers,
machine-guns, dreadnoughts and aeroplanes, it began a furious
pogrom of human culture.
(Terrorism and Communism - Trotsky - pp. 16-17 (1920)

Peaceful Parliamentary Path

Speaking generally, the attainment of a majority in a

democratic parliament by the party of the proletariat is not an
332
absolute impossibility. But such a fact, even if it were realized,
would not introduce any new principle into the course of events.
The intermediate elements of the intelligentsia, under the
influence of the parliamentary victory of proletariat, might
possibly display less resistance to the new regime. But the
fundamental resistance of the bourgeoisie would be decided by
such facts as the attitude of the army, the degree to which the
workers were armed, the situation in the neighbouring states;
and the civil war would develop under the pressure of these most
real circumstances, and not by the mobile arithmetic of
parliamentarism.
(Terrorism and Communism-Trotsky-p.42)

Reality and Theory

Theory is not a note which you can present at any
moment to reality for payment. If a theory proves mistaken we
must revise or fill out its gaps. We mustfind out those real social
forces which have given rise to the contrast between Soviet
reality and the traditional Marxian conception. In any case we
must not wander in the dark, repeating ritual phrases, useful for
the prestige of the leaders, but which nevertheless slap the living
reality in the face.
(Revolution Betrayed -Trotsky- p. I 09 (1936)

Trade unions
It is stupid and criminal to transform trade unions into a
slightly larger second edition of the party, or make them an
appendage of the party. It is completely legitimate for a
revolutionary workers party to try to win influence in the unions.

333
Otherwise, it would condemn itself to vain, pseudo- revolutionary
chattering but it must do this by methods that flow from the very
nature of the unions and that reinforce them; that attract new
elements, increase the number of members of correct means of
struggle against the bosses. Workers see in the unions first of all a
means of defending themselves against exploitation by the boss.
In order to bring them into the unions, to hold them, and then to
take them further, developing their class consciousness, it is first
necessary for the union leadership to show that it can defend them
well in immediate issues Trying to sustain striking workers by
repeatedly giving them boring speeches on the "imminence" of
war can only have disastrous consequences in all domains and for
all workers, for the party & CGTU. (Writings of Leon Trotsky - 1929 -
p.231)

Culture and Bureaucracy

Competition, whose roots lie in our biological inheritance,
having purged itself of greed, envy and privilege, will indubitably
remain the most important motive force of culture under
communism too. But in the closer-by preparatory epoch the actual
establishment of a socialist society can and will be achieved, not
by these humiliating measures of a backward capitalism to which
the soviet government is resorting, but by methods more worthy
of a liberated humanity - and above all not under the whip of
bureaucracy. For this very whip is the most disgusting inheritance
from the old world. It will have to be broken in pieces and burned
at a public bonfire before you can speak of socialism without a
blush of shame.
(Revolution Betrayed - Trotsky- p. 128)

334
 October Revolution and Women
The October revolution honestly fulfilled its obligations in
relations to woman. The young government not only gave her all
political and legal rights in equality with man, but, what is more
important, did all that it could, and in any case incomparably more
than any other government ever did, actually to secure her access
to all forms of economic and cultural work. However, the boldest
revolution, like "all-powerful" British parliament, cannot convert
a woman into a man - or rather, cannot divide equally between
them the burden of pregnancy, birth, nursing and rearing of
children. The revolution made a heroic effort to destroy the so-
called "family-hearth" - that archaic, stuffy and stagnant
institution in which the omen of the toiling classes performs
galley labour from childhood to death. The place of the family
as a shut-in petty enterprise was to be occupied, according to the
plans, by a finished system of social care and accommodation:
maternity houses, creches, kindergartens, schools, social dining
rooms, social laundries, first aid stations, hospitals, sanatoria,
athletic organizations, moving-picture theaters, etc. The complete
absorption of the house-keeping functions of the family by
institutions of socialist society, uniting all generations in
solidarity and mutual aid, as to bring to woman, and thereby
to the loving couple, a real liberation from the thousand-year-
old fetters. Up to now this problem of problems has not been
solved ...

It proved impossible to take the old family by storm, not

because the will was lacking, and not because the family was so
firmly rooted in men's heart. The real resources of the state did
335
not correspond to the plans and intentions of the Communist
Party. You cannot "abolish" the family, you have to replace it.
The actual liberation of women is unrealisable on a basis of
"generalised wan?. Experience soon proved this austere truth
which Marx had formulated eighty years before.

(Revolution Betrayed - Trotsky-pp. 144/45)

Soviet Union (1936)

The Soviet Union is a contradictory society halfway
between capitalism and socialism, in which
(a) the productive forces are still far from adequate to give the
state property a socialist character;
(b) the tendency toward primitive accumulation created by
want breaks out through innumerable pores of the planned
economy;
(c) norms of distribution preserving a bourgeois character lie
at the basis of a new differentiation of society;
(d) the economic growth, while slowly bettering the situation
of the toilers, promotes a swift formation of privileged
strata;
(e) exploiting the social antagonisms, a bureaucracy has
converted itself into an uncontrolled caste alien to
socialism;
(f) the social revolution, betrayed by the ruling party, still
exists in property relations and in the consciousness of the
toiling masses;
(g) a further development of the accumulating contradictions
can as well lead to socialism as back to capitalism;

336
(h) on the road to capitalism the counterrevolution would have
to break the resistance of the workers;
(i) on the road to socialism the workers would have to
overthrow the bureaucracy. In the last analysis, the
question will be decided by a struggle of living social
forces, both on the national and the world arena.
Doctrinaires will doubtless not be satisfied with this
hypothetical definition. They would like categorical formulae; yes
- yes, and no- no. Sociological problems would certainly be
simpler, if social phenomena had always a finished character.
There is nothing more dangerous, however, than to throw out of
reality, for the sake of logical completeness, elements which today
violate your scheme and tomorrow may wholly overturn it. In our
analysis, we have above all avoided doing violence to dynamic
social formations which have had no precedent and have no
analogies. The scientific task, as well as the political, is not to
give a finished definition to an unfinished process, but to follow
all its stages, separate its progressive from its reactionary
tendencies, expose their mutual relations, foresee possible
variants of development, and find in this foresight a basis for
action.
(Revolution Betrayed -- Trotsky pp. 255/56)

Soviet Bureaucracy
The omnipotence of the soviet bureaucracy, its privileges,
its lavish mode of life, are not cloaked by any tradition, any
ideology, any legal norms. The soviet bureaucracy is a caste of
upstarts trembling for their power, for their revenues, standing in
fear of the masses, and ready to punish by fire and sword not only
337
every attempt upon their rights but even the slightest doubt of
their infallibility. Stalin is the embodiment of these feelings and
moods of the ruling class; therein lies his strength and his
weakness ...
(Writings of Leon Trotsky- 1937/38p. 28)

Stalin and the Soviet Bureaucracy

Up until 1936 Stalin, with the help of his dossiers, did

violence only to the conscience of people by making them say
what they did not want to. From 1936 on he started openly to play
with the lives of his collaborators. A new period has opened!
Using the bureaucracy, Stalin crushed the people; now he is
terrorizing the bureaucracy itself. The bureaucracy fears its own
isolation from the people and therefore supports Stalin. Stalin is
afraid of his isolation from the bureaucracy and is trying to play
the people along; hence the "democratic" Constitution and
demagogic trials.
(Writings of Leon Trotsky- 1937/38-p. 38)

Epoch ofLies
Our epoch is a above all an epoch of lies. I do not therewith
mean to imply that other epochs of humanity were distinguished
by greater truthfulness. The lie is the fruit of clash of classes, of
the suppression of personality of the social order. In that sense
that it is an attribute of all human history. There are periods when
social contradictions become exceptionally sharp, when the lie
rises above the average, when the lie becomes an tribute of the
very acuteness of social contradictions. Such is our epoch. I do not
think that in all human history anything could be found even
338
remotely resembling the gigantic factory of lies which was
organized by the Kremlin under the leadership of Stalin. And one
of the principle of this factory is to manufacture a new biography
for Stalin Some of these sources were fabricated by Stalin
himself Without subjecting to criticism the details of
progressively accumulating falsifications, it would be impossible
to prepare the reader for such a phenomenon, for example,
Moscow Trials.
(Trotsky- Stalin - Introduction- p. ixv)

Vengeance ofHistory
The names of Nero and Caesar Borgia have been
mentioned more than once with reference to the Moscow trials
and the latest developments on the international scene. Since these
old ghosts are being invoked, it is fitting, it seems to me, to speak
of super-Nero and a super Borgia, so modest almost naive, seems
the crimes of that era in comparison with the exploits of our times.
It is possible however to discern a more profound historical
significance in purely personal analogies. The customs of the
declining Roman Empire was formed during the transition from
slavery to feudalism from paganism to Christianity. The epoch of
Renaissance marked the transition from feudal to bourgeois
society, from Catholicism to Protestantism and Liberalism. In
both instances the old morality had managed to spend itself before
the new one was formed.

Now again we are living during the transition from one

system to another, in an epoch of the greatest social crisis, which,
as always, is accompanied by the crisis in morals. The old has

339
been shaken to its foundations. The new has scarcely begun to
emerge. When the roof has collapsed, the doors and windows
have fallen off their hinges, the house is bleak and hard to live in.
Today gusty draughts are blowing across our entire planet. All the
traditional principles of morality are increasingly worse off, not
only those emanating from Stalin.

But a historical explanation is not a justification. Nero,

too, was a product of his epoch. Yet after he perished his statues
were smashed and his name was scraped off everything. The
vengeance of history is more terrible than the vengeance of the
most powerful General Secretary. I venture to think that this is
consoling

(Trotsky - Stalin- p.383)

Who killedMaxim Gorky?

A special place in the prisoner's dock at the last big
(Moscow, trial) was occupied by Henry Yagoda, who had worked
in the Cheka and the OGPU for for sixteen years, at first as an
assistant chief, later as the head, and all the time in close contact
with the General Secretary (Stalin) as his most trusted aid in the
fight against the Opposition. The system of confessions to crimes
that had never been committed is Yagoda's handiwork, if not his
brainchild. In 1933 Stalin rewarded Yagoda with the Order of
Lenin, in 1935 elavated him to the rank of General Commissar of
State Defence, that is, Marshall of the political police, only two
days after the talanted Tukhachevsky was elavated to the rank of
Marshall of the Red Army. In Yagoda's person a nonentity was
elavated, known as such to all and held in contempt by all. The

340
old revolutionists must have exchanged looks of indignation.
Even in the submissive Politburo an attempt was made to oppose
this. But some secret bound Stalin to Yagoda - apperantly forever.
Yet the mysterious bond was mysteriously broken. During the
great "purge" Stalin decided to liquidate at the same time his
fellow-culprit who knew too much. In April 193 7, Yagoda was
arrested. As always Stalin thus achieved several supplementary
advantages: for the promise of a pardon, Yagoda assumed at the
trial personal guilt for crimes rumour had ascribed to Stalin. Of
course, the promise was not kept: Yagoda was executed, in order
the better to prove Stalin's irreconcilability in matters of law and
morals.

But illuminating circumstances were made public at the

trial. According to the testimony of his secretary and confidant,
Bulanov, Yagoda had a special poison chest, from which , as the
need arose, he would obtain precious vials and entrust them to his
agents with appropriate instructions. The chief of the OGPU, a
former pharmacist, displayed exceptional interest in poisons. He
had at his disposal toxicologists for whom he organized a special
laboratory, providing it with means without stint and without
control. It is, of course, out of the question that Yagoda might
have extablishd such an enterprise for his own personal needs. Far
from it. In this case, as in others, he was discharging his official
functions. As a prisoner, he was merely instumentum regni, even
as old Locusta at Nero's Court, with this difference, that he had
far outstripped his ignorant predecessor in matters of technique

At Yagoda's side in the prisoner's dock sat four Kremlin

physicians, charged with murder of Maxim Gorky and two Soviet
Cabinet ministers. "I confess that.. .I Prescribed medicines
341
unsuited to the given illness " Thus "I was responsible for the
untimely death of Maxim Gorky and Kuibyshev". During the days
of the trial, the basic background which consisted of falsehood.
The accusations, like the confessions of poisoning the aged and
ailing writer, seemed phantasmagoric to me. Subsequent
information and a more attentive analysis of the circumstances
forced me to alter that judgement. Not everything in the trial was a
lie. There were the poisoned and poisoners. Not all the poisoners
were sitting in the prisoner's dock. The principal poisoner was
conducting the trial by telephone.

Gorky was neither a conspirator nor a politician. He was a

softhearted old man, a defender of the injured, a sentimental
protester. Such has been his role during the early days of the
October Revolution. During the first and second five-year plans,
famines, discontent and repressions reached the utmost limit. The
courtiers protested. Even Stalin's wife Alliluyeva, protested. In
that atmosphere Gorky constituted a serious menace. He
corresponded with European writers, he was visited by foreigners,
the injured complained to him, he moulded public opinion. But
most important, it would have been impossible for him to
acquiesce in the extermination, then been prepared, of the Old
Bolsheviks, whom he had known intimately for many years.
Gorky's public protest against the frame-ups would have
immediately broken the hypnotic spell of Stalin's justice before
the eyes the whole world.

In no way was it possible to make him keep still. To arrest

him, to exile him, not to say to shoot him, was even less possible.
The thought of hastening the liquidatation of the sick Gorky
through Yagoda "without bloodshed" must have seemed to the
342
Boss of the Kremlin as the only way out under the circumstances.
Stalin's mind is so constituted that such decisions occur to him
with the impact of reflexes. Having accepted the assignment,
Yagoda turned to his "own" physicians. He did not risk anything.
Refusal, according to Dr. Levin's own words, "would spell ruin
for me and my family". Moreover, "you will not escape Yagoda
anyhow. Yagoda is a man who does not stop at anything. He
would get you even if you were underground"

But why did not the authoritative and respected Kremlin

physicians complain to members of the government, whom they
knew well as their own patients? On Dr. Levin's list of patients
alone were twenty-four high-ranking officials, including members
of the Politbureau and of the Council of People's Commissars.
The answer is, that Dr. Levin, like everyone else in and around the
Kremlin, knew perfectly well whose agent Yagoda was. Dr.Levin
submitted to Yagoda because he was powerless to oppose Stalin.

As for Gorky's discontent, his efforts to go abroad,

Stalin's refusal to grant him a foreign passport- that was common
knowledge in Moscow and was discussed in whispers. Suspicions
that Stalin had somewhat aided the destructive force of nature
sprang up directly after the great writer's death. A concomitant
task ofYagoda's trial was to clear Stalin of that suspicion. Hence,
the repeated declarations by Yagoda, the physicians and the other
accused that Gorky was "a close friend of Stalin's" "a trusted
person", "a Stalinist", fully approved of the "Leader's" policy,
spoke "with exceptional enthusiasm" of Stalin's role. If only half
of this were true, Yagoda would not have taken it upon himself to
kill Gorky, and still less would he have dared to entrust such a

343
plot to a Kremlin physician, who could have a destroyed him by
simply telephoning Stalin.

Here is a single "detail" taken from a single trial. There

were many and no end of "details". AII of them bear Stalin's
ineradicable imprint. The work is basically his. Pacing up and
down his office, he painstakingly considers sundry schemes
wherewith he might reduce anyone who displeases him to the
utmost degree of humiliation, to lying denunciations of his dearest
intimates, to the most horrible betrayal of his own self. For him
who fights back, in spite of everything, there is always a little vial.
It is only Yagoda who has disappeared, his poison chest remains.
(Trotsky- Stalin- pp.378-380)

The Role ofPersonality in History

It remains to ask - and this is no unimportant question
although easier to ask than answer; how would the revolution
have developed if Lenin had not reached Russia in April 1917? If
our exposition demonstrates and proves anything at all, we hope it
proves that Lenin was not a demiurge of the revolutionary
process, that he merely entered into chain of objective historic
forces. But he was a great link in that chain. The dictatorship of
the proletariat was to be inferred from the whole situation, but it
had still to be established. It could not be established without a
party. The party could fulfill its mission only after understanding
it. For that Lenin was needed. Until his arrival, not one of the
Bolshevik leaders dared to make a diagnosis of the revolution.
The leadership of Kamenev and Stalin was tossed by the course of
events to the right, to the Social Patriots: between Lenin and
Menshevism the revolution left no place for intermediate

344
positions. Inner struggle in the Bolshevik party was absolutely
unavoidable. Lenin's arrival merely hastened the process. His
personal influence shortened the crisis. Is it possible, however, to
say confidently that the party without him would have found its
road? We would by no means make bold to say that. The factor of
time is decisive here, and it is difficult in retrospect to tell time
historically. Dialectical materialism at any rate has nothing in
common with fatalism. Without Lenin the crisis, which the
opportunist leadership was inevitably bound to produce, would
have assumed an extraordinarily sharp and protracted character.
The condition of war and revolution, however, would not allow
the party a long period for fulfilling its mission. Thus it is by no
means excluded that a disoriented and split party might have let
slip the revolutionary opportunity for many years. The role of
personality arises before us here on a truly gigantic scale. It is
necessary only to understand that role correctly, taking personality
as a link in the historic chain.
(History of the Russian Revolution - Trotsky- Vol. I- pp. 310)

* * *
The soviets lagged behind the shop committees. The shop
committees lagged behind the masses. The soldiers lagged behind
the workers. Still more the provinces lagged behind the capital.
Such is the inevitable dynamic of a revolutionary process, which
creates thousands of contradictions only in order accidentally and
in passing, as though in play, to resolve them and immediately
create new ones. The party also lagged behind the revolutionary
dynamic an organisation which has the least right to lag,
especially in time of revolution .... The most revolutionary party
which human history until this time had ever known was

345
nevertheless caught unawares by the events of history. It
reconstructed itself in the fires, and straightened out its ranks
under the onslaught of events. The masses at the turning point
were 'a hundred times' to the left of the extreme left party. The
growth of the Bolshevik influence, which took place with the
force of a natural historical process, reveals its own contradiction
upon a closer examination, its zigzags, its ebbs and flows. The
masses are not homogenous, and moreover they learn to handle
the fire of revolution only by burning their hands and jumping
away. The Bolsheviks could only accelerate the process of
education of the masses. They patiently explained. And history
this time did not take advantage of their patience.
(History of the Russian Revolution Trotsky Vol. I - pp. 403/404)

PoliticalMorals
To operate with abstract moral criteria in politics is
notoriously hopeless. Political morals proceed from politics itself,
and are one of its functions. Only a politics that serves a great
historical task can insure itself morally irreproachable methods.
On the contrary, the lowering of the level of political aims
inevitably leads to moral decline. Figaro, as everyone knows,
refused to differentiate at all between politics and intrigue. And he
lived before the advent of the era of parliamentarism! When the
moralists of the bourgeois democracy attempt to perceive the
source of bad political morals in revolutionary dictatorship as
such, one can only shrug one's shoulders compassionately. It
would be very instructive to make a cinematic record of
parliamentarism, if but for single year. But the camera should be
placed not alongside the president of the chamber of deputies at
the moment when a patriotic resolution is being adopted, but in
346
quite other places: in the offices of bankers and industrialists, in
the private rooms of editorial offices, in the palaces of the princes
of the church, in the salon of political ladies, in the ministries -
and with it, let the eye of the camera record also the secret
correspondence of the party leaders. On the other hand, it would
be perfectly right to say that very different demands should be
imposed on the political morals of a revolutionary dictatorship and
on those of parliamentarism. The sharpness of the weapons and
methods of dictatorship demands watchful antiseptics. A dirty
slipper is nothing to fear, but an unclean razor is very
dangerous ....

In politics, and especially in revolutionary politics, popular

names of acknowledged authority play a very important,
sometimes gigantic, but yet not decisive part. In the final analysis,
the fate of personal authority is determined by the deeper
processes going in the masses.
(My life -- Trotsky pp. 490/91 - 1929)

Discipline
The foundation of party democracy is timely and complete
information, available to all members of the organization and
covering all important questions of their life and struggle.
Discipline can be built up only on a conscious assimilation of the
policies of the organisation by all its members and on confidence
in its leadership. Such a confidence can be won only gradually, in
the course of common struggle and reciprocal influence. The iron
discipline which is needed cannot be achieved by naked
command. The revolutionary organization cannot do without the
punishment of undisciplined and disruptive elements; but such
347
disciplinary measures can be applied only as a last resort and,
moreover, on condition of the solid support from the public
opinion of the majority of the organisation.

The frequent practical objections, based on the "loss of

time" in abiding by democratic methods, amount to shortsighted
opportunism. The education and consolidation of the organisation
is a most important task. Neither time nor effort should be spared
for its fulfillment. Moreover, party democracy, as the only
conceivable guarantee against unprincipled conflicts and
unmotivated splits, in the last analysis does not increase the
overhead costs of development but reduces them. Only through
constant and conscientious adherence to the methods of
democracy can the leadership undertake important steps on its
own responsibility in the truly emergency cases without
provoking disorganization or dissatisfaction.

(Writings of Leon Trotsky-1932/33-pp. 57/58)

US and Britain

The United States and Great Britain may be regarded as

twin stars, one of which grows dim the more rapidly as the
brilliancy of the other increases .... The United States cannot but
tend to expand in the world market, failing which its own industry
will be threatened with apoplexy because of the richness of its
blood. The United States can only expand at the expense of the
other exporting countries, which means, particularly, England ...
In aiding to restore the European monetary system, the United
States is simply exploding one inflated illusion after the other, by
giving the Europeans an opportunity to express their poverty and
348
dependence in the language of a firm currency. By exerting
pressure on its debtors, or giving them an extension, by granting
or refusing credit to European countries, the United States is
placing them in a gradually tightening economic dependence, in
the last analysis ineluctable situation, which is the necessary
condition for inevitable social and revolutionary disturbances. The
Communist International, viewed in the light of this knowledge,
may be considered an almost conservative institution as compared
with Wall Street. Morgan's, Dawes, Julius Barnes these are
among the artificers of the approaching European revolution.

In its work in Europe and elsewhere, the United States is

generally acting in cooperation with England, through the agency
of England. But this collaboration means for England an
increasing loss of independence. England is leading the United
States to hegemony, as it were relinquishing their world rule, the
diplomats and magnates of England are recommending their
former clients to deal with the new master of the world. The
common action of the United States and England is the cloak for a
profound worldwide antagonism between these two powers, by
which the threatening conflicts of the perhaps not remote future
are being prepared .... There is no doubt that the capital today
nowhere feels itself so strong as in America. American capitalism
grew marvelously, chiefly at the expense of European belligerents
at first, now by reason of their "return to peace" their
"rehabilitation". But in spite of all its huge power, American
capitalism is not a self-contained factor, but a part of world
economy. Furthennore, the more powerful the industry of the
United States becomes the more intimate and profound becomes
its dependence on the world market. Driving the European

349
countries farther and farther down their blind alley, American
capitalism is laying the foundation for wars and revolutionary
upheavals, which in frightful rebound will not fail to strike the
economic system of the United States also. Such is the prospect
for America,
(Where is Britain Going? - Leon Trotsky on Britain pp. 24/25
( 1925)

Seizure ofPower and Building Socialism

Our old ruling classes were economically and politically
insignificant. We had no parliamentary or democratic traditions.
This made it easier for us to free the masses from the influence of
the bourgeoisie and to overthrow the latter's rule. But for the very
reason that our bourgeoisie had come into the field late and had
accomplished little, our inheritance was a poor one. We are now
obliged to build roads, construct bridges and schools, teach adults
to read and write etc., i.e, to carry out most of the economic and
cultural tasks which had already been carried out by the bourgeois
system in the older capitalists countries. This is what I meant by
saying that the more easily we disposed of our bourgeoisie, the
more difficult was it for us to accomplish our socialist
construction.

But this plain political theorem implies also its converse;

the more wealthy and civilised a country is, the older its
parliamentary-democratic traditions, the more difficult will it be
for the Communist Party to seize power; but also,the more swift
and successful will be the progress of the work of socialist
construction after the seizure of power. To put the thing more
concretely: to overthrow the rule of the English bourgeoisie is not
350
an easy task: it requires an inevitable "gradual" process, i.e.
serious preparatory activity: but, after having seized the power,
the land, the industrial, commercial and banking mechanism, the
English proletariat will be able to put through its reorganisation of
the capitalist economy into a socialist economy with much
smaller sacrifices, and with much more success, and with much
greater speed.

(Where is Britain Going? - Leon Trotsky on Britain pp.47/48--(I 925)

ParliamentaryDemocracy

...... Bourgeois democracy is that system of institutions

and measures with the aid of which the needs and demands of the
working masses as they advanced upward, are neutralized,
distorted, rendered harmless or, in plain words , reduced to
nothing. Anyone who would say that in England, France, the
United States, and other democratic countries, private property is
supported by the will of the people would be a liar. No one ever
asked the consent of the people. The toilers are born and receive
their training under conditions not of their creation. The national
school, the national church, imbue them with conceptions
exclusively calculated for the maintenance of the existing order.
Parliamentary democracy is merely a recapitulation of this
condition. MacDonald's party is a necessary component part of
this system.

When the course of events - usually catastrophic in nature,

like the great economic upheavals, crises, wars- makes this social
system intolerable for the working masses, the latter have neither
351
the opportunity nor the inclination to express their revolutionary
indignation through the channels of capitalist democracy. In other
words, when the masses learn how long they have been deceived,
they revolt. A successful revolution gives them power, and the
fact that they hold power permits them to construct a state
apparatus corresponding to their needs.
(Where is Britain Going? - Leon Trotsky on Britain-p. 72 ( 1925)

Slogan-Mongering

To reduce all the contradictions and all the tasks to one

lowest common denominator- the dictatorship of the
proletariat - is necessary, but altogether insufficient operation,
even if one should run ahead and assume that the proletarian
vanguard has grasped the idea that only the dictatorship of the
proletariat can save Spain from further decay, the preparatory
problem would nevertheless remain in full force: to weld around
the vanguard the heterogeneous sections of the working class and
the still more heterogeneous masses of village toilers. To contrast
bare slogan of the dictatorship of the proletariat to the historically
determined tasks that are now impelling masses towards the road
of insurrection would be to replace the Marxist conception of
social revolution with Bakunin. This would be the surest way to
ruin the revolution.

(The Spanish Revolution-Trotsky- p.80 ( I 93 I)

Parliamentarism

The weakness of Spanish communism is fully disclosed.

Under these conditions to speak of the overthrow of the bourgeois
352
parliamentarism by the dictatorship of the proletariat would
simply to play the part of imbeciles and babblers. The task is to
gather strength for the party on the basis of the parliamentary
stage of the revolution and to rally the masses to us. That is the
only way that parliamentarism can be overcome.
(The Spanish Revolution-Trotsky-p.149 (1931)

Criteria for Slogans

What should be the criteria for advancing the slogans? On
the one hand, we must consider the general direction of the
revolutionary development, which determines our strategic line.
On the other hand, we must take into account the level of
consciousness of the masses; the communist who does not take
that into account will break his neck.
(The Spanish Revolution-Trotsky-p. 149 ( 1931)

Transitional Demands and Sectarians

Under the influence of the betrayal by the historic
organisations of the proletariat, certain sectarian moods and
groupings of various kinds arise or are regenerated at the
periphery of the Fourth International. At their base lies a refusal to
struggle for partial and transitional demands, i.e., for the
elementary interests and needs of the working masses, as they are
today. Preparing for the revolution means to the sectarians,
convincing themselves of the superiority of socialism...
Sectarians are capable of differentiating between but two
colours: red and black. So as not to tempt themselves, they
simplify reality.

353
 . . . . . . . . . . . . incapable of finding access to the masses, they
therefore zealously accuse the masses of inability to raise
themselves to revolutionary ideas.

These sterile politicians generally have no need of a bridge

in the form of transitional demands because they do not intend to
cross over to the other side. They simply dawdle in one place,
satisfying themselves with a repetition of the self-same meager
abstractions. Political events are for them an occasion for
comment but not for action. Since sectarians, as in general every
kind of blunderer and miracle-man, are toppled by reality at each
step, they live in a state of perpetual exasperation, complaining
about the "regime" and "methods" and ceaselessly wallowing in
small intrigues. In their own circles they customarily carry on a
regime of despotism. The political prostration of sectarianism
serves to complement, shadow-like, the prostration of
opportunism, revealing no revolutionary vistas. In practical
politics, sectarians unite with opportunists, particularly with
centrists, every time in the struggle against Marxism.
(The Death Agony of Capitalism and the Tasks of the Fourth International -
Documents of the Fourth International- The Formative Years- 1933- 40-
pp. 216/17 (1938)

Censorship

When revolutionists are not in a position to shake off the

censor, then they must on the one hand adapt themselves to it
legally, and on the other hand say every bit of what is necessary in
the illegal press. But they must not disappear from the scene by

354
pointing to the censorship and their own revolutionary pride, for
that means to carry out a decorative but not a Bolshevik policy.
(The Spanish Revolution-Trotsky-p. 171 ( 1931)

Theory and Practice

The strength of Marxism is in the unity of scientific theory
with revolutionary struggle. On these two rails, the education of
the communist youth should progress. The study of Marxism
outside the revolutionary struggle can create bookworms but not
revolutionaries. Participation in the revolutionary struggle
without the study of Marxism is unavoidably full of danger,
uncertainty, half-blindness. To study Marxism as a Marxist is
possible only by participating in the life and struggle of the class:
revolutionary theory is verified by practice, and practice is
clarified by theory. Only the truths of Marxism that are
conquered in struggle enter the mind and the blood.
(The Spanish Revolution- Trosky- p.180 (1932)

* * *
As for Nin, during the whole revolution he proved to be a
completely passive dilettante who does not in the slightest degree
think of actually participating in the mass struggle, of winning the
masses, of leading them to the revolution, etc. He contended
himself with hyporcritical little articles on Stalinists, on socialists,
etc. This is now a cheap commodity. During the series of general
strikes in Barcelona he wrote me letters on all conceivable
questions but did not so much as mention the general strikes and
his own role in them. In the course of those years we exchanged
hundreds of letters. I always tried to elicit from him not empty

355
literary observations on everything and nothing, but practical
suggestions for the revolutionary struggle. To my concrete
questions, he always replied, "as to that I shall write in my next
letter." This next letter, however, never arrived for years.

The greatest misfortune for the Spanish section was that a

man with a name, with a certain past and the halo of a martyr of
Stalinism, stood at its head and all the while led it wrongly and
paralysed it.
(The Spanish Revolution - Trotsky - p. 218 ( 1936)

To Raise the Level of the Masses

Descend to the Masses

It is necessary to break sharply, decisively, boldly- the

umbilical cord of bourgeois public opinion. It is necessary to
break from the petty-bourgeois parties including the Syndicalist
leaders. It is necessary to think the situation through to the end. It
is necessary to descend to the masses, to the lowest and most
oppressed layers. It is necessary to stop lulling them with illusions
of a future victory that will come by itself. It is necessary to tell
them the truth, however bitter it may be. It is necessary to teach
them to distrust the petty-bourgeios agencies of capital; It is
necessary to teach them to trust in themselves. It is necessary to
tie your fate to theirs inseparably. It is necessary to teach them to
build their own combat organizations - soviets - in opposition to
the bourgeois state.
(The Spanish Revolution Trotsky - pp. 262/ 63 ( 1937)

356
 Marxist Method
Opportunism and Sectarianism

Marxist thought is concrete, that is, it looks upon all the

decisive or important factors in any given question, not only from
the point of view of their reciprocal relations, but also from that of
their development. It never dissolves the momentary situation
within the general perspective, but by means of the general
perspective makes possible an analysis of the momentary situation
in all its peculiarities. Politics has it point of departure in precisely
this sort of concrete analysis. Opportunist thought and sectarian
thought have this feature in common: they extract from the
complexity of circumstances and forces one or two factors that
to them to be the most important (and sometimes are, to be sure),
isolate them from the complex reality, and attribute to them
unlimited and unrestricted powers.

In that way, for the long epoch preceding the world war,
reformism made use of the very important but temporary factors
of that time, such as the powerful development of capitalism, the
rise in the standard of living of the proletariat, and the stability of
democracy. Today sectarianism makes use of these most
important factors and tendencies: decline of capitalism, the falling
standard of living of the masses, the decomposition of democracy,
etc. But like reformism in the preceding epoch, sectarianism
transforms historic tendencies into omnipotent and absolute
factors. The "ultra lefts" conclude their analysis just where it
should really begin. They counterpose a ready-made schema to
reality. But since the masses live in the sphere of reality, the
sectarian schema does not make the slightest impression on the
357
mentality of the workers. By its very essence, sectarianism is
doomed to sterility.
(UItralefts in General and Incurable Ultralefts in Particular The Spanish
Revolution- pp. 292/93 (1937)

Popular Front
The theoreticians of the popular front do not essentially go
beyond the first rule of arithmetic, that is, addition:
"Communists" plus Socialists plus Anarchists plus Liberals add
up to a total which is greater than their respective isolated
numbers. Such is all their wisdom. However, arithmetic alone
does not suffice here. One needs as well at least mechanics. The
law of parallelogram of forces applies to politics as well. In such a
parallelogram, we know that the resultant is shorter, the more the
component forces diverge from each other. When political allies
tend to pull in opposite directions, the resultant may prove equal
to zero.

A bloc of divergent political groups of the working class is

sometimes completely indispensable for the solution of common
practical problems. In certain historical circumstances, such a bloc
is capable of attracting the oppressed petty-bourgeois masses
whose interests are close to the interests of the proletariat. The
joint forces of such a bloc can prove far stronger than the sum of
the forces of each of its component parts. On the contrary, the
political alliance between proletariat and the bourgeoisie, whose
interest on basic questions in the present epoch diverge at an angle
of 180 degrees, as a general rule is capable only of paralysing the
revolutionary force of the proletariat.
(Lessons of Spain-The Last Warning - The Spanish Revolution - Trotsky-
pp. 308/09 (1937)

358
 * * *
The Central committee of the Communist Party of
Germany proceeds from the idea that it is impossible to defeat
fascism without first defeating the Social Democracy. The same
idea is repeated in all possible shades in Thaelmann 's article. Is
this idea correct? On the historical scale it is unconditionally
correct. But that does not at all mean that with its aid, that is, by
simple repetition, one can solve the questions of the day. An
idea, correct from the point of view of revolutionary strategy as a
whole, is converted into the language of tactics. Is it correct that
in order to destroy unemployment and misery, it is first necessary
to destroy capitalism? It is correct. But only the biggest blockhead
can conclude from all this, that we do not have to fight this very
day, with all our forces, against the measures with whose aid
capitalism is increasing the misery of the worker.
(For a Workers United Front Against Fascism - The Struggle Against
Fascism Trotsky p. 135 (1931)

Centrism
Speaking fonnally and descriptively, centrism is composed
of all those trends within the proletariat and on its periphery which
are distributed between refonnism and Marxism, and which most
often represent various stages of evolution from reformism to
Marxism - and vice versa. Both Marxism and reformism have a
solid social support underlying them. Marxism expresses the
historical interests of the proletariat. Reformism speaks for the
privileged position of proletarian bureaucracy and aristocracy
within the capitalist state. Centrism, as we have known it in the
359
past, did not have and could not have an independent social
foundation. Different layers of the proletariat develop in the
revolutionary direction in different ways and at different times. In
periods of prolonged industrial uplift or in the periods of political
ebb tide, after defeats, different layers of the proletariat shift
politically from left to right, clashing with other layers who are
just beginning to evolve to the left. Different groups are delayed
on separate stages of their evolution, they find their temporary
leaders and they create their programs and organisations. Small
wonder then that such a diversity of trends is embraced in the
concept of "centrism"! Depending upon their origin, their social
composition, and the direction of their evolution, different
groupings may be engaged in the most savage warfare with one
another, without losing thereby their character of being a variety
of centrism.

While centrism in general fulfills ordinarily the function

of serving as a left cover for reformism, the question as to which
of the basic camps, reformist or Marxist, a given centrism may
belong, cannot be solved once and for all with a ready-made
formula. Here, more than anywhere else, it is necessary to analyse
each time the concrete composition of the process and the inner
tendencies of its development ....

(The Struggle Against Fascism in Germany - Trotsky pp. 210-11)

Stalinist Theory ofFascism

The Stalinist theory of fascism indubitably represents one
of the most tragic examples of injurious practical consequences
that can follow from the substitution of the dialectical analysis of
360
reality, in its every concrete phase, in all its transitional stages,
that is, in its gradual changes as well as in its revolutionary (or
counterrevolutionary) leaps, by abstract categories formulated
upon the basis of a partial and influential historical experience (or
a narrow and insufficient view of the whole.) The Stalinists
adopted the idea that in the contemporary period, finance capital
cannot accommodate itself to parliamentary democracy and is
obliged to resort to fascism. From this idea, absolutely correct
within certain limits, they draw in a purely deductive, formally
logical manner the same conclusion for all the countries and for
all stages of development. To them Primo de Rivera, Mussolini,
Chiang Kai Shek, Masaryk, Bruening, Dolfuss, Pilsudski, the
Serbian king Alexander, Severing, MacDonald, etc. were the
representatives of fascism. In doing this, they forgotthat in the
past, too, capitalism never accommodated itself to "pure"
democracy, now supplementing it with a regime of open
repression, now substituting one for it.

(a) that "pure" finance capitalism nowhere exists.

(b) that even while occupying a dominant position, finance

capital does not act within a void and is obliged to reckon
with the other strata of the bourgeoisie and with the
resistance of the oppressed classes;

(c) that, finally, between parliamentary democracy and the

fascist regime a series of transitional forms, one after
another, inevitably interposes itself, now "peaceably""', now
by civil war. And each one of these transitional forms, if
we want to go forward and not to be flung to the rear,

361
 demands a correct theoretical appraisal and a
corresponding policy of the proletariat.
(The Struggle Against Fascism - Trotsky pp. 437/38)

Centralism and Democracy

The party is above all an action organisation. The entire
body of its members should be capable of mobilisation for combat
at any moment, under the leadership of the Central Committee.
Such combat readiness is inconceivable without the unanimity of
the party. But it would be the crudest kind of error to think that
unanimity can be created by nothing else but official handbook
cliches handed down from above. Unanimity is produced by the
party as a whole through the constant renewal and accumulation
of collective experience, through a collective effort of thought, on
the basis of the party's program, rules, traditions, and experience.
This process is inconceivable without differences, criticism and
the clash of ideas. If revolutionary combat-readiness requires a
powerful centralism, then the maintenance, development and
strengthening of ideological unity in a party with over a million
members requires a no less powerful party democracy. Without
centralism, party democracy is the organisational path to
Mensheviks. Without democracy, centralism is the apparatus road
to the bureaucratic degeneration of the party.
(Party Unity and the Danger of Split- The Challenge of Left Opposition -
Trotsky - p. 113 ( 1926)

* * *
In the organisational sphere, your views are just as
schematic, empiric, non-revolutionary as in the sphere of theory
and politics. A Strolberg, lantern in hand, chases after an ideal

362
revolution, unaccompanied by any excesses, and guaranteed
against Thermidor and counter-revolutions; you, likewise,
seek an ideal party democracy which would secure forever
and for everybody the possibility of saying and doing
whatever popped into his head, and which would insure the
party against bureaucratic degeneration. You overlook a
trifle, namely, that the party is not an arena for the assertion
of free individuality, but an instrument of the proletarian
revolution; that only a victorious revolution is capable of
preventing the degeneration not only of the party but of the
proletariat itself and modem civilisation as a whole ...

A worker spends his day at the factory. He has

comparatively few hours left for the party. At the meetings he is
interested in learning the most important things; the correct
evaluation of the situation and the political conclusions. He values
those leaders who do this in the clearest and the most precise form
and who keep in step with events. Petty bourgeois, and especially
declassed elements, divorced from the proletariat, vegetate in an
artificial and shut-in environment. They have ample time to
dabble in politics or its substitute. They pick out faults, exchange
all sorts of titbits and gossip concerning happenings among the
party "tops." They always locate a leader who initiates them into
all the "secrets". Discussion is their native element. No amount of
democracy is ever enough for them. For their war of words they
seek the fourth dimension. They become jittery, they revolve in a
vicious circle, and quench their thirst with salt water.
(A Petty Bourgeois Opposition in the Socialist Workers Party - In
Defense of Marxism - Trotsky- p. 92 ( 1939)

363
 Peaceful Transition
Surely, at such a moment, the voice ought to be heard
of a man whose whole theory is the result of life-long study of the
economic history and condition of England, and whom that study
led to the conclusion that, at least in Europe, England is the only
country where the inevitable social revolution might be effected
entirely by peaceful and legal means. He certainly never forgot to
add that he hardly expected the English ruling classes to submit,
without a "pro-slavery rebellion," to this peaceful and legal
revolution.
(Engels -Preface to the First English Edition Capital Vol. I - p. 6 ( 1886)

Limits of Common Sense

Common sense's basic capital consists of the elementary
conclusions of universal experience; not to put one's fingers in
fire, whenever possible to proceed along a straight line, not to
tease vicious dogs. . .. And so forth and so on. Under a stable
social milieu common sense is adequate for bargaining, healing,
writing articles, leading trade unions, voting in parliament,
marrying and reproducing the race. But when that same common
sense attempts to go beyond its valid limits into the arena of
more complex generalisations, it is exposed as just a clot of
prejudices of a definite class and a definite epoch. A simple
capitalist crisis is enough to bring common sense to impasse; and
before such catastrophes as revolution, counter-revolution and
war, common sense proves a perfect fool. In order to understand
the catastrophic violations of the "normal" course of events

364
higher qualities of intellect are necessary, and these are
philosophically expressed as yet only by dialectical materialism .

. . . Common sense operates with invariable magnitudes in

a world where only change is invariable. Dialectics, on the
contrary, takes all phenomena, institutions and norms in their rise,
development and decay. The dialectical considerations of morals
as a subservient and transient product of the class struggle seems
to common sense an "amoralism." But there is nothing more stale,
narrow, self-satisfied and cynical than the morals of common
sense!
(Their Morals and Ours - Trotsky - pp. 19/21 ( 1938)

Morals
During an epoch of triumphant reaction, Messers.
Democrats, Social Democrats, Anarchists and other
representatives of the "left" camp begin to exude double their
usual amount of moral effluvia, similar to persons who perspire
double in fear. Paraphrasing the Ten Commandments or the
Sermon on the Mount, these moralists address themselves not so
much to triumphant reaction as to those revolutionists suffering
under its persecution, who with their "excesses" and "amoral"
principles "provoke" reaction and give it moral justification.
Moreover they prescribe a simple but certain means of avoiding
reaction; it is necessary only to strive and morally to regenerate
oneself. Free samples of moral perfection for those desirous are
furnished by all interested editorial offices.

365
 The class basis of this false and pompous sennon is the
intellectual petty bourgeoisie. The political basis is their
impotence and confusion in the face of approaching reaction.
Psychological basis is their effort at overcoming the feeling of
their own inferiority through masquerading in the beard of a
prophet.

A moralising Philistine's favourite method is the lumping

of reaction's conduct with that of revolution. He achieves success
in this device through recourse to fonnal analogies. To him
Czarism and Bolshevism are twins. Twins are likewise discovered
in fascism and communism. An inventory is compiled of the
common features in Catholicism - or more specifically, Jesuitism
- and Bolshevism. Hitler and Mussolini, utilising from their side
exactly the same method, disclose that liberalism, democracy, and
Bolshevism represent merely different manifestations of one and
the same evil. The conception that Stalinism and Trotskyism are
"essentially" one and the same now enjoys the joint approval of
liberals, democrats, devout Catholics, idealists, pragmatists,
anarchists and fascists. If the Stalinists are unable to adhere to this
"people's front", then it is only because they are accidentally
occupied with the extermination of Trotskyists.

The fundamental feature of these approximations and

similitudes lies in their completely ignoring the material
foundation of the various currents, that is, their class nature and by
that token their objective historical role. Instead they evaluate and
classify different currents according to some external and
secondary manifestation, most often according to their relation to
one or another abstract principle which for the given classifier has

366
a special professional value. Thus to the Roman Pope, Freemasons
and Darwinists, Marxists and Anarchists are twins because all of
them sacrilegiously deny the immaculate conception. To Hitler,
liberalism and Marxism are twins because they ignore "blood and
honour". To a democrat, fascism and Bolshevism are twins
because they do not bow before universal suffrage, etc. etc .....

. . . . The chief traits of prophets of this type are al ienism to

great historical movements, a hardened conservative mentality,
smug narrowness, and a most primitive political cowardice. More
than anything moralists wish that history should leave them in
peace with their little books, little magazines, subscribers,
common sense and moral copybooks. But history does not leave
them in peace. It cuffs them now from the left, now from the right.
Clearly, revolution and reaction, Czarism and Bolshevism,
communism and fascism, Stalinism and Trotskyism- are all
twins. Whoever doubts this may feel the symmetrical skull bumps
upon both the right and left sides of these very moralists.
(Their Morals and Ours- Trotsky pp. 7-9 ( 1938)

Morality
Bourgeois evolutionism halts impotently at the threshold
of historical society because it does not wish to acknowledge the
driving force in the evolution of social forms: the class struggle.
Morality is one of the ideological functions in this struggle. The
ruling class forces its ends upon society and habituates it into
considering all those means which contradict its ends as
immoral. That is the chief function of official morality. It
pursues the idea of the "greatest possible happiness" not for the
majority but for a small and ever diminishing minority. Such a
367
regime could not have endured for even a week through force
alone. It needs the cement of morality. The production of this
cement constitutes the profession of the petty - bourgeois
theoreticians and moralists. They radiate all the colours of the
rainbow but in the final analysis remain apostles of slavery and
submission.
(Their Morals and Ours- Trotsky p.15 ( 1938)

Reformist Party and the Bolshevik Party

In practice a reformist party considers unshakable the

foundations of that which it intends to reform. It thus inevitably
submits to the ideas and morals of the ruling class. Having risen
on the backs of the proletariat, the social democrats became
merely a bourgeois party of the second order. Bolshevism created
the type of the authentic revolutionist, who subordinates to
historic goals irreconcilable with contemporary society the
conditions of his personal existence, his ideas and his moral
judgments. The necessary distance from bourgeois ideology was
kept up in the party by a vigilant irreconcilability, whose inspirer
was Lenin. Lenin never tired of working with his lancet, cutting
off those bonds which a petty bourgeois environment creates
between the party and official social opinion. At the same time
Lenin taught the party to create its own social opinion, resting
upon the thoughts and feelings of the rising class. Thus by a
process of selection and education, and in continual struggle, the
Bolshevik party created not only a political but a moral medium of
its own, independent of bourgeois social opinion and implacably
opposed to it. Only this permitted the Bolsheviks to overcome the
waverings in their own ranks and reveal in action that courageous

368
determination without which the October victory would have been
impossible.
(History of the Russian Revolution -Trotsky -Vol.3 -p. I 58)

* * *
The historic ascent of humanity, taken as a whole, may
be summarised as a succession of victories of consciousness
over blindforces - in nature, in society, in man himself. Critical
and creative thought can boast of its greatest victories up to now
in struggle with nature. The physico-chemical sciences have
already reached a point where man is clearly about to become
master of matter. But social relations are still forming in the
manner of the coral islands. Parliamentarism illumined only the
surface of society, and even that with a rather artificial light. In
comparison with monarchy and other heirlooms from the
cannibals and cave-dwellers, democracy is of course a great
conquest, but it leaves the blind play of forces in the social
relations of men untouched. It was against this deeper sphere of
the unconscious that the October revolution was the first to raise
its hand. The Soviet system wishes to bring aim and plan into the
very basis of society, where up to now only accumulated
consequences have reigned.
(History of the Russian Revolution- Trotsky -Vol.3 - p.322)

Oral Word and Written Word

History is especially insistent that only the vivid oral word
makes the leader. Never, according to him, can any writing
influence the masses like a speech. At any rate, it cannot generate
the firm and living bond between the leader and his million of
followers. Hitler's judgement is doubtlessly determined in large

369
measure by the fact that he cannot write. Marx and Engles
acquired millions of followers without resorting throughout their
life to the art of oratory. True, it took them many yeas to secure
influence. The writer's art ranks higher in the final reckoning
for it makes possible the union of depth with height ofform.
Political leaders who are nothing but orators are invariably
superficial. An orator does not generate writers. On the
contrary, a great writer may inspire thousands of orators. Yet it
is true that for direct contact with the masses, living speech is
indispensable. Lenin becomes the head of a powerful and
influential party before he had the opportunity to turn the masses
with the living word. His public appearances in 1905 were few
and passed unnoticed. As a mass orator Lenin did not appear on
the scene until 1917, and then only for a short Period, in the
course of April, May and July. He came to power not as an orator,
but above all as a writer, as an instructor of the propagandist who
had trained his cadres, including the cadres of orators.

In this respect Stalin represents a phenomenon utterly

exceptional. He is neither a thinker, a writer, nor an orator. He
took possession of power before the masses had learned to
distinguish his figure from others during the triumphal
processions across Red Square. Stalin took possession of power,
not with the aid of personal qualities, but with the aid of an
impersonal machine. And it was not he who created the machine,
but the machine that created him. That machine, with its force and
its authority was the product of the prolonged and heroic struggle
of the Bolshevik party, which itself grew out of ideas. The
machine was the bearer of the idea before it became an end in
itself. Stalin headed the machine from the moment he cut off the
370
umbilical cord that bound it to the idea and it became a thing unto
itself. Lenin created the machine through constant association
with the masses, if not by oral word, then by written word, if not
directly, then through the medium of his disciples. Stalin did not
create the machine but took possession of it. For this exceptional
qualities and special qualities were necessary. But they were not
the qualities of the historic initiator, thinker, writer, or orator. The
machine had grown out of ideas. Stalin's first qualification was a
contemptuous attitude towards ideas.

(Trotsky Stalin Introduction - pp.xiv-xv)

Nature ofLying
Lying is socially determined. It reflects the contradictions
between individuals and classes. It is required wherever it is
necessary to hide, soften, or smooth over a contradiction.
Wherever social contradictions have a long history, lying takes on
a character of equilibrium, tradition and respectability. In the
present epoch of unprecedented exacerbation in the struggle
between classes and nations, however, lying takes on a stormy,
tense and explosive character. Moreover the lie now has the rotary
press, radio and cinema at its disposal. In the worldwide chorus of
lies, the Kremlin does not occupy the back row.

The fascists, of course, lie a great deal. In Germany, there

is a special official in charge of falsifications: Goebbles. Nor does
Mussolini's apparatus remain idle. But the lies of fascism have, so
to speak, a static character; in fact, they verge on monotony. This
explained by the fact that the day-to-day politics of the fascist
bureaucrats do not contradict their abstract formulations in such a

371
shocking way as the ever-growing gulf between the program of
the Soviet Bureaucracy and its real politics. In the USSR, social
contradictions of a new sort have sprung up before the eyes of a
generation that is still living. A powerful parasitic caste has
elevated itself above the masses. Its very existence is a challenge
to all the principles in whose name the October Revolution was
made. That is why this "Communist" (!) caste finds itself forced
to lie more than any ruling class in human history.

The official lies of the Soviet bureaucracy change from

year to year, reflecting the different stages of its rise. The
successive layers of lies have created an extraordinary chaos in
the official ideology. Yesterday the bureaucracy said something
different from the day before, and today it says something
different from yesterday. The Soviet libraries have become the
sources of a terrible infection. Students, teachers and professors
doing research with old newspapers and magazines discover at
each step that within short intervals the same leader has expressed
completely opposite opinions on the same subject - not only on
question of theory but also on questions of concrete fact. In other
words, that he has lied according to the varying needs of the
moment.

This is why the need to rearrange the lies, reconcile the

falsifications, and codify the frauds become pressing

(Stalin vs Stalin- Writing of Leon Trotsky - 1938/39 - pp. 131/32)

372
 Trotsky's Prediction on
HitlerStalin Pact
An agreement between Stalin and Hitler, if attained - and
there is nothing impossible in that - could astonish only the most
hopeless simpletons from among all the vatieties of democratic
"fronts" and pacifist "leagues"

An agreement with an imperialist nation - regardless of

whether it is fascist or democratic - is an agreement with slave
owners and exploiters. A temporary agreement of such a nature
may , of course, be rendered compulsory by circumstances. It is
impossible to state once and for all time that agreements with
imperialists are impermissible under any all conditions, just as it
is impossible to tell a trade union that it has no right under any
condition to conclude compromise with the boss.
"irreconcilability" ofsuch a nature would be sheerly verbal.

So long as the worker's state remains isolated, episodic

agreements with the imperialists to one extent or another are
inevitable. But we must clearly understand that the question
reduces itself to profiting from the imperialist powers, and nothing
more. There cannot even be talk of disguising such agreements by
means of common idealist slogans, for example, the common
"defense of democracy" - slogans which involve nothing but the
most infamous deceit of the workers. It is essential that the
workers in capitalist countries not be bound in their class
struggle against their own bourgeoisie by the empiric
agreements entered into by the workers' state. This fundamental
rule was rigourously observed during the first period of the
existence of the Soviet Republic .

373
 Every agreement of the Kremlin clique with a foreign
bourgeoisie is immediately directed against the proletariat of that
country with which the agreement is made, as well as against the
proletariat of the USSR. The Bonapartist gang in the Kremlin
cannot survive except by weakening, demoralising, and crushing
the proletariat everywhere within its reach.

When he (Stalin) requires the aid of France, he subjects the

French proletariat to the radical bourgeois. When he has to
support China against Japan, he subjects the Chinese proletariat to
the Kuomintang. What would he do in the event of an agreement
with Hitler? Hitler, to be sure, does not in particular require
Stalin's assistance to strangle the German Communist Party. The
insignificant state in which the latter finds itself has moreover
been assured by its entire preceding policy. But it is very likely
that Stalin would agree to cut off all subsidies for illegal work in
Germany. This is one of the most minor concession that he would
be quite willing to make it .....

We can state one thing with certainty. The agreement

between Stalin and Hitler would essentially alter nothing in the
counter revolutionary function of the Kremlin oligarchy. It would
only serve to lay bare this function, make it stand out more
glaringly and hasten the collapse of illusions and falsifications.
Our political task does not consist in "saving" Stalin from the
embraces of Hitler, but in overthrowing both of them.

(What Lies Behind Stalin Bid - Writings of Leon Trotsky 1938-39-

pp.200/203)

374
 The Essence of Leninism
Leninism cannot be conceived without theoretical breadth,
without a critical analysis of the material bases of the political
process. The weapon of Marxian investigation must be constantly
sharpened and applied. It is precisely in this that tradition consists,
and not in the substitution of a formal reference or of an
accidental quotation. Least of all can Leninism be reconciled with
ideological superficiality and theoretical slovenliness.

Lenin cannot be chopped up into quotations suited for

every possible case, because for Lenin the formula never stand's
higher than reality; it is always the tool that makes it possible to
grasp the reality and to dominate it. It would not be hard to find
in Lenin dozens and hundreds of passages which, formally
speaking, seem to be contradictory. But what must be seen is not
the fonnal relationship of one passage to another, but the real
relationship of each of them to be the concrete reality in which the
formula was introduced as a lever. The Leninist truth is always
concrete!

As a system of revolutionary action, Leninism presupposes

a revolutionary sense sharpened by reflection and experience,
which in the social realm is equivalent to the muscular sensation
in physical labour. But revolutionary sense cannot be confused
with demagogical flair. The latter may yield ephemeral success,
sometimes even sensational ones. But it is political instinct of an
inferior type. It always leans toward the line of least resistance.
Leninism, on the other hand, seeks to pose and resolve the
fundamental revolutionary problems, to overcome the principle
obstacles: its demagogical counterpart consists in evading the
375
problems, in creating an illusory appeasement, in lulling critical
thought to sleep.

Leninism is, first of all realism, the highest qualitative and

quantitative appreciation of reality, from the standpoint of
revolutionary action. Precisely because of this, it is irreconcilable
with the flight from reality behind the screen of hollow
agitationalism with the passive loss of time, with the haughty
justification of yesterday's mistakes on the pretext of saving the
tradition of the party. Leninism is warlike from head to foot. War
is impossible without subterfuge, without deception of the enemy.
Victorious war cunning is a constituent element of Leninist
politics. But at the same time, Leninism is supreme revolutionary
honesty toward the party and the working class. It admits of no
fiction, no bubble blowing, no pseudo grandeur!

Leninism is orthodox, obdurate, irreducible, but it does not

contain so much as a hint of formalism, canon, nor bureaucratism.
In the struggle it takes the bull by the horns. To make out of the
tradition of Leninism a supra-theoretical guarantee of the
infallibility of all the words and thoughts of the interpreters of
these traditions, is to scoff at genuine revolutionary tradition and
transform it into official bureaucratism. It is ridiculous and
pathetic to try to hypnotise a great revolutionary party by the
repetition of the same formulae according to which the right line
should be sought not in the essence of each question, not in the
methods of posing and solving this question, but in information of
biographical character.

(Trotsky - The New Course PP. 49/50 ( 1923)

376
 MilitaryAffairs andMarxist Philosophy
But even if one grants that "military science" is a science,
it is nevertheless impossible to grant that it can be built with the
methods of Marxism; because historical materialism isn't at all a
universal method of all sciences. This is the greatest possible
misconception which it seems to me, can lead to the most harmful
consequences. It is possible to devote an entire lifetime to military
affairs very successfully, without ever devoting any thought to
theoretical-epistemological methods in military matters just as I
am able to take daily readings of my watch without knowing
anything about its internal workings, its interplay of wheels and
levers. If I know about the numbers and the hands, then I can't go
wrong. But if not satisfied with the movement of the hands on the
dial, I want to talk about the construction of the watch, then I must
really be acquainted with it; there can be no room for independent
thinking here.

In the course of a previous discussion (on unified military

doctrine) I adduced one of the traits of George Plekhanov, the first
crusader for Russian Marxism on Russian soil, a man of broad
vision and high gifts. Whenever Plekhanov observed that
questions of philosophical materialism and historical materialism
were being opposed to one another, or on the contrary lumped
together, he hotly protested. Philosophical materialism is a theory
imbedded in the foundation of natural sciences; while historical
materialism explains history of human society. Historical
materialism is a method that explains not the structure of the
entire universe, but a rigidly delimited group of phenomena; a
method that analyses the development of historical man.
Philosophical materialism explains the movement of the universe
377
as matter in the processes of change and transformation; and it
extends its explanation to include the "highest" manifestation of
the spirit. It is difficult, if not impossible, to be a Marxist in
politics and remain ignorant of historical materialism. It is quite
possible to be a Marxist in politics and not know about
philosophical materialism; such instances can be adduced to any
numbers.

And whenever any Marxist used to stray into the domain

of philosophy and began muddling, the deceased Plekhanov
would go after him without mercy. How many times was he told:
"But, after all, George Valentinovich, this happens to be a very
young man who has not had time for questions of philosophy; he
was busy fighting in the underground."

But Plekhanov would with reason reply:" If he does not

know, let him keep quiet. Nobody is forcing him to open his
mouth. There is nothing said in our programme about a social
democrat's having to have all his four feet shod with
philosophical materialism. As a party member, you must be
active; you must be courageous fighter for the workers cause; but
once you do invade the field of philosophy, beware of muddling."

My premise is that we should follow in the excellent

tradition of the deceased Plekhanov in the field of applying
philosophy to military affairs. We are not at all obliged to occupy
ourselves with questions which are known as "gnosiological,
theoretical epistemological, philosophical; but once we do take
up, then it is impermissible to muddle, and to go wandering with
wrong instruments into an entire different field in the attempt to

378
apply the method of Marxism directly to military affairs, in the
proper meaning of this word (not military politics) .

It is the greatest misconception to try to build in the special

sphere of military matters by means of the method of Marxism; no
less a misconception is the attempt to include military matters in
the list of natural sciences.

(Trotsky Marxism and Military Affairs pp.89-91 ( 1922)

Military Affairs
A Science or An Art
It is absolutely correct that a historical point of view is
fruitful in the extreme and that a history of science is superior to
any Kantian epistemology. Man must keep cleaning his concepts
and terms like a dentist cleans his instruments. But what we need
for this is not Kantian epistemology which takes concepts as being
fixed once and forever. Tenns must be approached historically.
But a history of terms, hypotheses and theories does not replace
science itself. Physics is Physics. Military affairs are military
affairs.

Marxism may be applied with the great success even to the

history of chess. But it is not possible to learn how to play chess
in a Marxist way ....

It is possible to show the entire course of the class struggle

from one angle - that of the history of development of chess play...
But to learn to play chess "according to Marx" is impossible.
Chess play has its own "laws" and its own "principals".

379
 War is a specific fonn of relations between men. In
consequence war methods and war usages depend upon the
anatomical and psychical qualities of individuals, upon the fonn
of organization of collective man, upon his technology, his
physical and cultural-historical environment, and so on. The
usages and methods of warfare are determined by changing
circumstances and, therefore, they themselves can in nowise be
eternal.

But it is quite self-evident that these usages and methods

contain elements of greater or lesser stability. Thus, for example,
in cavalry methods are to be found, elements in common between
ourselves and the epoch of Hannibal and even earlier. Methods
used in aviation obviously are only of recent origin. In our
infantry methods are to be found traits in common with the
behaviour of the most backward and primitive clans and tribes
who waged war against one another before the domestication of
the horse. Finally, in military operations it is possible in general to
find the most elementary usages, common to men and other
fighting animals. Clearly, in these cases too, it is a question not of
"eternal truths" in the sense of scientific generalizations which
derive from the properties of matter but of more or less stable
usages of a craft or an art.

An aggregate of "military principles" does not constitute a

military science, for there is no more a science of war than there is
a science of locksmithing. An army leader requires the knowledge
of a whole number of sciences in order to feel himself fully
equipped for his art. But military science does not exist; there
does exist a military craft which can be raised to the level of
military art.
380
 A scientific history of warfare is not military science but
social science, a branch of social science. A scientific history of
warfare explains why in a given epoch, with a given social
organization, men waged war in a certain way and not differently;
and why such and such usages led in this epoch to victory whereas
other methods brought defeat. Beginning with the general
condition of productive forces, a scientific history of war must
take into account all the superstructural factors, even the furthest
removed, including the plan and the mistakes of the commanding
staff. But it is quite self evident that a scientific history of war
aims by its very nature to explain that which undergoes change
and the reasons for these changes, but not to establish eternal
truths.

The military art of our time is summed up in statutes.

These statutes are the concentrated experience of the past coined
into currency intended for future use. This is an aggregate of the
precepts of a craft or an art. Just a collection of text-books on the
best organization of industrial enterprises, on calculation, on book
keeping, on commercial correspondence and the rest does not
comprise the science of capitalist society, so a collection of
military manuals, regulations and statutes does not constitute
military science.

(Trotsky Marxism and Military Affairs - pp. 97/ l O I)

"Eternal Principles,"
Experience and "Pure Reason"
But why does all this talk about "eternal" principles
continue to persist? Because, as has already been pointed out, at

381
the basis there is man. Human qualities undergo little change.
Anatomical, physiological, psychological qualities alter slowly as
compared to changes of social forms. The relation of man's hands
and feet and the structure of his skull in our epoch are
approximately the same as in the days of Aristotle. We know that
Marx used to read Aristotle with delight.And were it possible to
assume Aristotle's transfer to our epoch in order for him to read
Marx's books, then in all likelihood Aristotle would have
understood them excellently.

Man's anatomical an psycho-physical make-up is far more

stable than social forms are.Corresponding to this there are two
sides in military affairs: there is the individual side, which finds
its expression in certain habits and methods, detennined to a
larger measure by the biological nature of man, not eternal but
stable; and there is the collective - historical side which depends
on the social organization of man in war. But it is precisely this
latter moment which decides the issue, because war begins when
socially organized armed man enters into conflict with another
socially organized armed man. Otherwise we would have a fight -
between animals.

Comrade Lukirsky approached the question from the

following standpoint: there is on the one hand experience and
empirical inquiry -, an imperfect method; and there is on the other
hand "pure reason" which deductively, by means of logical
methods arrives at "absolute" deductions and thereby enriches
military affairs. As a materialist I have become accustomed to
look upon reason as one of the organs of historical man,
developed in the process of man's adaptation to nature. I cannot
oppose reason to matter; I cannot agree to think that reason can
382
supposedly give birth to that which material experience has not
already provided. Our reason only co-coordinates and correlates
conclusions from our practice; from "pure" reason man can
deduce nothing new, nothing he had not abstracted from
experience. Naturally, experience does not "take shape"
mechanically, but rather there is an order introduced into it an
order which correspond to the order of the manifestations in
themselves and which leads to the knowledge of the lawfulness of
these manifestations.But to think that reason can arbitrarily give
birth to a conclusion which is not prepared by and grounded in
experience - this is absolutely wrong.

(Trotsky - Marxism and Military affairs pp. I 09/11 (1922)

The Theory ofPermanent Revolution

The permanent revolution, in the sense which Marx
attached to the conception, means a revolution which marks no
compromise with any form of class rule, which does not stop at
the democratic stage, which goes over to socialist measures and to
war against the reaction from without, that is a revolution whose
every next stage is anchored in the preceding one and which can
only end in the complete liquidation of all class society.

To dispel the chaos that has been created around the theory
of the permanent revolution, it is necessary of distinguish three
lines of thought that. are united in the theory.

First, it embraces the problem of the transition into

socialist. This is really the historical origin of the theory.

383
 The conception of the permanent revolution was set up by
the great communists of the middle of the 19" century, by Marx
and his adherents, in opposition to that democratic ideology
which, as is known, presumed that all questions should be settled
peacefully, in a reformist or revolutionary way, by the erection of
the "rational" or democratic state. Marx regarded the bourgeois
revolution of 1848 as the direct introduction to the proletarian
revolution. Marx "erred". Yet his error has a factual and not a
methodological character. The revolution of 1848 did not tum into
the socialist revolution. But that is just why it also did not achieve
democracy ...

It (the theory of permanent revolution) pointed out that the

democratic tasks of the backward bourgeois nations in our epoch
lead to the dictatorship of the proletariat and that the dictatorship
of the proletariat puts the socialist tasks on the order of the day. In
that lay the central idea of the theory ....

The second aspect of the "permanent" theory already

characterise the Socialist revolution as such. For an indefinitely
long time and in constant internal struggle, all social relations are
transformed. The process necessarily retains a political character,
that is, it develops through collisions of various groups of society
in transformation. Outbreaks of civil war and foreign wars
alternate with periods of "peaceful" reforms. Revolutions in
economy, technique, science, the family, morals and usages
develops in complicated reciprocal action and do not allow society
to reach equilibrium. Therein lies the permanent character of the
socialist revolution as such.

384
 The International character of the socialist revolution,
which constitutes the third aspect of the theory of the permanent
revolution, results from the present state of economy and the
social structure of humanity. Internationalism is no abstract
principle, but a theoretical and political reflection of the
character of world economy, and of the world development of
productive forces, and the world scale of class struggle. The
socialist revolution begins on national grounds. But it cannot be
completed on these grounds. The maintenance of the proletarian
revolution within a national framework can only be a provisional
state of affairs, even though, as the experience of the Soviet Union
shows, one of long duration..... Remaining isolated, the
proletarian state must finally become a victim of these
contradictions. The way out for it lies only in the victory of the
proletariat of the advanced countries. Viewed from this
standpoint, a national revolution is not a self-sufficient whole; it is
only a link in the international chain. The international revolution
presents a permanent process, in spite of all fleeting rises and
falls. (Leon Trotsky - Permanent Revolution - pp 22/24(1930)

Intellectual Arrogance and

Revolutionary Politics

The study of Marxist literature. There is a prevailing

tendency to measure comrades by what they have or have not
read. This was unequivocally clear from O's organistaional plan
for last year. There it is said, in essence, more or less, that only
those who have read a certain number of Marxist works can be

385
counted "fully" (as members). Under certain circumstances you
will have to reconcile yourself to the fact that there are comrades
who are not going to read Anti-Duhring and will also not
participate in classes. In these things as in others one must be very
flexible .

But I must say again, always give our friends an example,

and don't hold them in contempt, because they haven't read Anti-
Duhring. In making judgements about comrades, orient towards
what is most important to the movement .

If you wish to make yourself hard, it is indispensable to be

elastic. Otherwise you are only obstinate. In general, intellectuals
have a much more difficult time in this area than workers. They
are more difficult to discipline than workers because usually they
have broader knowledge to start with, a formal education which
makes them arrogant. Intellectuals have big plans in their heads
and comprehend everything in the bourgeois realm very easily;
but not Marxism. They don't understand how, for instance, the
masses go into motion. The school masters used to do all their
thinking for them.

Intellectuals must give much more attention to discipline.

They usually learn strict compliance only slowly and through a
series of serious crises. At a certain stage even the best intentions
are no longer enough. One must be able to relinquish one's ego;
then one becomes far more to rent. Intentions are no longer
enough. One must be able to relinquish one's ego; then one
becomes far more tolerant towards others. Intolerence is always a
sign of inward imbalance. In X, almost the entire group suffers

386
from this malady. Marxism develops a certain attitude towards life
because one can observe its correctness in daily life on the street.
It must be a vital concern for our lives and cannot be treated as an
academic question .

(Underground Work in Nazi Germany - Writings of Leon Trotsky -

Supplement ( 1943/40)

Cinema
The question of amusement in this connection becomes of
greatly enhanced importance in regard to culture and education.
The character of a child is revealed and formed in its plays and an
adult is clearly manifested in his play and amusements. But in
forming the character of a whole class, when this class is young
and moves ahead, like the proletariat, amusements and play ought
to occupy a prominant position, The great French utopian
reformer Fourier, repudiating Christian asceticism and the
suppression cf the natural instincts, constructed his phalansterie
(The communes of the future) on the correct and rational
utilisation and combination of human instincts and passions. The
idea is a profound one. The working class state is neither a
spiritual order not a monastery. We take the people as they have
been made by nature and as they have been in part educated and in
part distorted by the old order.... The longing for amusement,
distraction, sight-seeing, and laughter is the most legitimate desire
of human nature. We are able and indeed obliged to give the
satisfaction of this desire a higher artistic quality, at the same time
making amusement a weapon of collective education, freed from
the guardianship of the pedagogue and the tiresome habit of
moralizing.

387
 The most important weapon in this respect excelling any
other at present is the cinema. This amazingly spectacular
innovation has cut into human life with a successful rapidity never
experienced in the past. In the daily life of capitalist towns, the
cinema has become just such an integral part of life as the bath,
beer hall, the church, and other indispensable institutions,
commendable and otherwise. The passion for cinema is rooted in
the desire for distraction, the desire to see something new and
improbable, for to laugh and to cry, not at your own, but at other
people's misfortunes. The cinema satisfies these demands in a
very direct, visual picturesque and vital way, requiring nothing
from the audience; it does not even require them to be literate.
That is why the audience bears such a grateful love to the cinema,
that inexhaustible fount of impressions and emotions ....

In attracting and amusing, the cinema already rivals the

beer-hall and tavern. I do not know whether New York or Paris
possesses at the present time more cinemas or taverns, or which of
these enterprises yields more revenue. But it is manifest that,
above everything, the cinema competes with the tavern in the
matter of how eight leisure hours are to be filled. Can we secure
this incomparable weapon? Why not? The governments of the
Czar, in a few years established an intricate net of state bar rooms.
The business yielded a yearly revenue of almost a billion gold
Rubles. Why should not the government of the workers establish a
net of state cinemas? This apparatus of amusement and education
could more and more be made to become an integral part of
national life .....

The cinema competes not only with the tavern, but also
with the church. And this rivalry may become fatal for the church
388
if we make up for the separation of the church from the socialist
state by the fusion of the socialist state and the cinema.

(Vodka, the Church and the Cinema Problems of Everyday Life-

Leon Trotsky - pp. 32/33 ( 1923)

Festivals
Church ceremonial enslaves even the worker of little or no
religious belief in the .three great moments of life of man - birth,
marriage end death. The workers state has rejected church
ceremony, and informed its citizens that they have the right to be
born, to marry and to die without the mysterious gestures and
exhortations of persons clad in cassocks, gowns and other
ecclesiastical vestments. But custom finds it harder to discard
ceremony than the state. The life of the working family is too
monotonous, and it is this monotony that wears out the nervous
system. Hence comes the desire for alcohol - a small flask
containing a whole world of images. Here comes the need for the
church and her ritual. How is a marriage to be celebrated or the
birth of a child in the family? How is one to pay the tribute of
affection to the beloved dead? It is on this need of marking and
decorating the principal signposts along the road of life that
church ritual depends.

(The Family and Ceremony - Problems of Everyday Life- Leon

Trotsky- pp.44 ( 1923)

How Hegalians Evaded the Censor

German philosophy, that most complicated, but at the
same time most sure thermometer of the development of the
German mind, had declared for the middle class, when Hegel
389
pronounced in his Philosophy of Law, Constitutional Monarchy
to be the final and most perfect from of Government. In other
words, he proclaimed the approaching advent of the middle
classes of the country to political power. His School, after his
death, did not stop here. While the more advanced section of his
followers, on one hand, subjected every religious belief to the
order of a rigorous criticism, and shook to its foundation the
ancient fabric of Christianity, they at the same time brought
forward bolder political principles than· hitherto it had been the
fate of Gennan ears to hear expounded, and attempted to restore
to glory the memory of the heroes of the first French revolution.
The abstruse philosophical language in which these ideas were
clothed, if it obscured the mind of both the writer and the reader,
equally blinded the eyes of the censor and thus it was that the
"young Hegelian" writers enjoyed a liberty of the press unknown
in every other branch of literature.

(Engels- Revolution and Counter Revolution in Germany -- MECW-

Vol. 11-pp.

Swearing
Abusive language and swearing are a legacy of slavery,
humiliation, and disrespect for human dignity - one's own and
that of other people. This is particularly the case with swearing in
Russia. I should like to hear from our philologists, our linguists
and experts in folklore, whether they know of such loose, sticky,
and low terms of abuse in any other language than Russian. As far
as I know, there is nothing, or nearly nothing, of the kind outside
Russia. Russian swearing "in the lower depths" was the result of
despair, embitterment and, above all, slavery without hope,

390
without escape. The swearing of the upper classes, on the other
hand, the swearing that came out of the throats of the gentry, the
authorities, was the outcome of class rule, slave-owner's pride,
unshakeable power. .. Two streams of Russian abuse that of the
masters, the officials, the police, replete and fatty, and the other,
the hungry, desperate, tormented swearing of the masses - have
coloured the whole of Russian life with desperate patterns of
abusive tenns. Such was the legacy the revolution receives among
others from the past.

But the revolution is in the first place an awakening of

human personality. In spite of occasional cruelty and the
sanguinary relentlessness of its methods, the revolution is, before
and above all, the awakening of humanity, its forward march, and
is marked with a growing respect for the personal dignity of every
individual, with an ever-increasing concern for those who are
weak. A revolution does not deserve its name if, with all its might
and all the means at its disposal, it does not help the woman,
twofold and threefold enslaved as she has been in the past, to get
out on the road of an individual and social progress... The
struggle against "bad language" is a condition of intellectual
culture, just as the fight against filth and vermin is a condition of
physical culture.

(The Struggle for Cultured Speech- Problems of Everyday Life - Leon

Trotsky -pp. 52/53 ( I 923)

Culture
Let us recall first of all that culture meant originally a
ploughed, cultivated field, as. distinct from virgin forest and virgin
soil. Culture was contrasted with nature, that is what was acquired
391
by man's efforts was contrasted with what was given by nature.
This antithesis fundamentally retains its value today.

Culture is everything that has been created, built, learnt,

conquered by man in the course of his entire history, in
distinction from hat nature has given, including the natural
history of man himself as a species of animal from the
moment that man separated himself from the animal kingdom -
and this happened when he first grasped primitive tools of stone
and wood and armed the organs of his body with them - from that
time there began the creation and accumulation of knowledge and
skill in the struggle with nature and subjugation of nature.

When we speak of the culture accumulated by past

generations we think first and foremost of its material
achievements m the fonn of tools, machinery building,
monuments, and so on. Is this culture? It is the material fonns in
which culture is deposited - material culture. It creates, on the
basis provided by nature. The fundamental setting of our lives, our
everyday way of living our creative achievements in the form of
tools, machinery, building, monuments, and so on.It is the
material forms in which culture is deposited- material culture. It
creates, on the basis provided by nature. The fundamental setting
of our lives, our everyday way of living, our creative work. But
the most precious part of culture is its deposit in the
consciousness of man himself - those methods, habits, skills,
acquired abilities of ours which have developed out of the whole
of pre-existing material culture, and which, while drawing on
this preexisting material culture also improves upon it.(The Age of
Permanent Revolution - A Trotsky Anthology- edited by Issac Deutscher - pp.
305/06)

392
 From Trotsky's Last Testament
These lines will be made public after my death.
I have no need to refute here once again the stupid and vile
slanders of Stalin and his agents: There is not a single spot on my
revolutionary honour. I have never entered, either directly or
indirectly, into any behind-the-scenes agreements or even
negotiations with the enemies of the working class. Thousands of
Stalin's opponents have fallen victims of similar false accusations.
The new revolutionary generations will rehabilitate their political
honour and deal with the Kremlin executioners according to their
deserts.

For forty three years of my conscious life I have fought

under the banner of Marxism. If I had to begin al I over again, I
would of course try to avoid this or that mistake, but the main
course of my life would remain unchained. I shall die a proletarian
revolutionist, a Marxist, a dialectical materialist and consequently,
an irreconcilable atheist. My faith in the communist future of
mankind is not less ardent. Indeed it is firmer today than it was in
the days of my youth.

Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of

all evil oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full.

But whatever may be the circumstances of my death I

shall die with unshaken faith in the Communist future. The
faith in man and in his future gives me even now such power of
resistance as cannot be given by any religion.

(The Age of Pennanent Revolution - A Trotsky Anthology - edited by

Issac Deutscher pp.360- 62)

393
 Lenin's Internationalism
Lenin's internationalism is not a formula for harmonizing
national and international interests in empty verbiage. It is a guide
to revolutionary action embracing all nations. Our planet inhabited
by so-called civilized humanity is considered as one single
battlefield where various nations and social classes contend. The
framework of one nation cannot contain in itself a single weighty
problem; visible and invisible threads connect its very essence
with dozens of events taking place in all comers of the world. In
the evaluation of international phenomena and international
forces, Lenin more than anybody else is free from the slightest
national bias ...

No, there is no need to authenticate Lenin's

internationalism. And yet Lenin himself is a genuinely national
type. He is deeply rooted in contemporary Russian history; he is
the epitome of that history; he gives it the highest expression and
precisely in this way he attains the pinnacle of international
activity and of world influence.

To characterize Lenin's personality as 'national' may see

at first sight unexpected; but on closer scrutiny it becomes self-
evident. In order to be able to direct an upheaval on scale
unprecedented in the history of nations the upheaval through
which Russia has been passing, there needs to exist between the
vital forces of the country and the leader some organic,
indissoluble link deep down, at the roots of his being. In himself
Lenin embodies the Russian proletariat - politically young social
class which in age is scarcely older than Lenin himself...

394
 The whole of Marx can be found in the Communist
Manifesto, in the preface to his Critique. Even if he were not the
founder of the First International he would forever remain what he
had been till now. Not so Lenin, whose personality is centered on
revolutionary action. His scientific works were only the
preliminaries to action. If he had never had published a single
book, he would forever have entered history just as he had entered
it now; as a leader of the proletarian revolution, a founder of the
Third International.

(Trotsky - On Lenin -Notes TowardsA Biography -pp.143 /146

(1924)

Intellectuals

If you wish to make yourself hard, it is indispensable to be

elastic. Otherwise you are only obstinate. In general, intellectuals
have a much more difficult time in this area than workers. They
are more difficult to discipline than workers because usually they
have broader knowledge to start with, a formal education which
makes them arrogant. Intellectuals have big plans in their heads
and comprehend everything in the bourgeois realm very easily;
but not Marxism. They don't understand how, for instance, the
masses go into motion. The school masters used to do all their
thinking for them.

Intellectuals must give much more attention to self-

discipline. They usually learn strict compliance only slowly and
through a series of serious crisis. At a certain stage even the best
intentions are no longer enough. One must be able to relinquish
one's ego; then one becomes far more tolerant towards others.

395
Intolerance is always a sign of inward imbalance. . ... Marxism
develops a certain attitude towards life because one can observe
its correctness in daily life on the street. It must be a vital concern
for our lives and cannot be treated as an academic question. This,
then, must be learned; how to let the basic intellectual (or
theoretical) precepts of Marxism colour everyday life. It is not a
question of good suit or a shabby one or of manners ....

Moreover, one makes the revolution with relatively few

Marxists, even within the party. Here the collective substitutes for
what the individual cannot achieve. The individual can hardly
master each separate area it is necessary to have experts who
supplement one another. Such experts are often quite passable
"Marxists" without being complete Marxists, because they work
under the control of genuine Marxists. The whole Bolshevik party
is a marvelous example of this.
(Writings of Leon Trotsky- 1934/40 Supplement p.592)

Petty Bourgeois Characteristics

Like any petty-bourgeois group inside the socialist

movement, the present opposition is characterised by the
following features;

• a disdainful attitude toward theory and an

inclination toward eclecticism;
• disrespect for the tradition of their own
organisation;
• anxiety for personal "independence" at the expense
of anxiety for objective truth;

396
 • nervousness instead of consistency;
• readiness to jump from one position to another;
• lack of understanding of revolutionary centralism
and hostility toward it;
• and finally, inclination to substitute clique ties and
personal relationships for party discipline.
(A Petty Bourgeois Opposition in the Socialist Workers Party In Defense
of Marxism p. 43 -(1 939)

Bourgeoisie

It is a peculiarity of the bourgeoisie, in contrast to all

fonner ruling classes, that there is a turning point in its
development after which every further expansion of its agencies
of power, hence primarily of its capital, only tends to make it
more and more unfit for political rule. Behind the big bourgeoise
stand the proletarians. In proportion as the bourgeoisie develops
its industry commerce and means of communication, in the
same proportion it increases the numbers of the proletariat. At a
certain point - which is not necessarily reached everywhere at the
same time or at the same stage of development - it begins to
notice that proletarian double is outgrowing it. From that moment
on, it loses the strength required for exclusive political rule; it
looks around for allies with whom to share its rule, or to whom to
cede it entirely, as circumstance may require.

(Engels- Preface to the second edition Peasant War in Germany-

MECW-Vol. 21-p. 97(1870)

397
 RevolutionaryRole ofthe Bourgeoisie
The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has
put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has
pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to
his "natural superiors" and has left remaining no other nexus
between man and man than naked self--interest, than callous
"cash payment." It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of
religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine
sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has
resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the
numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that
single, unconscionable freedom - free trade. In one word, for
exploitation veiled by religious and political illusions, it has
substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.

The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation

hitherto honoured and looked up with reverent awe. It has
converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man
of science, into its paid wage-labourers.

The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its

sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere
money relation .... It has been the first to show what man's
activity can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far
surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and gothic
cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all
former Exoduses of nations and crusades.

398
 The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly
revolutionising the instruments of production and thereby the
relations of production, and with them the whole relations of
society. Conservation of the old modes of productions in unaltered
form, was, on the contrary, the first conditions of existence for all
earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production,
uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting
uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all
earlier ones. All fixed, fast-froze relations, with their train of
ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away,
all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify.
All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and
man is at last compelled to face with sober senses, his real
conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.

The need of a constantly expanding market for its

products chases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the
globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish
connections everywhere.

The bourgeoisie has, through its exploitation of the world

market, given a cosmopolitan character to production and
consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of
Reactionists, it has drawn from under the feet of industry national
ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries
have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are
dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life
and death question for all civilised nations, by industries that no
longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn
from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed,

399
not only at home , but in every quarter of the globe. In place of
the old wants, satisfied by the productions of the country, we
find new wants requiring for their satisfaction the products of
distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national
seclusion and self sufficiency, we have intercourse in every
direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in
material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual
creations of individual nations become common property.
National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more
and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local
literatures, there arises a world literature.

The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all

instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means
of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations
into civilization. The cheap prices of its commodities are the
heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with
which it forces the barbarians' intensely obstinate hatred of
foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of
extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it
compels them to introduce what it calls civilisation into their
midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it
creates a world after its own image.

The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred

years, has created more massive and more colossal productive
forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of
Nature's forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to
industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric
telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation,

400
canalization of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the
ground - what earlier century had even presentiment that such
productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour?
(Marx-Engels-Manifesto of the Communist Party -MECW- Vol. 6
pp.486/89-(1848)

Reactionary Role of thePrussian Bourgeoisie

The German bourgeoisie developed so sluggishly, timidly

and slowly that at the moment when it menacingly confronted
feudalism and absolutism, it saw menacingly confronting it the
proletariat and all sections of the middle class whose interests and
ideas were related to those of the proletariat. The German
bourgeoisie found not just one class behind it, but all Europe
hostilely facing it. Unlike the French bourgeoisie of 1789, the
Prussian bourgeoisie, when it confronted the monarchy and
aristocracy, the representatives of the old society, was not a class
speaking for the whole of modern society. It had sunk to the level
of a kind of social estate as clearly distinct from the Crown as it
was from the people, with strong bent to oppose both adversaries
and irresolute towards each of them individually because it always
saw both of them either in front of it or behind it. From the first it
was inclined to betray the people and to compromise with the
crowned representative of the old society, for it itself, already
belonged to the old society; it did not represent the interests of a
new society against an old one, but renewed interest within an
obsolete society. It stood at the helm of the revolution not because
it had the people behind it but because people drove it before
them; it stood at the head not because it represented the initiative
of a new social era but only because it represented the rancour of
401
an old one. A stratum of the old state that had failed to brake
through and was thrown up on the surface of the new state by the
force of an earthquake; without faith in itself, without faith in the
people, grumbling at those above, trembling before those below,
egoistic towards both sides and aware of its egoism; revolutionary
in relation to the conservatives and conservative in relation to the
revolutionaries. It did trust its own slogans, used phrases instead
of ideas, it was intimidated by the world storm and exploited it for
its own ends; it displayed no energy in any respect, but resorted to
plagiarism in every respect; it was vulgar because unoriginal, and
original in its vulgarity; haggling over its own desires, without
initiative, without faith in itself, without faith in the people,
without a world-historic mission, an abominable dotard finding
himself condemned to lead and to mislead the first youthful
impulses of a virile people so as to make them serve his own
senile interests-sans eyes, sans ears, sans teeth, sans everything-
such was the Prussian bourgeoisie which found itself at the helm
of the Prussian state after the March revolution .

(Marx- The Bourgeoisie and the Counter Revolution- MECW

Vol. 8- pp. I 62/63 (1848)

Women
In all civilized countries, even the most advanced, women
are actually no more than domestic slaves. Women do not enjoy
full equality in any capitalist state, not even in the freest of
republics.

One of the primary tasks of the Soviet Republic is to

abolish all restrictions on women's rights. The Soviet government
402
has completely abolished divorce proceedings that source of
bourgeois degradation, repression and humiliation.

It will soon be a year now since complete freedom of

divorce was legislated. We have passed a decree annulling all
distinction between legitimate and illegitimate children and
removing political restrictions. Nowhere else in the world have
equality and freedom for working women been so fully
established ....

For the first time in history, our law has removed

everything that denied women's rights. But the important thing is
not the law. In the cities and industrial areas this law on complete
freedom is doing all right, but in the countryside it all too
frequently remains a dead letter. There the religious marriage still
predominates. This is due to the influence of the priests, an evil
that is harder to combat than the old legislation.

We must be extremely careful in fighting religious

prejudices; Some people cause a lot of harm in this struggle by
offending religious feelings. We must use propaganda and
education.
(Speech At the first All -Russian Congress of working Women-
Lenin- Collected Works- Vol.28 - pp.180/8 l - ( 1918)

Sectarianism
Psychology, ideas and customs usually lag behind the
development· of objective relations in society and in the class;
even in the revolutionary organisations the dead lay their hands
upon the living. The preparatory period ofpropaganda has given
403
us the cadres without which we could not make one step
forward, but the same period has, as a heritage, permitted the
expression within the organisation of extremely abstract
concepts of the construction of a new party and a new
International. In their chemically pure form these conceptions
are expressed in the most complete manner by the dead sect of
Bordigists , who hope that the proletarian vanguard will
convince itself, by means of a hardly readable literature, of the
correctness of their position and sooner or later will correctly
gather around their sect. Often these sectarians add that
revolutionary events inevitably push the working class towards us.
This passive expectancy, under a cover of idealistic messianism,
has nothing in common with Marxism. Revolutionary events
always and inevitably pass over the heads of every sect. By means
of propagandistic literature, if it is good, one can educate the
first cadres, but one cannot rally the proletarian vanguard
which lives neither in a circle nor in a School room but in a
class society, in afactory, in the organisations of the masses, a
vanguard to whom one must know how to speak in the
language of its experiences. The best prepared propagandist
cadres must inevitably disintegrate if they do not find contact
with the daily struggle of the masses. The expectation of the
Bordigists that revolutionary events will of themselves push the
masses to them as a reward for their "correct" ideas represent the
crudest of illusions. During the revolutionary events the masses
do not inquire for the address of this or that sect, but leap over
it. To grow more rapidly during the period offlux, during the
preparatory period, one must know how to find points of contact
in the consciousness of wide circles of workers.... In other
words, while preserving in its totality an intransigence on
404
 principle, it is necessary to free oneself radically from sectarian
hangovers which subsist as a heritage from a purely propagandist
period.
(Writings of Leon Trotsky -1934/40-pp.533/34)

Pacifism
Pacifism only affects the war machine of the ruling class
to a very insignificant degree. The best possible proof of this is
Russell's own courageous but somewhat futile experience during
the war. This was limited to a few thousand young men who,
- pleading "conscience", were thrown into prison. In the old Czarist
, . army the members of sects, especially the followers of Tolstoy,
. suffered persecution not infrequently for this sort of pacifist
,, • _ antimilitarism. But it was not they who accomplished the task of
overthrowing Czarism, And in Britain, they did not prevent and
could not have prevented the war being carried on to end.

Pacifism addresses itself not so much to the military

organization of the bourgeoisie state as to the working masses.
Here its influence is absolutely pernicious. It paralyses the will
of those in any case do not suffer from a surplus of will. It
preaches the harmfulness of arms to those who are in any case
unarmed and victims of class violence. In present conditions of
British life, when the problem of power is posed point blank,
Russell's pacifism is reactionary through and through.

(Where Is Britain Going? - Leon Trotsky on Britain-p.200 ( 1925)

405
 Bertrand Russell's Pacifism
When Russell says that we are prepared to sacrifice the
interests of the British working class in the interests of the Soviet
state, this is not only false, but foolish. Any weakening of the
British proletariat and particularly its defeat in an open struggle,
must inevitably strike a heavy blow against both the international
and internal position of the Soviet Union.

When in March 1921, the German Communists tried to

force the proletarian revolution artificially, they were severely
criticised at the Third Congress of the Comintem. To justify
themselves, they referred to the difficult situation of the Soviet
Republic and to the necessity of coming to her aid. Together
Lenin and I told them; neither heroic outbursts nor still less
revolutionary adventures will be able to help the Soviet Republic;
we need the same thing as the German proletariat, i.e., a victorious
revolution. It would be a fundamental mistake to think that the
proletariat of any country should, in the interest of the Soviet
state, take any step whatsoever that do not flow from its own
interest as a class fighting for its complete liberation. This point
of view, which is rooted in our flesh and blood, is alien to those
socialists who - if not always, then at least at the decisive
moment invariably turn out to be on the side of their own
bourgeoisie. And Russell is no exception.
(Where is Britain Going? - Leon Trotsky on Britain- p. 206 ( 1925)

Britain
The greatest peculiarity in British politics the past
history of the country is summed up in this is the glaring

406
contradiction between revolutionary maturity of the objective
economic factors and the exceptional backwardness of the
ideological forms, particular in the ranks of the working class.
This fundamental peculiarity is understood least of all precisely by
those people who are the most striking manifestation of it; the
bourgeois humanists, the latter-day enlightners and the pacifists.
Side by side with reactionary petty bourgeois reformists, they
consider themselves called upon to lead the proletariat.

Bertrand Russell is not the worst of them. But his writings

on social and political themes, his appeals against war, his
polemic with Scott Nearing apropos the soviet regime, all
characterise unmistakably his superficial dilettantism, his
political blindness, his complete lack of understanding of the
fundamental mechanics of historical development, i.e., the
struggle of living classes arising from the basis of production.
He opposes to history the propaganda of various pacifist slogans
which he himself wretchedly formulates. In so doing, he forgets
to explain to us why pacifist enlightenment did not save us from
wars and revolutions, despite the fact that such eminent people
interested themselves in it as Robert Owen in the first half of the
nineteenth century, the French enlighteners in the eighteenth
century, the Quakers since the seventeenth century, and many
others besides.

Russell is a latter day enlightener, who has inherited

from the old enlightenment not its enthusiasm but its ideological
prejudices. Russell is a skeptic through and through. He
apparently counterposes the peaceful, gradual methods of science
and technology to the violent methods of revolution. But he has as

407
little faith in the saving power of scientific thought as he has in the
power of revolutionary action.

In his polemic against Scott Nearing he tries, under the

cover of pseudo-socialist phraseology, to disparage, discredit and
compromise the revolutionary initiative of the Russian proletarian.
In his polemic against the biologist Haldane, he scoffs at optimism
of the technical sciences. In his little book Icarus, he openly
expresses his conviction that the best outcome would be the
destruction of our whole civilisation. And this man, utterly
corroded by the wormholes of his egoistic self-centered
aristocratic skepticism, thinks he is called upon to give advice
to the British proletariat and to warn it against our communist
machinations.

(Where is Britain Going?-Leon Trotsky on Britain pp. 206/07 (1925)

Bonapartism

A government which raises itself above the nation is not,

however, suspended in the air. The true axis of the present
government passes through the police, the bureaucracy, the
military clique: It is a military-police dictatorship with we are
confronted, barely concealed with the decorations of
parliamentarism. But a government of sabre as the judge-
arbiter of the nation- that's just what Bonapartism is.

The sabre by itself has no independent program. It is the

instrument of "order". It summoned to safeguard what exists.
Raising itself politically above the classes, Bonapartism, like its

408
predecessor Caesarism, for that matter, represents in the social
sense, always and at all epochs, the government of the strongest
and firmest part of the exploiters; consequently present-day
Bonapartism can be nothing else than the government of finance
capital which directs, inspires, and corrupts the summits of the
bureaucracy, the police, the officers' caste, and the press .

(The Struggle against Fascism in Germany -Trotsky - p.439)

Fascism
Fascism in power, like Bonapartism, can only be the
government of finance capital. In this social sense, it is
indistinguishable not only from Bonapartism but even from
parliamentary democracy. Each time, the Stalinists made this
discovery all over again, forgetting that social questions resolve
themselves in the domain of the political. The strength of finance
capital does not reside in its ability to establish a government of
any kind and at any time, according to its wish; it does not possess
this faculty. Its strength resides in the fact that every non
proletarian government is forced to serve finance capital; or better
yet, that finance capital possesses the possibility of substituting
for each one of its systems of domination that decays, another
system corresponding better to the changed conditions .....

Fascism is a specific means of mobilising and organising

the petty bourgeoise in the social interest of finance capital.

(Bonapartism and Fascism - The Struggle against Fascism in Germany-

Trotsky - pp.440/41 (July 15, I 934)

409
 Opportunism
It would be well if the example of these gentlemen taught
the Russian intelligentsia, which so prolifically produces such
jelly-fish, to realise how hannful opportunism is. Very often this
word is wrongly regarded as "merely a term of abuse" and no
attempt is made to grasp its meaning. The opportunist does not
betray his party, he does not act as a traitor, he does not desert
it. He continues to serve it sincerely and zealously. But his
typical and characteristic trait is that he yields to the mood ofthe
moment, he is unable to resist what is fashionable, he is
politically shortsighted and spineless. Opportunism means
sacrificing the permanent and essential interests of the party to
momentary, transient and minor interests.
(Guerilla Warfare-Lenin-Collected Works Vol. I I - p.239)

Marxism and Opportunism

No, comrade Larin, if you had mastered the spirit of
Marxism, and not merely its language, you would know the
difference between revolutionary dialectical materialism and the
opportunism of "objective" historians. Recall for instance, what
Marx said about Proudhon. A Marxist does not renounce the
struggle within the limits of the law, peaceful parliamentarism and
"planned" compliance with the limits of historical activity set by
the Bismarcks and Bennigsens, the Stolypins and the Milyukovs.
But a Marxist, while utilising every field, even a reactionary one,
for the fight of the revolution, does not stoop to glorifying
reaction, does not forget to fight for the best possible field of
activity. Therefore, the Marxist is the first to foresee the approach

410
of a revolutionary period, and already begins to rouse the people
and to sound the tocsin while the philistines are still wrapt in the
slavish slumber of loyal subjects . The Marxist is therefore the
first to take the path of direct revolutionary struggle, marching
straight to battle and exposing the illusions of conciliation
cherished by all kinds of social and political vacillators.
Therefore, the Marxist is the last to leave the path of directly
revolutionary struggle, he leaves it only when all possibilities
have been exhausted, when there is not a shadow of hope for a
shorter way, when the basis for an appeal to prepare for mass
strikes, an uprising, etc., is obviously disappearing.
(The Crisis of Menshevism- Lenin- Collected Works- Vol.I I- p.351 (1906)

"Introducing" Socialism

Under no circumstance can the party of the proletariat set

itself the aim of "introducing" socialism in a country of small
peasants so long as the overwhelming majority of the population
has not come to realise the need for a socialist revolution.

But only bourgeois sophists, hiding behind "near

Marxist" catchwords can deduce from this truth a justification of
the policy of postponing immediate revolutionary measures, the
time for which is fully ripe; measures which have been frequently
resorted to during the war by a number of bourgeois states,
and which are absolutely indispensable in order to combat
impending total economic disorganization and famine.

Such measures as the nationalisation of the land, of all the

banks and capitalist syndicates, or, at least, the immediate

411
establishment of the control of the Soviets of Workers Deputies,
etc., over them - measures which do not in any way constitute the
"introduction" of socialism - must be absolutely insisted on, and,
whenever possible, carried out in a revolutionary way ....
(Tasks of Proletariat in Our Revolution-Lenin-Collected Works - Vol.24-p.74
(1917)

Nationality
The communists are further reproached with desiring to
abolish countries and nationality.

The working men have no country. We cannot take from

them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all
acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of
the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is so far, itself
national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.

National differences and antagonisms between peoples

are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of
the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to
uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of
life corresponding thereto.

The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish

still faster. United action, of the leading civilised countries at
least, is one of the first conditions for the emanicipation of the
proletariat.

(Marx - Engels Manifesto of the Communist Party - MECW- Vol. 6-

pp. 502/03 ( 1848)

412
 National Prejudice and National Pride
.... With the greatest pleasure I observed you to be free
from that blasting curse, national prejudice and national
pride, which after all means nothing but wholesale selfishness- I
observe you to sympathise with everyone who earnestly applies
his powers to human progress-may he be an Englishman or not
to admire everything great and good, whether nursed on your
native soil or not- I found you to be more than mere
Englishmen, members of a single, isolated nation. I found you to
be Men, members of the great and universal family of mankind,
who know their interest and that of all the human race to be the
same. And as such, as members of this family of "One and
Indivisible" Mankind, as Human Beings in the most emphatical
meaning of the word ....

Irish Immigrants in England

If we except his exaggerated and one-sided condemnation

of the Irish national character, Carlyle is perfectly right. These
Irishmen who migrate for four pence to England, on the deck of a
steamship on which they are often packed like cattle, insinuate
themselves everywhere. The worst dwellings are good enough for
them; their clothing causes them little trouble, so long as it holds
together by a single thread; shoes they know not; their food
consists of potatoes and potatoes only; whatever they earn beyond
these needs they spend upon drink: What does such a race want
with high wages? The worst quarters of all the large town are
inhabited by Irishmen. Whenever a district is distinguished for

413
especial filth and especial ruinousness, the explorer may safely
count upon meeting chiefly those Celtic faces which one
recognises at the first glance as different from the Saxon
physiognomy of the native, and the singing , aspirate brogue
which the true Irishman never loses ... Filth and drunkenness, too,
they have brought with them. The lack of cleanliness, which is not
so injurious in the country, where population is scattered, and
which is the Irishman's second nature, becomes terrifying and
gravely dangerous through its concentration here in the great
cities. The Milesian deposits all garbage and filth before his house
door here, as he was accustomed to at home, and so accumulates
the pools and dirt-heaps which disfigure the working people's
quarters and poisons the air. He builds a pig-sty against the house
wall as he did at home, and if he is prevented from doing this, he
lets the pig sleep in the room with himself. This new and
unnatural method of cattle-raising in cities is wholly of Irish
origin. The Irishman loves his pig as the Arab his horse, with the
difference that he sells it when it is fat enough to kill. Otherwise
he eats and sleeps with it, his children play with it, ride upon it,
roll in the dirt with it, as one see a thousand times repeated in all
the great towns of England. The filth and comfortlessness that
prevail in the houses themselves it is impossible to describe. The
Irishman is unaccustomed to the presence of furniture: a heap of
straw, a few rags, utterly beyond use as clothing, suffice for his
nightly couch. A piece of wood, a broken chair, an old chest for a
table, more he needs not; a tea-kettle, a few pots and dishes equip
his kitchen, which is also his sleeping and living room. When he
is in want of fuel, everything combustible within his reach chairs,
door-posts, mouldings, flooring find its way up the chimney.
Moreover, why should he need much room? At home in his mud-
414
cabin there was only one room for all domestic purposes; more
than one room his family does not need in England. So the custom
of crowding many persons into a single room, now so universal,
has been chiefly implanted by the Irish immigration. And since
the poor devil must have one enjoyment, and society has shut him
out of all others, he betakes himself to the drinking of spirits.
Drink is the only thing which makes the Irishman's life worth
having, drink and his cheery care-free temperament. So he revels
in drink to the point of the most bestial drunkenness. The southern
facile character of the Irishmen, his crudity, which places him but
little above the savage, his contempt for all human enjoyments, in
which his very crudeness makes him incapable of sharing, his filth
and poverty, all favour drunkenness. The temptation is great, he
cannot resist it, and so when he has money he gets rid of it down
his throat. What else should he do? How can society blame him
when it places him in a position he almost of his necessity
becomes a drunkard. When it leaves him to himself, to his
savagery? ....
(Engels The Condition of the Working Class in England - MECW Vol.4
- pp.390/92 ( 1845)

Centralisation

If the centralisation of population stimulates and develops

the property-holding class, it forces the development of the
workers yet more rapidly. The workers begin to feel as a class, as
a whole; they begin to perceive that, though feeble as individuals,
they form a power united; their separation from the bourgeoisie,
the development of views peculiar to the workers and
corresponding to their position m life, is fostered, the
415
consciousness of oppression awakens, and the workers attain
social and political importance. The great cities are the birthplaces
of labour movements; in them the workers first began to reflect
upon their own condition and to struggle against it; in them the
opposition between proletariat and bourgeoisie first made itself
manifest; from them proceeded the Trade Unions, Chartism, and
Socialism. The great cities have transformed the disease of the
social body, which appears in chronic form in the country, into an
acute one, and so made manifest its real nature and the means of
curing it. Without the great cities and their forcing influence upon
the popular intelligence, the working class would be far less
advanced than it is. Moreover, they have destroyed the last
remnant of the patriarchal relation between working-men and
employers, a result to which manufacture on a large scale has
contributed by multiplying the employees dependent upon a single
employer. The bourgeoisie deplores all this, it is true, and has a
good reason to do so; for, under the old conditions, the bourgeois
was comparatively secure against a revolt on the part of his
hands. He could tyrannise over them and plunder them to his
hearts content, and yet receive obedience, gratitude, and assent
from these stupid people by bestowing a trifle of patronising
friendliness which cost him nothing, and perhaps some paltry
present, all apparently out ofpure, self-sacrificing, uncalled-for
goodness of heart, but really not one-tenth part of his duty. As
an individual bourgeois, placed under conditions which he had not
himself created, he might do his duty at least in part; but, as a
member of the ruling class, which by mere fact of its ruling, is
responsible for the condition of the whole nation, he did nothing
of what his position involved. On the contrary, he plundered the
whole nation for his own individual advantage. In the patriarchal

416
relation that hypocritically concealed the slavery of the worker,
the latter must have remained an intellectual zero, totally
ignorant of his own interest, a mere private individual. Only
when estrangedfrom his employer, when convinced that the sole
bond between employer and employee is the bond ofpecuniary
profit, when the sentimental bond between them, which stood
not the slightest test, had wholly fallen away, then only did the
worker begin to recognise his own interests and develop
independently; then only did he cease to be the slave of the
bourgeoisie in his thoughts, feelings and expression of his ill.
And to this end manufacture on a grand scale and in great cities
has most largely contributed.
(Engels The Condition of The Working Class in England - MECW
- Vol. 4-p.418/19 (1845)

"Neutral Countries"

Royal families formerly used to employ whipping-boys,

who has the honour of receiving condign punishment on their
profane backs, whenever any of the scions of royalty had
committed an offense against rules of good behaviour. The
modem European political system continues this practice, in a
certain degree, in the erection of small intennediate States, which
have to act the scapegoat in any domestic squabble by which the
harmony of the "balance of power" may be troubled. And in order
to enable these smaller States to perfonn this enviable parts with
suitable dignity, they are, by the common consent of Europe "in
Congress assembled", and with due solemnity, declared
"neutral". Such a scapegoat, or whipping boy, is Greece. Such is

417
Belgium and Switzerland. The only difference is this - that these
modern political scapegoats, from the abnonnal conditions of their
existence, are seldom quite undeserving of the inflictions they are
favoured with.
(Engels - Political Position of the Swiss Repubic MECW Vol. 12-p. 86
(1853)

Federative Republic
Balkan war is one link in the chain of world events
marking the collapse of the medieval state of affairs in Asia and
East Europe. To form united national states in the Balkans, shake
off the oppression of the local feudal rulers and completely
liberate the Balkan peasants of all nationalities from the yoke of
the landowners - such was the historic task confronting the
Balkan peoples.

The Balkan peoples could have carried out this task ten
times more easily than they are doing now and with a hundred
times fewer sacrifices by forming a Federative Balkan Republic.
National oppression, national bickering and incitement on the
ground of religious differences would have been impossible under
complete and consistent democracy. The Balkan peoples would
have been assured of truly rapid, extensive and free development.
(The Balkan War and Bourgeois Chauvinism - Lenin-Collected Works-
Vol.19-p.39 (1913)

Self-Determination ofNations

As democrats, we are irreconcilably hostile to any,

however slight, oppression of any nationality and to any privileges
418
for any nationality. As democrats, we demand the right of nations
to self-determination in the political sense of that term, i.e., the
right to secede. We demand unconditional equality for all nations
in the state and the unconditional protection of the right of every
national minority. We demand broad self-government and
autonomy for regions, which must be demarcated, among other
terms of reference, in respect of nationality too.
All these demand are obligatory for every consistent
democrats, to say nothing of a socialist.
(Draft Platform for the 4" Congress of S.D. of Latvian Area Lenin-
Collected Works-Vol. 19-p.116 (1913)

Non-Marxist way ofRecognizing

the Class Struggle

...... The Economists believed that any clash between

classes was a political struggle. The Economists therefore
recognised as "class struggle" the struggle for a wage increase of
five Kopeks on the Ruble, and refused to recognise a higher, more
developed, nation-wide class struggle, the struggle for political
aims. The Economists, therefore recognised the embryonic class
struggle but did not recognise it in its developed form. The
Economists recognised, in other words, only that part of the class
struggle that was more tolerable to the liberal bourgeoisie, they
refused to go farther than the liberals, they refused to recogise the
higher form of class struggle that is unacceptable to the liberals.

(Liberal and Marxist Conceptions of Class Struggle -Lenin-Collected

Works-Vol.19p.121 (1913)

419
 The Right ofSelf-Determination

1. The Social Democratic party's recognition of the right

of all nationalities to self-determination requires of Social-
Democrats that they should
a) be unconditionally hostile to the use of force in any
form whatsoever by the dominant nation (or the nation
which constitutes the majority of the population) in
respect of a nation that wishes to secede politically;
b) demand the settlement of the question of such
secession only on the basis of a universal, direct and
equal vote of the population of the given territory by
secret ballot;
c) conduct an implacable struggle against both the Black
Hundred Octobrist and the liberal bourgeois
(Progressist, Cadet, etc ... ,) parties on every occasion
when they demand or sanction national oppression in
general or the denial of the right of nations to self-
determination in particular.

2. The Social-Democratic Party's recognition of the right

of all nationalities to self-determination most certainly does not
mean that Social Democrats reject an independent appraisal of the
advisability of the state secession of any nation in each separate
case .....

Social Democracy, therefore, must give most emphatic

warning to the proletariat and other working people of all
nationalities against direct deception by the nationalistic slogans
420
of "their own bourgeoisie, who with their saccharine or fiery
speeches about "our native land" try to divide the proletariat and
divert its attention from their bourgeois intrigues while they
enter into an economic and political alliance with the bourgeoisie
of other nations and with the tsarist mon
(Thesis on the National Question - Lenin - Collected Works-Vol.19
- pp.244/45 (I 913)

The National Programme of

Working Class Democracy
The slogan of working-class democracy is not "national
culture" but the international culture of democracy and the world
wide working class movement. Let the bourgeoisie deceive the
people with various "positive" national programmes. The class
conscious worker will answer the bourgeoisie there is only one
solution to the national problem (insofar as it can, in general, be
solved in the capitalist world, the world of profit, squabbling and
exploitation) and that solution is consistent democracy ....

The national programme of working class democracy is:

absolutely no privileges for any one nation or any one language:
the solution of the problem of the political self-determination of
nations, that is, their separation as states by completely free,
democratic methods: the promulgation of a law for the whole state
by virtue of which any measure (rural, urban or communal, etc)
introducing any privilege of any kind for one of the nations and
militating against the equality of nations or the rights of a national
minority, shall be declared illegal and ineffective, and any citizen
of the state shall have the right to demand that such a measure be

421
annulled as unconstitutional, and that those who attempt to put it
into effect be punished.
(Critical Remarks on the National Question-Lenin-Collected Works-Vol. 20 -
p.22(1913)

National Culture

In advancing the slogan of "the international culture of

democracy and of the world working class movement", we take
from each national culture only its democratic and socialist
elements; we take them only and absolutely in opposition to the
bourgeois culture and the bourgeois nationalism of each nation .

. . . Those who seek to serve the proletariat must unite the

workers of all nations, and unswervingly fight bourgeois
nationalism, domestic and foreign. The place of those who
advocate the slogan of national culture is among the nationalist
petty bourgeois, not among the Marxists.

The same applies to the most oppressed and

persecuted nation - the Jews. Jewish national culture is the slogan
of the rabbis and the bourgeoisie, the slogan of our enemies. But
there are other elements in Jewish culture and in Jewish history as
a whole ...
Whoever, directly or indirectly, puts forward the slogan of
Jewish "national culture" is (whatever his good intention may be)
an enemy of the proletariat, a supporter of all that is outmoded
and connected with caste among the Jewish people; he is an
accomplice of the rabbis and the bourgeoisie ...

422
 Bourgeois nationalism and proletarian internationalism -
these are the two irreconcilably hostile slogans that correspond to
the two great class camps throughout the capitalist world, and
express the two policies (nay, the two world outlooks) in the
national question. In advocating the slogan of national culture and
building up on it an entire plan and practical programmeof what
they call "cultural national autonomy"", the Bundists are in effect
instrument of bourgeois nationalism among the workers.
(Critical Remarks on The National Question - Lenin -Collected Works-Vol.
20 pp. 24/26 (1913)

National Culture vs International Culture

Marxism cannot be reconciled with nationalism, be it even

of the most just", purest", most refined and civilised brand. In
place of all forms of nationalism, Marxism advances
internationalism.
(Critical Remarks on the National Question - Lenin-Collected Works-Vol.
20-p. 34 (1913)

Federations andAutonomy

Marxists are, of course, opposed to federation and

decentralisation, for the simple reason that capitalism requires for
its development the largest and most centraised possible states.
Other conditions being equal, the class conscious proletariat will
always stand for the larger state. It will always fight against
medieval particularism, and will always welcome the closest
possible economic amalgamation of large territories in which the
proletariat's struggle against the bourgeoisie can develop on a
broad basis .

423
 ......... But while, and insofar as, different nations
constitute a single state, Marxists will never, under any
circumstances, advocate either the federal principle or
decentralisation .....
It would, however, be inexcusable to forget that in
advocating centralism we advocate exclusively democratic
centralism. On this point all the philistines in general, and the
nationalist philistines in particular have so confused the issue that
we are obliged again and again to spend time clarifying it.

Far from precluding local self-government, with

autonomy for regions having special economic and social
conditions, a distinct national composition of the population, and
so forth, democratic centralism necessarily demands both .....

Obviously, one cannot conceive of a modem, truly

democratic state that did not grant such autonomy to every region
having any appreciably distinct economic and social features,
populations of a specific national composition, etc. The principle
of centralism, which is essential for the development of
capitalism, is not violated by this (local and regional) autonomy,
but on the contrary is applied by it democratically, not
bureaucratically. The broad, free and rapid development of
capitalism would be impossible, or at least greatly impeded, by
the absence of such autonomy, which facilitates the concentration
of capital, the development of productive forces, the unity of the
bourgeoisie and the unity of the proletariat on a country-wide
scale.
(Critical Remarks on the National Question Lenin-Collected Works-
Vol.20-pp. 45/47 (1913)
424
 Compulsory Official Language
Russian is a great and mighty language, the liberals tell us.
Don't you want everybody who lives in the border regions of
Russia to know this great and mighty language? Don't you see
that the Russian Language will enrich the literature of the non-
Russians, put great treasures of culture within their reach, and so
forth?

That is all trne, gentlemen, we say in reply to the liberals.

We know better than you do that the language of Turgenev,
Tolstoy. Dobrolyubov and Chernyshevsky is a great and mighty
one. We desire more than you do that the closest possible
intercourse and fraternal unity should be established between the
oppressed classes of all the nations that inhabit Russia, without
any discrimination. And we, of course are in favour of every
inhabitant of Russia having the opportunity to learn the great
Russian Language.
What we do not want is the element of coercion. We do
not want to have people driven into paradise with a cudgel; for no
matter how many fine phrases about "culture" you may utter, a
compulsory official language involves coercion, the use of the
cudgel. We do not think that the great and mighty Russian
language needs everyone having to study it by sheer compulsion
... People whose conditions of life and work make it necessary for
them to know the Russian language will learn it without being
forced to do so. But the coercion (the cudgel) will have only one
result: it will hinder the great and mighty Russian language from
spreading to other national groups, and most important of all, it

425
will sharpen antagonism, cause friction in a million new forms,
increase resentment, mutual misunderstanding, and so on ....

That is why Russian Marxists say that there must be no

compulsory official language, that the population must be
provided with schools where teaching will be carried on in all the
local languages, that a fundamental law must be introduced in the
constitution declaring invalid all privileges of any one nation and
all violations of the rights of national minorities.

(Is A Compulsory Official Language Needed Lenin Collected

Works-Vol. 20-pp. 72/73 (1914)

The Right ofSelf-Determination in Practice

For the sake of illustration I shall quote the following
simple example. In 1905, as you know, Norway seceded from
Sweden in face of vehement protests from the Swedish landlords,
who threatened to go to war against Norway. Fortunately, the
feudalist in Sweden are not all-powerful as they are in Russia, and
there was no war. Norway, with a minority of the population,
seceded from Sweden in a peaceful, democratic and civilsed way,
not in the way the feudalist and the militarist party wanted. What
happened? Did the people lose by it? Did the interests of
civilisation or the interests of democracy, or the interests of the
working class, suffer as a result of the secession?

Not in the least! Both Norway and Sweden are countries

that are far more civilised than Russia incidentally, precisely
because they succeeded in applying in a democratic manner the
formula of the "political self-determination" of nations. The

426
breaking of compulsory ties strengthened voluntary economic
ties, strengthened cultural intimacy, and mutual respect between
these two nations, which are so close to each other in language
and other things. The common interests, the closeness of the
Swedish and Norwegian peoples actually gained from the
secession, for secession meant the rupture of compulsory ties .

. . . . . . . We Social-Democrats are opposed to all nationalism

and advocate democratic centralism. We are opposed to
particularism, and are convinced that, all other things being
equal, big states can solve the problems of economic progress and
of the struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie far
more effectively than small states can. But we value only
voluntary ties, never compulsory ties. Wherever we see
compulsory ties between nations, we, while by no means insisting
that every nation must secede, do absolutely and emphatically
insist on the right of every nation to political self-determination,
that is, to secession.

(On the Question of National Policy Lenin-Collected Works-Vol. 20

- pp. 222/23 (1914)
]

Socialist Revolution

The socialist revolution is not a single act; it is not one

battle on one front, but a whole epoch of acute class conflicts, a
long series of battles on all front, i.e., on all questions of
economics and politics, battles that can only end in the
expropriation of the bourgeoisie. It would be a radical mistake to
427
think that the struggle for democracy was capable of diverting
the proletariat from the socialist revolution or of hiding,
overshadowing it, etc. On the contrary, in the same way as there
can be no victorious socialism that does not practice full
democracy, so the proletariat cannot prepare for its victory over
the bourgeoisie without an all-round, consistent and
revolutionary struggle for democracy. It would be no less a
mistake to remove one of the points of the democratic programme,
for example, the points on the self-determination of nations, on
the grounds of it being "impracticable" or "illusory" under
imperialism. The contention that the right of nations to self-
determination is impracticable within the bounds of capitalism can
be understood either in the absolute, economic sense, or in the
conditional, political sense.
(Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self Determination-
Lenin-Collected Works-Vol. 21-pp. 143/44 (1916)

Joint-Determination
Instead ofSelf-Determination
We have affirmed that is would be a betrayal of socialism
to refuse to implement the self-determination of nations under
socialism. We are told in reply that "the right of self-
determination is not applicable to a socialist society." The
difference is a radical one. Where does it stem from?

We know", runs our opponents' reasoning, "that

socialism will abolish every kind of national oppression since it
abolishes the class interests that lead to it.. .. " What has this
argument about the economic prerequisites for the abolition of

428
 national oppression, which are very well known and undisputed,
to do with a discussion of one of the forms of political
oppression, namely, the forcible retention of one nation within the
state frontiers of another? This is nothing but an attempt to evade
political questions! .....

Our Polish comrades like this last argument, on joint

determination instead of self -determination, so much that they
repeat it three times in their theses! Frequency of repetition,
however, does not tum this Octobrist and reactionary argument
. into a Social-Democratic argument. All reactionaries and
bourgeois grant to nations forcibly retained within the frontiers of
a given state the right to "determine jointly" their fate in a
common parliament. Wilhelm II also gives the Belgians the right
to "determine jointly" the fate of the German Empire in a common
German parliament.
(The Discussion of Self-Determination Summed Up -Lenin- Collected
Works-Vol. 22-p. 322 (1916)

Pseudo-Recognition ofSelf-Determination
The Russian Social Democrat who "recognises" the Self-
deterrnination of nations more or less as it is recognised by
Messers. Plekhanov, Potresov & Co, that is, without bothering to
fight for the freedom of secession for nation oppressed by
Tsarism, is in fact an imperialist and lackey of Tsarism.

(The Discussion of Self - Determination Summed up Lenin

Collected Works-Vol. 22-pp. 359-69 ( 1916)

429
 The Polish Argument against Secession
... The Polish Social Democrats argue that, just because
they find the union with Russian workers advantageous, they are
opposed to Poland's secession. They have a perfect right to do so.
But people don't want to understand that to strengthen
internationalism you do not have to repeat the same words.
What you have to do is to stress, in Russia, the freedom of
secession for oppressed nations, and, in Poland, theirfreedom to
unite. Freedom to unite implies freedom to secede. We Russians
must emphasise freedom to secede, while the Poles must
emphasise freedom to unite.
(Speech on the National Question-Lenin-Collected Works-Vol. 24-
p. 298 ( 1917)

The Right to Secede

The elimination of national oppression, if at all achievable

in capitalist society, is possible only under a consistently
democratic republican system and state administration that
guarantee complete equality for all nations and languages.
The right of all the nations forming part of Russia freely to
secede and form independent states must be recognised. To deny
them this right, or to fail to take measures guaranteeing its
practical realisation, is equivalent to supporting a policy of seizure
or annexation. Only the recognition by the proletariat of the right
of nations to secede can ensure complete solidarity among the
workers of the various nations and help to bring the nations closer
together on truly democratic lines .

430
 The right of nations freely to secede must not be
confused with the advisability ofsecession by a given nation at a
given moment. The party of the proletariat must decide the latter
question quite independently in each particular case, having
regard to the interests of social development as a whole and the
interests of the class struggle of the proletariat for socialism.
(Resolution on the National Question Lenin-Collected Works Vol. 24-
pp. 302/03 (1917)

Secession and Unity

The freer Russia is, and the more resolutely our republic
recognises the right of non-Great Russian nations to secede, the
more strongly will other nations be attracted towards an alliance
with us, the less friction will there be, more rarely will actual
secession occur, the shorter the period of secession will last, and
the closer and more enduring- in the long run -will the fraternal
alliance be between the Russian proletarian and peasant republic
and the republics of all other nations.
(Finland and Russia Lenin-Collected Works-Vol. 24-p. 338(1917)

Ukrainians' Right to Secede

.... They (Ukrainian Rada) state very specifically that the
Ukrainian people do not wish to secede from Russia at present.
They demand autonomy without denying the need for the supreme
authority of the "All-Russia Parliament". No democrat, let alone a
socialist, will venture to deny the complete legitimacy of the
Ukrainian demands. And no democrat can deny the Ukrainian's
right to freely secede from Russia. Only unqualified recognition
of this right makes it possible to advocate a free union of the

431
Ukrainians and the Great Russians, a voluntary association of
two peoples in one state. Only unqualified recognition of this right
can actually break completely and irrevocably with the accursed
tsarist past, when everything was done to bring about a mutual
estrangement of the two peoples so close to each other in
language, territory, character and history .
We do not favour the existence of small states .. We stand
for the closest union of the workers of the world against "their
own" capitalists and those of all other countries. But for this union
to be voluntary, the Russian worker, who does not for a moment
trust the Russian or the Ukrainian bourgeoisie in anything, now
stand for the right of the Ukranians to secede, without imposing
his friendship upon them, but striving to win their friendship by
treating them as an equal, as an ally and brother in the struggle for
socialism.
(The Ukraine - Lenin-Collected Works-Vol. 25-pp. 91/92 (1917)

"The Right to Free Secession"

Instead of the word self-determination, which has given

rise to numerous misinterpretations, I propose the perfectly
precise concept: "the right to free secession. " When we win
power, we shall immediately and unconditionally recognise this
right for Finland, the Ukraine, Armenia, and any other nationality
oppressed by tsarism (and the Great Russian bourgeoisie). On the
other hand, we do not at all favour secession.... We want free
unification: that is why we must recognise the right to secede.
(Without freedom to secede, unification cannot be called free.)
(Revision of the Party Programme Lenin-Collected Works-Vol. 26-
pp. 175/76 (1917)

432
 Patriotism and Internationalism

Patriotism is one of the most deeply ingrained

sentiments, inculcated by the existence of separate fatherlands for
hundreds and thousands of years. One of the most pronounced,
one might say exceptional, difficulties of our proletarian
revolution is that it was obliged to pass through a phase of
extreme departure from patriotism, the phase of the Brest-Litovsk
peace. The bitterness, resentment, and violent indignation
provoked by this peace were easy to understand and it goes
without saying that we Marxists could expect only the class
conscious vanguard of the proletariat to appreciate the truth that
we were making and were obliged to make great national
sacrifices for the sake of the supreme interests of the world
proletarian revolution. There was no source from which
ideologists who are not Marxists, and the broad mass of the
working people, who do not belong to the proletariat trained in the
long school of strikes and revolution, could derive either a firm
conviction that the revolution was maturing, or an undeserved
devotion to it. At best, our tactics appeared to them a fantastic,
fanatical, and adventurist sacrifice of the real and most obvious
interests of hundreds of millions for the sake of an abstract,
utopian, and dubious hope of something that might occur abroad.
And the petty bourgeoisie, owing to their economic position, are
more patriotic than the bourgeoisie or the proletariat. But it
turned out as we had said.

(The Valuable Admission of Pitrim Sorokin- Lenin -Collected Works-

Vol. 28-p. 187 (1918)

433
 Self-Determination ofthe Working People

Our programme must not speak of the self-determination

of the working people, because that would be wrong. It must
speak of what actually exists. Since nations are at different stages
on the road from medievalism to bourgeois democracy and from
bourgeoisie democracy to proletarian democracy, this thesis of our
programme is absolutely correct. With us there have been very
many zigzags on this road. Every nation must obtain the right to
self-detennination, and that will make the self-determination of
the working people easier. In Finland the process of separation of
the proletariat from the bourgeoisie is remarkably clear, forceful
and deep. At any rate, things will not proceed there as they do in
our country. If we ere to declare that we do not recognise any
Finnish nation, but only the working people, that would be sheer
nonsense. We cannot refuse to recognise what actually exists: it
will itself compel us to recognise it the situation at present
is such that the majority of the Polish workers, who are more
advanced than ours and more cultured, shared the standpoint of
social-defencism, social patriotism. We must wait. We cannot
speak here of the self-determination of the working people. We
must carry on propaganda in behalf of this differentiation. This is
what we are doing, but there is not the slightest shadow of doubt
that we must recognise the self-determination of the Polish nation
now .... We cannot help reckoning with the fact that things. there
are proceeding in rather a peculiar way, and we cannot say:
"Down with the right of nations to self-determination! We grant
the right of self-determination only to the working people." The

434
self-determination proceeds in a very complex and different
way .
(Eighth Congress of RCP (B)-Lenin-Collected Works- Vol. 29-pp.
174/75 (1919)

Finland
I think that the case of Finland, as well as of the Bashkirs,
shows that in dealing with the national question one cannot argue
that economic unity should be effected under all circumstances.
Of course, it is necessary! But we must endeavour to secure it by
propaganda, by agitation, by a voluntary alliance. The Baskirs
distrust the Great Russians because the Great Russians are more
cultured and have utilised their culture to rob the Bashkirs. That is
why the term Great Russian is synonymous with the terms
"oppressor", "rogue" to Bashkirs in those remote places. This
must be taken into account, it must be combated, but it will be a
lengthy process. It cannot be eliminated by a decree .
(Eighth Congress ofRCP (8)- Lenin-Collected Works-Vol. 29-p.195 (1919)

Self-Determination

If a Great-Russian Communist insists upon the

amalgamation of the Ukraine with Russia, Ukranians might easily
suspect him of advocating this policy not from the motive of
uniting the proletarians in the fight against capital, but because of
the prejudices of the Old Great-Russian nationalism, of
imperialism, such mistrust is natural, and to a certain degree
inevitable and legitimate, because the Great Russians, under the
yoke of the landowners and capitalists, had for centuries imbibed

435
the shameful and disgusting prejudices of Great Russian
Chauvinism.

If a Ukrainian communist insists upon the unconditional

state independence of the Ukraine, he lays himself open to the
suspicion that he is supporting this policy not because of the
temporary interests of the Ukrainian workers and peasants in their
struggle against the yoke of capital, but on account of the petty-
bourgeois national prejudices of the small owner. Experience has
provided hundreds of instances of the petty-bourgeois "socialists"
of various countries - all the various Polish, Latvian and
Lithuanian pseudo-socialists, Georgian Mensheviks, Socialist
Revolutionaries and the like - assuming the guise of supporters of
the proletariat for the sole purpose of deceitfully promoting a
policy of compromise with "their" national bourgeoisie against
the revolutionary workers. We saw this in case of Kerensky's rule
in Russia in the February-October period of 191 7, and we have
seen it and are seeing it in all other countries.
(Letter to Workers and Peasants of Ukraine - Lenin-Collected Works-
Vol.30-p. 295 (1919)

If all these small states had taken the field against us -

they were supplied with hundreds of millions of dollars and the
finest guns and weapons, and had British instructors who had been
through the war if they had taken the field agains us, there is not
the slightest doubt that we would have been defeated. Everybody
knows that very well. But they did not take the field against us,
because they realised that the Bolsheviks are more honest. When
the Bolsheviks say that they recognise the independence of any
nation, that tsarist Russia was based on the oppression of other
nations, and that the Bolsheviks never supported this policy, do
436
not support it and never will support it, and that they will never go
to war to oppress other nations - when they say that, they are
believed. We know this not from the Latvian or Polish
Bolsheviks, but from the bourgeoisie of Poland, Latvia, Ukraine
and so on.
(First Congress of Working Cossacks-Lenin-Collected Works-Vol. 30- p.389
(1920)

NationalDefense
The national state created by capitalism in the struggle
with the sectionalism of the Middle Ages became the classical
arena of capitalism. But no sooner did it take shape than it became
a brake upon economic and cultured development. The
contradiction between the productive forces and the framework
of the national state in conjunction with the principal
contradiction between productive forces and the private
ownership of the means of production - make the crisis of
capitalism that of the world social system.

If state borders could be swept away with one stroke,

productive forces, even under capitalism, could continue to rise
for a certain length of time- at the price of innumerable
sacrifices, it is true - to a higher level. With the abolition of
private ownership of the means of production, the productive
forces may, as the experience of the USSR shows, reach a higher
development even within the framework of one state. But only the
abolition of private property as well as of state barriers between
nations can create the conditions for a new economic system: the
socialist society.

437
 The defense of the national state, first of all in
Balkanized Europe - the cradle of the national state is in the
full sense of the word a reactionary task.The national state with
its borders, passports, monetary system, customs and the army
for the protection of customs has become a frightful impediment
to the economic and cultural development of humanity. The task
of the proletariat is not the defense of the national state but its
complete andfinal liquidation.

Were the present national state to represent a progressive

factor, it would have to be defended irrespective of its political
fonn and, of course, regardless of who "started" the war first. It is
absurd to confuse the question of the historic function of the
national state with the question of the "guilt" of a given
government. Can one refuse to save a house suited for habitation
just because the fire started through carelessness or through evil
intent of the owner? But here it is precisely a case of the given
house being fit not for living but merely for dying. To enable the
people to live, the structure of the national state must be razed to
its foundation.
A "socialist" who preaches national defense is a petty
bourgeois reactionary at the service of decaying capitalism. Not to
bind itself to the national state in time of war, to follow not the
war map but the map of the class struggle is possible only for
that party that has already declared irreconcilable war on the
national state in time of peace. Only by realising fully the
objectively reactionary role of the imperialist state can the
proletarian vanguard become invulnerable to all types of social
patriotism. This means that a real break with the ideology and

438
policy of national defense" is possible only from the standpoint of
the International proletarian revolution.
(Writings of Leon Trotsky-1933/34-pp. 304/05)

The right of national self-determination is, of course, a

democratic and not a socialist principle. But genuinely democratic
principles are supported and realised in our era only by the
revolutionary proletariat: it is for this reason that they interlace
with socialist tasks. The resolute struggle of the Bolshevik party
for the right of self-determination of oppressed nationalities in
Russia facilitated in the extreme the conquest of power by the
proletariat. It was as if the proletarian revolution has sucked in the
democratic problems, above all, the agrarian and national
problems, giving to the Russian Revolution a combined character.
The proletariat was already undertaking socialist tasks but it could
not immediately raise to this level the peasantry and oppressed
nations (themselves predominantly peasant) who were absorbed
with solving their democratic tasks.

Hence flowed the historically inescapable compromises in

the agrarian as well as the national sphere .

The need for compromise, or rather for a number of

compromises, similarly arise in the field of the national question,
whose paths are no more rectilinear than the paths of the agrarian
revolution. The federated structure of the Soviet Republic
represents a compromise between the centralist requirements of
planned economy and the decentralist requirement of the
development of nations oppressed in the past. Having
constructed a workers' state on the compromise principle of a

439
federation, the Bolshevik party wrote into the constitution the
right of nations to complete separation, indicating thereby that the
party did not at all consider the national question as solved once
and for all.

......... Abstract agitation in favour of centralism does not

of itself carry great weight. As has already been said, the
federation was a necessary departure from centralism. It must also
be added that the very composition of the federation is by no
means given beforehand once and for all. Depending on the
objective conditions, a federation may develop toward greater
centralism, or on the contrary, toward greater independence of its
national component parts. Politically it is not at all a question of
whether it is advantageous "in general" for various nationalities to
live together within the framework of a single state but rather it is
a question of whether or not a particular nationality has, on the
basis of her own experience, found it advantageous to adhere to a
given state .....

The sectarian simply ignores the fact that the national

struggle, one of the most labyrinthine and complex but at the
same time extremely important forms of class struggle, cannot
be suspended by bare references to the future world revolution.
(Independence of the Ukraine and Sectarian Muddleheads - Writings of
Leon Trotsky 1939 I 40- pp.46/49)

What characterises Bolshevism on the national question is

that in its attitude toward oppressed nations, even the most
backward, it considers them not only the object but also the
subject of politics. Bolshevism does not confine itself to
440
recognising their "right" to self-determination and to
parliamentary protests against the trampling upon of this right.
Bolshevism penetrates into the midst of the oppressed nations; it
raises them up against their oppressors; it ties up their struggle
with the struggle of the proletariat in capitalist countries; it
instructs the oppressed Chinese, Hindus, or Arabs in the art of
insurrection and it assumes full responsibility for this work in
the face of civilised executioners. Here only does Bolshevism
begin, that is revolutionary Marxism in action. Everything that
does not step over this boundary remains centrism.
(The Struggle Against Fascism - Trotsky-p. 203)

....... The demand for recognition of every nationality's

right to self-determination simply implies that we, the party of the
proletariat, must always and unconditionally oppose any attempt
to influence national self-determination from without by violence
or injustice. While at all times performing this negative duty of
ours (to fight and protest against violence), we on our part concern
ourselves with the self-determination of the proletariat in each
nationality rather than with self-determination of peoples or
nations. Thus, the general, basic and ever binding programme of
Russian Social Democracy must consist only in the demand for
equal rights for all citizens (irrespective of sex, language, creed,
race, nationality, etc.) and for the right to free democratic self-
determination. As to support of the demand for national
autonomy, it is by no means a permanent and binding part of the
programme of the proletariat. This support may become necessary
for it only in isolated and exceptional cases ....
(On Manifesto of Armenian Social-Democrat-Lenin-Collected Works-
Vol.6-p. 329 (1903)

441
 National Peculiarities

Our own Fabians, the Russian Mensheviks and so-called

Social Revolutionaries, brought against us all the same arguments
which we hear today from Lansbury, Brailsford, Russell, and their
more right-wing colleagues, as revelations of true British
philosophy. After all, allusion to national peculiarities is the last
tool of every ideological reaction defending itself against the
revolutionary issues of the time. By this we do not at all want to
say that national peculiarities do not exist, or that they are
immaterial. The accumulation of the past in institutions and
customs are a great conservative force. But it is the living forces
of the present, in the final analysis, which are decisive.
(Where Is Britain Going? - Leon Trotsky on Britain- p. 195 ( ! 925)

Mathematics

That pure mathematics has a validity which is independent

of the particular experience of individual is, for that matter,
correct, and this is true of all established facts in every science,
and indeed of all facts whatsoever. The magnetic poles, the fact
that water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen, the fact that
Hegel is dead and Herr Diihring alive, hold good independently of
my own experience or that of any other individual, and even
independently of Herr Duhring's experience, when he begins to
sleep the sleep of the just. But it is not at all true that in pure
mathematics the mind deals only with its own creations and
imaginations. The concepts of number and figure have not
being derived from any source other than the world of reality.
The ten figures on which men learnt to count, that is, to perform

442
 the first arithmetical operation, are anything but a free creation of
the mind. Counting requires not only objects that can be counted,
but also the ability to exclude all properties of the objects
considered except their number-and this ability is the product of a
long historical evolution based on experience. Like the idea of
number, so the idea offigure is borrowed exclusively from the
external world, and does not arise in the mind out of pure
thought. There must have been things which had shape and
whose shapes were compared before anyone could arrive at the
idea offigure. Pure mathematics deals with the space forms and
quantity relations of the real world - that is, with material which is
very real indeed. The fact that this material appears in an
extremely abstract form can only superficially conceal its origin
from the external world. But in order to make it possible to
investigate these forms and relations in their pure state, it is
necessary to separate them entirely from their content, to put the
content aside as irrelevant; thus we get points without dimensions,
lines without breadth and thickness, a and b and x and y,
constants and variables; and only at the very end do we reach the
free creations and imaginations of the mind itself; that is to say,
imaginary magnitudes. Even the apparent derivation of
mathematical magnitudes from each other does not prove their a
priori origin, but only their rational connection. Before one came
upon the idea of deducing the form of a cylinder from the rotation
of a rectangle about one of its sides, a number of real rectangles
and cylinders, however imperfect in form, must have been
examined. Like all other sciences, mathematics arose out of needs
of men; from the measurement of land and the content of vessels,
from the computation of time and from mechanics. But, as in
every department of thought, at a certain stage of development the
443
laws, which were abstracted from the real world, become divorced
from the real world, and are set up against it as something
independent, as laws coming from outside, to which the world has
to conform. That is how things happened in society and in the
state, and in this way, and not otherwise, pure mathematics was
subsequently applied to the world, although it is borrowed from
the same world and represents only one part of its forms of
interconnection - and it is only just because of this that it can be
applied at all.
(Anti-Duhring Engels-pp. 58/59)

Women & Communism

But communists would introduce community of women,
screams the whole bourgeoisie in chorus.

The bourgeois sees in his wife a mere instrument of

production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be
exploited in common and, naturally, can come to no other
conclusion than that of being common to all will likewise fall to
the women.

He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is

to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of
production.
For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous
indignation of our bourgeoise at the community of women which,
they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the
communists. The communists have no need to introduce
community of women, it has existed almost from the time
immemorial.

444
 Our bourgeois, not content with having the wives and
daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of
prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other's
WIveS.

Bourgeois marriage is in reality a system of wives in

common and thus, at the most, what the communists might
possibly be reproached with, is that they desire to introduce, in
substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised
community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the
abolition of the present system of production must bring with it
the abolition of the community of women springing from that
system, i.e., of prostitution of both public and private.
(Marx - Engels - Manifesto of the Communist Party MECW
Vol.6- p.502 (I 848)
Ideal Profession

Although we cannot work for long and seldom happily

with physical constitution which is not suited to our profession,
the thought nevertheless continually arises of sacrificing our well
being to duty, of acting vigorously although we are weak. But if
we have chosen a profession for which we do not possess the
talent, we can never exercise it worthily, we shall soon realise
with shame our own incapacity and tell ourselves that we are
useless created beings, members of society who are incapable of
fulfilling their vocation. Then the most natural consequence is
self-contempt, and what feeling is more painful and less capable
of being made up for by all that the outside world has to offer?
Self-contempt is a serpent that ever gnaws at one's breast, sucking
the lifeblood from one's heart and mixing it with the poison of
misanthropy and despair. ....
445
 Worth is that which most of all uplifts a man, which
imparts a higher nobility to his actions and all his endeavours,
which makes him invulnerable, admired by the crowd and raised
above it.

But worth can be assured only by a profession in which we

are not servile tools, but in which we act independently in our own
sphere. It can be assured only by a profession that does not
demand reprehensible acts, even if reprehensible only in outward
appearance, a profession which the best can follow with noble
pride. A profession which assures this in the greatest degree is not
always the highest, but is always the most to be preferred ....

But the chief guide which must direct us in the choice of a

profession is the welfare of mankind and our own perfection. It
should not be thought that these two interests could be in conflict,
that one would have to destroy the other; on the contrary, man's
nature is so constituted that he can attain his own perfection only
by working for the perfection, for the good, of his fellow men.

If he works only for himself, he may perhaps become a

famous man of learning, a great sage, an excellent poet, but he can
never be a perfect, truly great man.

History calls those men the greatest who have ennobled

themselves by working for the common good; experience
acclaims as happiest the man who has made the greatest number
of people happy; religion itself teaches us that the ideal being

446
whom all strive to copy sacrificed himself for the sake of
mankind, and who would dare to set at naught such judgements.

(Marx Reflections of a Young Man on the Choice of a Profession

MECW- Vol.I pp.7-8 (August 10-16, (1835)

Censor and the Judge

The censor has no law but his superiors. The judge has no
superiors but the law. The judge, however, has the duty of
interpreting the law, as he understands it after conscientious
examination, in order to apply it in a particular case. The censor's
duty is to understand the law as officially interpreted for him in a
particular case. The independent judge belongs neither to me nor
to the government. The dependent censor is himself a government
organ. In the case of the judge, there is involved at most the
unreliability of an individual intellect, in the case of the censor the
unreliability of an individual character. The judge has a definite
press offence put before him; confronting the censor is the spirit
of the press. The judge judges may act according to a definite
law; the censor not only punishes the crime, he makes it. If I am
brought before the court, I am accused of disobeying an existing
law, and for a law to be violated it must indeed exist. Where there
is no press law there is no law which can be violated by the press.
The censorship does not accuse me of violating an existing
law. It condemns my opinion because it is not the opinion of
the censor and his superiors. My openly performed act, which is
willing to submit itself to the world and its judgement, to the state
and its law, has sentence passed on it by a hidden, purely negative

447
power, which cannot give itself the form of law, which shuns the
light of day, and which is not bound by any general principles.

(Marx - Debates on Freedom of the Press - MECW Vol. I- p. 166 {l 842)

Criticism of Weapons and

Weapon ofCriticism

The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace

criticism by weapons; material force must be overthrown by
material force as soon as it has gripped the masses. The theory is
capable of gripping the masses as soon as it demonstrates ad
hominem, and it demonstrates ad hominem as soon as it becomes
radical. To be radical is to grasp the root of the matter. But for
man the root is man himself. The evident proof of the radicalism
of German theory, and hence of its practical energy, is that it
proceeds from a resolute positive abolition of religion. The
criticism of religion ends with the teaching that man is the highest
being for man, hence with the categorical imperative to
overthrow all relations in which man is a debased, enslaved,
forsaken, despicable being, relations which cannot be better
described than by the exclamation of a Frenchman when it was
planned to introduce a tax on dogs! Poor dogs! They want to treat
you like human beings!
(Marx On the Jewish Question - MECW- Vol. 3-p. 182 (1843)

Englishman and Prejudices

The Englishman crawls before public prejudice, he

immolates himself to it daily-and the more liberal he is, the more

448
humbly does he grovel in the dust before his idol. Public prejudice
in "educated society" is however either of Tory or of Whig
persuation, or at best radical- and even that no longer has quite the
odour of propriety. If you should go amongst educated
Englishmen and say that you are Chartists or democrats the
balance of your mind will be doubted and your company fled. Or
declare you do not believe in the divinity of Christ, and you are
done for; if moreover you confess that you are atheists, the next
day people will pretend not to know you. And when the
independent Englishman for once- and this happens rarely
enough - really begins to think and shakes off the fetters of
prejudice he has absorbed with his mother's milk, even then he
has not the courage to speak out his convictions openly, even then
he feigns an opinion before society that is at least tolerated, and is
quite content if occasionally he can discuss his views with some
like-minded person in private.
(Marx - MECW - Vol.3 -p.446 (1843)

The Root ofHypocrisy and Lying

Carlyle accuses the age furthermore - this is the immediate

consequence of the foregoing - of hypocrisy and lying. Naturally
the hollowness and enervation must be decently concealed and
kept upright by accessories, padded clothes and whalebone stays!
We to attack the hypocrisy of the present Christian state of the
world; the struggle against it, our liberation from it and the
liberation of the world from it are ultimately our sole occupation;
but because through the development of philosophy we are able to
discern this hypocrisy, and because we are waging the struggle
scientifically, the nature of this hypocrisy is no longer so strange

449
and incomprehensible to us as it admittedly still is to Carlyle. This
hypocrisy is traced back by us to religion, the first word of which
is a lie- or does religion not begin by showing us something
human and claiming it is something superhuman, something
divine? But because we know that all this lying and immorality
follows from religion, that religious hypocrisy, theology, is the
archetype of all other lies and hypocrisy, we are justified in
extending the term "theology" to the whole untruth and
hypocrisy of the present, as was originally done by Feuerbach
and Bruno Bauer. Carlyle should read their works if he wishes to
know the origin of the immorality that plagues our whole society.

(Engels- MECW Vol. 3 p.462)

Degrading Effect ofForced Work

Another source of demoralisation among the workers is

their being condemned to work. As voluntary productive activity
is the highest enjoyment known to us, so is compulsory toil the
most cruel, degrading punishment. Nothing is more terrible than
being constrained to do some one thing every day from morning
until night against one's will. And the more a man the worker
feels himself, the more hateful must his work be to him, because
he feels the constraint, the aimlessness of it for himself. Why does
he work.For love of work?From a natural impulse? Not at all! He
works for money, for a thing which has nothing whatsoever to do
with the work itself; and he works so long, moreover, and in such
unbroken monotony, that this alone must make his work a torture
in the first weeks if he has the least human feeling left thing since

450
 the introduction of steam. The worker's activity i. The division of
labour has multiplied the brutalising influences offorced work.
In the most branches the worker's activity is reduced to some
paltry, purely mechanical manipulation, repeated minute after
minute, unchanged year after year. How much human feeling,
what abilities can a man retain in his thirtieth year, who has
made needle points or filed toothed wheels twelve hours every
day from his early childhood, living all the time under the
conditions forced upon the English proletarian? It is still the
sames made easy, muscular effort is saved, but the work itself
becomes unmeaning and monotonous to the last degree. It offers
no field for mental activity, and claims just enough of his
attention to keep him from thinking anything else. And a
sentence to such work, to work which takes his whole time for
itself, leaving him scarcely time to eat and sleep, none for
physical exercise in the open air or the enjoyment of Nature,
much less for mental activity, how can such a sentence help
degrading a human being to the level of a brute. Once more the
worker must choose, must either surrender himself to his fate,
become a "good" workman, heed "faithfully" the interest of the
bourgeoisie in which case he most certainly become a brute, or
else he must rebel, fight for his manhood to the last, and this he
can only do in the fight against the bourgeoisie.
(Engels - The Condition of the Working Class in England - MECW - Vol.4
- pp. 415/16 (1845)

Liquors

Next to intemperance in the enjoyment of intoxicating

liquors, one of the principle faults of English working-men is

451
sexual license. But this, too, follows with relentless logic, with
inevitable necessity out of the position of a class left to itself, with .
no means of making fitting use of its freedom. The bourgeoisie
has left the working class only these two pleasures, while
imposing upon it a multitude of labours and hardships, and the
consequence is that the working men, in order to get something
from life, concentrate their whole energy upon these two
enjoyments, carry them to excess, surrender to them in the most
unbridled manner. When people are placed under conditions
which appeal to the brute only, what remains to them but to rebel
or succumb to utter brutality? And when, moreover, the
bourgeoisie does its full share in maintaining prostitution - how
many of the 40,000 prostitutes who fill the streets of London
every evening live upon the virtuous bourgeoisie. How many of
them owe it to the seduction of a bourgeois, that they must offer
their bodies to the passersby in order to live? Surely it has least of
all a right to reproach the workers with their sexual brutality.

The failings of the workers in general may be traced to an

unbridled thirst for pleasure, to want of providence, and of
flexibility in fitting into the social order, to the general inability of
sacrifice the pleasure of the moment to a remoter advantage. But
is that to be wondered at? When a class can purchase few and only
the most sensual pleasures by its wearying toil, must it not give
itself over blindly and madly to those pleasures? ....

(Engels - The Condition of the Working Class in England-MECW -

Vol. 4- pp. 423/24 ( I 845)

452
 Law and the bourgeoisie

..... True, the law is sacred to the bourgeoisie, for it is his

own composition, enacted with his consent, and for his benefit
and protection. He knows that, even if an individual law should
injure him, the whole fabric protects his interests; and more
than all, the sanctity of the law, the sacredness of order as
established by the active will of one part of society, and the
passive acceptance of the other, is the strongest support of his
social position. Because the English bourgeois finds himself
reproduced in his law, as he does in his God, the policeman's
truncheon which, in a certain measure, is his own club, has for
him a wonderfully soothing power. But for the working man quite
otherwise. The working man knows too well, has learned from
oft-repeated experience, that the law is a rod which the bourgeois
has prepared for him.
(Engels - The Condition of the Working Class in England - MECW -
Vol.4 - pp. 516/17 (1845)

The Right ofInheritance

The right of inheritance is only of social import, in so far
as it leaves to the heir the power which the deceased wielded
during his lifetime, viz, the power of transferring to himself,
by means of his property, the produce of other people's labour.
For instance, land gives the living proprietor the power to transfer
to himself, under the name of rent, without any equivalent, the
produce of other people's labour. Capital gives him the power to
do the same under name of profit and interest. The property in
public funds gives him the power to live without labour upon
other people's labour, etc.
453
 Inheritance does not create that power of transferring the
produce of one man's labour into another man's pocket it only
relates to the change in the individuals who yield that power. Like
all other civil legislation, the laws of inheritance are not the cause,
but the effect, the juridical consequence of the existing
economical organisation of society, based upon private property
in the means of production, that is to say, in land, raw meterical,
machinery, etc. In the same way the right of inheritance in the
slave is not the cause of slavery, but, on the contrary, slavery is
the cause of inheritance in slaves.

What we have to grapple with, is the cause and not the

effect, the economical basis - not its juridical superstructure.
Suppose the means of production transformed from private into
social prosperity, then the right of inheritance- (so far as it is of
any social importance) would die of itself, because a man only
leaves after his death what he possessed during his lifetime. Our
great aim must, therefore, be to supersede those institutions which
give to some people, during their lifetime, the economical power
of transferring to themselves the fruits of the labour of the many.
Where the state of society is far enough advanced, and the
working class possesses sufficient power to abrogate such
institutions, they must do so in a direct way. For instance, by
doing away with the public debt, they of course, at the same time,
get rid of the inheritance in public funds. On the one hand, if they
do not possess the power to abolish the public debt, it would be a
foolish attempt to abolish the right of inheritance in public funds.

454
 The disappearance of the right of inheritance will be
the natural result of a social change superseding private property
in the means of production; but the abolition of the right of
inheritance can never be the starting-point of such a social
transformation.
It was one of the great errors committed about 40 years
since by the disciples of St. Simon, to treat the right of
inheritance, not as the legal effect, but as the economical cause
of the present social organisation. This did not at all prevent them
from perpetuating in their system of society private property in
land, and the other means of production. Of course elective and
life-long proprietors, they thought, might exist as elective kings
have existed.
To proclaim the abolition of the right of inheritance as
the starting-point of the social revolution, would only tend to
lead the working class away from the true point of attack against
present society. It would be as absurd a thing as to abolish the
laws of contract between buyer and seller, while continuing the
present state of exchange of commodities.
It would be a thing false in theory, and reactionary in
practice.
(Marx-Report of the General Council on the Right of Inheritance -
MECW- Vol.21-pp. 65/66 (August 3, 1869)

Duels
. . . . . . Principle of the duel. We don't believe that,
generally speaking, an affair as relative as a duel can be subsumed
under the category good or bad. That duelling as such is not
rational there can be no doubt. Nor that it is a relic of a bygone
455
stage of civilisation. However, a concomitant of the one-sidedness
of bourgeois society is that, in opposition to the latter, certain
feudal forms maintain the rights of the individual. The most
striking proof of this is to be found in the United States where
duelling is a civil right. Individuals may become locked in a
mutual conflict so insupportable that a duel seems to them the
only solution. However such deadly tension is not in fact possible
vis-a-vis an indifferent person such as an Intendanturrat, as
Assessor or a lieutenant. This would demand a significant
personal relationship. Otherwise a duel is an utter-farce. It is
invariably a farce when performed in deference to so-called
"public opinion".

We therefore regard duelling as being purely dependent on

circumstances: hence recourse may be had to it as an exceptional
pis aller (expedient) in exceptional circumstances .....

In the case under discussion, a duel would have absolutely

no meaning save as the observance of a conventional formality
recognised by certain privileged classes. Our party must resolutely
set its face against these class ceremonies and reject with most
cynical contempt the presumptuous demand that we submit to
them. (Marx To Lassalle - MECW-Vol. 40 -pp.322/23-July 2, 1858)

Philistine life
..... I am leading a life here such as the most splendiferous
philistine could only wish for - a quiet, tranquil life, full of
devotion and respectability. I sit in my room and work, hardly go
anywhere and am staid as a German. If that keeps up I am afraid
the Almighty may forgive my writings and admit me to heaven.
456
You may take it for certain that here in Barmen I am beginning to
gain a good reputation. But I am sick and tired of it all .... Add to
this the. drowsy life in a thoroughly Christian-Prussian family - I
cannot stand it any longer; I might in the end become a German
philistine and introduce philistinism into communism.
(Engels to Marx-Selected Correspondence -pp.26/27-January 20, (1845)

Technology

The re-reading of my excerpts bearing on the history of

technology has led me to the opinion that, apart from the
discovery of gunpowder, the compass and printing - those
necessary prerequisites of bourgeois development - the two
material bases on which the preparations for machine-operated
industry proceeded within manufacture during the period from the
sixteenth to the middle of the eighteenth century (the period in
which manufacture was developing from handicraft into large-
scale industry proper) were the clock and the mill (at first the com
mill, specifically, the water-mill). Both were inherited from the
ancients. (The water mill was introduced into Rome from Asia
Minor at the time of Julius Caesar.) The clock was the first
automatic machine applied to practical purposes; the whole theory
of the production of regular motion was developed through it.
Its nature is such that it is based on a combination of half-artistic
handicraft and direct theory...
The mill on the other hand, from the very beginning, as
soon as water-mill came into existence, possessed the essential
elements of the organism of a machine. The mechanical motive
power .... Almost all the great mathematicians after the middle of

457
the seventeenth century, so far as they occupied themselves with
practical mechanics and its theoretical side, started from the
simple com grinding water-mill .

But with the mill, as with the press, the forge, the plough,
etc ... , the work proper, that of beating crushing, grinding,
pulverising, etc. has been performed from the very first without
human labour, even though moving force was human or animal.. ..
The industrial revolution begins as soon as machanisms are
employed where from ancient times the final result has required
human labour ....
(Marx to Engels-Selected Correspondence - pp. 138/39 (January 28, 1863)

"Practical Politicians"
I think that Schweitzer and the others have honest
intentions, but they are "practical politicians." They want to take
existing circumstances into consideration and refuse to surrender
this privilege of "practical politics" to the exclusive use of Messrs.
Miquel et Comp. (The latter seem to want to reserve to themselves
the right to intermixture with the Prussian Government.) They
know that the worker's press and the workers' movement in
Prussia (and therefore in the rest of Germany) exist solely by the
grace of the police. So they want to take things as they are, and
not irritate the government, etc. just like our "republican" practical
politicians, who are willing to "take along with them" a
Hohenzollern emperor. But since I am not a "practical
politician", I together with Engels have found it necessary to give
notice to the Social-Demokrat in a public statement of our
intention to quit.
(Marx to L.Kugelmann - Selected Correspondence p.170 (February 23, 1865)

458
 Climate

Climate and the Vegetable World Throughout the

Ages, a History of Both, by Frass (1847), is very interesting,
especially as proving that climate and flora have changed in
historic times. He is a Darwinist before Darwin, and makes even
the species arise in historic times. But he is also an agronomist.
He maintains that as a result of cultivation and in proportion to its
degree, the "moisture" so much beloved by the peasant is lost
(hence plants migrate from south to north) and eventually the
formation of Stepps begins. The first· effects of cultivation are
useful, but in the end it turns the land into wastes owing to
deforestation, etc. This man is both a thoroughly learned
philologist (he has written books in Greek) and a chemist,
agronomist, etc. The conclusion is that cultivation when it
progresses spontaneously and is not consciously controlled (as a
bourgeois he of course does not arrive at this) leaves deserts
behind it Persia, Mesopotamia, etc., Greece. Hence again an
unconscious socialist tendency .....
(Marx to Engels-Selected Correspondence-p.202 (March 25, l 868)

History and "Accidents"

World history would indeed be very easy to make if the

struggles were taken up only on condition of infallibly favourable
chances. It would be on the other hand be of very mystical nature,
if "accidents" played no part. These accidents naturally form part
of the general course of development and are compensated by
other accidents. But the acceleration and delay are very much

459
dependent upon such "accidents", including the "accident" of the
character of the people who first head the movement.
(Marx to L.Kugelmann-Selected Correspondence (p.264 April 17, 1871)

Methods ofAttack
I do not deny the advantages of your method of attack,
which I would like to call psychological; but I would have chosen
another method. Every one of us is influenced more or less by the
intellectual environment in which he mostly moves. For Russia,
where you know your public better than I, and for a propaganda
journal that appeals to the moral sense your method is probably
the better one. For Germany, where false sentimentality has done
and still does so much damage, it would not fit; it would be
misunderstood, sentimentally perverted. In our country it is hatred
rather than love that is needed at least in the immediate future -
and more than anything else a shedding of the last remnants of
German idealism, an establishment of the material facts in their
historical rights.

(Engels to P.L.Lavrov - Selected Correspondence (p. 302-November

12-17, 1875)

Over-Population
..... Even though the Katheder-Socialists persistently call
upon us proletarian socialists to tell them how we can prevent
over-population and the consequent threat to the existence of the
new social order, I see no reason at all why I should do them the
favour. I consider it a sheer waste of time to dispel all the scruples
and doubts of these people which arise from their muddled

460
superwisdom, or even to refute, for instance, the awful twaddle
which Schaffle alone has compiled in his numerous big volumes.
It would require a fair-sized book merely to correct all the
passages set in inverted commas which these gentlemen have
misquoted from Capital. They should first learn to read and to
copy before demanding that one should answer their questions.

. . . . . . . There is of course the abstract possibility that the

human population will become so numerous that its further
increase will have to be checked. If it should become necessary
for communist society to regulate the production of men, just as it
will have already regulated the production of things, then it, and it
alone, will be able to do it without difficulties. It seems to me that
it should not be too difficult for such a society to achieve in a
planned way what has already come about naturally, without
planning, in France and Lower Austria. In any case it will be for
those people to decide if, when and what they want to do about
it, what means to apply. I don't feel qualified to offer them any
advice or counsel in this matter. They will presumably be at least
clever as we are.
(Engels to K.Kautsky-Selected Correspondence-p.335 (February 1, 1881)

German Narrow-Mindedness
I never concealed the fact that in my opinion the
masses in Germany are much better than the gentlemen in the
leadership, especially since the Party, thanks to the press and
agitation, has become a milch cow for them, providing butter for
their bread, and now Bismarck and the bourgeoisie all of a sudden
butchered that cow. The thousand people who thereby

461
immediately lost their livelihoods had the personal misfortune of
not being placed directly into the position of revolutionaries, i.e.,
sent into exile .... Soon they pinned all their hopes on a repeal of
the Anti-Socialist law. No wonder that under pressure of
philistinism the insane idea took hold of them that this could be
attained by meekness. Germany is an execrable country for people
with scant will power. The narrowness and pettiness of civil as
well as political relations, the small-town character of even the
big cities, the small but constantly increasing vexations
encountered in the struggle with police and bureaucracy - all
this enervates instead of spurring on to resistance, and thus in
this great children's nursery many become children themselves.
Petty relations beget petty views, so that it takes great
intelligence and energy for anyone living ill Germany to be able
to see beyond his immediate environment, to keep one's eye
upon the great interconnection of world events and not to lapse
into that self-complacent "objectivity" which sees no further
than its nose and precisely for that reason amounts to the most
narrow-minded subjectivity even when it is shared by thousands
ofsuch subjects.
(Engels to E.Bernstein - Selected Correspondence-pp. 347/48 (January 25,
1882)

Bourgeois Respectability
The most repulsive thing here is the bourgeois
"respectability", which has grown deep into the bones of the
workers. The division of society into innumerable strata, each
recognised without question, each with its own pride, but also its
inborn respect for its "betters" and "superiors", is so old and

462
firmly established that the bourgeois still find it fairly easy to get
their bait accepted. / am not at all sure, for instance, that John
Burns is not secretly prouder of his popularity with Cardinal
Manning, the Lord Mayor, and the bourgeoisie in general than
of his popularity with his own class... And Even Tom Mann,
whom I regard as the best of the lot, is fond of mentioning that
he will be lunching with the Lord Mayor. If one compares this
with the French, one realises what a revolution is good for after
all....
(Engels to F.A.Sorge-Selected Correspondence-p.408 (December 17, 1889)

InheritedRubbish

. . . In a country with such an old political and labour

movement there is always a tremendous heap of traditionally
inherited rubbish which has to be got rid of by degrees. There are
the prejudices of the skilled Unions - Engineers, Bricklayers,
Carpenters and joiners, type compositors, etc.- which have to be
broken down; the petty jealousies of the particular trades, which
become intensified in the hands and heads of the leaders to the
point of direct hostility and underhand struggle; there are mutually
conflicting ambitions and intrigues of the leaders; one wants to get
into Parliament and so does somebody else, a third wants to get
the County Council or on the Schoolboard, a fourth wants to
organise a general central body comprising all workers, a fifth to
start a paper, a sixth a club, etc., etc. In short there is friction
galore. And among them is the Socialist League, which looks
down on everything that is not directly revolutionary (which
means here in England as in your country; all who do not limit
themselves to making phrases and otherwise doing nothing) and
the Federation, which still behaves as if all except themselves
463
were asses and bunglers, although it is precisely owing to the new
impetus lent to the movement that they have succeeded in getting
some following again. In short, anyone who looks only at the
surface would say it was all confusion and personal quarrels. But
under the surface the movement is going on, is embracing ever
wider sections and mostly just among the hitherto stagnant lowest
strata. The day is no longer far off when this mass will suddenly
find itself, when it will dawn upon it that it itself is the colossal
mass in motion, and when that day comes short work will be made
of all the rascality and wrangling.
(Engels to F.A. Sorge-Selected Correspondence-p.412-April 19, 1890)

German and Norwegian Philistinism

. . . . As far as your attempt to treat the matter
materialistically is concerned I must say in the first place that the
materialist method turns into its opposite if it is not taken as one's
guiding principle in historical investigation but as a ready pattern
according to which one shape the facts to suit oneself. And if Herr
Bahr thinks he caught you making such a mistake he seems to me
to be not altogether wrong.

You put all Norway and everything that happens there into
one category: philistinism, and then you unhesitatingly attribute to
this Norwegian philistinism the qualities which in your opinion
distinguish German philistinism. But here two facts stand in the
way.
First: at time when in all Europe the victory over Napoleon
took the shape of victory of reaction over revolution and only in
its cradle, France, did the revolution still inspire so much fear as
to wrest a liberal bourgeois constitution from the returning
464
legitimist regime, Norway found an opportunity to win her fight
for a constitution that is far more democratic than any other of
contemporary Europe.
Second: Norway has experienced in the last twenty years a
literary upsurge unparalleled during this period in any other
country except Russia. Be they philistines or not, these people get
much more done than the others and leave their imprint also on
other literatures, not last among them German Literature.

These facts make it necessary, in my opinion, to

investigate to some extent the specific features of Norwegian
philistinism.

And here you will probably find that there is quite a

substantial difference. In Germany philistinism is the outcome of
a ship-wrecked revolution, of an uninterrupted, repressed
development. The abnormally prominent traits characteristic of it
- cowardice, narrow-mindedness, helplessness and inability to
take the initiative ... This character still clung to it when Germany
was again swept into the historical movement. It was strong
enough to impress its mark as the more or less general type on all
other classes of German society, until finally our working class
broke through these narrow limits. The fact that the German
working men "have no country" is confirmed most fully in their
having cast off all German philistine narrow-mindedness.

German philistinism is therefore not a normal historical

phase but an extreme caricature, a piece of degeneration, just as
the Polish Jew is a caricature of Jewry. The English, French, etc.,
petty - bourgeois are by no means on the same level as the
German.

465
 In Norway, on the contrary, the small peasantry and the
petty bourgeoisie with a slight admixture of medium bourgeoisie -
such as existed, say, in England and France in the seventeenth
century have constituted for several centuries the nonnal state of
society ...

The Norwegian peasant was never a serf and this provides

an entirely different background for the whole development. ..
The Norwegian petty bourgeois is the son of a free peasant and
under these circumstances is a man in comparison with the
deteriorated German philistine. Likewise the Norwegian woman
of the lower middle class stands sky-high above the spouse of the
German philistine. And whatever the shortcomings of, for
instance Ibsen's plays may be, they mirror a world which though
small and medium bourgeois is infinitely different from the
German, a world in which people still have strength of character
and initiative and act independently, even if often rather strangely
in the judgement of foreigners. I prefer to make a thorough study
of such things before condemning them ...
(Engels to P. Ernst-Selected Correspondence-pp. 413-14 (June 5, 1890)

Anniversaries
How time passes! Old Hamey reminds me this morning
that yesterday was the anniversary of the February revolution.
"Long Live The Republic!" Lord, we have so many other
anniversaries to celebrate now that one forgets these semi-
bourgeois occasions! And to think that in five years it will be a
half-century since that one took place. At the time we were all
enthusiasm for the republic- with a small r; since it has been
466
written with a capital R. It seems worthless save as an almost
obsolete historical stage.
(Engels to Lafargue - Selected Correspondence-p.455 (1893)

The Contribution of Engels

If I find anything to object to it is that you give me
more credit than I deserve, even if I count in everything which I
might possibly have found out for myself - in time- but which
Marx with his more rapid coup d'oeil and wider vision discovered
much more quickly. When one had the good fortune to work for
forty years with a man like Marx, one usually does not during
his lifetime get the recognition one thinks one deserves. Then,
when the greater man dies, lesser easily gets overrated and this
seems to me to be just my case at present; history will set this
right in the end and by that time one will have quietly turned up
one's toes and not know anything any more about anything.

Otherwise only one more point is lacking, which, however,

Marx and I always failed to stress enough in our writings and in
regard to which we are equally guilty. That is to say, we all laid,
and were bound to lay, the main emphasis, in the first place, on
the derivation of political, juridical and other ideological notions,
and of actions arising through the medium of these notions, from
basic economic facts. But in so doing we neglected the formal
side - for the sake of the content. This has given our adversaries a
welcome opportunity for misunderstandings and distortions, of
which Paul Barth is a striking example.
(Engels to Franz Mehring-Selected Correspondence-pp. 458/459 (July 14 1893)

467
 The Historic Part Played by the Hand
At first, therefore, the operations for which our ancestors
gradually learned to adapt their hands during the many thousands
of years of transition from ape to man could have been only very
simple. The lowest savages, even those in whom regression to a
more animal-like condition with a simultaneous physical
degeneration can be assumed to have occurred, are nevertheless
far superior to these transitional beings. Before the first flint was
fashioned into a knife by human hands, a period of time may have
elapsed in comparison with which the historical period known to
us appears insignificant. But the decisive step was taken: the
hand had become free and could henceforth attain ever greater
dexterity and skill, and greater flexibility thus acquired was
inherited arid increased from generation to generation.

Thus the hand is not only the organ of labour, it is also the
product of labour. Only by labour, by adaptation to ever new
operations by inheritance of thus acquired special development of
muscles, ligaments and, over longer periods of time, bones as
well, and by the ever renewed employment of this inherited
finesse in new, more and more complicated operations, has the
human mind attained the high degree of perfection that has
enabled it to conjure into being the paintings of a Raphael, the
statues of a Thorwaldsen, the music of Paganni.

But the hand did not exist by itself. It was only one
member of an entire, highly complex organism. And what
benefited the hand, also the whole body it served; and this in two
ways.

468
 In the first place, in consequence of the law of correlation
of growth, as Darwin called it. According to this law, particular
forms of separate parts of an organic being are always bound up
with certain forms of other parts that apparently have no
connection with the first ... The gradually increasing perfection of
the human hand, and the commensurate adaptation of the feet for
erect gait, have undoubtedly, by virtue of such correlation, reacted
on other parts of the organism ....

Much more important is the direct, demonstrable reaction

of the development of the hand on the rest of the organism .... The
mastery over nature, which began with the development of the
hand, with labour, widened man's horizon at every new advance.
(Engels - The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man -
Marx-Engles Selected Works Vol. II- pp. 81/82 (1876)

On Carlyle's Book

Of all the fat books and thin pamphlets which have

appeared in England in the past year for the entertainment or
edification of "educated society", the above work is the only one
which is worth reading. All the multi-volume novels with their sad
and amusing intricacies, all the edifying and meditative, scholarly
and unscholarly Bible commentaries and novels and books of
edification are the two staples of English literature - all these you
may with an easy conscience leave unread. Perhaps you will find
some books on geology, economics, history or mathematics which
contain a small grain of novelty - however these are matters
which one studies, but does not read, they represent dry,
specialised branches of science, arid botanising, plants whose
roots were long ago tom out of general soil of humanity from
469
which they derived their nourishment. Search as you will,
Carlyle's book is the only one which strikes a human chord,
present human relations and shows traces of a human point of
V1eW.
(Engels - The Condition of England- MECW Vol. 3- p. 444
(1844)

Environment

In short, the animal merely uses external nature, and

brings about changes in it simply by his presence; man by his
changes makes nature serve his ends, masters it. This is the final,
essential distinction between man and other animals, and once
again it is labour that brings about this distinction.

Let us not, however, flatter ourselves overmuch on

account of our human victories over nature. For each such
victory it takes its revenge on us. Each of them, it is true, has in
the first place the consequences on which we counted, but in the
second and third places it was quite different, unforeseen effects
which only too often cancel the first. The people who, in
Mesopotamia, Greece, Asia Minor and elsewhere, utterly
destroyed the forests to obtain cultivable land never dreamed
that they were laying the basis for the present devastated
condition of these countries, by removing along with the forests
the collecting centres and reservoirs of moisture. When the
Italians of the Alps used up the pine forests on the southern
slopes, so it carefully cherished on the northern slopes, they had
no inkling that by doing so they were cutting at the roots of the
dairy industry in their region; they had still less inkling that they
were thereby depriving their mountain springs of water for the
470
 greater part of the year, and making it possible for them to pour
still more furious torrents of on the plains during the rainy
seasons. Those who spread the potato in Europe were not aware
that with these farinaceous tubers they were at the same time
spreading scrofula. Thus at every step we are reminded that we
by no means rule over nature like a conqueror over a foreign
people, like someone standing outside nature but that we, with
flesh, blood and brain, belong to nature, and exist in its midst,
and that all our mastery ofit consists in the fact that we have the
advantage over all other creatures of being able to know and
correctly apply its laws.

And, in fact, with every day that passes we are learning to

understand its laws more correctly, and getting to perceive both
the more immediate and the more remote consequences of our
interference with the traditional course of nature. In particular,
after the mighty advances of natural science in the present
century, we are more and more placed in a position where we can
learn and hence control even the more remote natural
consequences of at least our most ordinary productive activities.
But the more this happens the more will men not only feel but
also realize their oneness with nature, and the more impossible
will become the senseless and unnatural idea of a contrast
between mind and matter, men and nature, soul and body, such
as arose in Europe after the decline of classical antiquity and
obtained its highest elaboration in Christianity.
(Engels - MESW- Vol. 2- pp. 89/90)

. . . .. The centralisation of population in great cities

exercises of itself an unfavourable influence; the atmosphere of

471
 London can never be so pure, so rich in oxygen, as the air of the
country; two and a half million pairs of lungs, two hundred and
fifty thousand fires, crowded upon an area three to four miles
square, consume an enormous amount of oxygen, which is
replaced with difficulty, because the method of building cities in
itself impedes ventilation. The carbonic acid gas, engendered by
respiration and fire, remains in the streets by reason of its specific
gravity, and the chief air current passes over the roofs of the city.
The lungs of the inhabitants fail to receive the due supply of
oxygen, and the consequence is mental and physical lassitude and
low vitality. For this reason, the dwellers in cities are far less
exposed to acute, and especially to inflammatory, affections than
rural populations, who live in free, normal atmosphere; but they
suffer more from chronic affections. And if life in large cities is,
in itself, injurious to health, how great must be the harmful
influence of an abnormal atmosphere in the working-people's
quarters, where, everything combines to poison the air .
(Engels - The Condition of the Working Class in England-MECW-Vol.4-
pp.394/95 (1845)

And if there is nothing to prevent the abolition of the

antithesis between town and country (not to be imagined, of
course, as a single act but as a series of measures), it is not an
"aesthetic sentiment" alone that demands it. In the big cities
people suffocate with the fumes of their own excrement, to use
Engel's expression, and periodically all who can, flee from the
cities in search of fresh air and pure water. Industry is also
spreading over the countryside; for it, too, requires pure water.
The exploitation of waterfalls, canals, and rivers to obtain electric
power will give a fresh impetus to this "spreading out of

472
industry''. Finally - last, but not least the rational utilisation of
city refuse in general, and human excrement in particular, so
essential for agriculture, also calls for the abolition of antithesis
between town and country.
(The Agrarian Question and The "Critics of Marx"-Lenin-Collected Works-
Vol. 5-pp. 154/55 (1901)

Language Learning
. . . This is my second day of travel abroad and I am
practicing the language. I have discovered that I am weak at this
and have the greatest difficulty in understanding the Germans, or
rather,I don't understand them at all. I ask the guard on the train
a question, he answers, and I don't understand him. He repeats the
answers more loudly. I still don't understand, and so he gets angry
and goes away. In spite of this disgraceful fiasco I am not
discouraged and continue distorting the German language with
some zeal.
(Lenin-Collected Works- Vol. 33-p. (1895)

Human history fares like palaeontology. Even the best

minds absolutely fail to see- on principle, owing to a certain
judicial blindness things which lie in front of their noses. Later,
when the moment has arrived, one is surprised to find traces
everywhere of what one has failed to see.
(Marx to Engels - Selected Correspondence- p. 201- March 25 ( 1868)

How && When to Congratulate

Great was my joy on hearing the news that you had been
blessed with a strong, sturdy boy who bears a close resemblance

473
to your beloved spouse. I should have long since sent you my
congratulations, having had mother's notification in my pocket for
almost six days now. But so ordinary a letter of congratulation is
so ordinary and ceremonious a thing that I should have been truly
ashamed to send off promptly by return a polite, conventional
communication of this kind to you, my most dearly beloved sister.
On the contrary, I have waited six days in order that you may see
that I speak from the heart. Anyone can send congratulations by
return, but to wait six days is only possible for someone who is
particularly affectionate; to send congratulations by return proves
absolutely nothing and when done for purely formal reasons is in
any case hypocrisy. To wait six day is to show proof of a deep
emotion which cannot find expression in words.
(Engels to Marie Blank- MECW - Vol.38 - p.35)

Nationalist Contempt

During the recent bad spell, one of my innocent, incidental

pastimes, besides girls, has been to concern myself to some extent
with Denmark and the other northern countries. What an
abomination! Rather the smallest German than the biggest Dane!
Nowhere else is the misere of morality, guilds and estates still
carried to such a pitch. The Dane regards Germany as a country
which one visits in order to "keep mistresses and squander one's
fortune on them ..." He calls German a tydsk (German) windbag,
and regards himself as the true representative of the Teutonic soul
- the Swede in tum despises the Dane as "Germanised" and
degenerate, garrulous and effete, the Norwegian looks down on
the Gallicised Swede and his aristocracy and rejoices in the fact
that at home in Norges (Norway) exactly the same stupid, peasant

474
economy is dominant as at the time of the noble Canute, and he
for his part, is treated en canaille (scornfully) by the Icelander,
who still continues to speak exactly the same language as the
unwashed Vikings of anno 900, swills whale oil, lives in a mud
hut and goes to pieces in any atmosphere that does not reek of
rotten fish. I have several times felt tempted to be proud of the
fact that I am at least no Dane, not yet an Icelander, but merely a
German.
(Engels to Marx - MECW- Vol.38- p.93 (1846)

Despotism ofa Father

Just now I am leading a real dog's life. The business of the
meetings and the 'dissolute conduct' of several of our local
communists, with whom I, of course, consort, have again aroused
all my old man's religious fanaticism, which has been further
exacerbated by my declared intention of giving up the huckstering
business for good and all - while my public appearance as a
communist has also fostered in him bourgeois fanaticism of truly
splendid proportions. Now put yourself in my place .... If I get a
letter it's sniffed all over before it reaches me. As they are all
known to be communist letters they evoke such piously doleful
expressions every time that it's enough - to drive one out of one's
mind. If I go out - the same expression. If I sit in my room and
work - communism, of course, as they know the same
expression. I can't eat, drink, sleep, let out a fart, without being
confronted by this same accursed lamb-of-God expression.
Whether I go out or stay at home, remain silent or speak, read or
write, whether I laugh or whether I don't - do what I will, my old
man immediately assumes this lamentable grimace. Moreover my
old man is so stupid that he lumps together communism and

475
liberalism as 'revolutionary', whatever I may say to the contrary,
is constantly blaming me, e.g. for the infamies perpetrated by the
English bourgeoisie in parliament ... Now all my old man has to
do is to discover the existence of the critical criticism and he will
be quite capable of flinging me out of the house. And on top of it
all there's the constant irritation of seeking that nothing can be
done with these people, that they positively want to flay and
torture themselves with their infernal fantasies, and that one can't
even teach them the most platitudinous principles of justice. Were
it not for my mother, who as a rare fund of humanity - only
towards my father does she show no independence whatever and
whom I really love, it would not occur to me for a moment to
make even the most paltry concession to my bigoted and despotic
old man.
(Engels to Marx - MECW - Vol. 38-pp. 28/30 (March 17 (1845)

Bacon says that really important people have so many relations

to nature and the world, so many objects of interests, that they
easily get over any loss. I am not one of those important people.
The death of my child has shattered me to the very core and I feel
the loss as keenly as on the first day ....

(Marx to Lassalle - Marx - Engels Collected Works - Vol. 39- p. 544-

1855)

Learning English

The praise you accord to my 'budding English', I find

most encouraging. What I chiefly lack is first, assurance as to

476
 grammer and secondly, skill in using various secondary idioms
which alone enable one to write with any pungency.
(Marx To Engels - MECW-- Vol. 39-p. 331 (June 2, 1853)

Persian Language
Since I am in any case tied up with the eastern mummery
for some weeks, I have made use of the opportunity to learn
Persian. I am put off Arabic, partly by my inborn hatred of
Semitic languages, partly by the impossibility of getting
anywhere, without considerable expenditure of time, in so
extensive a language - one which has 4000 roots and goes back
over 2000 - 3000 years. By comparison, Persian is absolute
child's play. Were it not for that damned Arabic alphabet in which
every half dozen letters looks like every other half dozen and the
vowels are not written, I would undertake to learn the entire
gramrner within 48 hours. This for the better encouragement of
Pieper should he feel the urge to imitate me in this poor joke. I
have set myself a maximum of three weeks for Persian, so if he
stake two months on it he'll best me anyway. What a pity
Weitling can't speak Persian; he would then his Iangue universell
toute trouvee, (universal language readymade) since it is, to my
knowledge, the only language where "me" and "to me" are never
at odds, the dative and accusative always being the same.
(Engels to Marx - MECW - Vol. 39- p. 341-(June 2, 1853)

Bread
Garibaldi, the American Civil War, the revolution in
Greece, the cotton crisis, Veillard's bankruptcy- everything is
overshadowed for the moment in London by the - Question of
bread, but the question of bread in the literal sense. The English,

477
who are so proud of their "ideas in iron and steam," have suddenly
discovered that they have been making the "staff of life" in the
same antediluvian manner at the time of the Norman conquest.
The only essential progress consists in the adulteration of the
foodstuffs that modem chemistry has facilitated. It is an old
British proverb that everyman, even the best, must eat "a peck of
dirt" in his lifetime. This was meant in the moral sense. John Bull
has not the slightest suspicion that he is eating, in the coarsest
physical sense, an incredible mixtum compositum (hodge-
podge) of flour, alum, cobwebs, black beetles, and human sweat.
Being the Bible reader he is, he knew, of course, that man earn his
bread in the sweat of his brow; but it was something brand-new to
him that human sweat must enter into bread dough as a seasoning.
( Marx - Bread Manufacture - MECW - Vol.19 p. 252 (October 26,
(1862)
The Nature ofthe state
To approach this question as scientifically as possible we
must cast at least a fleeting glance of the state, its emergence and
development. The most reliable thing in a question of social
science, and one that is most necessary in order really to acquire
the habit of approaching this question correctly and not allowing
oneself to get lost in the mass of detail or in the immense variety
of conflicting opinion - the most important thing if one is to
approach this question scientifically is not to forget the underlying
historical connection, to examine every question from the
standpoint of how the given phenomenon arose in history and
what were the principal stages in its development, and from the
standpoint of its development, to examine what it has become
today.

478
 I hope that in studying this question of the state you will
acquaint yourself with Engels's book. The Origin of the Family
Private Property and the State. This is one of the fundamental
works of modem socialism, every sentence of which can be
accepted with confidence, in the assurance that it has not been
said at random but is based on immense historical and political
material. Undoubtedly not all the parts of this work have
expounded in an equally popular and comprehensible way; some
of them presume a reader who already possesses a certain
knowledge of history and economics. But I again repeat that you
should not be perturbed if on reading this work you do not
understand it at once. Very few people do. But returning to it later,
when your interest has been aroused, you will succeed in
understanding the greater part, if not the whole of it. I refer to this
book because it gives the correct approach to the question in the
sense mentioned. It begins with a historical sketch of the origin of
the state.

This question, like every other - for example, that of the

origin of capitalism, the exploitation of man by man, socialism,
how socialism arose, what conditions give rise to it - can be
approached soundly and confidently only if we cast a glance back
on the history of its development as a whole. In connection with
this problem it should first of all be noted that the state has not
always existed. There was a time when there was no state. It
appears wherever and whenever a division of society into class
appears, whenever exploiters and exploited appear.

Before the first form of exploitation of man by man arose,

the first form of division into classes - slave owners and slaves -
there existed the patriarchal family, or, as, it is sometimes called,
479
the clan family. (clan-tribe, at the time people of one kin lived
together) Fairly definite traces of these primitive times have
survived in the life of many primitive peoples; and if you take any
work whatsoever on primitive civilisation , you will always come
across more or less definite descriptions, indications and
recollections of the fact that there was a time, more or less similar
primitive communism, when the division of society into slave
owners and slaves did not exist.And in those times there was no
state, no special apparatus for the systematic application of force
and the subjugation of people by force. It is such an apparatus that
is called the state.

In primitive society, when people lived in small family

groups and were still at the lowest stages of development, in a
condition approximating to savagery - an epoch from which
modem, civilised human society is separated by several thousand
years - there were yet no signs of the existence of a state. We find
the predominance of custom, authority, respect, the power
enjoyed by the elders of the clan; we find this power sometimes
accorded to women - the position of women then was not like the
downtrodden and oppressed condition of women today - but
nowhere do we find a special category of people set apart to rule
others and who, for the sake and purpose of rule, systematically
and permanently have at their disposal a certain apparatus of
coercion, an apparatus of violence, such as is represented at the
present time, as you all realise, by armed contingents of troops,
prisons and another mean of subjugating the will of others by
force - all that which constitutes the essence of the state .....

480
 The state is a machine for maintaining the rule of one
class over another The state is a machine for the oppression
of one class by another, a machine for holding in obedience to
one class by other subordinated classes. There are various forms
of this machine. The slave owning state could be a monarchy, an
aristocratic republic or even a democratic republic. In fact the
forms of government varied extremely. But their essence was
always the same ....

The democratic republic and universal suffrage was an

immense progressive advance as compared with feudalism; they
have enabled the proletariat to achieve its present unity and
solidarity, to form those firms and disciplined ranks which are
waging a systematic struggle against capital. There was nothing
even approximately resembling this among the peasant serfs, not
to speak of slaves ....

The bourgeois republic, parliament, universal suffrage all

represents great progress from the standpoint of the world
development of society. Mankind moved toward capitalism and it
was capitalism alone which thanks to urban culture enabled the
oppressed proletarian class to become conscious of itself and to
create the world working class movement.The millions of workers
organized all over the world in parties - the socialist parties which
are consciously leading the struggle of the masses. Without
parliamentarism, without an electoral system, this development of
the working class would have been impossible ...

Whatever guise a republic may assume, however

democratic it may be, if it is a bourgeois republic, if it retains
private ownership of the land and factories, and if private capital

481
keeps the whole of society in wage slavery, that is, if the republic
does not carry out what is proclaimed in the Programme of our
Party and in the Soviet constitution, then this state is a machine
for suppression of some people by others.

(The State - Lenin Collected Works- Vol. 29- pp. 4 73/488 (1919)

Uneven Development
If any Marxist, or any person, indeed, who has a general
knowledge of modem science, were asked whether it is likely that
the transition of the different capitalist countries to the
dictatorship of the proletariat will take place in an identical or
harmoniously proportionate way, his answer would undoubtedly
be in the negative. There never has been and never could be even,
harmonious, or proportionate development in the capitalist world.
Each country has developed more strongly first one, then another
aspect or feature or group of features of capitalism and of the
working class movement. The process of development has been
uneven.

(The Third International-Lenin-Collected Works -Vol 29-p.308)

Propagandist andAgitator
. . . The propagandist, dealing with, say, the question of
unemployment, must explain the capitalist nature of crises, the
cause of their inevitability in modem society, the necessity for the
transformation of this society into a socialist society, etc. In a

482
word he must present "many ideas", so many, indeed, that they
will be understood as an integral whole only by a (comparatively)
few persons. The agitator, however, speaking on the same subject,
will take as an illustration of a fact that is most glaring and most
widely known to his audience, say, the death of an unemployed
worker's family from starvation, the growing impoverishment,
etc., and utilizing this fact, known to all, will direct his efforts to
presenting a single idea to the masses, e.g., the senselessness of
the contradiction between the increase of wealth and the increase
of poverty: he will strive to rouse discontent and indignation
among the masses against this crying injustice, leaving a more
complete explanation of this contradiction, to the propagandist.
Consequently, the propagandist operates chiefly by means of the
printed word, the agitator by means of the spoken word. The
propagandist requires qualities different from those of the agitator.
Kautsky and Lafarge's, for example, we term propagandists:
Babel and Guesde we term agitators.

(What Is To Be Done-Lenin-Collected Works - pp. 409-10 (1902)

First, Second and Third Internationals

The First International (1864-72) laid the foundation of an
international organisation of the workers for the preparation of
their revolutionary attack on capital. The Second International
(1889-1914) was an international organisation of the proletarian
movement whose growth proceeded in breadth, at the cost of a
temporary drop in the revolutionary level, a temporary
strengthening of opportunism. Which in the end led to the
disgraceful collapse of this International.

483
 The Third International actually emerged in 1918, when
the long years of struggle against opportunism and social-
chauvinism, especially during the war, led to the formation of
communist parties in a number of countries. Officially the Third
International was founded at its first congress, in March 1919, in
Moscow. And the most characteristic feature of this International,
its mission of fulfilling, of implementing the precepts of Marxism,
and of achieving the age-old ideals of socialism and the working
class movement this most characteristic feature of the Third
International has manifested itself immediately in the fact that the
new, third "International Working Men's Association" has
already begun to develop, to a certain extent, into a union of
Soviet Socialist Republics .

The epoch-making significance of the Third Communist

International lies in it having begun to give effect to Marx's
cardinal slogan, the slogan which sums up the centuries-old
development of socialism and the working class movement.The
slogan which is expressed in the concept of the dictatorship of the
prolentariat.

(The Third International- Lenin - Collected Works - Vol.29 -

pp.306/307(1919)

Newspapers and magazines

The greatest interest of a newspaper, its daily intervention

in the movement and speaking directly from the heart of the·
movement, its reflecting day-to-day history in all its amplitude,
the continuous and impassioned interaction between the people
and its daily press, this interest is inevitably lacking in a review.
484
On the other hand, a review provides the advantage of
comprehending events in a broader perspective and having to
dwell only upon the more important matters. It permits a
comprehensive and scientific investigation of the economic
conditions which form the foundation of the whole political
movement.
(Announcement of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung - MECW Vol. 10-
p.5(15-12-1849)

Childhood

Childhood is looked upon as the happiest time of life. Is

that always true? No, only a few have a happy childhood. The
idealisation of childhood originated in the old literature of the
privileged, A secure, affluent and unclouded childhood, spent in a
home of inherited wealth and culture, a childhood of affection and
play, bring back to one memories of a sunny meadow at the
beginning of the road of life. The grandees of literature, or the
plebeians who glorify the grandees, have cannonised this purely
aristocratic view of childhood. But the majority of the people, if it
looks back at all, sees, on the contrary, a childhood of darkness,
hunger and dependence. Life strikes the weak and who is
weaker than a child? (My life- Trotsky p.- 1929)

Art and Science ofDistortion ofHistory

A whole science was created for fabricating artificial
reputations, composing fantastic biographies, and boosting the
appointed leaders. A special small science was devoted to the
question of the honorary presidium. Since October, it had been the
custom at the meetings to elect Lenin and Trotsky to the honorary
485
presidium. The combination of these two names was included in
every-day speech, in articles, poems, and folk-ditties. It now
became necessary to separate the two names, at least
mechanically, so that later on it might be possible to pit one
against the other politically. Now the presidium began to include
all the members of the Politbureau. Then they began to be placed
on the list in an alphabetical order. Later on, the alphabetical order
was abandoned in favour of the new hierarchy of leaders. The first
place came to be accorded to Zinoview - in that Petrograd set the
example. Sometime later, the honorary presidiums would appear
here and there without Trotsky at all. Stormy protests from the
body of the gathering always greeted this, and on occasion the
chairman was obliged to explain the omission of my name as a
mistake. But the newspaper report was of course silent on this
point. Then the first place began to be given to Stalin. If the
chairman was not clever enough to guess what was required of
him, he was invariably corrected in the newspapers. Careers were
made and unmade in accordance with the arrangement of names
in the honorary presidium. This work, the most persistent and
systematic of all, was justified by the necessity of fighting against
the "cult of leaders." At the Moscow conference of January, 1924,
Pryeobrazhensky said to the epigones: "yes, we are against the
cult of leaders, but we are also against practicing, instead at the
cult of one leader, the cult of others merely of small stature."
(My Life - Trotsky- p. 499 (1929)

Drinking Parties
If I took no part in the amusements that were becoming
more and more common in the lives of the new governing
stratum, it was not for moral reasons, but because I hated to inflict
486
such boredom on myself. The visitings at each other's homes, the
assiduous attendance at the ballet, the drinking parties at which
people were pulled to pieces, had no attraction for me. The new
ruling group felt that I did not fit in with this way of living and
they did not try to win me over. It was for this very reason that
many group conversations would stop the moment I appeared, and
those engage in them would cut them short with a certain
shamefacedness and a slight bitterness toward me. This was, if
you like, a definite indication that I had begun to lose power.
(My Life- Trotsky p.504 (1929)

Predictions

There is no need for a reminder that historical forecasts,

unlike those of astronomy, are always conditional, containing
options and alternatives, any claims to powers of exact prediction
would be ridiculous where a struggle between living forces is
involved. The task of historical prediction is to differentiate
between the possible and the impossible and to separate the most
likely variants out from all those that are theoretically possible.
(Where is the Soviet Republic Going? - Writings of Leon Trotsky - P.45
(1929)

* * *
The course of the revolutionary process is much more
complex than that of a mountain stream. But in both cases what
may seem a highly paradoxical change of direction is actually
quite normal, that is, in conformity with natural laws. There is no
reason to expect schematic or superficial conformity with such
laws. One must proceed from the normality of nature as

487
determined by the mass of the water's flow, the local geological
relief, prevailing wind patterns, and so on. In politics that means
being able to see beyond the highest upsurges of the revolution to
forecast the possibility and even probability of sudden, sometimes
prolonged periods of subsidence, and on the other hand, at times
of greatest decline... being able to distinguish what the
preconditions are for a new upsurge.
(Writings of Leon Trotsky- pp.45/46 (1929)

HistoricalAnalogies

. . .. To judge the correctness or erroneousness of a

historical analogy it is necessary to clearly define its content and
its limits. Not to resort to analogies with the revolutions of the
past epochs would mean simply to reject the historical
experience of mankind. The present day is always differentfrom
the day that has passed. Yet it is impossible to learn from
yesterday in any other way except by the method of analogy.

Engels' remarkable pamphlet on the peasant wars is

wholly constructed on an analogy between the Reformation of the
sixteenth century and the revolution of 1848. To hammer out the
concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat Marx heated his iron
in the fires of 1793. In 1903 Lenin defined the revolutionary
social democrat as a Jacobin, tied up with the mass labour
movement. At this time I raised against Lenin academic
objections to the effect that Jacobinism and scientific socialism
rest on different classes and employ different methods. In itself
this was of course correct. But Lenin did not at all identify the
Parisien plebeians with the modem proletariat or Rouesseau's

488
theory with the theory of Marx. He bracketed together only the
common traits of the two revolutions: the most oppressed popular
masses who have nothing to lose but their chains; the most
revolutionary organisations, which lean upon them and which in
the struggle against the forces of old society institute the
revolutionary dictatorship. Was this analogy consistent?
Completely so. It proved very fruitful historically ....
(Writings of Leon Trotsky- P. 322 (l 929)

Political Suppleness

In this world one finds as much political suppleness as one

wants: bourgeois - parliamentarism is an excellent school in
which politicians are constantly trained in flexibility, where they
constantly learn how to bend the backbone. If Lenin had very
often mocked "the straight line of doctrinaires," he had just as
often showed contempt for those who are too supple, too flexible,
those who bow down not necessarily, and not always, before their
bourgeois masters, not indeed in order to drive some advantage
but, say, before the pressure of public opinion, or in face of a
difficult situation - just taking the line of least resistance.
(On Lenin - Trotsky - p. 161 (1924)

Lackeys
The duty a lackey involves wearing a tail-coat and white
gloves and possessing a civilised appearance and the relevant
manners. The lackey is permitted to possess a certain love for the
people: this, on the one hand, is inevitable because the milieu
that provides lackeys must be in needy circumstances; on the

489
other hand, it is even to the master's advantage, for it gives him
an opportunity to "practice" his philanthropy, in the first place,
of course, among those "obedient" sections of the population
from which servants, shop assistants and workers are drawn.
The cleverer and better educated the classes that keep servants, the
more regularly and thoughtfully they pursue their policy, using
their lackeys to spy on the working people, to disunite the
working people by granting concessions to a certain part of them,
to strengthen their own position and to interest their "faithful
servants" in increasing the master's wealth in the hope of
receiving a rake- off, etc., etc.

Love for the people is permitted the lackey only to a very

modest degree, of course, and only on the imperative condition
that he expresses humble and servile feelings in addition to his
readiness to comfort the working and exploited people. Let it be
said in parenthesis that Feuerbach gave a very neat answer to
those who defended religion as a source of comfort for people;
to comfort the slave, he said, is to the advantage of the slave
owner, while the real friend of the slaves teaches them
indignation and revolt, teaches them to cast off the yoke and
does not comfort them. The lackey paints and prettifies the
artificialflowers that serve to comfort the slaves who are fettered
by wage slavery. Champions of the emancipation ofpeople from
age slavery tear away the artificialflowers from the fetters they
decorate so that the slave can learn to hate his fetters more
consciously and more strongly, the quicker to throw off and
reach out his handfor living flowers.

490
 The necessity to combine a very moderate dose of love for
the people with a very big dose of obedience and of protection of
the master's interests that is specific to the position of the lackey,
inevitably produces the hypocrisy that is typical of the lackey as a
social type. Here it is a case of social type and not of the qualities
possessed by individuals. A lackey may be the most honest of
man, an exemplary member of his family, an excellent citizen
but he is fatally doomed to hypocrisy because the main feature
of trade is the combination of the interests of the master whom
he is "pledged to serve truly and faithfully" and those of the
milieu from which servants are recruited.
(In the Servant's Quarters- Lenin- Collected Works Vol. 29
pp.540/41 ( 1919)

"Sincere" Cowards

There can be no doubt that some of the Hungarian

socialists went over to Bela Kun sincerely, and sincerely
proclaimed themselves Communists. But that changes nothing
essential: a man who "sincerely" proclaim himself a communist,
but who in practice vacillates and plays the coward instead of
pursuing a ruthlessly firm, unswervingly determined and
supremely courageous and heroic policy (an only such a policy is
consonant with recognition of the dictatorship of the proletariat)
such a man, in his weakness of character, vacillations and
irresolution, is just as much guilty of treachery as a direct traitor.
As far as the individual is concerned, there is a very great
difference between a man whose weakness of character makes
him a traitor and one who is deliberate, calculating traitor; but in
politics there is no such difference, because politics involves the

491
actual fate of millions of people, and it makes no difference
whether the millions of workers and poor peasants are betrayed by
those who are traitors from weakness of character or by those
whose treachery pursues selfish aims.
(A Publicist's Notes - Lenin Collected Works - Vol. 30- pp.354/55
(1920)

Role ofthe Trade Unions

The trade unions were formed during the period of the

growth and rise of capitalism. They had as their task the raising of
the material and cultural level of the proletariat and the extension
of its political rights. This work, which in England lasted over a
century, gave the trade unions tremendous authority among the
workers. The decay of British capitalism, under the conditions of
decline of the world capitalist system, undermined the basis for
the reformist work of the trade unions. Capitalism can continue to
maintain itself only by lowering the standard of living of the
working class. Under these conditions trade unions can either
transform themselves into revolutionary orgnisations or become
lieutenants of capital in the intensified exploitation of the workers.
The trade union bureaucracy, which has satisfactorily solved its
own social problem, took the second path. It turned all the
accumulated authority of the trade unions against the socialist
revolution and even against any attempts of the workers to resist
the attacks of capital and reaction.

From that point on, the most important task of the

revolutionary party became the liberation of the workers from the
reactionary influence of the trade union bureaucracy ....

492
 Under these conditions, the thought easily arises: Is it not
possible to bypass the trade unions? Is it not possible to replace
them by some sort of fresh, uncorrupted organisation, such as
revolutionary trade unions, shop committees, soviets and the like?
The fundamental mistake of such attempts is that they reduce to
organisational experiments the great political problem of bow to
free the masses from the influence of the trade union bureaucracy.
It is not enough to offer the masses a new address. It is necessary
to seek out the masses where they are and to lead them .... We do
not at all mean by this that the revolutionary party has any
guarantee that the trade unions will be completely won over to the
socialist revolution. The problem is not so simple. The trade union
apparatus has attained for itself great independence from the
masses. The bureaucracy is capable of retaining its position a long
time after the masses have turned against it. But it is precisely
such a situation, when the masses are already hostile to the trade
union bureaucracy but where the bureaucracy is still capable of
misrepresenting the opinion of the organsation and of sabotaging
new elections, that is most favourable for the creation of shop
committees, workers' councils and other organisations for the
immediate need of any given moment .....

It is absolutely necessary right now to prepare the minds of

the advanced workers for the idea of creating shop committees
and workers councils at the moment of a sharp change. But it
would be the greatest mistake to "play around" in practice with
the slogan of shop councils, consoling oneself with the "idea" for
the lack of real work and real influence in the trade unions. To
counterpose to the existing trade unions the abstract idea of

493
workers councils would mean setting against oneself not only the
bureaucracy but also the masses, thus depriving oneself of the
possibility of preparing the ground for the creation of workers
councils.
(Writings of Leon Trotsky -- 1933/34- pp. 74/77)

* * *
One of the most important bridges to the masses is the
trade unions, where one can and must work without
accommodating to the leaders in the least, on the contrary,
struggling irreconcilably against them, openly or under cover,
depending on the circumstances. But beside the trade unions, there
are numerous ways of participating in the factory, on the street, in
sport orgainsations, even in church and saloon, under the
condition that the greatest heed be paid to what the masses feels,
think, how they react to events, what they expect and what they
hope for, how and why they let themselves be deceived by
reformist leaders. Observing the masses constantly and most
thoughtfully the revolutionary party must not, however, adapt
itself passively to them chvostism - tail ending; on the contrary, it
must counterpose their judgement to their prejudices
(Centrism and The Fourth International - Writings of Leon Trotsky - 1933/34
- pp. 232-237)

Trade Union Leaders

It is a historic law that the trade union functionaries form
the right wing of the party. There is no exception to this. It was
true of Social Democracy; it was true of the Bolsheviks too.
Tomsky was with the right wing, ... This is absolutely natural.
They deal with the class, the backward elements; they are party

494
vanguard in the working class. The necessary field of adaptation is
among the trade unions. The people who have this adaptation as
their job are those in the trade unions. That is why the pressure of
the backward elements is always reflected through the trade union
comrades. It is a healthy pressure; but it can also break them from
the historic class interests they can become opportunists.

Programme
The programme must formulate our basic views; precisely
establish our immediate political tasks; point out the immediate
demands that must show the area of agitational activity; give unity
to the agitational work, expand and deepen it, thus raising it from
fragmentary partial agitation for petty, isolated demands to the
status of agitation for the sum total of social democratic demands.
(Our Programme - Lenin Collected Works- Vol. 4 p. 230- 1899)

Polemics and Programme

.. if the polemic is not to be fruitless, if it is not to
degenerate into personal rivalry, if it is not to lead to a confusion
of views, to a confounding of enemies and friends, it is absolutely
essential that the question of the programme be introduced into
the polemic. The polemic will be of benefit only if it makes clear
in what the differences actually consist, how profound they are,
whether they are differences of substance or differences on partial
questions, whether or not these differences interfere with common
work in the ranks of one and the same party. Only the
introduction of the programme question into the polemic, only a
definite statement by the two polemising parties on their
programmatic views, can provide an answer to all these
questions, questions that insistently demand an answer. The
495
 elaboration of a common programme for the party should not, of
course, put an end to all polemics; it will firmly establish those
basic views on the character, the aims, and the tasks of our
movement which must serve as the banner of a fighting party, a
party that remains consolidated and united despite partial
differences of opinion among its members on partial questions.
(Our Programme - Lenin - Collected Works- Vol. 4 pp. 230/31 (1899)

Peaceful or Violent

. . . . The working class would, of course, prefer to take

power peacefully ... but to renounce the revolutionary seizure of
power would be madness on the part of the proletariat, both from
the theoretical and the pratical political point of view: it would
mean nothing but a disgraceful retreat in face of the bourgeoise
and all other propertied classes. It is very propable - even most
probable- that the bourgeoisie will not make peaceful
concessions to the proletariat and at the decisive moment will
resort to violence for the defence of its privileges. In that case, no
other way will be left to the proletariat for the achievement of its
aim but that of revolution. This is the reason the programme of the
"working class socialism" speaks of the winning of political
power in general without defining the method, for the choice of
method depends on a future which we cannot precisely determine.
But, we repeat, to limit the activities of the proletariat under any
circumstances to peaceful "democratisation" alone is arbitrarily to
narrow and vulgarise the concept of working class socialism.
(A Retrograde Trend In Russian Social Democracy - Lenin -Collected
Works- Vol. 4- pp 276/77)

496
 Spontaneity and Organisation

... We have spoken continuously of systematic, planned

preparation. Yet, it is by no means our intention to imply that the
autocracy can be overthrown only by a regular siege or by an
organized assault. Such a view would be absurd and doctrinaire.
On the contrary, it it is quite possible, and historically much more
probable, that the autocracy will collapse under the impact of one
of the spontaneous outbursts or unforeseen political complications
which constantly threaten it from all sides. But no political party
that wishes to avoid adventurous gambles can base its activities on
the anticipation of such outbursts and complications. We must go
our way, and we must steadfastly carry on our regular work, and
the less reliance on the unexpected, the less the chance of our
being caught unaware by any 'historic turns'
(Where to Begin - Lenin - Collected Works- Vol. 5-p. 24 ( 1901)

Fight Fight and Fight

Thousands and tens of thousands of men and women, who

toil all their lives to create wealth for others, perish from
starvation and constant malnutrition, die prematurely from
deseases caused by horrible working conditions, by wretched
housing and overwork. He is a hundred times a hero who prefers
to die fighting in open struggle against the defenders and
protectors of this infamous system rather than die in lingering
death of a crushed, broken down and submissive nag.

(Another Massacre Lenin - Collected Works- Vol. 5-p. 25-- 190 I)

497
 The Russian Social Democrats never closed their eyes to
the fact that the political liberties for which they are first and
foremost fighting will benefit primarily the bourgeoisie. Only a
socialist steeped in the worst prejudices of utopianism, or
reactionary Narodism, would for that reason object to carrying on
the struggle against autocracy. The bourgeoisie will benefit by
these liberties and rest on its laurels, the proletariat, however,
must have freedom in order to develop the snuggle for socialism
to the utmost .. In the interests of the political struggle, we must
support every opposition to the oppressive autocracy, no matter on
what grounds and in what social stratum it manifest itself.
(Persecutors of Zemstvo and Hannibel of Liberalism - Lenin - Collected
works- Vol. 5- pp. 78/79 (1901)

Social Democratic Consciousness and

Trade Union Consciousness
We have said that there could not have been Social -
Democratic consciousness among the workers. It would have to
be brought to them from without. The history of all countries
shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able
to develop only trade-union consciousness, i.e., the conviction that
it is necessary to combine in unions, fight the employers, and
strive to compel the government to pass necessary labour
legislation, etc. The theory of socialism, however, grew out of
philosophic, historical, and economic theories elaborated by
educated representatives of the propertied classes, by intellectuals.
(What Is To Be Done Lenin Collected Works - Vol. 5- P.375 (1902)

498
 Professional Revolutionaries
I assert that it is far more difficult to unearth a dozen wise
men than a hundred fools. This position I will defend, no matter
how much you instigate the masses against me for my "anti-
democratic" views, etc. As I have stated repeatedly, by "wise
men", in connection with organisation, I mean professional
revolutionaries, irrespective of whether they have developed
from among students or working men. I assert 1) that no
revolutionary movement can endure without a stable organization
of leaders maintaining continuity, 2) that the broader the popular
masses drawn spontaneously into the struggle, which forms the
basis of the movement and participates in it, the more urgent the
need for such an organisation, and the more solid this organisation
must be (for it is much easier for all sorts of demagogues to side-
track the more backward sections of the masses); 3) that such an
organisation must consist chiefly of people professionally engaged
in revolutionary activity; 4) that in an autocratic state, the more
we confine the membership of such an organisation to people who
are professionally engaged in revolutionary activity and who have
been professionally trained in the art of combating the political
police the more difficult will it be to unearth the organisation; and
5) the greater will be the number of people from the working
class and from the other social classes who will be able to join the
movement and perform active work in it. (What Is To Be Done - Lenin
- Collected Works- Vol. 5-p. 464 - 1902)

Abuse of Terms
Abuse of terms is a most common practice in politics. The
name "socialist", for example, has often been appropriated by
499
supporters of English bourgeois liberalism ("We are all socialists
now" said Harcourt), by supporters of Bismark, and by friends of
Pope - Leo xiii. The term "revolution" also fully lends itself to
abuse, and, at a certain stage in the development of the movement,
such abuse is inevitable when Mr. Struve began to speak in the
name of revolution we could not but recall Thiers. A few days
before the February Revolution this monstrous gnome, this most
perfect embodiment of the bourgeoisie's political venality sensed
that a storm was brewing among the people, and announced from
the parliamentary tribune that he was of the party of revolution.

.. When the Russian Thiers begin to speak of their

belonging to the party of revolution, that means that the slogan
of revolution has become inadequate, is meaningless, and
defines no tasks since the revolution has become a fact, and the
most diverse elements are going over to its side.
(Two Tactics Lenin Collected Works - Vol.9 pp. 127/28)

What is a Revolution ?
Indeed, what is a revolution from the Marxist point of
view. The forcible demolition of the obsolete political
superstructure, the contradiction between which and the new
relations of production have caused its collapse at a certain
moment.

To try to calculate now what the combination of forces

will be within the peasantry "on the day after" the revolution (the
democratic revolution) is empty utopianism. Without falling into
500
adventurism or going against our conscience in matters of science,
without striving for cheap popularity we can and do assert only
one thing: we shall bend every effort to help the entire peasantry
achieve the democratic revolution in order thereby to make it
easier for us, the party of the proletariat, to pass on as quickly as
possible to the new and higher task - the socialist revolution. We
promise no harmony, no equalitarianism, or "socialization"
following the victory of the present peasant uprising, on the
contrary we "promise" a new inequality, the new revolution we
are striving for. Our doctrine is less "sweet" than the legends of
the Socialist Revolutionaries, but let those who want to be fed
solely on sweets join the socialist revolutionaries, we shall say to
such people: good riddance.
(Two Tactics - Lenin - Collected- Works Vol. - p. 128)

Purely Peasant Committees

In our opinion there should be no Social Democratic

peasant committees. If they are Social Democratic, that means
they are not purely peasant committees; if they are peasant
committees, that means, they are not purely proletarian, not Social
Democratic committees. There is a host of such who would
confuse the two, but we are not of their number. Wherever
possible we shall strive to set up our committees, committees of
the Social Democratic Labour Party. They will consists of
peasant paupers, intellectuals, prostitutes . . . soldiers, teachers,
workers in short, all Social Democrats, and none but Social
Democrats. These committees will conduct the whole of Social
Democratic work, in its full scope, striving, however, to organise
the rural proletariat especially and particularly, since the Social
501
Democratic Party is the class party of the proletariat to consider it
"unorthodox" to organize a proletariat which has not entirely freed
itself from various relics of the past is a tremendous delusion ...
The urban and industrial proletariat will inevitably be the nucleus
of our Social Democratic Labour party, but we must attract to it,
enlighten and organise all who labour and are exploited, as stated
in our programme - all without exception: handicraftsmen,
paupers, beggars, servants, tramps, prostitutes of course, subjected
to the necessary and obligatory condition that they join the Social
Democratic movement and not that the Social Democratic
movement join them, that they adopt the standpoint of the
proletariat and not that the proletariat adopt theirs.
(S - D's Attitude towards Peasant Movement- Lenin Collected Works -
Vol.9 - pp.237/38 (1905)

Tactics and Slogans

Tactics must be debated, but in this the utmost clarity must

be striven for. Questions of tactics are questions of the party's
political conduct. A line of conduct can and should be grounded
in theory, in historical references, in an analysis of the entire
political situation, etc. But in all these discussions the party of a
class engaged in a struggle should never lose sight of the need for
absolutely clear answers - which do not permit of a double
interpretation to concrete questions of our political conduct:
"yes" or "no". Should this or that be done right now, at the given
moment, or should it not be done.

(Argue About Tactics Lenin - Collected Works- Vol.9- p.262)

502
 Peasant Movement

To the Marxist, the peasant movement is a. democratic, not

a socialist. In Russia, just as was the case in other countries, it is a
necessary concomitant of the democratic revolution which is
bourgeois in its social and economic content. It is not in the least
directed against the foundations of the bourgeois order, against
commodity production, or against capital. On the contrary, it is
directed against the old , serf, pre capitalist relationship in the
rural districts, and against landlordism, which is the mainstay of
all the survivals of self ownership. Consequently, full victory of
the peasant movement will not abolish capitalism; on the contrary,
it will create a broader foundation for its development ...
(Petty Bourgeois and Proletarian Socialism Lenin Collected Works -
Vol.9- p.440 (1905)

Independence ofthe Party

To preserve the ideological and political independence of

the party of the proletariat is the constant, immutable and absolute
duty of socialists. Whoever fails to fulfill this duty ceases to be
socialist in fact, however sincere his "socialist" (in words)
convictions may be. Socialists may participate in non-party
organisations only by way of exception; and the very purpose,
nature, conditions, etc., of this participation must be wholly
subordinated to the fundamental task of preparing and organising
the socialist proletariat for conscious leadership of the socialist
revolution.
(The Socialist Party and Non- Party Revolutionism Lenin -
Collected Works- Vol. 10- P.81 (1905)

503
 Constitutional Illusions

When a constitutional system has become firmly

established, when, for a certain period the constitutional struggle
becomes the main form of the class struggle and of the political
struggle generally, the task of dispelling constitutional illusions is
not the special task of the Social Democrats, not the task of the
moment. Why? Because at such times affairs in constitutional
states are administered in the very way that parliament decides.
By constitutional illusions we mean deceptive faith in a
constitution. Constitutional illusions prevail when a constitution
seems to exist, but actually does not: in other words, when affairs
of state not administered in the way parliament decides. When
actual political life diverges from its reflection in the
parliamentary struggle, then, and only then, does the task of
combating constitutional illusions become the immediate task of
the advanced revolutionary class, the proletariat. The liberal
bourgeoisie, dreading the extra - parliamentary struggle, spreads
constitutional illusions even when parliaments are impotent. The
anarchists flatly reject participation in parliament under all
circumstances. Social- Democrats stands for utilising the
parliamentary struggle, for participating in parliament; but they
ruthlessly expose "parliamentary cretinism", that is, the belief that
the parliamentary struggle is the sole or under all circumstances
the main form of the political struggle.

(Report on the Unity Congress of the R.S.D.L.P.- Lenin - Collected Works

-- Vol. IO- PP. 352/53 - 1905)

504
 Addition Not Enough
No, comrades. There are things in political arithmetic a bit
more complicated than simply adding up all the "opposition"
elements. The addition of a vacillating and treacherous opposition
to the actually fighting revolutionary elements does not always
produce a plus, more often it proves to be a minus. Those whose
interests compel them to strive for the limitation of the monarchy
and to fear its downfall can never create a bold and vigorous
organ of an uprising. To try in advance to fashion the future organ
of an uprising to fit these Cadet elements would be the same as
trying to fashion the social revolution in Europe to fit a Neumann
or a Clemenceau.
(Political Crisis, Bankruptcy of Opportunist Tactics - Lenin - Collected
Works - Vol. 11 - P. 157- 1906)

Army
... of course, unless the revolution assumes a mass
character and affect the troops, there can be no question of serious
struggle. That we must work among the troops goes without
saying. But we must not imagine that they will come over to our
side at one strike, as a result of persuasion or their own
convictions. The Moscow uprising clearly demonstrated how
stereotyped and lifeless this view is. As a matter of fact, the
wavering of the troops, which is inevitable in every truly popular
movement, leads to a real fight for the troops whenever the
revolutionary struggle becomes acute. The Moscow uprising was
precisely an example of the desperate, frantic struggle for the
troops that takes place between the reaction and the revolution ...
The government restrained the weavers by the most diverse and

505
desperate measures; they appealed to them, flattered them, bribed
them, presented them with watches, money, etc; they doped them
with vodka, they lied to them, threatened them, confined them to
barracks and disarmed them, and those who were suspected of
being least reliable were removed by treachery and violence. And
we must have the courage to confess, openly and unreservedly,
that in this respect we lagged behind the government. We failed to
utilise the forces at our disposal for such an active, bold,
resourceful and aggressive fight for the wavering troops as that
which the government wage and won. We have carried on work in
the army and we will redouble our efforts in the future
ideologically to " win over" the troops. But we shall prove to be
miserable pedants ifwe forget that at a time of uprising there must
also be a physical struggle for the troops.
(Lessons of the Moscow uprising Lenin Collected Works Vol. 11
pp. 174/75 (1906)

Need to Adjust
(Wilhehm) Liebknecht quite rightly condemned the
practice of using the word "revolution" as a shibboleth. When he
spoke of revolution, he really meant it; he analysed all questions
and steps in tactics, not only from the point of view of the
interests of the moment, but also from the point of view of the
vital interests of the revolution as a whole. Liebknecht, like the
Russian revolutionary Social-Democrats, had had to experience
the painful transitions from direct revolutionary struggle to a
miserable, abominable and vile Black Hundred constitution.
Liebknecht knew how to adapt himself to these painful transitions,
he knew how to work for the proletariat even in the most adverse
circumstances. But he did not rejoice at passing from the fight

506
 against an infamous constitution to work under this constitution,
he did not jeer at those who had done everything to prevent the
emergence of such a "constitution". By "caution" Liebknecht did
not mean kicking the revolution as soon as it begins to decline
(even though temporarily) and adjusting oneself as soon as
possible to a truncated constitution. No, by "caution" this veteran
of the revolutionary movement meant that a proletarian leader
must be the last to "adjust" himself to the conditions created by
the temporary defeats of the revolution, that he must not do so
until long after the bourgeois poltroons and cowards have done
so. Liebknecht says: "Practical politics forced us to adjust
ourselves to the institutions of the society in which we live; but
every step we took in the direction of adjusting ourselves to the
present social order was hard for us, and we took it only with
great hesitation. This called forth no little ridicule from various
quarters. But he who fears to tread 011 this inclined plane is any
case a more reliable comrade than he who jeers at our
hesitation.

(Preface to the Russian Translation of Liebknecht's Pamphlet- Lenin -

Collected Works - Vol. 11-- P. 405 (1906)

Reforms

Every reform is a reform (and not a reactionary and not a

conservative measure) only insofar as it constitutes a certain step,
a "stage", for the better. But every reform is in capitalist society
has a double character. A reform is a concession made by the
ruling classes in order to stem, weaken, or conceal the

507
 revolutionary struggle, in order to split the forces and energy of
the revolutionary classes, to befog their consciousness, etc.

Therefore, revolutionary Social Democracy, while by no

means renouncing the use of reforms for the purpose of
developing the revolutionary class struggle, .... will under no
circumstances make half-way bourgeois-reformist slogans "their
own."
(How Not to Write Resolutions- Lenin Collected Works Vol. 12-
P. 237- 1907)

Zigzag Path ofHistory

Running through all Menshevik literature, especially that

of 1905(up to October), is the accusation that the Bolsheviks are
"bigoted" and also exhortations to them on the need for taking
into consideration the zigzag path of history. In this feature of
Menshevik literature we have another specimen of the kind of
reasoning which tell us that horses eat oats and that the Volga
flows into the Caspian Sea, reasoning which befogs the essence of
a disputable question by reiterating what is indisputable. That
history usually follows a zigzag path and that a Marxist should
be able to make allowance for the most complicated and
fantastic zigzags ofhistory is indisputable. But this reiteration of
the indisputable has nothing to do with the question of what a
Marxist should do when that same history confronts the
contending forces with the choice of a straight or a zigzag path.
To dismiss the matter at such moments, or at such periods, when
this happen by arguing about the usual zigzag course of history is
to take after the "man in the muffler" and become absorbed in
contemplation of the truth that horses eat oats. As it happens,
508
revolutionary periods are mainly such periods in history when the
clash of contending social forces, in a comparatively short space
of time, decides the question of the country's choice of a direct or
a zigzag path of development for a comparatively very long time.
The needfor reckoning with the zigzag path does not in the least
do away with the fact that Marxists should be able to explain to
the masses during the decisive moments of their history that the
direct path is preferable, should be able to help the masses in the
struggle for the choice of the direct path, to advance slogans for
that struggle, and so on. And only hopeless philistines and the
most obtuse pedants, after the decisive historical battles which
determined the zigzag path instead of the direct one were over,
could sneer at those who had fought to the end for the direct path.
It would be like the sneers of German police-minded official
historians such as Treitschke at the revolutionary slogans and the
revolutionary directness of Marx in 1848.

Marxism's attitude towards the zigzag path of history is

essentially the same as its attitude towards compromise. Every
zigzag turn in history is a compromise, a compromise between
the old, which is no longer strong enough to completely negate
the new, which is not yet strong enough to completely overthrow
the old. Marxism does not a/together reject compromises.
Marxism considers it necessary to make use of them, but that
does not in the least prevent Marxism, as a living and operating
historical force, from fighting energetically against
compromises. Not to understand this seeming contradiction is
not to know the rudiments ofMarxism.
(Against Boycott - Lenin - Collected Works- Vol.13- PP. 22/23 ( 1907)

509
 Boycott
Boycott is a refusal to recognise the old regime, a refusal,
of course, not in words, but in deeds, i.e., it is something that finds
expression not only in cries or the slogans of organisations, but in
a definite movement of the mass of the people, who
systematically defy the laws of the old regime, systematically set
up new institutions, which though unlawful, actually exist, and so
on and so forth. The connection between boycott and the broad
revolutionary upswing is thus obvious: boycott is the most
decisive means of struggle, which rejects not the form of
organisation of the given institution, but its very existence.

Boycott is a declaration of open war against the old

regime, a direct attack upon it. Unless there is a broad
revolutionary upswing, unless there is mass unrest which
overflows, as it were, the bounds of the old legality, there can be
no question of the boycott succeeding.

(Against Boycott - Lenin - Collected Works - Vol. 13 - P.25 - 1907)

Circle Spirit
The basic mistake made by those who now criticise What
Is To Be Done? is to treat the pamphlet apart from its connection
with the concrete historical situation of a definite, and now long
past, period in the development of our Party...

510
 What Is To Be Done? is a summary of Iskra tactics and
Iskra organisational policy in 1901 and 1902. Precisely a
"summary", no more and no less. That will be clear to anyone
who takes the trouble to go through the file of Iskra for 1901 and
1902. But to pass judgment on that summary without knowing
lskra's struggle against the then dominant trend of economism,
without understanding that struggle, is sheer idle talk. Iskra
fought for an organisation of professional revolutionaries. It
fought with especial vigour in 1901 and 1902, vanquished
Economism, the then dominant trend, and finally created this
organisation in 1903. It preserved it in face of the subsequent split
in the Iskrist ranks and all the convulsions of the period of storm
and stress; it preserved it intact from 190 f-02 to 1907 .

. , ... The pamphlets What Is To Be Done? and One Step

forward, Two Steps Back .... present to the reader a heated, at
times bitter and destructive, controversy within the circles
abroad. Undoubtedly this struggle has many unattractive features.
Undoubtedly, it is something that could only be possible in a
young and immature workers movement in the country in
question. Undoubtedly, the present leaders of the present workers'
movement in Russia will have to break with many of the circle
traditions, forget and discard many of the trivial features of circle
activity and circle squabbles, so as to concentrate on the tasks of
Social Democracy in the present period. Only the broadening of
the Party by enlisting proletarian elements can, in conjunction
with open mass activity, eradicate all the residue of the circle
spirit which has been inherited from the past and is unsuited to our
present tasks ....

511
 Yes, "that had had outlived their day", for is not enough to
condemn the old circle spirit; its significance in the special
circumstances of the past period must be understood. The circles
were necessary in their day and played a positive role. In an
autocratic state, especially in the situation created by the whole
history of the Russian revolutionary movement, the socialist
workers' party could not develop except from these circles. And
the circles, i.e., close-knit, exclusive groups uniting a very small
number of people and nearly always based on personal friendship,
were a necessary stage in the development of socialism and
workers movement in Russia. As the movement grew, it was
confronted with the task of uniting these circles, fonning strong
links between them, and establishing continuity. This called for a
firm base of operations "beyond the reach" of the autocracy i.e.,
abroad. The circles abroad, therefore, came into being through
necessity.
(Preface To The Collection of Twelve Years Lenin Collected Works-
Vol. I 3-pp. I 04/05 - 1907)

Constitutions
... What does a constitution mean, most worthy members
of that elementary propaganda circle known as the Socialist
Revolutionary Party? Does it mean that more "freedom" and
better conditions of life exist for the toiling people with a
constitution than without one? No, only the vulgar democrats
think that. The essence of a constitution is that the fundamental
laws of the state in general, and the laws governing elections to
and the powers of the representative institutions, etc., express the
actual relation of forces in the class struggle. A constitution is

512
fictitious when law and reality diverge; it is not fictitious when
they coincide. The constitution of Russia in the period of the
Third Duma is less fictitious than it was in the period of the First
and Second Dumas. If this conclusion arouses your ire, Messieurs
"Socialist"-Revolutionaries, it is because you do not understand
what a constitution is, and cannot tell the difference between a
fictitious and a class constitution. A constitution can be a Black
Hundred, landlords' and reactionary constitution, and yet be 1ess
fictitious than some 'liberal' constitutions.
(How The Socialist Revolutionaries Sum Up The Revolution - Lenin -
Collected Works Vol. 15 pp.336/37 (1909)

The Fallacy of the Anarchists

.. In what lies the fallacy of the anarchist's argument? It

lies in the fact that, owing to their radically incorrect ideas of the
course of social development, they are unable to take into account
those peculiarities of the concrete political (and economic)
situation in different countries which determine the specific
significance of one or another means of struggle for a given
period of time .....

. . . What then is the point? The point is that a combination

of a number of historic conditions has made parliamentarism a
specific weapon of struggle for Germany over a given period, not
the chief one, not the highest, not of prime and essential
importance in comparison with other forms, but merely specific,
the most characterstic in comparison with other countries.
(Faction of Supporters of Otzovism and God Building- Lenin
Collected Works- Vol. I 6-pp. 34/35 (1909)

513
 Hypocrisy
There is an old saying to the effect that hypocrisy is the
tribute that vice pays to virtue. But this saying refers to the sphere
of personal ethics. As applied to ideological and political trends it
must be said that hypocrisy is the screen adopted by groups that
are internally not homogeneous, that are made up to assorted
elements, accidentally thrown together, who feel that they are too
weak for open, straight-forward action.
(Faction of Supporters of Otzovism and God Building Lenin
Collected Works- Vol. 16 p.50 (1909)

Priests and Politics

Democrats can never hold the view that priests should not
participate in political affairs. It is arch reactionary view. It leads
only to official hypocrisy and nothing more. In practice, all
measures debarring a particular group or section of the population
from politics and the class struggle are absolutely impossible and
unrealisable ....

Worker democrats favour freedom of political struggle for

all, including priests. We are opposed, not to the priests taking
part in the election campaign, in the Duma, etc., but solely to the
medieval privileges of the priesthood. We are not afraid of
clericalism, and will readily join issue with it, on a free platform
on which all will be on an equal footing. The priesthood has
always participated in politics covertly: the people stand to gain,
and to gain a good deal, if the priesthood begins to participate in
politics overtly.
(Liberals and Clericals Lenin - Collected Works- Vol. 18 pp. 227/28
(I 912)
514
 Guarantees
We cannot guarantee the realisation of our demands by
reducing them, by curtailing our programme, or by adopting the
tactics of attracting unenlightened people with the deceptive
promise of easy constitutional reforms under Russian tsarism. We
can guarantee it only by educating the masses in the spirit of
consistent democracy and awareness of the falsity of
constitutional illusions. The guarantee lies in the revolutionary
organisation of the foremost class, the proletariat, and in the great
revolutionary enthusiasm of the masses.
(Meeting of CC RSDLP and Party Functionaries Lenin Collected Works
-- Vol. 18 p. 453 (1913)

Election Statistics
An election campaign is of outstanding interest to any
intelligent political leader because it furnishes objective data on
the views and sentiments, and consequently interests, of the
different classes of society. Elections to a representative body are
comparable in this respect to a census of the population, for they
provide political statistics. To be sure, these statistics may be good
(in the case of universal suffrage) or bad (in the case of election to
our parliament, if one may call it that.) To be sure, one must learn
to criticise these statistics just as any statistics and to use them
critically. To be sure, these statistics should be taken in
connection with all social statistics in general; and strike statistics,
for example, will often tum out for those who are not affected
with the disease of parliamentary cretinism - to be a hundred
times more serious and profound than election statistics.
(Results of the Elections - Lenin - Collection Works Vol. 18- p.505,
(1913)
515
 Strugglefor Reforms

Unlike the anarchists, the Marxists recognise struggle for

reforms, i.e., for measures that improve the conditions of the
working people without destroying the power of the ruling class.
At the same time, however, the Marxists wage a most resolute
struggle against the reformists, who directly or indirectly, restrict
the aims and activities of the working class to the winning of
reforms. Reformism is a bourgeois deception of the workers, who,
despite individual improvements, will always remain wage-
slaves, as long as there is the domination of capital.

The liberal bourgeoisie grant reforms with one hand and

with the other always take them back, reduce them to naught, use
them to enslave the workers, divide them into separate groups and
perpetuate wage-slavery. For that reason reformism, even when
quite sincere, in practice becomes a weapon by means of which
bourgeoisie corrupt and weakens the workers. The experience of
all countries shows that the workers who put their trust in the
reformists are always fooled.
(Marxism And Reformism - Lenin - Collected Works- Vol. 19- P. 372
(1913)

Be with the Masses!

It was the imperative duty of the proletarian party to
remain with the masses and try to lend as peaceable and organised
a character as possible to their justified action rather than stand
aside and wash its hands like Pontius Pilate, on the pedantic plea
that the masses were not organised down to the last man and that

516
their movement sometimes went to excesses - ..... as though,
there had ever been in history a serious popular movement free of
excesses.
(Constitutional Illusions - Lenin - Collected Works- Vol. 25-p. 204 (1917)

Admission ofPolitical Errors

In practically the majority of cases politicians who become

convinced that the line they have been pursuing is erroneous try to
conceal their change of front, to hush it up, to "invent" more or
less extraneous motives, and so on. A frank and honest admission
of one's political error is in itself an important political act.
(The Valuable Admissions of Pitrim Soroking - Lenin - Collected Works -
Vol. 28 p.181 (1918)

Men ofa New Type?

.. We are not utopians who think that Socialist Russia

must be build up by men of a new type; we must utilize the
material we have inheritedfrom the old capitalist world. We are
placing people of the type in new conditions, keeping them
under proper control, under the vigilant supervision of the
proletariat, and making them do the work we need. This is the
only way we can build. Ifyou are unable to erect the edifice with
the materials bequeathed to us by the bourgeois world, you will
not be able to build it at all, andyou will not be Communists, but
mere phrase mongers.

(Session of the Petrograd Soviet - Lenin - Collected Works - Vol. 29

P. 24- 1919)

517
 Using the Enemy in Building Socialism

When Comrade Trotsky informed me recently that the

officers of the old army employed by our war Department runs
into several tens of thousands, I perceived concretely where the
secret of using our enemy lay, how to compel those who had
opposed communism to build it, how to build communism with
the bricks which the capitalist has chosen to hurl against us! We
have no other bricks! And so, we must compel the bourgeois
experts, under the leadership of the proletariat, to build up our
edifice with these bricks. That is what is difficult; but this is the
pledge of victory.
(Achievements and Difficulties - Lenin Collected Works Vol. 29 P. 71
- 1919)

Abolition of Classes
And what does the "abolition of classes mean? All those
who call themselves socialists recognize this as the ultimate goal
of socialism, but by no means all give thought to its significance.
Classes are large groups ofpeople differing from each other by
the place they occupy in a historically determined system of
social production, by their relation (in most cases fixed and
formulated in law) to the means ofproduction, by their role in
the social organisation of labour, and consequently, by the
dimensions of the share of social wealth of which they dispose
and the mode of acquiring it. Classes are groups ofpeople one
of which can appropriate the labour of another owing to the
different places they occupy in a definite system of social
economy.

518
 Clearly, in order to abolish classes completely, it is not
enough to overthrow the exploiters, the landowners and
capitalists, not enough to abolish their rights of ownership; it is
necessary also to abolish all private ownership of the means of
production, it is necessary to abolish the distinction between town
and country as well as the distinction between manual workers
and brain workers. This requires a very long period of time. In
order to achieve this, an enormous step forward must be taken in
developing the productive forces; it is necessary to overcome the
resistance (frequently passive, which is particularly stubborn and
particularly difficult to overcome) of the numerous survivals of
small-scale production; it is necessary to overcome the enormous
force of habit and conservatism which are connected with these
survivals.

The assumption that all "working people" are actually

capable of doing this work would be an empty phrase, or the
illusion of an antediluvian, pre-Marxist socialist; for this ability
does not come of itself, but grows historically, and grows only out
of the material conditions of large-scale capitalist production. This
ability, at the beginning of the road from capitalism to socialism,
is possessed by the proletariat alone.

(A Great Beginning- Lenin - Collected Works- Vo1.29 P. 421 (1919)

Building Socialism and Patience

We are not utopians, however, and we know the real value

of bourgeois "arguments"; we also know that for some time after
the revolution traces of the old ethics will inevitably predominate

519
over the young shoots of the new. When the new have just been
born the old always remains stronger than it for some time; this is
always the case in nature and in social life. Jeering at the
feebleness of the young shoots of the new order, cheap skepticism
of the intellectuals and the like - these are, essentially, methods of
bourgeois class struggle against the proletariat, a defense of
capitalism against socialism. We must carefully study the feeble
new shoots, we must devote the greatest attention to them, do
everything to promote their growth and "nurse" them. Some of
them will inevitably perish. We cannot vouch that precisely the
"communist subotniks" will play a particularly important role. But
that is not the point. The point is to foster each and every shoot
and of the new; and life will select the most viable. If the
Japanese scientist, in order to help mankind vanquish syphilis,
had the patience to test six hundred andfive preparations before
he developed a six hundred and sixth which met definite
requirements, then those who want to solve a more difficult
problem, namely, to vanquish capitalism, must have the
perseverance to try hundred and thousands of new methods,
means and weapons of struggle in order to elaborate the most
suitable of them.
(A Great Beginning - Lenin - Collected Works - Vol.29- pp.425 - 26
(1919)

Women&& Domestic Work

Notwithstanding all the laws emancipating woman, she
continues to be a domestic slave, because petty housework
crushes, strangles, stultifies and degrades her, chains her to the
kitchen and the nursery, and she wastes her labour on barbarously

520
unproductive, petty, nerve-racking, stultifying and crushing
drudgery. The real emancipation of women, real communism,
will begin only where and when an all-out struggle begins (led by
the proletariat wielding the state power) against this pretty
housekeeping, or rather when its wholesale transformation into a
large-scale socialist economy begins.
(A Great Beginning Lenin Collected Works Vol. 29- P. 429 (1919)

The only Choice

Our task is to put the question bluntly. What is better? To

ferret out, to imprison, sometimes even to shoot hundreds of
traitors from among the Cadets, non-party people, Mensheviks
and Socialist Revolutionaries, who "come out" (some with arms
in hand, others with conspiracies, others still with agitation against
mobilisation, like the Menshevik printers and railwaymen, etc.)
against Soviet power, in other words, in favour of Denikin? Or
to allow matters to reach such a pass that Kolchak and Denikin
are able to slaughter, shoot and flog to death tens of thousands of
workers and peasants? The choise is not difficult to make.

That is how the question stands, and not otherwise.

(All Out for the Fight against Denikin - Lenin Collected Works -
Vol. 29-p.453 (1919)

Self- Criticism
A political party's attitude towards its own mistakes is one
of the most important and surest ways ofjudging how earnest the
party is and how it fulfils in practice its obligations towards its
class and the working people. Frankly acknowledging a mistake,
521
ascertaining the reasons for it, analysing the conditions that have
led up to it, and thrashing out the means of its rectification - that
is the hallmark of a serious party: that is how it should perform its
duties, and how it should educate and train its class and then the
masses.
(Left Wing Communism- An Infantile Disorder Lenin - Collected
Works- Vol. 31-p. 57 (1920)

"Peaceful Path" in Britain

Marx was talking about the Britain of the seventies of the
last century, about the culminating point in the development of
pre-monopoly capitalism. At that time Britain was a country in
which militarism and bureaucracy were less pronounced than in
any other, a country in which there was the greatest possibility of
a "peaceful" victory for soci_alism in the sense of the workers
"buying out" the bourgeoisie. And Marx said that under certain
conditions the workers would certainly not refuse to buy out the
bourgeoisie. Marx did not commit himself, or the future leaders of
the socialist revolution, to matters of form, to ways and means of
bringing about the revolution. He understood perfectly well that a
vast number of new problems would arise, that the whole situation
would change in the course of the revolution, and that the
situation would change radically and often in the course of the
revolution.

. . The subordination of the capitalists to the workers in

Britain would have been assured at that time owing to the
following circumstances:

522
 1) The absolute preponderance of workers, of proletarians, in
the population owing to the absence of a peasantry (in
Britain in the Seventies there were signs that gave hope of
an extremely rapid spread of socialism among agricultural
labourers);

2) The excellent organisation of the proletariat in trade

unions (Britain was at that time leading the country in the
world in this respect)

3) The comparatively high level of culture of the proletariat,

which had been trained by centuries of development of
political liberty;

4) The old habit of the well-organised British capitalists of

settling political and economic questions by compromise -
at that time the British capitalists were better organised
than the capitalists of any country in the world. (this
superiority has now passed to Germany). These were the
circumstances which at that time gave rise to the idea that
peaceful subjugation of the British capitalists by the
workers was possible.
(The Tax in Kind - Lenin - Collected Works - Vol.32 - pp. 337/338
(1921)

It's Not a Question ofBrains

Of course, it is easy to be cleverer than conceited

simpleton like Chemov, the petty bourgeois pharse-monger, or
like Martov, the knight of philistine reformism doctored to pass
for Marxism. Properly speaking, the point is not that Milyukov, as
523
an individual, has more brains, but that, because of his class
position, the party leader of the big bourgeoisie sees and
understands the class essence and political interaction of things
more clearly than the leaders of the petty-bourgeoisie, the
Chemovs and Martovs. For the bourgeoisie is really a class force
which, under capitalism, inevitably rules both under a monarchy
and in the most democratic republic, and which also inevitably
enjoys the support of the world bourgeoisie.
(The Tax In Kind - Lenin - Collected Works - Vol.32-p.359 (1921)

"Permanent Revolution"
Take religion, or the denial of rights to women, or the
oppression and inequality of the non-Russian nationalities. These
are all problem of the bourgeois-democratic revolution. The
vulgar pretty-bourgeois democrats talked about them for eight
months. In not a single one of the most advanced countries in the
world have these question been completely settled on bourgeois
democratic lines. In our country they have been settled
completely by the legislation of the October revolution ....

But in order to consolidate the achievements of the

bourgeois-democratic revolution for the peoples of Russia, we
were obliged to go farther; and we did go farther. We solved the
problems of the bourgeois democratic revolution in passing, as a
"by product" of our main and genuinely proletarian,
revolutionary socialist activities. We have always said that
reforms are a byproduct of the revolutionary class struggle. We
said - and proved it by deeds - that bourgeois democratic reforms
are a by-product of the proletarian, i.e., of the socialist revolution,
Incidentally, the Kautskys, Hilferdings, Martovs, Chemovs,
524
Hillquits, Longuets, MacDonalds, Turatis and other heros of
"Two-and-a-Half' Marxism were incapable of understanding this
relation between the bourgeois-democratic and the proletarian
socialist revolutions. The first develops into the second. The
second, in passing, solves the problems of the first. The second
consolidates the work of the first. Struggle, and struggle alone,
decides howfar the second succeeds in outgrowing thefirst.
(Fourth Anniversary of the October Revolution- Lenin Collected Works
Vol. 33 pp.53/54 (1921)

The Enemy Number One - Communist Conceit

A member of the communist Party who has not yet been

combed out, and who imagines he can solve all his problems by
issuing communist decrees, is guilty of communist conceit.
Because he is still a member of the ruling party and is employed
in some government office, he imagines this entitles him to talk
about the results of political education. Nothing of the sort! That
is only communist conceit. The point is to learn to impart political
knowledge; but that we have not yet learnt; we have not yet learnt
how to approach the subject properly.
(The New Economic Policy and the Tasks of the Political Education
Department Lenin Collected Works - Vo1. 33- pp.77/78 (1921)

Private Lives ofLenin and Trotsky

A Dozen knives in the Back of the Revolution, Paris,
1921. This small volume of stories was written by the white guard
Arkady Averchenko, whose rage rises to the pitch of frenzy. It is
interesting to note how his burning hatred brings out the
remarkably strong and also the remarkably weak points of this
525
extremely capably written book. When the auther takes for his
stories subjects he is unfamiliar with, they are inartistic. An
example is the story showing the home life of Lenin and
Trotsky. There is much malice, but little truth in it, my dear
Citizen Averchenko! I assure you· that Lenin and Trotsky have
many faults in all respects, including their home life. But to
describe them skillfully one must know what they are. This you
do not know.
(A Capably Written Little Books - Lenin - Collected Works Vol.
33- p.125- 1921)

Endless Meetings

..Yesterday I happened to read in Izvestia a political poem

by Mayakovsky. I am not an admirer of his poetical talent,
although I admit that I am not a competent judge. But I have not
for a long time read anything on politics and administration with
so much pleasure as I read this. In his poem he derides this
meeting habit, and taunts the communists with incessantly sitting
at meetings. I am not sure about the poetry; but as for the politics,
I vouch for their absolute correctness. We are indeed in this
position, and it must be said that it is a very absurd position, of
people sitting endlessly at meetings, setting up commissions and
drawing up plans without end. There was a character who typified
Russian life - Oblomov. He was always lolling on his bed and
mentally drawing up schemes. That was long time ago. Russia has
experienced three revolutions, but the Oblomovs have survived,
for there were Oblomovs not only among the landowners but also
among the peasants; not only among peasants, but among the
intellectuals too; not only among the intellectuals, but also among

526
the workers and Communists. It is enough to watch us at our
meetings, at our work on commissions, to be able to say that old
Oblomov still lives; and it will be necessary to give him a good
washing and clearing, a good rubbing and scourging to make a
man ofhim.
(International and Domestic Situation of the Soviet Republic - Lenin -
Collected Works - Vol. 33- p.223 (I 922)

Building Communism
The idea of building communist society exclusively with
the hands of the communists is childish, absolutely childish. We
communists are but a drop in the ocean, a drop in the ocean of the
people. We shall be able to lead the people along the road we have
chosen only if we correctly determine it not only from the
standpoint of its direction in world history. From that point of
view we have determined the road quite correctly, and this is
corroborated by the situation in every country. We must also
determine it correctly for our native land, for our country. But the
direction in world history is not the only factor. Other factors are
whether there will be intervention or not, and whether we shall be
able to supply the peasants with goods in exchange for their grain.
The peasants will say. "you are splendid fellows; you defended
our country. That is why we obeyed you. But if you cannot run the
show, get out. Yes, that is what the peasants will say.

We Communists shall be able to direct our economy if we

succeed in utilising the hands of the bourgeoisie in building up
this economy of ours and in the meantime learn from these
bourgeoisie and guide them along the road we want them to
travel. But when a Communist imagines that he knows everything,
527
when he says; "I am a responsible Communist, I have beaten
enemies far more formidable than any salesman. We have fought
at the front and have beaten far more formidable enemies" It is
this prevailing mood that is doing us great harm.
(Eleventh Congress of the RCP(B) - Lenin Collected Works Vol. 33 -pp.
290/91 ( 1922)

Against Opportunists
We are marching in a compact group along a precipitous
and difficult path, firmly holding each other by the hand. We are
surrounded on all sides by enemies, and we have to advance
almost constantly under their fire. We have combined, by a freely
adopted decision, for the purpose of fighting the enemy, and not
of retreating into the neighbouring marsh, the inhabitants of
which, from the very outset, have reproached us with having
separated ourselves into an exclusive group and with having
chosen the path of struggle instead of the path of conciliation. And
now some among us begin to cry out: Let us go into the marsh!
And when we begin to shame them, they retort: What backward
people you are! Are you not ashamed to deny us the liberty to
invite you to take a better road! Oh, yes, gentlemen! You arefree
to not only to invite us, but to go youselves wherever you will,
even into the marsh. In fact, we think that the marsh is your
proper place, and we are prepared to render you every assistance
to get there. Only let go of our hands, don't clutch at us and
don't besmirch the grand wordfreedom, for we too are "free" to
go where we please, free to fight not only against the marsh, but
also against those who are turning towards the marsh!
(What Is To Be Done Lenin - Collected Words- Vol. 5- P. 355-
1902)

528
 How Opportunists Argue

"We must choose" - this is the argument the opportunists

have always used to justify themselves, and they are using it now.
Big things cannot be achieved at one stroke. We must fight for
small but achievable things. How do we know whether they are
achievable? They are achievable if the majority of the political
parties or of the most "influential" politicians agree with them.
The larger the number of politicians who agree with some
improvement, the easier it is to achieve it. We must not be
utopians and strive after big things. We must be practical
politicians; we must join in the demand for small things, and these
small things will facilitate the fight for the big ones. We regard
the small things as the surest stage in the struggle for big things.

That is how all the opportunists, all the reformists, argue;

unlike the revolutionaries.

What is the main flaw in all these opportunists'

arguments? It is that in fact they substitute the bourgeois theory of
"united", "social' progress for the class struggle as the only real
driving force of history. According to the theory of socialism, i.e.,
Marxsim (Non- Marxist socialism is not worth serious
discussion nowadays), the real driving force of history is the
revolutionary class struggle; reforms are a subsidiary product of
the class struggle, because they express unsuccessful attempts to
weaken, to blunt this struggle, etc. According to the theory of
bourgeois philosophers, the driving force of progress is the unity
of all elements in society who realise the "imperfections" of
certain of its institutions ...

529
 A logical deduction from the second theory is the tactics of
ordinary bourgeois progressives; always and everywhere support
"what is better"; choose between reaction and the extreme Right
of the forces that are opposed to reaction. A logical deduction
from the first theory is that the advanced class must pursue
independent revolutionary tactics. We shall never reduce our tasks
to that of supporting the slogans of the reformist bourgeoise that
are most in vogue ....
(Once Again About the Duma Cabinet Lenin - Collected Works Vol.11--
p.71- 1906)

Trade Unions
The trade unions were a tremendous step forward for the
working class in the early days of capitalist development,
inasmuch as they marked a transition from the workers' disunity
and helplessness to the rudiments of class organisation. When
the revolutionary party of the proletariat, the highest form of
proletarian class organisation, began to take shape (and the Party
will not merit the name until it learns to weld the leaders into one
indivisible whole with the class and the masses) the trade unions
inevitably began to reveal certain reactionary features, a certain
craft narrow-mindedness, a certain tendency to be non-political, a
certain inertness, etc.

However, the development of the proletariat did not, and

could not, proceed anywhere in the world otherwise than through
the trade unions, through reciprocal action between them and the
party of the working class ....

530
 In the sense mentioned above, a certain "reactionism" in
the trade unions is inevitable under the dictatorship of the
proletariat. Not to understand this means a complete failure to
understand the fundamental conditions of the transition from
capitalism to socialism. It would be egregious folly to fear this
"reactionism" or try to evade or leap over it, for it would mean
fearing that function of the proletarian vanguard which consists in
training, educating and enlightening and drawing into the new life
the most backward strata and masses of the working class and the
peasantry. On the other hand, it would be a still graver error to
postpone the achievement of the dictatorship of the proletariat
until a time when there will not be a single worker with a narrow-
minded craft-outlook, or with craft and craft-union prejudices.
The art of politics (and the Communist's correct understanding of
his tasks) consists in correctly gauging the conditions and the
moment when the vanguard of the proletariat can successfully
assume power, when it is able - during and after the seizure of
power - to win adequate support from sufficiently broad strata of
the working class and of the non-proletarian working masses, and
when it is able thereafter to maintain, consolidate, and extend its
rule by educating, training and attracting ever broader masses of
the working people.
(Left Wing Communism An Infantile Disorder Lenin Collected Works
- Vol. 31- pp. 50-51- 1920)

Language and Translations

1) Pieper is evidently more used to writing English

spontaneously than to translating. Hence, if he wants for a word,
he should guard all the more against having recourse to that worst

531
of all known aids, the dictionary, which in 99 cases out of 100,
will regularly provide him with the most inappropriate word and
invariably gives rise to a disastrous jumbling of synonyms,
example of which follow.

2) Pieper should study elementary English grammar, in

which he makes a number of mistakes- especially as regards the
use of the article. There are also spelling mistakes.

3) Above all Pieper must guard against falling into the

Cockney's petty - bourgeois floridity of style, of which there are
some irritating examples.

4) Pieper uses too many word of French derivation, which

are, it is true, sometimes convenient because their vaguer, more
abstract meaning is often of help in a quandary. But this
emasculates the choicest turns of speech and often renders them
completely incomprehensible to an Englishman. In almost every
case, where vivid, sensuous images occurs in the original, there is
a no less sensuous, vivid expression of Saxon derivation, which at
once makes the thing plain to an Englishman.

5) Where there are difficult bits, it would be better to leave

blanks to be filled in, rather than- on the plea of literal translation
- put in things which Pieper himself knows full well to be sheer
nonsense.

6) The main criticism of the translation, and which sums

up 1-5, is gross carelessness. There are passages enough to prove

532
that, if he really tries, Pieper is reasonably capable, but such
superficiality, in the first place, makes more work for himself and
secondly twice as much for me. Some passages are quite
admirable, or could be so, had he tried a little harder.
(Engels To Marx - MECW Vol. 39- p. 190/91-- September 23, 1852)

Language and Ideas

Franz Karl Joel Jacoby's confusion of language is in

keeping with his confusion of ideas. I would never have believed
that the German language could be so closely linked with the most
confused conceptions. Word which have never been seen in
company with one another are here thrown together; ideas which
are mutually antagonistic are here coupled together by all
powerful verb; the most lawful and innocent expressions occur
suddenly among reminiscences from Joel's revolutionary years;
among suspicious-looking phrases of Menzel's, Leo's and
Gorrese', among incorrectly understood thoughts of Hegels, and
over all this the poet brandishes his riding-whip so that the whole
wild pack rushes along, knocking one another over, turning
somersaults, and reeling, until it finally comes to rest in the bosom
of the church as the sole source of salvation.
(Engels to Joel Jacoby MECW- Vol. 2- P. 65 (Jan-March 1840)

Poets

I beseech you now to:

1) See that the poem is carefully printed, with adequate
intervals between the verses and allowing plenty of
533
 space for the whole. A great deal is lost if poems are
too closely printed and over - compressed.

Write to Freiligrath, a friendly letter. No need you be

over - fearful of paying him compliments, for poets, even the best
of them, are all plus on moins des courtisanes (more or less
courtesans) and ii fault les cajoler, pour les faire chanter (they
have to be cajoled to get them to sing). In private life Freiligrath is
the most amiable, least pretentious of men who conceals beneath a
genuine bonhomie un spirit tres fin et tres railleur (a wit very
subtle and very mocking) and whose passion is "authentic", yet
does not render him either "uncritical" or superstitious". He is a
true revolutionary and a man of honour to the marrow, a
compliment I would pay to only a very few. Nevertheless a poet,
whatever he may be as an l'homme (man), needs applause and
admiration. This is, I believe, peculiar to the genre as such. I am
only telling you all this to remind you not to lose sight, when
corresponding with Freligrath, of the distinction between the
"poet" and the "critic".

(Marx to Weydemeyer- MECW-Vol. P. 8 January 16, 1852)

Book Wisdom
He is not wise who from his reading draws
Nothing but floods of useless erudition
for all his learning, life's mysterious laws
Are a close book beyond his comprehension
He who acquires a thorough textbook grounding
In Botany, won't hear the grass that grows
Nor will he ever teach true understanding

534
 who tells you all the dogma that he knows
oh, no! the germs lies hid in man's own heart.
Who seeks the art of life must look within.
Burning the midnight oil will not impart
The secret of emotion's discipline.
The man is lost who hears his own heart's voice
And spurns it, willfully misapprehending
of all your words so noble and so wise
The most profound is human understanding.

(Engels - MECW - Vol. 2 - P. 6- 1839)

Balzac and Realism

... If I have anything to criticise, it would be that perhaps
after all, the tale is not quite realistic enough. Realism, to my
mind, implies, beside truth of detail, the truth in reproduction of
typical characters under typical circumstances. Now your
characters are typical enough, as far as they go; but the
circumstances which surround then and make them act, are not
perhaps equally so ...

I am far from finding fault with your not having written a

point-blank socialist novel, a "tendenzroman' (problem novel) as
we Germans call it, to glorify the social and political views of the
authors. That is not at all what I mean. The more the author
remain hidden, the better for the work of art. The realism I allude
to, may crop out even in spite of the author's opinions. Let me
refer to an example. Balzac whom I consider a far greater master
of realism than all the Zolas passes', present, et a venir, in "Le
Comedie Humaine" gives us a most wonderfully realistic history

535
of French "Society", describing, chronicle-fashion, almost year
by year from 1816 to 1848 the progressive inroads of the rising
bourgeoisie upon the society of nobles, that reconstituted itself
after 1815 and that set up again, as far as it could, the standard of
la vieille Politesse francais (old French refinement). He describes
how the last remnants of this, to him, model society gradually
succumbed before the intrusion of the vulgar moneyed upstart, or
were corrupted by him; how the grande dame whose conjugal
infidelities were but a mode of asserting herself in perfect
accordance with the way she had been disposed of in marriage,
gave way to the bourgeoisie, who corned her husband for cash or
cashmere; and around this central picture he groups a complete
history of French Society from which, even in economic details
(for instance the re-arrangement of real and personal property
after the Revolution) I have learned more than from all the
professed historians, economists and statisticians of the period
together. Well, Balzac was a politically, a Legitimist; his great
work is a constant elegy on the irretrievable decay of good
society; his sympathies are all with the class doomed to extinction.
But for all that his satire is never keener, his irony never bitterer,
than when he sets in motion the very men and women with whom
he sympathises most deeply - the nobles. And the only men of
whom he always speaks with undisguised admiration, are his
bitterest political antagonists, the republican heroes of the Cloitre
Saint Merry, the men, who at that time (1830- 36) were indeed
the representatives of the popular masses. That Balzac thus was
compelled to go against his own class sympathies and political
prejudices, that he saw the necessity of the downfall of his
favourite nobles, and described them as people deserving no
better fate and that he saw the real men of the future where, for the

536
time being, they alone were to be found that I consider one of the
greatest triumphs of Realism and one of the grandest features in
old Balzac.
(Engels to Margaret Harkness Selected Correspondence pp. 402/03
- (April 1888)

Simple Language
Kautsky's fault is his bad habit (possessed by many of the
narrow orthodox) of never forgetting that members of a militant
socialist party must, even in their scientific works, keep the
working class reader in mind, that they must strive to write simply
without employing unnecessary clever turns of phrases and those
outer symptoms of 'learning' which so captivate decadents and
the titled representatives of official science. In this work, too,
kautsky preferred to relate in a clear and simple manner the latest
discoveries in agronomics and to omit scientific names that mean
nothing to nine-tenths of the readers. The Voroshilovs, however,
act in precisely the opposite manner: they prefer to effuse a
veritable stream of scientific names and thus bury essentials under
this scientific lumber.

Let us point out, too, that in the election campaign in

general, and in concluding electoral agreements at the higher
stages, the Social - Democrats must speak simply and clearly in a
language comprehensible to the masses, absolutely discarding the
heavy artillery of erudite terms, foreign words and stock slogans,
definitions and conclusions which are as yet unfamiliar and
unintelligible to the masses. Without flamboyant phrases, without

537
rhetoric, but with facts and figures, they must be able to explain
the questions of socialism and of the present Russian revolution.

(Guerilla Warfare - Lenin - Collected Works - Vol. 11 - p. 294 (l 906)

Popular Writer and Vulgar Writer

. . . The popular writer leads his reader towards profound

thoughts, towards profound study, proceeding from simple and
generally known facts; with the aid of simple arguments or
striking examples he shows the main conclusions to be drawn
from those facts and arouses in the mind of the thinking reader
ever newer questions. The popular writer does not presuppose a
reader that does not think, that cannot or does not wish to think;
on the contrary, he assumes in the undeveloped reader a serious
intention to use his head and aids him in his serious and difficult
work, leads him, helps him over his first steps, and teaches him to
go forward independently. The vulgar writer assumes that his
reader does not think and is incapable of thinking; he does not
lead him in his first steps towards serious knowledge, but in a
distortedly simplified form, interlarded with jokes and
facetiousness, hand out "ready-made" all the conclusions of a
known theory, so that the reader does not even have to chew but
merely to swallow what he is given.
(Journal Svoboda - Lenin - Collected Works - Vol. 5 pp.311/312 -(1901)

Party Literature && Literature

What is this principle of party literature? It is not simply

that, for the socialist proletariat, literature cannot be a means of

538
enriching individuals or groups; it cannot, in fact, be individual
undertaking, independent of the common cause of the proletariat.
Down with non - partsan writers! Down with literary supermen!
Literature must become part of the common cause of the
proletariat "a cog and a screw" of one single great Social
Democratic mechanism set in motion by the entire politically
conscious vanguard of the entire working class. Literature must
become a component of organised, planned and integrated Social
Democratic party work.

"All comparisons are lame" says a German proverb. So is

my comparison of literature with a cog, of a living movement with
a mechanism. And I daresay there will ever be hysterical
intellectuals to raise a howl about such a comparison, which
degrades, deadens, "bureaucratises" the free battle of ideas,
freedom of criticism, freedom of literary creation etc., etc. Such
outcries, in point of fact, would be nothing more than an
expression of bourgeois intellectual individualism. There is no
question that literature is least of all subject to mechanical
adjustment of leveling, to the rule of the majority over the
minority. There is no question , either , that in thisfield greater
scope must undoubtedly be allowed for personal initiative,
individual inclination, thought and fantasy, form and content.
All this is undeniable; but all this simply shows that the literary
side of the proletarian party cause cannot be mechanically
identified with its other sides. This, however, does not in the least
refute the proposition, alien and strange to the bourgeoisie and
bourgeois democracy, that literature must by all means and
necessarily become an element of social Democratic Party work,
inseparably bound up with other elements ....

539
 . . . . . . . . Emerging from the captivity of the feudal
censorship, we have no desire to become, and shall not become
prisoners of bourgeois shopkeeper literary relations. We want to
establish, and we shall establish, a free press, free not simply
from the police, but also from capital, from careerism, and what
it more, freefrom bourgeois - anarchist individualism.

These last words may sound paradoxical, or an affront to

the reader. What!some intellectual, and ardent champion of
liberty, may shout. What! you want to impose collective control
on such a delicate, individual matter as literary work! You want
workmen to decide questions of science, philosophy, or aesthetics
by a majority of votes! You deny the absolute freedom of
absolutely individual ideological work!

Calm yourselves, gentlemen! First of all, we are

discussing party literature, and its subordination to party
control. Everyone is free to write and say whatever he likes ,
without any restrictions. But every voluntary association
(including a party) is also free to expel members who use the
name of the party to advocate anti - party views. Freedom of
speech and the press must be complete. But then freedom of
association must be complete too. I am bound to accord you, in
the name of free speech, the full right to shout, lie and write to
your heart's content. But you are bound to grant me, in the name
of freedom of association, the right to enter into, or withdraw
from, association with people advocating this or that view. The
party is a voluntary association which would inevitably break up,

540
first ideologically and then physically if it did not cleanse itself of
people advocating antiparty views .....

. . . freedom of thought and freedom of criticism within the

Party will never make us forget about the freedom of organising
people into those voluntary associations known as parties.
Secondly, we must say to you bourgeois individualists that
your talk about absolute freedom is sheer hypocrisy. There can be
no real and effective "freedom" in a society based on the power of
money. In a society in which the masses of working people live in
poverty and the handful of rich live like parasites. Are you free in
relation to your bourgeois publisher. Mr. writer, in relation to your
bourgeois public, which demands that you provide it with
pornography in frames, and paintings, and prostitution as a
"supplement" to "sacred" scenic art? This absolute freedom is a
bourgeois or anarchist phrase... one cannot live in society and
be free from society. The freedom of bourgeois writer, artist or
actress is simply masked (or hypocritically masked) dependence
on the money-bag, on corruption, on prostitution.

And we socialists expose this hypocrisy and rip off the false
labels, not in order to arrive at a non - class literature and art (that
will be possible only in a socialist extra - class society), but to
contrast this hypocritically free literature, which is in reality
linked to the bourgeoisie, with a really free one that will be
openly linked to the proletariat.

(Party Organisation and Party Literature - Lenin - Collected Works -

Vol. l 0- pp. 45/49 ( 1905)

541
 Tolstoy
.......Tolstoy emerged as a great artist when serfdom still
held sway in the land. In a series great works, which he produced
during the more than half a century of his literary activity, he
depicted mainly the old, pre-revolutionary Russia which remained
in a state of semi-serfdom even after 186 1 - rural Russia of the
landlord and the peasant. In depicting this period in Russia's
history, Tolstoy succeeded in raising so many great problems
and succeeded in rising to such heights of artistic power that his
works rank among the greatest in world literature. The epoch of
preparation for revolution in one of the countries under the
heels of the serf-owners become, thanks to its brilliant
illumination by Tolstoy, a step forward in the artistic
development of humanity as a whole.

Tolstoy the artist is known to an infinitesimal minority

even in Russia. If his great works are really to be made the
possession of all, a struggle must be waged against the system of
society which condemns millions and scores of millions to
ignorance, benightedness, drudgery and poverty and a socialist
revolution must be accomplished .

How miserable, in reality, is this old Russia, with its

nobility disinherited by history, without any brilliant past of
hierarchical estates, without Crusades, without knightly love or
tournaments of knighthood, without even romantic highway
robberies. How poverty-stricken, so far as inner beauty is
concerned; what a ruthless plunder of the peasant masses amid the
half animal-like existence of all.

542
 But what a miracle of reincarnation is a genius capable
of! From the raw material of this drab and colourless life he
extracts its secret multi coloured beauty. With Homeric calm
and with Homer's love of children, he endows everything and
everybody with his attention. Kutuzov, the manorial household
servants, the cavalry horse, the adolescent countess, the muzhik,
the Tsar, a louse on a soldier, the freemason - he gives
preferences to none among them, deprives none of his due
share. Step by step, stroke by stroke he creates a limitless
panorama whose parts are all inseparably bound together by an
internal bond. In his work Tolstoy is an unhurried as the life he
pictures. It is terrifying to think of, but he rewrote his colossal
book seven times-perhaps what is most astounding in this titanic
creativeness is that the artist permits neither himself nor the
reader to become attached to any individual character.

He never puts his heroes on display, as does Turgenev,

whom Tolstoy disliked, amid bursts of firecrackers and the glare
of magnesium flares. He does not seek out situations for them that
would set them off to advantage; he hides nothing, suppresses
nothing. He shows us his restless seeker of truth, Pierre Bezhukov,
turned at the end into a smug head of a family and a happy
landlord; Natasha Rostov, so touching in her semi-childlike
sensitiveness, he turns , with godlike mercilessness, into a shallow
breeding female, soiled diapers in hand. But from behind this
seemingly indifferent attentiveness to individual parts there rises a
mighty apotheosis of the whole, where everything breathes the
spirit of inner necessity and harmony. It might be correct to say
that this creative effort is permeated with an aesthetic pantheism
543
for which there exists neither beauty nor ugliness, neither the great
nor small, because it sees the. whole of life in the perpetual circuit
of its manifestations as great and beautiful. This is the aesthetic of
the tiller of land, mercilessly conservative by nature. And it is that
lends to the epics of Tolstoy kinship with the Pentateuch and the
Iliad.
(The Age of Permanent Revolution-A Trotsky Anthology-p.331)

* * *
To identify the great artist with the revolution which he
has obviously failed to understand, and from which he obviously
stands aloof, may at first sight seem strange and artificial. A
mirror which does not reflect things correctly could hardly be
called a mirror. Our revolution, however, is an extremely
complicated thing. Among the mass of those who are directly
making and participating in it there are many social elements
which have also obviously not understood what is taking place
and which also stand aloof from the real historical tasks with
which the course of events has confronted them. And if we have
before us a really great artist, he must have reflected in his work at
least some of the essential aspects of the revolution.
(Leo Tolstoy as the Mirror of the Russian Revolution - Lenin - Collected
Works- Vol. 15 -p. 202 (1908)

The contradiction in Tolstoy's works, views, doctrines, in

his school, are indeed glaring. On the one hand, we have the great
artist, the genius who has not only drawn incomparable pictures of
Russian life but has made first-class contributions to world
literature. On the other hand we have the landlord obsessed with
Christ. On the one hand, remarkably powerful, forthright and
sincere protest against social falsehood and hypocrisy; and on the
544
other, the "Tolstoyan", ie, jaded, hysterical sniveller called the
Russian intellectual, who publicly beats his breast and wails: "I
am a bad wicked man, but I am practicing moral self-perfection; I
don't eat meat any more; I now eat rice cutlets." On the one hand,
merciless criticism of capitalist exploitation, exposure of
government outrages, the farcical courts and the state
administration, and unmasking of the profound contradictions
between the growth of wealth and achievements of civilisation
and the growth of poverty, degradation and misery among the
working masses. On the other, the crackpot preaching of
submission, "resist not evil" with violence. On the one hand, the
most sober realism, the tearing away of all and sundry masks:
on the other, the preaching of one of the most odious things on
earth, namely religion, the striving to replace officially
appointed priests by priests who will serve from moral
conviction, i.e., to cultivate the most refined and, therefore,
particularly disgusting clericalism....

. . . .. That Tolstoy, owing to these contradictions, could not

possibly understand either the working class movement and its
role in the struggle for socialism, or the Russian revolution, goes
without saying. But the contradictions in Tolstoy's views and
doctrines are not accidental; they express the contradictory
conditions of Russian life in the last third of the nineteenth
century.
(Leo Tolstoy as Mirror of the Russian Revolution - Lenin - Collected
Works Vol. 15- pp.205/06 (1908)

* * *
545
 Tolstoy's criticism was not new. He said nothing that has
not been said long before him both in European and in Russian
literature by friends of the working people. But the uniqueness of
Tolstoy's criticism and its historical significance lie in the fact
that it expressed, with a power such as is possessed only by artists
of genius. The radical change in the views of the broadest masses
of the people in the Russia of this period, namely, rural, peasant
Russia. For Tolstoy's criticism of contemporary institutions
differs from the criticism of the same institutions by
representatives of the modem labour movement in the fact that
Tolstoy's point of view was that of the patriarchal, naive peasant,
whose psychology Tolstoy introduced into his criticism and his
doctrine. Tolstoy's criticism is marked, by such emotional power,
such passion convincingness, freshness, sincerity and fearlessness
in striving to "go to the roots", to find the real causes of the
afflictions of the masses.... Tolstoy mirrored their sentiments so
faithfully that he imported their naivete into his own doctrine,
their alienation from political life, their mysticism, their desire to
keep aloof from the world, "nonresistance to evil, their impotent
imprecations against capitalism and the " power of money". The
protest of millions of peasants and their desperation - these were
combined in Tolstoy's doctrine

(L.N. Tolstoy and the Modem Labour Movement - Lenin - Collected

Works - Vol. 16- pp. 331/32 - 1910)

International Culture
The Class conscious workers combat all national
oppression and all national privileges, but they do not confine
themselves to that. They combat all, even the most refined,

546
nationalism, and advocate not only the unity, but also the
amalgamation of the workers of all nationalities in the struggle
against reaction and against bourgeois nationalism in all its forms.
Our task is not to segregate nations but to unite the workers of all
nations. Our banner does· not carry the slogan "national culture"
but international culture, which unites all the nations in a higher
socialist unity, and the way to which is already being paved by the
international amalgamation of capital.
(Once More on the Segregation of Schools according to Nationality -
Lenin- Collected Works - Vol.19-pp. 548/49- 1913)

Culture
Marxism has won its historic significance as the ideology
of the revolutionary proletariat because, far from rejecting the
most valuable achievements of the bourgeois epoch, it has on the
contrary, assimilated and refashioned everything of value in the
more than two thousand years of the development of human
thought and culture. Only further work on this basis and in this
direction, inspired by the practical experience of the proletarian
dictatorship as the final stage in the struggle against every form of
exploitation, can be recognised as the development of a genuine
proletarian culture.
(On Proletarian Culture - Lenin -- Collected Works Vo1.31-p.317 (1920)

Language and Nation Building

Language is the most important instrument of human
communication, and consequently of industry. It becomes national
together with the triumph of commodity exchange which

547
integrates nations. State is erected as the most convenient,
profitable and normal arena for the play of capitalist relations. In
Western Europe the epoch of the formation of bourgeois nations,
if you leave out the struggle of Netherlands for independence and
the fate of the island country England, began with the great
French revolution, and was essentially completed approximately
one hundred years later with the formation of the German Empire.
(History of the Russian Revolution - Trotsky- Vol. 3 - p.39)

Writing an Autobiography
As many people pass through the pages of my book,
portrayed not always in the light that they would have chosen for
themselves or for their parties, many of them will find my account
lacking the necessary detachment. Even extracts that have been
published in the newspapers have elicited certain denials. That is
inevitable. One has no doubt that even if I had succeeded in
making my autobiography a mere daguerrotype of my life which
I never intended to be- it would nevertheless have called forth
echoes of the discussion started at the time by the collisions
described in the book. This book is not a dispassionate photograph
of my life, however, but a component part of it. In these I continue
the struggle to which my whole life is devoted. Describing, I also
characterise and evaluate; narrating, I also defend myself, and
more often attack. It seems to me that this is the only method of
making an autobiography objective in a higher sense, that is, of
making in the most adequate expression of personality,
conditions and epoch.

548
 Objectivity is not the pretended indifference with which
confirmed hypocrisy, in speaking of friends and enemies, suggest
indirectly to the reader what it finds inconvenient to state directly.
Objectivity of this sort is nothing but a conventional trick. I do not
need it. Since I have submitted to the necessity of writing about
myself nobody has as yet succeeded in writing an autobiography
without writing about himself - I can have no reason to hide my
sympathies and antipathies, my loves or my hates.
(My Life - Trotsky- p. xiv- Xx ( 1929)

Stop Spoiling the Russian Language

We are spoiling the Russian language. We are usmg

foreign words unnecessarily. And we use them incorrectly. Why
use the foreign words defekty when we have three Russian
synonyms - nedochoty, nedostatki, probely.

. . . . . However, it is the language of the newspapers that is

beginning to suffer. If a man who has recently learned to read uses
foreign words as a novelty, he is to be excused, but there is no
excuse for a writer. Is it not time for us to declare war on the
unnecessary use of foreign words?

I must admit that the unnecessary use of foreign words

annoys me (because it makes it more difficult for us to exercise
our influence over the masses) but some of the mistakes made by
those who write in the newspapers makes me really angry. For
instance, word budirovat is used in the meaning of arouse,
awaken, stir up. It comes from the French word bouder which
means to sulk, pout, which is what budirovat should really mean.

549
This adoption of Nizhni - Novgorod French is the adoption of the
worst from the worst representatives of the Russian landowning
class, who learned some French but who, first, did not master the
language, and who, secondly, distorted Russian language.
Is it not time to declare war on the spoiling of Russian.

(Stop Spoiling the Russian Language - Lenin Collected Works- Vol. 30-
p.298 (1924)

Art and Marxism

Our Marxist conception of the objective social dependence

and social utility of art, when translated into the language of
politics, does not at all means a desire to dominate art by means of
decrees and orders.It is not true that we regard only that art as new
and revolutionary which speaks of the worker, and it is nonsense
to say that we demand that the poets should describe inevitably a
factory chimney, or the uprising against capital! Of course the
new art cannot but place the struggle of the proletariat in the
centre of its attention. But the plough of the new art is not limited
to numbered strips.On the contrary, it must plow the entire field in
all directions. Personal lyrics of the very smallest scope have an
absolute right to exist within the new art.Moreover , the new man
cannot be formed without a new lyric poetry.But to create it, the
poet himself must feel the the world in a new way....
Artistic creation, of course, is not a raving, though it is also a
deflection, a changing and a transformation of reality, in
accordance with the peculiar laws of art. However fantastic art
may be it cannot have at its disposal any other material except that
which is given to it by the world of three dimensions and by the
550
narrower world of class society. Even when the artist creates
heaven and hell, he merely transforms the experience of his own
life into his phantasmagorias , almost to the point of of his
landlady's unpaid bill .
It is unquestionably true that the need for art is not created by
economic condtions. But neither is the need for food created by
economics. On the contrary, the need for food and warmth creates
economics. It is very true that one cannot always go by the
principles of Marxism in deciding whether to reject or to accept a
work of art. A work of art should , in the first place, be judged by
its own law, that is, by the law of art. But Marxism alone can
explain why and how a given tendency in art has originated in a
given period of history; in other words, who it was who made a
demand for such an artistic form and not for another, and why.
It would be childish to think that every class can entirely and
fully create its own art from within itself, and,particularly , that
the proletariat is capable in creating a new art by means of closed
art guilds or circles, or by the organization for Proletarian Culture
etc.Generally speaking, the artistic work of man is
continuous.Each new ruling class places itself on the shoulders of
its preceding one. But this continuity is dialectic, that is it finds
itself by means of internal repulsions and breaks.New artistic
needs or demands for new literary and artistic points of view are
stimulated by economics , through the development of a new
class, and minor stimuli are supplied by changes in the position of
the class, under the influence of the growth and cultural power.
Artistic creation is always a complicated turning inside out of old
forms,under the influence of new stimuli which originate outside
of art.In this large sense of the word, art is a handmaiden.it is not a

551
disembodied element feeding on itself, but a function of social
man indissolubly tied to his life and environment.. ..
The Marxian method affords an opportunity to estimate the
development of the new art, to trace all its sources, to help the
most progrssive tendencies by a critical illumination of the road,
but it does not do more than that. Art must make its own way and
by its own means, The Marxian methods are not the same as the
artistic. The party leads the proletariat but not the historic
processes of history.There are domains in which the Party leads,
directly and imperatively.There are domains in which it only
cooperates. There are, finally, domains in which it only orientates
itself. The domain of art is not one in which the Party is called
upon to command. It can and it must protect and help it, but it can
only lead it indirectly.
( Trotsky - Literature and Revoluion - pp. 170-218)

Plekhano
.. Plekhanov's behavior had been insulting to such a
degree that one could not help suspecting him of harbouring
"unclean" thoughts about us (i.e., that he regarded us as streber
(careerists). He trampled us underfoot, etc. I fully supported these
charges. My "infatuation" with Plekhanov disappeared as if by
magic, and I felt offended and embittered to an unbelievable
degree. Never, never in my life, had I regarded any other man
with such sincere respect and veneration, never had I stood
before any man so "humbly" and never before had I been so
brutally "kicked". That's what it was, we had actually been
kicked. We had been scared like little children, scared by the
grown-ups threatening to leave us to ourselves, and when we

552
funked (the shame of it!) we were brushed aside with an
incredible unceremoniousness. . .. And since a man with whom
we desired to cooperate closely and establish most intimate
relations, resorted to chess moves in dealing with comrades,
there could be no doubt that this man was bad, yes bad, inspired
by petty-motives of personal vanity and conceit - an insincere
man. This discovery - and it was indeed a discovery - struck us
like a thunderbolt; for up to that moment both of us had stood in
admiration of Plekhanov, and, as we do with a loved one, we had
forgiven him everything; we had closed our eyes to all his
shortcomings; we had tried hard to persuade ourselves that those
shortcomings were really non-existent, that they were petty things
that bothered only people who had no proper regard for principles.
(How The "Spark" was Nearly Extinguished Lenin Collected Works - Vol.
4- P.340- 1 900)

Krupskaya
In addition to being Lenin's wife - which, by the way, was
not accidental- Krupskaya was an outstanding personality in her
devotion to the cause, her energy, and her purity of character. She
was unquestionably a woman of intelligence. It is not astonishing,
side by side with Lenin, her political thinking did not receive an
independent development. After Lenin's death Krupskaya's life
took an extremely tragic tum. It was as if she were paying for the
happiness that had fallen to her lot.

Lenin's illness and death and this agam was not

accidental - coincided with the breaking point of the revolution,
and the beginning of Thermidor. Krupskaya became confused.
Her revolutionary instinct came into conflict with her spirit of

553
discipline. She made an attempt to oppose the Stalinist clique and
in 1926 found herself for a brief interval in the ranks of the
opposition. Frightened by the prospect of split, she broke away.
Having lost confidence in herself she completely lost her bearings,
and the ruling clique did everything in their power to break her
morally. On the surface she was treated with respect, or rather
with semi-honours. But within apparatus itself she was
systematically discredited, blackened and subjected to indignities,
while in the ranks of the young Communists the most absurd and
gross scandal was being spread about her.

Stalin always lived in fear of a protest on her part. She

knew far too much. She knew the history of the party. She knew
the place that Stalin occupied in this history. All of the latter-day
historiography which assigned to Stalin a place alongside of Lenin
could not but appear revolting and insulting to her. Stalin feared
Krupskaya just as he feared Gorky. Krupskaya was surrounded by
an iron ring of the GPU. Her old friends disappeared one by one;
those who delayed in dying were murdered either openly or
secretly. Every step she took was supervised ... What recourse was
there for the unfortunate crushed woman? Completely isolated, a
heavy stone weighing upon her heart, uncertain what to do, in the
toils of sickness, she dragged on her burdensome existence.

Nothing can be further from our mind than to blame

Nadezda Konstantinovna for not having been resolute enough to
break openly with bureaucracy. Political minds far more
independent than hers vacillated, tried to play hide and seek with
history and perished. Krupskaya was to the highest degree
endowed with a feeling of responsibility. Personally she was
courageous enough. What she lacked was mental courage. With
554
profound sorrow we bid farewell to the loyal companion of Lenin,
to an irreproachable revolutionist and one of the most tragic
figures in revolutionary history.
(Writings of Leon Trotsky - 1938/39 - pp. 197/98)

Hands offRosa Luxemburg

Stalin's article, "Some Questions Concerning the History
of Bolshevism" included in it a vile and barefaced calumny about
Rosa Luxemburg'. This great revolutionist is enrolled by Stalin in
to the camp of centrism. He proves, not proves, of course, but
asserts that Bolshevism from the day of its inception held to the
line of a split with the Kautsky center, while Rosa Luxemburg
during that time sustained Kautsky from the left.

To put forward such an assertion one must be absolutely

ignorant of the history of one's own party, and first of all, of
Lenin's ideological course. There is not a single word of truth in
Stalin's point of departure. Lenin was indeed, an irreconcilable
foe of opportunism in the German Social Democracy. But he
considered as opportunism only the revisionist tendency which
was led theoretically by Bernstein.

Kautsky at the time was to be found fighting against

Bernstein. Lenin considered Kautsky as his teacher and
stressed this everywhere he could. In Lenin's work of that period
and for a number of years following, one does not find even a
trace of criticism in principle directed against the Babel- Kautsky
tendency.

555
 Speaking of Menshevism as the opportunistic wing of the
social democracy, Lenin compared the Mensheviks not with
Kautskyism but with revisionism. Moreover he looked upon
Bolshevism as the Russian form of Kautskyism which in his eyes
was in that period identical with Marxism.

Directly after his assertion regarding 1903- 04, Stalin

makes a leap to 1916 and refers to Lenin's criticism of the war
pamphlet by Junius, i.e., Rosa Luxemburg. To be sure, in that
period Lenin had already declared war to the finish against
Kautskyism, having drawn from his criticism all the necessary
organisational conclusions. It is not to be denied that Rosa
Luxemburg did not pose the question of the struggle against
centrism with the requisite completeness in this Lenin's position
was entirely superior. But between October 1916 when Lenin
wrote about Junius's pamphlet, and 1903, when Bolshevism had
its inception there is a lapse of thirteen years; in the course of the
major part of this period Rosa Luxemburg was to be found in
opposition to Kautsky and Bebel, Central Committee and her fight
against the formal, pedantic, and rotten-at-the core "radicalism" of
Kautsky took on an ever increasing sharp character.

Lenin did not participate in this fight and did not support
Rosa Luxemburg up to 1914. Passionately absorbed in Russian
affairs, he preserved extreme caution in international matters.

The fact is indubitable that his ideological orbit 1s

represented by a continually rising curve. But this only means that
Lenin was not born Lenin full-fledged as he is pictured by the
slobbering daubers of the "divine", but that he made himself
Lenin. Lenin ever extended his horizons, he learned from others

556
and daily drew himself to a higher plane than was his own
yesterday. In this perseverance, in this stubborn resolution of a
continual spiritual growth over his own self did his heroic spirit
find its expression.

If one were to take the disagreements between Lenin and

Rosa Luxemburg in their entirety, then historical correctness is
unconditionally on Lenin's side. But this did not exclude the fact
that on certain questions and during definite periods Rosa
Luxemburg was correct as against Lenin. In any case, the
disagreements, despite their importance and at times their extreme
sharpness, developed on the bases of revolutionary proletarian
policies common to them both.

Lenin understood Rosa Luxemburg's mistakes more

profoundly than Stalin; but it was not accidental that Lenin once
quoted the old couplet in relation to Luxemburg: although the
eagles do swoop down and beneath the chickens fly, chickens
with outspread wings never will soar amid clouds in the sky.
Precisely the case; Precisely the point.

Rosa Luxemburg criticized very severely and fundamentally

incorrectly the policies of the Bolsheviks in 1918 from her prison
cell. But even in this her most erroneous work, her eagle's wings
are to be seen.
(Hands Off Rosa Luxemburg - Writings of Leon Trotsky - 1932 PP .129/ 142)

557
 Eugene Pottier and the Internationale
The greatest propagandist by song

In November of last year - 1912 - it was twenty five years

since the death of author of the famous proletarian song, the
Internationale ("Arise ye starvelings from your slumbers").

This song has been translated into all European and other
languages. In whatever country a class conscious worker finds
himself, wherever fate may cast him, however much he may feel
himself a stranger, without language, without friends, for from his
native country - he can find himself comrades and friends by the
familiar refrain of the Internationale.

The workers of all countries have adopted the song of their

foremost fighter, the proletariat poet, and have made it the world-
wide song of the proletariat.

And so the workers of all countries now honour the

memory of Eugene Pottier. His wife and daughter are still alive
and living in poverty as the author of the Internationale. He was
born in Paris on October 4, 1816. He was 14 when he composed
his first song and it was called : Long Live Liberty. In 1848 he
was a fighter on the barricades in the workers great battle against
the bourgeoisie.

In the days of the great Paris Commune (1871) , Pottier

was elected a member of 3600 votes cast, he received 3352. He
took part in all the activities of the Commune, that first proletarian
government.

558
 The fall of the Paris Commune forced Pottier to flee to
England and then to America. His famous song, the Internationale
was written in June 1871, you might say the day after the bloody
defeat in May.

The Commune was defeated but Pottier's Internationale

spread its ideas throughout the world and is now more alive than
ever before.

In 1871, in exile, Pottier wrote a poem, the workingmen of

America to the working men in France. In it he described the life
of workers under the yoke of capitalism, their poverty their back-
breaking toil, their exploitation, and their firm confidence in the
coming victory of their cause.

A number of other songs by the worker-poet were

published after his death.

On November 8, 1887, the workers of Paris carried the

remains of Eugene Pottier to the Pere Lachaise cemetery, where
the executed communards are buried. The police savagely
attacked the crowd in an effort to snatch the red banner. A vast
crowd took part in the civic funeral. On all sides there were shouts
of "long live Pottier".

Pottier died in poverty. But he left a memorial which is

truly more enduring than the handiwork of man. He was one of
the greatest propagandists by song...
(Lenin - Collected Works- Vol. 36- pp.223/24)

559
 Emmanuel Kant
The State of affairs in Germany at the end of the last
century is fully reflected in Kant's Critik der Practischen
Vernunft. While the French baurgeoisie, by means of the most
collosal revolution that history has ever known, was achieving
domination and conquering the Continent of Europe, while the
already politically emanicipated English baurgeoisie was
revolutionising industry and subjugating India politically, and all
the rest of the world commercially, the impotent German burghers
did not get any further than "good will". Kant was satisfied with
"good will" alone, even if it remained entirely without result, and
he tranferred the realisation of this good will, the harmony
between it and the needs and impulses of individuals, to the
world beyond. Kant's goodwill fully corresponds to the
impotence, depression and wretchedness of the German Burghers,
whose petty interests were never capable of developing into the
common, national interests of a class, and who were, therefore,
constantly exploited by the bourgeoisie of all other nations. These
petty local interests had as their counterpart, on the one hand, the
truly local and provincial narrow-mindedness of the German
burghers and, on the other hand, their cosmopolitan swollen-
headedness. In general, from the time of the Reformation German
development has borne a completely petty-bourgeois
character .

The characteristic form which French liberalism based on real

class interests, assumed in Germany, we find again in Kant.
Neither he, nor the German middle class, whose whitewashing
spokesman he was, noticed that these theoretical ideas of the
bourgoeisie had as their basis material interests and a will that was

560
conditional and determined by the material relations of
production. Kant, therefore, separated this theoretical expression
from the interests which it expressed; he made the materially
motivated determinations of the will of the French bourgeois into
pure self-determinations of "free will", of the will in and for
itself, of the human will, and so converted it into purely
ideological conceptual determinations and moral postulates.
Hence the German petty bourgeois recoiled in horror from the
practice of this energetic bourgeois liberalism as soon as this
practice showed itself, both in the Reign of Terror and in
shameless bourgeois profit-making.
(Marx-Engels - German Ideology - MECW -Vol.5 -pp.193/95 (1845/46)

The Kantian theory of the origin of all existing celestial

bodies from rotating nebular masses was the greatest advance
made by astronomy since Copernicus. For the first time the
conception that nature had no history in time began to be shaken.
Until then the celestial bodies were believed to have been always,
from the very beginning, in the same states and always to have
followed the same courses; and even though individual organisms
on the various celestial bodies died out, nevertheless genera and
species were held to be immutable. It is true that nature was
obviously in constant motion, but this motion appeared as an
incessant repetition of the same processes. Kant made the first
breach in this conception, which corresponded, exactly to the
metaphysical thought, and he did it in such a scientific way that
most of the proofs furnished by him still hold good today.

(Anti Duhring Engels- pp. 82/83)

561
 Physiocrats
The analysis of capital, within the bourgeois horizon, is
essentially the work of physiocrats. It is this service that makes
them the true fathers of modem political economy. In the first
place, the analysis of the various material components in which
capital exists and into which it resolves itself in the course of the
labour- process. It is not a reproach to the physiocrats that, like all
their successors, they thought of these material forms of existence
- such as tools, raw materials, etc.- as capital, in isolation from
the social conditions in which they appear in capitalist production;
in a word, in the form in which they are elements of the labour
process in general, independently of its social fonn - and thereby
made of the capitalist form of production as an eternal, natural
form of production. For them the bourgeois forms of production
necessarily appeared as a natural forms of prduction. It was their
great merit that they conceived these forms as physiological forms
of society: as forms arising from the natural necessity of
production itself, forms that are independent of anyone's will or of
politics, etc. They are material laws: the error is only that the
material law of a definite historical social stage is conceived as an
abstract law governing equally all forms of society.
(Theories of Surplus Value - Karl Marx- Vol. 4 of Capital Part 1- p.44)

Adam Smith

Adam Smith, like all economists worth speaking of, takes

over from the physiocrats the conception of the average wage,
which he calls the natural price of wages ...

562
 Adam Smith expressly states that the development of the
productive powers of labour does not benefit the labour himself...

Adam Smith is very copiously infected with the

conceptions of the physiocrats, and often whole strata run through
his work which belong to the physiocrats and are in complete
contradiction with the views specifically advanced by him. This is
so, for example in the theory of rent, etc.
(Theories of Surplus Value - Vol.4 of Capital - Part I-p.69)

David Ricardo

Ricardo, rightlyfor his time, regards the capitalist mode of

production as the most advantageous for production in general, as
the most advantageous for the creation of wealth. He wants
production for the sake of production and this with good
reason. To assert, as sentimental opponents of Ricardo did, that
production as such is not the object, is to forget that production for
its own sake means nothing but the development of human
productive forces, in other words the development of the
richness of human nature as an end in itself. To oppose the
welfare of individual to this end, as Sismondi does, is to assert
that the development of the species must be arrested in order to
safeguard the welfare of the individual, so that, for instance, no
war may be waged in which at all events some individuals perish.
. ....Apart from the barrenness of such edifying reflections, they
reveal a failure to understand the fact that, although at first, the
development of the capacity of the human species takes place at
the cost of the majority of human individuals and even classes, in
the end it breaks through this contradiction and coincides with the

563
development of the individual; the higher development of
individuality is thus only achieved by a historical process during
which individuals are sacrificed, for the interests of the species in
the human Kingdom, as in the animal and plant kingdoms, always
assert themselves at the cost of the interests of individuals,
because these interests of the species coincide only with the
interests of certain individuals and it is this coindence which
constitutes the strength of these privileged individuals.

Thus Ricardo's ruthlessness was not only scientifically

honest but also a scientific necessity from his point of view. But
because of this it is also quite immaterial to him whether the
advance of the productive forces slays landed property or workers.
If this progress devalues the capital of the industrial bourgeoisie it
is equally welcome to him. If the development of the productive
power of labour halves the value of the existing fixed capital,
what does it matter, says Ricardo. The productivity of human
labour has doubled. Thus here is scientific honesty. Ricardo's
conception is, on the whole, in the interests of the industrial
bourgeoisie, only because, and in so far as, their interests
coincide with that of production or the productive development of
human labour. Where the bourgeosie comes into conflict with this
he is just as ruthless towards it as he is at other times towards the
proletarian and the aristocracy.
( Marx Theories of surplus Value - Vol. 4- Partll - pp. 117/ I 8 )

Lord Palmerston
Palmerston is no genius, a genius would not lend himself
to such a role. But he is a most talented man and a consummate
tactician. His artistry does not lie in serving Russia, but rather in
564
contriving to maintain the role of a 'trulyEnglish Minister' while
so engaged. The only difference between him and Aberdeen is
that Aberdeen serve Russia because he doesn't understand her,
while Palmerston serves her although he does. Hence the first is
Russia's avowed partisan, the second her secret agent, the first
gratis, the second in return for fees received. Even if he himself
now wished to do so, he could not tum against Russia because he
is at her mercy and must live in constant fear of being immolated
in Petersburg.
(Marx to Ferdinand Lassalle -- MECW Vol. 39- p. 432 April 6 1854)

* * *
Ruggiero is again and again fascinated by the false charms
of Alcina, which he knows to disguise an old witch Sans teeth,
sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything and the knight-errant
cannot withstand falling in love with her anew whom he knows to
have transmuted all the former adorers into asses and other beasts.
The English public is another Ruggiero, and Palmerston is another
Alcina. Although a septuagenarian, and since 1807 occupying the
public stage, almost without interruption, he contrives to remain a
novelty, and to evoke all the hopes that used to centre on an
untried and promising youth. With one foot in the grave, he is
supposed not yet to have begun his true career. If he were to die
tomorrow, all England would be surprised at learning that he has
been a secretary of state half this century.

If not a good statesman of all work, he is at least a good

actor of all work. He succeeds in the comic as in the heroic in
pathos as in familiarity in the tragedy as in the farce; although
the latter may be more congenial to his feelings. He is no first

565
 class orator, but he is an accomplished debater. Possessed of a
wonderful memory, of great experience, of a consummate tact, of
a never-failing presence d'esprit (Presence of mind), of a
gentlemanlike versatility of the most minute knowledge of
parliamentary tricks, intrigues, parties and men, he handles
difficult cases in an admirable manner and with a pleasant
volubility, sticking to the prejudices and susceptibilities of his
public, secured from any surprise by his cynic impudence, from
any self-confession by his selfish dexterity, from running into a
passion by his profound frivolity, his perfect indifference, and his
aristocratic contempt. Being an exceedingly happy joker, he
ingratiates himself with everybody. Never losing his temper, he
imposes on an impassioned antagonist. When unable to master a
subject, he knows how to play with it. If wanting of general views,
he is always ready to issue elegant generalities.

Endowed with a restless and indefatigable spirit, he abhors

inactivity, and pines for agitation, if not for action. A country like
England allows him, of course to busy himself in every corner of
the earth. What he aims at is not the substance, but the mere
appearance of success.

If he can do nothing, he will devise anything. Where he

dares not interfere, he intermeddles. Not able to vie with a
strong enemy, he improvises a weak one.

Being no man of deep designs, pondering on no

combinations of long standing, pursuing no great object, he
embarks in difficulties with a view to disentangle himself in a
showy manner. He wants complications to feed his activity, and
566
when he finds them not ready, he will create them, he exults in
show-conflicts, show--battles, show--enemies, diplomatical notes
to be exchanged, ships to be ordered to sail, the whole movement
ending for him in violent parliamentary debates, which are sure
to prepare him an ephemeral success, the constant and the only
object of all his exertions. He manages internal conflicts like an
artist, driving matters to a certain point, retreating when they
threaten to become serious, but having got, at all events, the
dramatic excitement he wants. In his eyes, the movement of
history itself is nothing but a pastime, expressly invented for the
private satisfaction of the noble viscount Palmerston of
Palmerston.

Yielding to foreign influence in facts, he opposes it in words...

Although a Tory by origin, he has contrived to introduce into
the management of foreign affairs all the shams and
contradictions that forms the essence of Whiggism. He knows
how to conciliate a democratic phraseology with oligarchic views,
how to cover the peacemongering policy of the middle classes
with the haughty language of England's aristocratic past- how to
appear as the aggressor where he connives, and as the defender
where he betrays how to manage an apparent enemy, and how to
exasperate a pretendant ally- how to find himself, at the
opportune moment of the dispute, on the side of the stronger
against the weak, and how to utter brave words in the act of
running a way.

(Marx - Lord Palmerston - MECW - Vol. 12 - pp. 345/47 (22 October, 1853)

567
 Martin Luther
Luther, we grant, overcame the bondage of piety by
replacing it by the bondage of conviction. He shattered faith in
authority because he restored the authority of faith. He turned
priests into laymen because he turned laymen into priests. He
freed man from outer religiosity because he made religiosity the
inner man. He freed the body from chains because he enchained
the heart.

But if Protestantism was not the true solution it was at

least the true setting of the problem. It was no longer a case of the
layman's struggle against the priest outside himself but of his
struggle against his own priest inside himself, his priestly
nature.

Napoleon Bonaparte
It was not the revolutionary movement as a whole that
became the prey of Napoleon on I8" Brumaire ...; it was the
liberal bourgeoisie. One only needs to read the speeches of the
legislators of the time to be convinced of this. One has the
impression of coming from the National Convention into a
modem Chamber of deputies.

Napoleon represented the last battle of revolutionary

terror against the bourgeois society, which had been proclaimed
by this same Revolution, and against its policy. Napoleon, of
course, already discerned the essence of modern state; he
understood that it is based on the unhampered development of
bourgeois society, on the free movement of private interest, etc.
568
He decided to recognise and protect this basis. He was no terrorist
with his head in the clouds. Yet at the same time he still regarded
the state as an end in itself and civil life only as a treasurer and his
subordinate which must have no will of his own. He perfected the
Terror by substituting permanent revolution. He fed the egoism
of the French nation to complete satiety but demanded also the
sacrifice of bourgeois business, enjoyments, wealth, etc.,
whenever this was required by the political aim of conquest. If he
despotically suppressed the liberalism of bourgeois society - the
political idealism of its daily practice he showed no more
consideration for its essential material interests, trade and
industry, whenever they conflicted with his political interests. His
scorn of industrial homes d' affaires was complement to his
scorn of ideologists. In his home policy, too, he combated
bourgeois society as the opponent of the state which in his own
person he still held to be an absolute aim in itself. Thus he
declared in the State Council that he would not suffer the owner of
extensive estates to cultivate them or not as he pleased. Thus, too,
he conceived the plan of subordinating trade to the state by
appropriation of roulage (Road haulage). French businessmen
took steps to anticipate the event that first shook Napolean's
power .....
(The Holy Family- Vol. 4- pp. 123/124 (1845)

And when the energetic Napoleon took the

revolutionary work into his own hands, when he identified the
revolution with himself; that same revolution which after the
Ninth Thermidor, 1794 had been stifled by the money-loving
middle classes, when he, the democracy with "a single head", as a
French author termed him, poured his armies again and again over

569
 Germany, "Christian - Germanic" Society was finally destroyed.
Napoleon was not that arbitrary despot to Germany which he is
said to have been by his enemies; Napoleon was in Gennany the
representative of the revolution, the propagator of its principles,
the destroyer of old feudal society. Of course he proceeded
despotically, but not even half as despotically as the deputies from
the Convention would have done, and really did, wherever they
came; not half so much so as the princes and nobles used to do
whom he sent a-begging Napoleon applied the reign of terror,
which had done its work in France, to other countries, in the
shape of war- and this "reign of tenor" was sadly wanted in
Germany. Napoleon dissolved the Holy Roman Empire, and
reduced the number of little states in Germany by forming large
ones. He brought his code of laws with himself into the conquered
countries, a code infinitely superior to all existing ones, and
recognising equality in principle. He forced the Gennans, who had
lived hitherto for private interests only, to work at the carrying
out of a great idea of some overwhelming public interest. But that
was just what aroused the Germans against him. He offended the
peasantry by the very same measures that relieved them from the
oppression of feudalism because he struck at the roots of their
prejudices and ancient habits .
(Engels - The State of Germany - Vol. 6- p.19 (October 15, 1845)

Louis Phillipe

It was not the French bourgeoisie that ruled under Louis

Phillippe, but one faction of it; bankers, stock -exchange kings,
railway kings, owners of coal and iron mines and forests, a part of
the landed proprietors associated with them- the so-called
finance aristocracy. It sat on the throne, it dictated laws in the
570
Chambers, it distributed public offices, from cabinet portfolios to
tobacco bureau posts.

The industrial bourgeoisie proper formed part of the

official opposition, that is, it was represented only as a minority in
the Chambers .

. . . the faction of the bourgeoisie that ruled and legislated

through the Chambers had a direct interest in the indebtedness
of the state. The state deficit was really the main object of its
speculation and the chief source of its enrichment. At the end of
each year a new deficit.After the lapse of four or five years a new
loan. And every new loan offered new opportunities to the finance
aristocracy for defrauding the state, which was kept artificially on
the verge of bankruptcy - it had to negotiate with the bankers
under the most unfavourable conditions. Each new loan gave a
further opportunity, that of plundering the public which had
invested its capital in state bonds by means of stock exchange
manipulations, into the secrets of which the government and the
majority in the Chambers were initiated. In general, the instability
of state credit and the possession of state secrets give the bankers
and their associates in the Chambers and on the throne the
possibility of evoking sudden, extraordinary fluctuations in the
quotations of government securities, the result of which was
always bound to be the ruin of a mass of smaller capitalists and
the fabulously rapid enrichment of the bit gamblers. As the state
deficit was in the direct interest of the ruling faction of the
bourgeoisie, it is clear why the extraordinary state expenditure in
the last years of Louis phillipes reign was far more than double
the extraordinary state expenditure under Napoleon, indeed
reached a yearly sum of nearly 400, 000, 000 Francs, whereas the
571
whole average annual exports of France seldom attained a volume
amounting to 750,000,000 Francs. The enormous sums which, in
this way, flowed through the hands of the state facilitated,
moreover, swindling contracts for deliveries, bribery, defalcations
and all kinds of roguery. The defrauding of the state, practiced
wholesale in connections with loans, was repeated retail in public
works. What occurred in the relations between Chamber and
Government became multiplied in the relations between
individual departments and individual entrepreneuers ....

The July monarchy was nothing but a joint-stock company

for the exploitation of France's national wealth, the dividends of
which were divided among ministers, Chambers, 240,000 voters
and their adherents. Louis phillipe was the director of this
company - Robert Macaire on the throne. Trade, industry,
agriculture, shipping, the interests of the industrial bourgeoisie,
were bound to be continually endangered and prejudiced under
this system. Cheap government, gouvernement a bon marche,
was what it had inscribed in the July days on its banner.

Since the finance aristocracy made the laws, was at the

head of the administration of the state, had command of all the
organised public authorities, dominated public opinion through
the actual state of affairs and through the press, the same
prostitution, the same shameless cheating, the same mania to get
rich was repeated in every sphere, from the court to the cafe
Borgne, to get rich not by production, but by pocketing the
already available wealth of others. Clashing every moment with
the bourgeois laws themselves, an unbridled assertion of
572
unhealthy and dissolute appetites manifested itself, particularly at
the top of bourgeois society - lusts wherein wealth deriving from
gambling naturally seeks its satisfaction, where pleasure becomes
crapuleux (debauch), where money, filth and blood commingle.
The finance aristocracy, in its mode of acquisition as well as in its
pleasures, is nothing but the rebirth ofthe lumpen proletariat on
the height of bourgeois society.
( Marx - The Class Struggle in France - MECW - Vol. 10-pp. 48-51 ( 1850)

Thomas Carlyle
To Thomas Carlyle belongs as the credit of having taken
the literary field against the bourgeoisie at a time when its views,
tastes and ideas held the whole of official English literature totally
in thrall, and in a manner which is at times even revolutionary.
For example, in his history of the French revolution, in his
apology for Cromwell, in the pamphlet on Chartism and in past
and present. But in all these writings the critique of the present is
closely bound up with a strangely unhistorical apotheosis of the
Middle Ages, which is a frequent characteristic of other English
revolutionaries too, for instance Cobbett and a section of the
Chartists. While he at least admires in the past the classical
periods of a specific stage of society, the present drives him to
despair and he shudders at the thought of the future. Where he
recognises the revolution, or indeed apotheosises it, in his eyes it
becomes concentrated in a single individual, a Cromwell or a
Danton. He pays them the same hero worship that he preached in
his Lectures on Heroes and Hero-Worship as the only refuge
from a present pregnant with despair, as a new religion.

573
 Carlyle's style is at one with his ideas. It is a direct violent
reaction against the modem bourgeois English Pecksniffery,
whose enervated affectedness, circumspect verbosity and vague,
sentimentally moral tediousness has spread from the original
inventors, the educated Cockneys, to the whole of English
literature. In comparison, Carlyle treated the English language
as though it were completely raw material which he had to cast
utterly afresh. Obsolete expressions and words were sought out
again and new ones invented, in the German manner and
especially in the manner of Jean Paul. The new style was often in
bad taste and hugely pretentious, but frequently brilliant and
always original.. In this respect too the Latter-Day Pamphlets
represents step backwards.

This pamphlet is distinguished from the first only by a fury

much greater, yet all the cheaper for being directed against those
officially expelled from established society, against people behind
bars; a fury which sheds even that little shame which the ordinary
bourgeois still for decency's sake display. Just as in the first
pamphlet Carlyle erects a complete hierarchy of nobles and seeks
out the Noblest of the Noble, so here he arranges an equally
complete hierarchy of scoundrels and villains and exerts himself
in hunting down the worst of the bad, the supreme scoundrel in
England, for the exquisite pleasure of hanging him. Assuming he
were to catch him and hang him; then another will be our Worst
and must be hanged in tum, and then another again, until the tum
of the Noble and then the More Noble is reached and finally no
one is left but Carlyle, the Noblest, who as persecutor of

574
scoundrels is at once the murderer of the Noble and has murdered
what is Noble even in scoundrels; the Noblest of the Noble, who
is suddenly transformed into the Vilest of Scoundrels and as such
must hang himself. With that, all questions concerning
government, state, the organisation of labour, and the hierarchy of
the Noble would be resolved and the eternal law of nature realised
at last.
(Marx and Engels- Latter Day Pamphlet- MECW Vol. 10
pp.30 I/ IO (April I 850)

Napolean III
Driven by the contradictory demands of his situation and
being at the same time, like a conjuror, under the necessity of
keeping the public gaze fixed on himself, as Napoleon's
substitute, by springing constant surprises, that is to say, under the
necessity of executing a coup d'etat en miniature every day,
Bonaparte throws the entire bourgeois economy into confusion,
violates everything that seemed inviolable to the revolution of
1848, make some tolerant of revolution, others desirous of
revolution, and produces actual anarchy in the name of order,
while at the same time stripping its halo from the entire state
machine, profanes it and makes it at once loathsome and
ridiculous. The cult of the Holy Coat of Triar he duplicates in
Paris with the Napoleonic imperial mantle. But when the imperial
mantle falls on the shoulders of Louis Bonaparte, the bronze
statue of Napoleon will crash from the top of the Vendome
Column.
(Marx - The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte- MECW Vol. II-
p.197 (1850)

575
 Of the works on the same subject written at approximately
the same time as mine, only two deserve notice: Victor Hugo's
Napoleon le petit and Proudhon's Coup d'etat.

Victor Hugo confines himself to bitter and wittier

invective against the responsible publisher of the coup d'etat. The
event itself appears in his work like a bolt from the blue. He sees
in it only the violent act of a single individual. He does not notice
that he makes this individual great instead of little by ascribing to
him a personal power of initiative such as would be without
parallel in world history. Proudhon, for his part, seeks to represent
the coup d'etat as the result of preceding historical development.
Unnoticeably, however, his historical construction of the coup
d'etat becomes a historical apologia for his hero. Thus he falls
into the error of our so-called objective historians. In contrast to
this, / demonstrate how the class struggle in France created
circumstances and relations that made it possible for a
grotesque mediocrity to play a hero's part....

Lastly, I hope that my work will contribute towards

eliminating the school-taught phrase now current, particularly in
Germany, of so-called Caesarism. In this superficial historical
analogy the main point it forgotten, namely, that in ancient Rome
the class struggle took place only within a privileged minority,
between the free rich and the free poor, while the great productive
mass of the population, the slaves, formed the purely passive
pedestal for these combatants. People forget Sismondi's
significant saying: The Roman proletariat lived at the expense of

576
society, while modem society lives at the expense of the
proletariat. With so complete a difference between the material,
economic conditions of the ancient and modem class struggles,
the political figures produced by them can likewise have no more
in common with one another than the Archbishop of Canterbury
has with the high priest Samuel.

(Marx Preface to the Second Edition of The Eighteenth Brumaire -MECW

- Vol.21 pp.56/58 (June, 23, 1869)

Hume
Mr. Hume was the man chosen to answer in the name
of the country, just as Snug, the joiner, was chosen to play the part
in "the most cruel death of Pramus and Thisbe. ". Mr. Hume's
whole parliamentary life has been spent in making opposition
pleasant, moving amendments, in order to withdraw them
afterward - constituting, in fact , the so-called independent
opposition, the rearguard of every Whig-Ministry, sure of
coming forward to rescue it from danger whenever its own
registered partisans may show any signs of vacillation. He is the
great Parliamentary "extinguisher" par excellence. He is not
only the oldest member of Parliament, but an independent
member; and not only an independent, but a radical; and not only
a radical, but the pedantic and notorious Cerberus of the public
purse, with the mission of making pounds slip unnoticed by while
picking quarrels about the fractional part of a farthing.

(Marx- Parliamentary Debates - MECW Vol. 13 PP. 26/27 (24

February, I 854)

577
 Lord John Russell
The great repute in which Lord John Russell had been held
and the prominent role which he has dared to play for over a
quarter of a century would be even more incredible if the "number
of estates" which his family has usurped did not furnish the clue
to the puzzle.

Lord John seems to have spent his whole life simply

chasing after posts and holding on so stubbornly to the posts he
captured that he forfeited all claim to power. So it was 1836-
1841 when he was given the post of leader of the House of
Commons. So in 1846- 1852 when he could claim himself Prime
Minister. The semblance of power that enveloped him as the
leader of an opposition assaulting the exchequer always
disappeared the day he came to power. As soon as he changed
from an Out to an In he was done for. With no other English
statesman did power so abruptly changed into powerlessness. But,
on the other hand, no other knew so well as he how to transform
powerlessness into power.

The sham power Lord John Russell periodically wielded

was not only sustained by the influence exerted by the family of
the Duke of Bedford, whose younger son he was, but also by the
absence of all the qualities which generally fit a person to rule
over others. His Lilliputian views on everything spread to others
like a contagion and contributed more to confuse the judgment
of his hearers than the most ingenious misrepresentation could
have done. His real talent consists in his capacity to reduce
everything that he touches to his own dwarfish dimensions, to

578
diminish the external world to an infinitesimal size and to
transform it into a vulgar microcosm of his own invention. His
instinct to belittle the magnificent is excelled only by the skill
with which he can make the petty appear great.

Lord John Russell's entire life has been lived on false

pretenses; the false pretenses of parliamentary reform, the false
pretenses of religious freedom, the false pretenses of Free Trade.
So sincere was his belief in the sufficiency offalse pretenses that
he considered it quite feasible to become, not only a
British statesman on the basis offalse pretenses, but also a poet,
thinker and historian. Only this can account for the existence of
such balderdash as his tragedy Don Carlos, or Persecution, or his
Essay On the History of the English Government and
Constitution, from Reign of Henry VII to the present Time, or his
Memoirs of the Affairs of Europe from the Peace or Utrecht. To
his egoistic narrow-mindedness every object is nothing but a
tabula rasa on which he is at liberty to write his own name. His
opinions have never depended upon the actual facts; on the
contrary, he regards facts as dependent on the way he arranges
them in his rhetorical efforts. As a speaker he has not produced a
single idea worth mentioning, not one profound maxim, no
penetrating observation, no impressive description, 110 beautiful
thought, no poignant allusion, no humorous portrait, no true
emotion..... He has peculiar manner of combining his dry,
drawling and monotonous delivery resembling that of an
auctioneer with schoolboy illustrations from history and certain
solemn gibberish on "the beauty of the constitution", the
"universal liberties of this country""', "civilisation" and "progress".
He gets really heated only when personally provoked or goaded
579
by his opponents into abandoning his pose of affected arrogance
and self-satisfaction and displaying all the symptoms of extreme
helplessness. In England it is generally agreed that his numerous
failures are due to a certain natural rashness. This rashness, too, is
really merely a false pretense. It is brought about by the
subterfuges and expedients intended only for the given moment
necessarily coming into conflict with the adverse circumstances of
the next moment. Russell does not act instinctively but
calculating; but his calculations are petty like the man himself -
they are always merely makeshifts intended for the next hour.

It may seem astonishing that a public figure should have

survived such a host of stillborn measures, crushed projects and
abortive schemes. But as just as a polyp thrives on amputation, so
Lord John Russell on abortion. Most of his plans were advanced
solely for the purpose of placating his discontented allies, the so-
called Radicals, while an understanding with his adversaries, the
Conservatives, ensured the "burking" of these plans .... There
were times when Peel deliberately kept him at the helm in order
not to be compelled to do things which he knew Russell would
only prattle about. In such periods of secret understanding with
official opponent Russell exhibited impudence vis-a-vis his
official allies. He became bold- on false pretenses .....

. . . The whole man is one false pretense, his whole life a

lie, all his activity a continuous chain ofpetty intrigues for the
achievement of shabby ends the devouring of public money
and the usurpation of the mere semblance ofpower. No one has
ever illustrated more strikingly the truth of the biblical words
that no man can add one cubit unto his stature. placed
580
by birth, connections, and social accidents on a co/losal
pedestal, he always remained the same homunculus - a dwarf
dancing on the tip of a pyramid. History has, perhaps, never
exhibited any other man - SO great in pettiness.
(Marx Lord John Russell MECW Vol. 14- PP. 373/375 and 393)

Abraham Lincoln
Lincoln is a sui generis (unique) figure m the annals of
history. He has no initiative, no idealistic impetus, no cothurnus,
no historical trappings. He gives his most important actions
always the most commonplace form. Other people claim to be
"fighting for an idea", when it is for them a matter of square
feet ofland. Lincoln, even when he is motivated by an idea, talks
about "square feet". He signs the bravura aria of his part
hesitatively, reluctantly and unwillingly, as though apologizing
for being compelled by circumstances "to act the lion". The
most redoubtable decrees which will always remain
remarkable historical documents -flung by him at the enemy all
look like, and are intended to look like, routine summonses sent
by a lawyer to the lawyer of the opposing party..... His latest
proclamation, which is drafted in the same style, the manifesto
abolishing slavery, is the most important document in American
history since the establishment of the union, tantamount to the
tearing up ofthe old American Constitution.

Nothing is simpler than to show that Lincoln's principal

political action contain much that is aesthetically repulsive,
logically inadequate, farcial in form and politically contradictory,
as is done by the English Pindars of slavery, The Times , The
Saturday Review and tutti quanti. But Lincoln's place in the
581
history of the United States and of mankind will, nevertheless, be
next to that of Washington! Nowadays, when the insignificant
struts about melodramatically on this side of the Atlantic, is it of
no significance at all that the significant is clothed in everyday
dress in the new world?

Lincoln is not the product of popular revolution. This

plebian, who worked his way up from stone-breaker to senator in
Illinois, without intellectual brilliance, without a particularly
outstanding character, without exceptional importance - an
average person of goodwill, was placed at the top by the interplay
of the forces of universal suffrage unaware of the great issue at
stake. The new world has never achieved a greater triumph than
by this demonstration that, given its political and social
organisation, ordinary people of goodwill can accomplish feats
which only heroes could accomplish in the old world!

Hegel once observed that comedy is in fact superior to

tragedy and humourous reasoning superior to grandiloquent
reasoning. Although Lincoln does not possess the grandiloquence
of historical action, as an average man of the people he has its
humour .
(Marx - Comments on the North American Events - MECW Collected
works- Vol. 19- pp. 250/5 l (October - 12, 1862)

President Lincoln never ventures a step forward before the

tide of circumstances and the general call of public opinion forbid
further delay. But once "Old Abe" realises that such a turning
point has been reached, he surprises friend and foe alike by a
sudden operation executed as noiselessly as possible. Thus, in the

582
most unassuming manner, he quite recently carried out a coup that
half a year earlier would possibly have cost him his presidential
office and only a few months ago would have called forth a storm
of debate. We mean the removal of McClellan from his post of
commander-in chief of all Union armies.
(Marx - American Affairs - MECW - Vol. l 9 - p. 178 - February ( l 862)

Garibaldi
After a variety of the most contradictory information, we
recive, at last, something like trustworthy news of the details of
Garibaldi's wonderful march from Marsala to Palermo. It is
indeed one of the most astonishing military feats of the century,
and it would be almost unaccountable were it not for the prestige
preceeding the march of a triumphant revolutionary general. The
success of Garibaldi proves that the Royalist troop of Naples still
hold in terror the man who has borne high the flag of Italian
revolution in the face of French, Neopolitan and Austrian
Battalions, and that the people of Sicily have not lost their faith in
him, or in the national cause .....

In the meantime, we must declare that Garibaldi's

maneuver preparatory to the attack on Palermo at once stamp him
as a General of a very high order. Hitherto we knew him as a very
skillful and very lucky guerilla-chief only; even in the siege of
Rome his mode of defending the town by constant sallies gave
him scarcely an opportunity of rising above that level. But here
we have him on fair strategic ground and he comes from the trial a
proven master of his art. His manner of enticing Neopolitan
commander into the blunder of sending one-half of his troops
out of reach, his sudden flank-march and reappearance before
583
Palermo, on the side where here was least expected, and his
energetic attack while the garrison was awakened, are
operations far more imprinted with the stamps of military genius
than anything that occured during the Italian war of 1859.The
Sicilian insurrection has found a first rate military chief; let us
hope that the politician Garibaldi, who will soon have to appear
on the stage may keep unsullied the glory of the General.

(Engels - Garibaldi in Sicily- MECW-Vol.17 -386-90)

Proudhon
His first work, What Is Property?is undoubtedly his best.
It is epoch making, if not from the novelty of its content, at least
by the new and audacious way of coming out with everything. Of
course "property" had been not only criticised in various ways but
also "done away with" in the utopian manner by the French
Socialists and Communists whose works he knew. In this book
Proudhon's relation to Saint-Simon and Fourier is about the same
as that of Feuerbach to Hegel. Compared with Hegel, Feuerbach
is extremely poor. All the same he was epoch-making after
Hegel. He laid stress on certain points which were disagreeable to
the Christian consciousness but important for the progress of
criticism, and which Hegel had left in mystic semi-obscurity ...

The deficiency of the book is indicated by its very title.

The question was so falsely formulated that it could not be
answered correctly. Ancient "property relations" were
swallowed up by feudal property relations and these by
"bourgeois" property relations. Thus history itself had practiced
its criticism upon past property relations. What Proudhon was

584
actually dealing with was modern bourgeois property as it exists
today. The question of what this is could only have been answered
by a critical analysis of "political economy", embracing these
property relations as a whole, not in their legal expression as
relations of volition but in their real form, that is, as relations of
production. But as he entangled the whole of these economic
relations in the general juristic conception of "property",
Proudhon could not get beyond the answer which Brissot, in a
similar work, had already, before 1789, given in the same words:
"Property is theft."

The most that can be got out of this is that the bourgeois
juristic conceptions of" theft" apply equally well to the "honest"
gains of the bourgeois himself. On the other hand, since " theft "
as a forcible violation of property presupposes the existence of
property, Proudhon entangled himself in all sort of fantasies,
obscure everi to himself, about true bourgeois property.
(Marx to J. B. Schweitzer Marx Engels Selected Correspondence -
PP. 151/53 -January 24, (1865)

Proudhon had a natural inclination for dialectics. But as

he never grasped really scientific dialectics he never got further
than sophistry. In fact this hung together with his petty-bourgeois
composed of On the One Hand and On The other Hand. This is so
in his economic interests and tJlerefore in his politics, in his
scientific, religious and artistic views. It is so on his morals, in
everything. He is a living contradiction. If, like Proudhon in
addition a gifted man, he will soon learn to play with his own
contradictions and develop them according to circumstances into
striking, ostentatious, now scandalous or now brilliant paradoxes.

585
Charlatanism in science and accommodation in politics are
inseparable from such a point of view. There only remains one
governing motive, the vanity of the subject, and the only question
for him, as for all vain people, is the success of the moment, the
attention of the day. Thus the simple moral sense, which always
kept a Rousseau, for instance, far from even the semblance of
compromise with the powers that be, in necessarily extinguished.
(Marx to Engels-Selected Correspondence-p.157-Febmary I, 1865)

The only point upon which I am in complete agreement

with Mr. Proudhon is the disgust he feel for socialist
sentimentalising. I anticipated him in provoking considerable
hostility by the ridicule I directed at ovine, sentimental, utopian
socialism. But is not Mr. Proudhon subject to strange delusions
when he opposes his petty bourgeois sentimentality, by which I
mean his homilies about home, conjugal love and suchlike
banalities, to socialist sentimentality which as for instance in
Fourier's case is infinitely more profound than the
presumptuous platitudes of our worthy Proudhon? He himself is
so well aware of the emptiness of his reasoning, of his complete
inability to discuss such thing, that he indulges in tantrums,
exclamations and irae hominis probi (the anger of an upright
man), that he fumes, curses, denounces, cries pestilence and
infamy, thumps his chests and glorifies himself before God and
man as being innocent of socialist infamies! It is not as a critic
that he derides socialist sentimentalities, or what he takes to be
sentimentalities. It is as a saint, a pope, that he excommunicates
the poor sinners and sings the praises of the petty - bourgeoisie
and of the miserable patriarchal amorous illusions of the domestic
hearth. Nor is this in any way fortuitous. Mr. Proudhon is, from

586
top to toe, a philosopher, an economist of the petty - bourgeoisie.
In an advanced society and because of his situation, a petty -
bourgeoisie becomes a socialist on the one hand, and economist
on the other, i.e., he is dazzled by the magnificence of the upper
middle classes and feels compassion for the suffering of the
people. He is at one and the same time bourgeois and man of the
people. In his heart of hearts he prides himself on his impartiality,
on having found the correct balance, allegedly distinct from the
happy medium. A petty bourgeois of this kind defies
contradiction, for contradiction is the very basis of his being. He
is nothing but social contradiction in action. He must justify by
means of theory what he is in practice, and Mr. Proudhon has the
merit of being the scientific exponent of the French petty
bourgeoisie, which is a real merit since the petty bourgeoisie will
be an integral part of all the impending social revolutions.

(Marx to Annenkov -- MECW - Collected Works Vol. 38- pp. 104/105)

Proudhon's Method
Let us return to M. Proudhon's

Every economic relation has a good and bad side; it is the

one point on which M. Proudhon does not give himself the lie. He
sees the good side expounded by the economists; the bad side he
sees denounced by the socialists. He borrows from the
economists the necessity of eternal relations; he borrows from
the socialists the illusion of seeing in poverty nothing but
poverty. He is in agreement with both in wanting to fall back
upon the authority of science. Science for him reduces itself to

587
the slender proportions of a scientific formula; he is the man in
search offormulas. Thus it is that M. Proudhon flatters himself
on having given a criticism of both political economy and
communism: he is beneath them both. Beneath the economists,
since, as a philosopher who has at his elbow a magic formula, he
thought he could dispense with going into purely economic
details; beneath the socialists, because he has neither courage
enough nor insight enough to rise, be it even speculatively, above
the bourgeois horizon.

He wants to be the synthesis - he is a composite error.

He wants to soar as the man of science above the

bourgeois and the proletarians; he is merely the petty bourgeois,
continually tossed back and forth between capital and labour,
political economy and communism.

(Marx - The Poverty of Philosophy - MECW Vol. 6 p.178 ( 184 7)

Louise Blanc
Louise never speaks extempore. He writes down every
word of his speeches and learns them by heart in front of the
looking glass. Ledru, on the other hand, always improvises and,
on important occasions, confines himself to few matter of fact
notes. Hence, quite a side from the difference in personal
appearance, Louise is completely incapable of making the
slightest impression when alongside Ledru. He therefore
welcomed any pretext that pennitted him to avoid comparison
with this dangerous rival!

588
 So far as his historical works are concerned, he wrote them
mn the same way that A.Dumas wrote the feuilletons. He never
studies more material than is neededfor the next chapter. This is
how such books as the Histoire des dix ans are produced. In this
way it lends a certain freshness to his accounts. For what he's
conveying at least as new to him as it is to his reader: on the other
hand the thing as a whole is weak.
(Marx to Engels - MECW - Vol.38 - p.294 - February 23, I 851)

Ferdinand Lassalle

Heraclitus, the Dark Philosopher by Lassalle the

Luminous One is, au fond (basically) a very silly concoction.
Every time Heraclitus uses an image to demonstrate the unity of
affiramation and negation and this is often in steps Lassalle
and makes the most of the occasion by treating us to some passage
from Hegel's Logic which is hardly improved in the process,
always at great length too, like a schoolboy who must show in his
essay that he has thoroughly understood his 'essence' and
'appearance' as well as the 'dialectical process'. Once he has got
this into his speculative noddle, one may be sure that the
schoolboy will nevetheless be able to carry out the process of
rationation only in strict accord with the prescribed formula and
the forms sacramentales. (hallowed forms). Just so our Lassalle.
The fellow seems to have tried to puzzle out Hegelian logic via
Heraclitus, nor ever to have tired of beginning the process all over
again. As for learning, there is a tremendous display of it. But as
any well-informed person will know, provided one has the time
and the money and, like Mr. Lassalle, can have Bonn University
library delivered ad libitum to one's home, it is easy enough to
589
assemble such an array of quotations. One can see what an
amazing swell the fellow himself thinks he is in this philological
finery, and how he moves with all the grace of a man wearing
fashionable dress for the first time in his life. Since most
philologists are not possessed of the speculative thinking
dominant in Heraclitus, every Hegelian has the incontestable
advantage of understanding what the philologist does not. (It
would, by the way, be strange indeed if, by learning Greek, a
fellow were to become a philosopher in Greek without being one
in German.) Instead of simply taking this for granted,
Mr.Lassalle proceeds to lecture us in a quasi- Lessingian manner.
In long-winded, lawyer's style he vindicates the Hegelian
interpretation as opposed to the erroneous exegeses of the
philologists - erroneous for want of specialized knowledge .....
Despite the fellow's claim, by the way, that hitherto Heraclitus
has been a book with seven seals, he has to all intents and
purposes added nothing whatever that is new to what Hegel says
in the History of Philosophy. All he does is to enlarge on points
of detail which could, of course, have been accomplished quite
adequately in two sheets of print. Still less does it occur to the
laddie to come out with any critical reflections on dialectics as
such. If all the fragments by Heraclitus were put together in print,
they would hardly fill half a sheet. Only a chap who brings out
his books at the expense of the frightful 'specimen of humankind'
can presume to launch upon the world 2 volumes of 60 sheets on
such a pretext.

(Marx to Engels - MECW- Vol40 - p.259/60-February I, 1858)

590
 Malthus

..... Malthus used the Andersonian theory of rent to give

his population law, for the first time, both on economic and a real
(natural historical) basis, while the nonsense about geometrical
and arithmetical progression borrowed from earlier writers, was a
purely imaginary hypothesis. Mr. Malthus at once "improved" the
matter. Ricardo even made this doctrine of rent, as he himself says
in his preface, one of the most important links in the whole system
of political economy and - quite apart from the practical aspect -
gave it an entirely new theoretical importance.

Ricardo evidently did not know Anderson since, in the

preface to his Principles of Political Economy, he treats West
and Malthus as the originators. Judging by the original manner in
which he presents the law, West was possibly as little acquainted
with Anderson as Tooke was with Steurt. With Malthus it is
different. A close comparison of his writings shows that he knows
and uses Anderson. He was in fact plagiarist by profession. One
need only compare the first edition of his work on population
with the work of Reverent Townsend ... to be convinced that he
does not work him over as an independent producer, but copies
him and paraphrases him like a slavish plagiarist, although he
does not mention him anywhere by name and conceals his
existence.

The manner in which Malthus used Anderson is

characteristic. Anderson had defended premiums on exports of
com and duties on com imports, not out of any interest for the
landlords, but because he believed that this type of legislation
591
"would reduce the average price of com" and ensure an even
development of the productive forces in agriculture. Malthus
accepted this practical application of Anderson's because-being a
staunch member of the Established Church of England - he was a
professional sycophant of the landed aristocracy - whose rents,
sinecures, squandering, heartlessness, etc., he justified
economically. Malthus defends the interests of the industrial
bourgeoisie only in so far as these are identical with the interests
of landed property, of the aristocracy, i.e., against the mass of the
people, the proletariat. But where these interests diverge and are
antagonistic to each other, he sides with the aristocracy against the
bourgeoisie. Hence his defence of the "unproductive worker",
over - consumption, etc ....

What then did Malthus do?

Instead of his (also plagiarised) chimera of the geometrical

and arithmetical progression, which he retained as a "phrase", he
made Anderson's theory the confirmation of his population
theory. He retained Anderson's practical application of the theory
in so far as interests of the landlords - this fact alone proves that
he understood as little of the connection of this theory with the
system of bourgeois economy as Anderson himself. Without
going into the counter-evidence which the discoverer of the theory
put forward, he turned it against the proletariat ...

Utter baseness is a distinctive trait of Malthus - a

baseness which can only be indulged in by a parson who sees
human suffering as the punishment for sin and who, in any case,
needs a "vale of tears on earth", but who, at the same time, in

592
view of the living he draws and aided by the dogma of
predestination, finds it altogether advantageous to "sweeten" their
sojourn in the vale of tears for the ruling classes. The "baseness"
of this mind is also evident in his scientific work. Firstly in his
shameless and mechanical plagiarism. Secondly in the cautious,
not radical, conclusions which he draws from scientific
prem1ses....

The parson Malthus, on the other hand, reduces the worker

to a beast of burden for the sake of production and even condemns
him to death from starvation and to celibacy. But when these same
demands of production curtail the landlord's rent" or threaten to
encroach on the "tithes" of the Established Church , or on the
interests of the "consumers of taxes"; and also when that part of
the industrial bourgeoisie whose interests stand in the way of
progress is being sacrificed to that part which represents of
advance of production and therefore whenever it is a question of
the interests of the aristocracy against the bourgeoisie or of the
conservative and stagnant bourgeoisie against the progressive in
all these instances "parson" Malthus does not sacrifice the
particular interests to production but seeks, as far as he can, to
sacrifice the demands of production to the particular interests of
existing ruling classes or sections of classes. And to this end he
falsifies his scientific conclusions. That is his scientific baseness,
his sin against science, quite apart from his shameless and
mechanical plagiarism. The scientific conclusions of Malthus are
"considerate" towards the ruling classes in general and towards
the reactionary elements of the ruling classes in particular; in
other words he falsifies science for these interests. But his
conclusions are ruthless as far as they concern the subjugated

593
classes. He is not only ruthless; he takes a cynical pleasure in it
and exaggerates his conclusions in so far as they are directed
against the poor wretches,- even beyond the point which would be
scientifically justified from his point of view.

The hatred of the English working classes for Malthus -

"the mountebank parson" as Cobbett rudely called him - was
thus fully justified and the people's instinct was correct here, in
that they felt he was no man of science, but a bought advocate of
their opponents, a shameless sycophant of the ruling classes.

The inventor of an idea may exaggerate it in all honesty;

when the plagiarist exaggerates it, he always makes "a business"
of such an exaggeration.

Because the first edition of Malthus's work on population

contains not a single new scientific word, it is to be regarded
purely as an obtrusive Capuchin's sermon, an Abraham a Santa
Clara version of the discoveries of Townsend, steurt, Wallace,
Herbert, etc. Since In fact it only wants to impress by its popular
form, popular hate rightly turns against it.

As compared to the wretched bourgeois economists who

preach harmony, Malthus's only merit lies in his pointed emphasis
on the disharmonies, which, though none of them were
discovered by him were all emphasised, amplified and publicised
by him with complacent sacerdotal cynicism.

(Theories of Surplus Value - Vol. iv of Capital - Part II pp. 115/21)

594
 .... I too was struck, the very first time I read Darwin, with
the remarkable likeness between his account of plant and animal
life and the Malthusian theory. Only I came to a different
conclusion from yours; namely that nothing discredits modem
bourgeois development so much as the fact that it has not yet got
beyond the economic forms of the animal world. To us so-called
economic laws are not eternal las of nature but historical laws
which arise and disappear; and the code of modern political
economy, in so far it has been drawn up with proper objectivity by
the economists, is to us simply a summary of the laws and
conditions under which alone modern bourgeois society can exits
- in short, the condition of its production and exchange expressed
in an abstract way and summarised. To us therefore none of these
laws, in so far as it expresses purely bourgeois relations, is older
than modern bourgeois society; those which have hitherto, been
more or less valid throughout all history really express only those
relations which are common to the conditions of all society based
on class rule and class exploitation. To the former belongs the so-
called law of Ricardo, which is valid neither for feudal serfdom
nor ancient slavery; to the latter belongs what is tenable in the SO -
called Malthusian theory.

Like all other ideas, Parson Malthus, had stolen this theory
direct from his predecessors; all that belongs to him is the purely
arbitrary application of the two progressions. In England the
theory itself has long ago been reduced to a rational scale by the
economists; the pressure of the population is not upon the means
of subsistence but upon the means of employment; mankind
could multiply more rapidly than modern bourgeois society can
595
 demand. To us a further reason for declaring this bourgeois
society a barrier to development which must fall.

You yourself ask how increase of population and increase

in the means of subsistence are to be brought into harmony; but
except for one sentence in the preface I find no attempt to solve
the question. We start from the premise that the same forces
which have created modem bourgeois society - the steam engine,
modern machinery, mass colonisation, railways, steamships,
world trade - and which now, through the permanent trade crises,
are already working towards its ruin and ultimate destruction -
that these means of production and exchange will suffice to
reverse the relation in a short time, and to raise the productive
power of each individual so much that he can produce enough for
the consumption of two, three four, five or six individuals; that
town industry will be able to spare people enough to give
agriculture quite other forces that it has had up to now; that
science too will then at last be applied in agriculture on a large
scale and with the same consistency as in industry; that the
exploitation of the inexhaustible regions fertilized by nature
herself in South Eastern Europe and Western America will be
carried out on a magnificent scale hitherto quite unknown. The
time to sound the alarm will come only when all these regions
have been ploughed up and a shortage sets in nevertheless.

Too little is produced - that is the whole trouble. But why

is too little is produced? Not because the limits of production -
even today and with present-day means - are exhausted. No, but
because the limits of production are detennined not by the number
of hungry bellies but by the number of purses able to buy and

596
pay. Bourgeois society does not and cannot wish to produce
anymore. The moneyless bellies, the labour which cannot be
employed with profit and therefore cannot buy, go to increase the
death-rate. Let a sudden industrial boom, such as occurs every
now and then, make it possible for this labour to be employed
with profit, it will get money to spend, and the means of
subsistence have never hitherto been lacking. This is the endless
vicious circle in which the whole economic system revolves. One
presupposes bourgeois conditions as a whole, and then proves that
every part of them is a necessary part and therefore an eternal
law.
(Engels to F. A. Lange - Selected Correspondence - pp. 171/73- 1865)

Bismarck
... From the moment Bismarck by using the Prussian army
carried out the Little Germany scheme of the bourgeoisie with
such colossal success, the development in Germany has taken this
direction so resolutely that we, like others, must acknowledge the
accomplished fact, we may like it or not. As to the national side
of the affair, Bismarck will any case establish the Little-German
Empire in the dimensions intended by the bourgeoisie ....

Politically, Bismarck will be forced to depend on the

bourgeoisie, whom he needs against the imperial princes. Not at
the moment, perhaps, because his prestige and the army a.re still
sufficient. But he will have to give something to the bourgeoisie
even if only to secure from parliament the necessary conditions
for the central power, and the natural course of the affair will
always force him or his successors to appeal to the bourgeoisie
again; so that if, as is possible, Bismarck does concede more to
597
the bourgeoisie than he is actually obliged to now, he will still be
driven more and more into their camp.

The thing has this good side to it that it simplified the

situation; it makes a revolution easier by doing away with the
brawls between the petty capitals and will in any case hasten
developments. After all a German Parliament is something quite
different from a Prussian Chamber. The petty states in their
totality will be swept into the movement, the worst localising
influences will cease and parties will at last become really
national instead of merely local.

The chief disadvantage- a very great one - is the

unavoidable flooding of Gennany with Prussianism. Then the
temporary separation of German Austria, which will result in an
immediate advanced of the Slav elements in Bohemia, Moravia
and Carinthia. Unfortunately neither of these things can be helped.

In my opinion, therefore, all we can do is simply to accept

the fact, without approving it, and to use, as far as we can, the
greater facilities now bound at any rate to become available for
the national organisation and unification of the German
proletariat.
(Engels to Marx - Selected Correspondence - pp. 181/82 - July 25, 1866)

Darwin's Theory

Of the Darwinian doctrine I accept the theory of

evolution, but Darwin's method of proof (Struggle for life, natural
selection) I consider only a first, provisional, imperfect expression
598
of a newly discovered fact. Until Darwin's time the very people
who now see everywhere only struggle for existence (Vogt,
Buchner, Moleschott, etc.) emphasised precisely co-operation in
organic nature, the fact that the vegetable kingdom supplies
oxygen and nutriment to the animal kingdom and conversely the
animal kingdom supplies plants with carbonic acid and manure,
which was particularly stressed by Liebig. Both conceptions are
justified within certain limits, but the one is as one-sided and
narrow-minded as the other. The interaction of bodies in nature -
inanimate as well as animate includes harmony and collision,
struggle and co-operation. When therefore a self-styled natural
scientist takes the liberty of reducing the whole of historical
development with all its wealth and variety to the one-sided and
meager phrase "snuggle for existence", a phrase which even in the
sphere of nature can be accepted only cum grano salis, (with a
grain of salt), such a procedure really contains its own
condemnation .

The whole Darwinist teaching of the struggle for existence

is simply a transference from society to living nature of Hobbes's
doctrine of helium omnium contra omnes (a war of all against
all ) and of the bourgeois economic doctrine of competition
together with Malthus's theory of population. When this
conjuror's trick has been performed .... the same theories are
transferred back again from organic nature into history and it is
now claimed that their validity as eternal laws of human society
has been proved. The puerility of this procedure is so obvious that
not a word need be said about it. But if I wanted to go into the
matter more thoroughly I should do so by depicting them in the

599
first place as bad economists and only in the second place as bad
naturalists and philosophers.

The essential difference between human and animal

society consist in the fact that animals at most collect while men
produce. This sole but cardinal difference alone makes it
impossible simply to transfer laws of animal societies to human
societies ....
(Engels to- P.L. Lavrov-- Selected Correspondence pp.301/03 - 1875)

Lewis Morgan
There exists an authoritative book on the conditions of
primitive society, as authoritative as Darwin is in biology and, of
course it is again Marx who discovered it; Morgan, Ancient
Society, 1877. Marx spoke about it but my head was full of other
things at that time and he never returned to it. This must have
suited him as he wanted to introduce the book among the Germans
himself, as I see from the quite extensive extracts he made.
Morgan discovered the Marxian materialist conception of history
independently within the limits prescribed by his subject and
concludes in relation to present-day society with directly
communist demands.
(Engels to K. Kautsky - Selected Correspondence p.368 -1884)

Karl Ka utsky
Kautsky at one time wielded a very great authority in the
ranks of the Second International as the theorist of Marxism. The
war soon showed that his Marxsim was only a method for a

600
passive interpretation of the process of history, but not a method
of revolutionary action. So long as the class struggle flowed
between the peaceful shores of parliamentarism, Kautsky, like
thousand of other, indulged himself in the luxury of revolutionary
criticism and bold perspectives; in practice these did not bind him
to anything. But when the war and the after-war period brought
the problems of revolution onto the field, Kautsky took up his
position definitively on the other side of the barricade. Without
breaking away from Marxist phraseology he made himself,
instead of the champion of the proletarian revolution, the advocate
of passivity of a crawling capitulation before imperialism.
(Terrorism And Communism - Trosky - p. xxxvii)

Internationalism ofLenin
Lenin's internationalism is not a formula for harmonising
national and international interests in empty verbiage. It is a guide
to revolutionary action embracing all nations. Our planet,
inhabited by so-called civilised humanity, is considered as one
single battlefield where various nations and social classes contend.
The framework of one nation cannot contain in itself a single
weighty problem; visible and invisible threads connect its very
essence with dozens of events taking place in all comers of the
world. In the evaluation of international phenomena and
international forces, Lenin more than anybody else is free from
the slightest national bias ....

No, there is no need to authenticate Lenin's

internationalism. And yet Lenin himself is genuinely national
type. He is deeply rooted in contemporary Russian history: he is
the epitome of that history: he gives it the highest expression and

601
precisely in this way he attains the pinnacle of international
activity and of world influence.

To characterise Lenin's personality as 'national' may seem

at first sight unexpected; but on closer scrutiny it becomes self-
evident. In order to be able to direct an unheaval on a scale
unprecedented in the history of nations, the upheaval through
which Russia has been passing, there needs to exist between the
vital force of the country and the leader some organic,
indissoluble link deep down, at the root of his being. In himself
Lenin embodies the Russian proletariat, politically a young social
class which in age is scarcely older than Lenin himself. But that
class is deeply national because all Russia's previous and her
future development are bound up with it and on it depends the life
and death of the Russian nation. Freedom from habit and custom,
from hypocrisy and convention, boldness of thought, audacity in
action audacity which never becomes recklessness is
characteristic of the Russian proletariat, and of Lenin as well.
(On Lenin -Trosky- pp. 143/44)

Lenin's "Righteousness"

Gorky is right when he says that Lenin is the extraordinary

and perfect embodiment of a tense will striving towards the goal.
This tension towards the goal is Lenin's essential characteristic
.... But, when a little further, Gorky treats Lenin as "one of the
righteous", this sounds false and is in bad taste. The expression
"the righteous", borrowed from the church, from the language of
religious sects with the odour of Lent and the oil of holy icons,

602
does not accord with Lenin at all. He was a great man, a
magnificent giant, and nothing human was alien to him.
(On Lenin Trosky - p. 159)

Lenin's Last Words on Stalin and Trotsky

Comrade Stalin having become Secretary General, has
unlimited authority concentrated in his hands, and I am not sure
whether he will always be capable of using that authority with
sufficient caution. Comrade Trotsky, on the Other hand, as his
struggle against the C.C. on the question of the People's
Commissariat for Communications has already proved is
distinguished not only by outstanding ability. He is personally the
most capable man in the present C.C, but he has displayed
excessive self-assurance and shown excessive preoccupation with
the purely administrative side of the work.

These two qualities of the two outstanding leaders of the

present C.C. can inadverantly lead to a split, and if our party does
not take steps to avert this, the split may come
unexpectedly .

Stalin is too rude, and this defect, although quite

tolerable in our midst, and in dealing among us communists,
becomes intolerable in a Secretary- General. That is why I
suggest that the comrades think about a way of removing Stalin
from that post and appointing another man in his stead who in all
other respects differs from comrade Stalin in having only one
advantage, namely, that of being more tolerant, more loyal, more
polite and more considerate to the Comrades, less capricious,
etc (Lenin - Collected Works- Vol. 36- pp. - 594/596 (1922)

603
 Andre Gide and Malraux

Malraux, like Andre Gide, belongs to the friends of the

USSR. But there is enormous difference between them, and not
only in the dimensions of talent. Andre Gide is an absolutely
independent character, who possesses a very great perspicacity
and an intellectual honesty which permits him to call each thing
by its right name. Without that capacity one can babble about the
revolution, but is impotent to serve it. Malraux, unlike Gide, is
organically incapable of moral independence. His novels are
entirely impregnated with heroism, but he himself does not
possess that quality in the slightest degree.
(Writings of Leon Trotsky - 1937/38 - p. 74)

America

The history of modem, civilised America opened with one

of those great, really liberating, really revolutionary wars of which
there have been so few compared to the vast number of wars of
conquest which, like the present imperialist war, were caused by
squabbles among kings, landowners or capitalists over the
division of usurped lands or ill-gotten gains. That was the war the
American people waged against the British robbers who
oppressed America and held her in colonial slavery, in the same
way as these "civilised" blood suckers are still oppressing and
holding in colonial slavery hundreds of millions of people in
India, Egypt, and all parts of the world.

604
 About 150 years have passed since then. Bourgeois
civilization has borne all its luxurious fruits. America has taken
first place among the free and educated nations in the level of
development of the productive forces of collective human
endeavor, in the utilization of machinery and of all the wonders
of modern engineering. At the same time, America has become
one of the foremost countries in regard to the depth ofthe abyss
which lies between the handful of arrogant multimillionaires
who wallow in filth and luxury, and the millions of working
people who constantly live on the verge ofpauperism. American
people, who set the world an example in waging a revolutionary
war against feudal slavery, now find themselves in the latest,
capitalist stage of wage-slavery to a handful of multimillionaires,
and find themselves playing the role of hired thugs who, for the
benefit of wealthy scoundrels, throttled the Philippines in 1898 on
the pretext of "liberating" them and are throttling the Russian
Socialist Republic in 1918 on the pretext of "protecting" it form
the Germans ....

The American multimillionaires were, perhaps, richest of

all and geographically the most secure. They have profited more
than all the rest. They have converted all, even the richest,
countries into their tributaries. They have grabbed hundreds of
billions of dollars, And every dollar is sullied with filth; the filth
of the secret treaties between Britain and her " allies", Between
Germany and her vassals, treaties for the division of the spoils,
treaties of mutual " aid" for oppressing the workers and
persecuting the internationalist socialists. Every dollar is sullied
with the filth of "profitable " war contracts, which in every
country made the rich richer and the poor poorer. And every
605
dollar is stained with blood - from that ocean of blood that has
been shed by the ten million killed and twenty million maimed in
the great, noble liberating and holy war to decide whether the
British or the German robbers are to get most of the spoils,
whether the British or the German thugs are to be foremost in
throttling the weak nations all over the world.
(Letter to American workers - Lenin - Collected Works- Vol. 28-pp.62/64
(19 I 8)

China
One is naturally inclined to compare the provisional
President of the Republic in benighted, inert Asiatic china (Sun-
Yat- Sen) with the presidents of various republics in Europe and
America, in countries of advance culture. The presidents of those
republics are all businessmen, agents or puppets of a bourgeoisie
rotten to the core and besmirched from head to foot with mud and
blood- not the blood of padishahs and emperors, but the blood of
striking workers shot down in the name of progress and
civilisation. In those countries the presidents represent the
bourgeoisie, which long ago renounced all the ideas of its youth,
has thoroughly prostituted itself, sold itself body and soul to the
millionaires and multimillionaires, to the feudal lords turned
bourgeois, etc.

In China, the Asiatic provisional President of the

Republic is a revolutionary democrat, endowed with nobility and
heroism of a class that is rising, not declining, a class that does
not dread the future, but believes in it andfights for it selflessly,
a class that does not cling to maintenance and restoration ofthe

606
past in order to safeguard its privileges, but hates the past and
knows how to cast offits dead and stifling decay.

Does that mean, then, that the materialist west has

hopelessly decayed and that light shines only from the mystic,
religious East? No, quite the opposite. It means that the East has
definitely taken the western path, that new hundreds of millions
ofpeople will from now on share in the struggle for the ideals
which the west has already worked out for itself. What has
decayed is the western bourgeoisie, which is already confronted
by its grave digger, the proletariat. But in Asia there is still a
bourgeoisie capable of championing sincere, militant, consistent
democracy, a worthy comrade of France's great men of
Enlightenment and great leaders of the close of the eighteenth
century.

The chief representative, or the chief social bulwark, of

this Asian bourgeoisie that is still capable of supporting a
historically progressive cause, is the peasant. And side by side
with him there already exists a liberal bourgeoisie whose
leaders, men like Yuan-Shih Kai, are above all capable of
treachery: yestesday theyfeared the emperor, and cringed before
him; then they betrayed him when they saw the strength and
sensed the victory of the revolutionary democracy; and
tomorrow they will betray the democrats to make a deal with
some old or new 'constitutional" emperor

( Democracy and Narodnism in China- Lenin- Collected Works-Vol.18

pp.164/65 (1912)

607
 The war in china has given the deathblow to the old
China. Isolation has become impossible; the introduction of
railways, steam-engines, electricity, and modem large-scale
industry has become a necessity, if only for reasons of military
defence. But with it the old economic system of small peasant
agriculture, where the family also made its industrial products
itself, falls to pieces too, and with it the whole old social system
which made relatively dense population possible. Millions will be
turned out and forced to emigrate; and these millions will find
their way even to Europe, and en masse. But as soon as Chinese
competition sets in on a mass scale, it will rapidly bring things to
a head in your country and over here, and thus conquest of
China by capitalism will at the same time furnish the impulse
for the overthrow ofcapitalism in Europe and America .....
(Engels to F.A. Sorge - Selected Correspondence p. 476-1894)

Prussia
.. .indeed and indeed, never has the history of the world
produced anything so sordid. How the nominal kings of France
came to be real kings is also one long recital of petty struggle,
betrayal and intrigue, but it is the history of the birth of a nation.
Austrian history the founding of a dynasty by a vassal of the
German Empire acquires interest from the circumstance that the
vassal defrauds himself in his capacity as Emperor, from
involvement in the East, Bohemia, Italy, Hungary, etc., and
finally, too, from the circumstance that dynasty assumes such
dimensions as to arouse fears in Europe of its becoming a
universal monarchy. Nothing of all this in Prussia. She failed to
subdue so much as one powerful Slav nation, and took 500 years
to acquire Pomerania, and then only by "barter". Come to that, the
608
 Margraviate of Brandenburg as it was when taken over by he
Hohenzollerns hasn't been able to boast a single conquest, with
the exception of Silesia. Perhaps it is because this was her one
and only conquest that Frederick Ir's sobriquet is "the one and
only". Petty theft, bribery, outright purchase, succession intrigue,
and such like shabby dealings is all that Prussian history really
boils down to. What is interesting in feudal history elsewhere - the
struggle of the monarch against his vassals, double-dealing with
the towns, etc. - is all of it here dwarfed to a caricature because
the towns are boringly small-minded, the feudal lord boorishly
insignificant and the monarch himself a nonentity. During the
Reformation, as during the French revolution, she oscillated
between perfidy, neutrality, separate peace treaties and snatching
at scraps tossed to her by Russia in the course of partitions
organised by the latter - vide Sweden, Polond, Saxony, Withal, a
dramatis personae of rulers with only 3 masks - the Pietist, the
non-commissioned officer, the clown- succeeding one another as
surely as night follows day, the only regularity consisting not in
the introduction of fresh characters but in the varying order of
their appearance. What has kept the state on its legs nonetheless
is mediocrity - aurea mediocritas (golden mean) - meticulous
book-keeping, an avoidance of extremes , the preciseness of the
drill book, a kind of homespun vulgarity and ecclesial
institutionalism. Cest degoutant.(lt's disgusting)
(Marx To Engels - Collected Works - Vol. 40-PP. 86/87- 1856)

Key to the East

As regards the Hebrews and Arabs, I found your letter

most interesting. It can, by the by, be shown that ( 1) in the case of

609
 all eastern tribes there had been, since the dawn of history, a
general relationship between the settlement of one section and
the continued nomadism of the others. (2) In Mohammed's time
the trade route from Europe to Asia underwent considerable
modification, and the cities of Arabia, which had had a large share
of the trade with India, etc. suffered a commercial decline a fact
which at all events contributed to the process. (3) So far as
religion is concerned the question may be reduced to a general and
hence easily answerable one: why does the history of the East
appear as a history of religions?

On the subject of the growth of eastern cities one could

hardly find anything more brilliant, comprehensive or striking
than voyages content la description des etats du Grand Mogul,
etc, by old Francois Bernier ( For years Aurangzeb's Physician)
He Provides in addition a very nice account of military
organisation and the manner in which these large armies fed
themselves, etc.

Bernier rightly sees all the manifestation of the East - he

mentions Turkey, Persia and Hindustan as having a common
basis, namely the absence of private landed property. This is
real clef( Key) even to the eastern heaven.

(Engels to Marx - MECW vol 39 -PP. 332/34- 1852)

East
The absence of landed property is indeed the key to the
whole of the East. Therein lies its political and religious history.
But how to explain the fact that Orientals never reached the stage
610
 of landed property, not even the feudal kind? This is, I think,
largely due to the climate, combined with the nature of the land.
more especially the great stretches of desert extending from the
Sahara right across Arabia, Persia, India and Tartary, to the
highest of the Asiatic uplands. Here artificial irrigation is the first
prerequisite for agriculture and this is the responsibility either of
the communes, the provinces or the central government. In the
East, the government has always consisted of 3 departments only :
Finance (pillage at home), war (pillage at home and abroad) and
travaux publics ( public works) provision for reproduction. The
British government in India has. put a somewhat narrower
interpretation on nos. I and 2 while completely neglecting no. 3,
so that Indian agriculture is going to wrack and ruin. Free
competition is proving an absolute fiasco there. The fact that the
land was made fertile by artificial means and immediately ceased
to be so when conduits fell into disrepair, explains the otherwise
curious circumstance that vast expanses are now arid wastes
which once were magnificently cultivated (Palmyra, Petra, the
ruins in the Yemen, any number of localites in Egypt, Persia,
Hindustan); it explain the fact that one single war of devastation
could depopulate and entirely strip a country of its civilisation for
centuries to come. This, I believe, also accounts for the
destruction of southern Arabian trade before Mohammed's time, a
circumstance very rightly regarded by you as one of the
mainsprings of the Mohammedan revolution. I am not sufficiently
well acquainted with the history of trade during the first six
centuries A.D. to be able to judge to what extent general
material conditions in the world made the trade route via Persia
to the Black sea and to Syria and Asia Minor via the Persian
Gulfpreferable to the Red Sea route. But one significant factor,
611
 at any rate must have been the relative safety of the caravans in
the well-ordered Persian Empire under the Sassanids, whereas
between 200 and 600 A.D. the Yemen was almost continuously
being subjugated, overrun and pillaged by the Abyssinians. By the
seventh century the cities of southern Arabia, still flourishing in
Roman times, had become a veritable wilderness of ruins; in the
course of 500 years vvhat were pmely mythical, legendary
traditions regarding their origin had been appropriated by the
neighbouring Beduins, (cf. the Koran and the Arab historian
Novairi) and the alphabet in which the local inscriptions has been
written was almost wholly unknown although there was uo
other, so that de facto writing had fallen into oblivion. Things of
this kind presuppose, not only a superseding, probably due to
general trading conditions, but outright violent destruction such as
could only be explained by the Ethiopian invasion. The expulsion
of the Abyssinians did not take place until about 40 years before
Mohammed, and was plainly the first act of the Arabs' awakening
national consciousness, which was further aroused by Persian
invasions from the North penetrating almost as far as Mecca. I
shall not be tackling the history of Mohammed himself for a few
days yet; so far it seems to me to have the character of a Beduin
reaction against the settled, albeit decadent urban feliaheen whose
religion by then was also much debased, combining as i did a
• degenerate form of nature worship with a degenerate form of
Judaism and Christianity. Old Bernier's st·uff is realty fine. It's a
rea-1 pleasure to get back to something written by a sensible, lucid
old Frenchman who constantly hits the nail on the head sans avoir
l'air de s'en apercevoir. (without appearing to be aware of it.)
(Engels To Marx - MECW - Vol. 39 p. 339/341 -, 1853)

612
 India
Hindustan is au Italy of Asiatic dimensions, the
Himalayas for the Alps, the plains of Bengal for the plains of
Lombardy, the Deccan for the Apennines, and the Isle of Ceylon
fo • the Island ofSicily. The same rich variety in the products of
the soil, and the same dismemberment m the political
configuration. Just as Italy has, from time to time, been
compressed by the conquerors sword into different national
masses, so do we find Hindustan, when not under the pressure of
Mohammedan, or the Mogul, or the Briton, dissolved into as
many independent and conflicting States as it numbered towns, or
even villages. Yet, in a social point of view, Hindustan is not the
Italy, b1 t the Ireland ofthe East. And this strange combination of
Italy and of Ireland, of a world of voluptuousness and of a world
o •• woes, is anticipated in the ancient traditions of the religion of
Hindustan. That religion· is at once a religion of sensualist
exuberance, and a religion of se]f..-torturing asceticism; a religion
or the Lingarn and of the Juggernaut; the religion of the monk, and
of the Bayadere....

There cannot, however, remain any doubt but that the

misery inflicted by the British on Hindustan is of an essentially
different and infinitely more intensive kind titan all Hindustan
had to suffer before....

All the civil wars, invasions, revolutions, conquests,

famines, strangely complex, rapid and destructive as the
successive acfio11 in Hindustan may appear, did not go deeper than
its surface. England had broken down the entire framework of
Indian society, without any symptoms of reconstitution yet

613
appearing. This loss of his old world, with gain of a new one,
imparts a particular kind of melancholy to the present misery of
the Hindoo, and seperates Hindustan, ruled by Britain, from all its
ancient traditions, and from the whole of its past history.

There have been in Asia, generally, from immemorial

times, but three departments of Government; that offinance, or
the plunder of the interior; that of war, or the plunder of the
exterior; and finally, the department of Public works. Climate
and territorial conditions, especially the vast tracts of desert,
extending from the Sahara, through Arabia, Persia, India and
Tartary, to the most elevated Asiatic highlands, constituted
artificial irrigation by canals and water-works the basis of Oriental
agriculture. As in Egypt and India, inundations are used for
fertilising the soil in Mesopotamia, Persia, etc; advantage is taken
of a high level for feeding irrigative canals. This prime necessity
of an economical and common use of water, which, in the
occidental, drove private enterprise to voluntary association, as in
Flanders and Italy, necessitated, in the orient where civilisation
was too low and the territorial extent too vast to call into life
voluntary association, the interference of the centralising power of
Government. Hence an economic function devolved upon all
Asiatic Governments, the function of providing public works.
This artificial fertilisation of the soil, dependent on a Central
Government, and immediately decaying with the neglect of
irrigation and drainage, explains the otherwise strange fact that we
now find whole territories barren and desert that were once
brilliantly cultivated, as Palmyra, Petra, ruins in Yemen, and large
provinces of Egypt, Persia and Hindustan; it also explains how a

614
 single of devastation has been able to depopulate a country for
centuries, and to strip it of all its civilisation.

Now, the British in East India accepted from their

predecessors the department of finance and of war, but they have
neglected entirely that of public works, hence the deterioration of
an agriculture which is· not capable of being conducted on the
British principle of free competition, of laisse-faire and laissez
aller. But in Asiatic empires we are quite accustomed to see
agriculture deteriorating under one government and reviving again
under some other government However changing the
political aspect of India's past must appear, its social condition
has remained unaltered since its remotest antiquity, until the
first decennium of the 19" century. The handloom and the
spinning wheel, producing their regular myriads of spinners and
weavers, were the pivots of the structure of that society. From
immemorial times, Europe received the admirable textures of
Indian labour, sending in return for them her precious metals, and
furnishing thereby his material to the goldsmith, that
indispensable member of Indian society, whose love offinery is
so great that even the lowest class, those who go about nearly
naked, have commonly a pair of golden ear-rings and a gold
ornament of some kind hung round their necks. Rings on the
fingers and toes have also been common. Women as well as
children frequently wore massive bracelets and anklets of gold
and silver, and statuetts of divinities in gold and silver were met
with in the households. It was the British intruder who broke up
the Indian hand-loom and destroyed the spinning-wheel. .. British
steam and science uprooted, over the whole of Hindustan, the
union between agriculture and manufacturing industry.

615
 ...... Those family-communities were based on domestic
industTy, in their peculiar combination of hand-weaving, band
spinning and hand-tilling agriculture whicb gave them self-
suppoi-ting power. English interference having placed the spinner
in Lancashi-re and the weaver in Bengal, or sweeping away both
Hindu spinner and weaver, dissolved these small semi-barbarian,
semi-civilised communities, by blovving up their e .onomical
basis, and thus produced the greatest, and to speak foe truth, the
only soda] revolution ever heard of in Asia.

!Vow, sickening as it must be to hzmuu feeling to witness

those myriads of industrial patriarchal and inoffensive social
orgnisations disorganised and dissolved into their units, t'U"own
into a sea of woes, and thei individual members losing at the
same time their cmdentforrr of cfrifization, and thefr hereditary
means of subsistence} we must not forget that these idyllic
vii/age co.mnumities, inoffensive though they rnay appear, had
always been the solidfondatiou of Orienta! despotism, hat they
restrained the 'unun mind within he smaf!est possib!e
compass, making it the m I'esis"ing tool of Si perstition,
enslaving it beneath tradition .! rules, depriving it of all
grandeur and historical energies. We rust not forget the
barbarian egotisni w!,ichJ concentrating on some miserable
patch of land, had quietly witnessed tie ruin of empires, the
perpetration of unspeakable cnwhies, the ma5;sace of the
l •
popuation of.cl'urge tonus, with
• ' no other
f • ' '
consideration 1'
estoe »
d
upon then than on natural e11ents1 itself the helpless prey of any
aggressor who deigned to no:ice it at all, We must not forget that
this wulignifiet!, stagnatory, tm.d vegefative life, that this passive
sort of existence evoked on the other parts, in contradistinction,

616
 wild, aimless, unbounded forces of destruction and rendered
murder itseff' a religious rite in Hindusten. "fVe must not forget
that these little communities were contaminated by distinc;ions
of caste and by slavc1y, that they subJugated man to external
cin.:umstances inst~ad of elevating man the sovereign of
circumstances that they trrmsformed a se{f-deve!oping social
state into never chaginug uatural destiny, and thus brought
about a brutalising vorsidp of nature, e)<hihitiug its degradation
in tile fact that man, the sovereign of nature fell down on his
knees in adoration of Hannan, tie monkey and Sabala, the
cow.

Eugh! u( it is true, h causiiig a social revolution in

iidusan, as actuated only by the vilest interests, and was
stupid inu her manner of enforcing them. But tut is not the
question. The question is, can mankind fulfill its destiny without
a fundamenat evolution in social state of Asia? If not,
at@ever may; ave eenu the lTines of Englund she was the
!i'i<.:o ,scious 'ool of izis!my i;; bFinging about that revolution.

Then, whatev · r bitt rncss toe spe-...,tack of the crumbling of

an ancient world may have for our personal feelings, we have the
righ., in point of histor. 1o exclaim vitb Goethe:

Should this ,orture then torments us

Since it brings us gTeater pl asure
\Vere not ll rough the rn!e of Timur
Souls devoured without measure'?
( r -iarx- The Bi·i ish Rule in indin - iV,EC\\' - V l. 12- pp. ! 25/33 ( 1853)

617
 I have continued this hidden warfare in a first article on
India, in which the destruction of the native industry by England
is described as revolutionary. As for the rest, the whole rule of
Britain in India was swinish, and is to this day.

The stationary character of this part of Asia despite all

the aimless movement on the political surface is fully explained
by two circumstances which supplement each other: 1) the public
works were the business of the central government; 2) besides this
the whole empire, not counting the few larger towns, was divided
into villages, each of which possessed a completely separate
organisation and formed a little world in itself. ...

. . . . In some of these communities the lands of the village

are cultivated in common, in most cases each occupant tills his
own field. Within them there is slavery and the caste system. The
waste lands are for common pasture. Domestic weaving and
spinning is done by wives and daughters. These idyllic republics,
which only jealously guard the boundaries of their village
against the neighbouring village, still exist in a fairly perfect form
in North-Western part of India, which were recent English
accessions. I do not think anyone could imagine a more solid
foundation for stagnant Asiatic despotism. And however much the
English may have hibernicised the country, the breaking up of
those stereotyped primitive forms was the sine qua non for
Europeanisation. Alone the tax-gatherer was not the man to
achieve this. The destruction of their archaic industry was
necessary to deprive the villages of their self-supporting character.
(Marx to Engels - Selected Correspondence-pp. 84/86 March 5, 1852)

618
 How came it that English supremacy was established in
India. The paramount power of the Great Mogul was broken by
the Mogul viceroys. The power of the viceroys was broken by the
Mahrattas. The power of Mahrattas was broken by the Afgans,
and while all were struggling against all, the Briton rushed in
and was enabled to subdue them all. A country not only divided
between Mahommedan and Hindu, but between tribe and tribe,
between caste and caste; a society whose framework was based on
a sort of equilibrium, resulting from a general repulsion and
constitutional exclusiveness between all its members. Such a
country and such a society, were they not the predestined prey of
conquest? If we knew nothing of the past history of Hindustan,
would there not be the one great and incontestable fact, that even
at this moment India is held in English thralldom by an Indian
army maintained at the cost of India? India, then, could not escape
the fate of being conquered, and the whole of her past history, if it
be anything, is the history of the successive conquests she has
undergone. Indian society has no history at all, at least no
known history. What we call its history, is but the history of the
successive intruders who founded their empires on the passive
basis of that unresisting and unchanging society. The question,
therefore, is not whether the English had a right to conquer
India, but whether we are to prefer India conquered by the
Turks, by the Persian, by the Russian, to India conquered by the
Briton.

England has to fulfill a double mission in India. One

destructive, the other regenerating - the annihilation of old
Asiatic society, and the laying the material foundations of
Western society in Asia. Arabs, Turks, Tartars, Moguls, who had

619
successively overrun India, soon became Hinduized, the barbarian
conquerors being, by . an eternal law of history, conquered
themselves by the superior civilisation of their subjects. The
British were the first conquerors superior, and therefore,
inaccessible to Hindu civilisation. They destroyed it by breaking
up the native communities, by uprooting the native industry, and
by leveling all that was great and elevated in the native
society.The historic pages of their rule in India report hardly
anything beyond that destruction. The work of regeneration hardly
transpires through a heap of ruins. Nevertheless it has begun.

The political unity of India, more consolidated, and

extending farther than it ever did under the Great Moguls, was the
first condition of its regeneration. That unity, imposed by the
British sword, will now be strengthened and perpetuated by the
electric telegraph. The native army, organised and trained by the
British drill-sergeant, was the first sine qua non of Indian self-
emancipation, and of India ceasing to be the prey of the first
foreign intruder. The free press, introduced for the first time
into Asiatic society, and managed principally by the common
offspring of Hindus and Europeans, is a new and powerful
agent of reconstruction. The day is not far distant when, by a
combination of railways and steam-vessels, the distance between
England and India, measured by time, will be shortened to eight
days, and when that once fabulous country will thus be actually
annexed to the Western world.

(Marx - The Future Results of British Rule in India - MECW- Vol.12

pp. 217/18 (July 22, 1853)

620
 England

Of all countries Great Britain has seen developed on the

grandest scale the despotism of capital and the slavery of labour.
In no other country have the intermediate degree between the
millionaire, commanding whole industrial armies, and the wage-
slaves living only from hand to mouth, so radically been swept
away from the soil. There exist no longer, as in continental
countries, large classes of peasants and artisans almost equally
dependent on their own property and their own labour. A
complete divorce of property from labour has been effected in
Great Britain. In no other country, therefore, has the war between
the two classes that constitute modem society assumed so colossal
dimensions and features so distinct and palpable.

But it is precisely from these facts that the working classes

of Britain, before all others, are competent and called upon to act
as leaders in the great movement that must finally result in the
absolute emancipation of labour. Such are they from the conscious
clearness of their position, the vast superiority of their numbers,
the disastrous struggles of their past and the moral strength of
their present.
(Marx - Labour Parliament - MECW- Vol. 13- pp. 60/61 ( 1854)

Although revolutionary initiative will probably come from

France, England alone can serve as the lever for a serious
economic Revolution. It is the only country where there are no
more peasants and where landed property is concentrated in a few
hands. It is the only country where the capitalist form, that is to
say combined labour on a large scale under capitalist masters,
621
 ts t.
I,
po i

embraces virtually the whole of production. It is the only country

where the great majority of the population consists of wage-
labourers. It is the only country where the class struggle and the
organisation of the working class by the Trades Unions have
acquired a certain degree of maturity and universality. It is the
only country where, because of its domination on the world
market, every revolution in economic matters must immediately
affect the whole world. If landlordism and capitalism are classical
features in England, on the other hand, the material conditions
for their destruction are the most mature here. The General
Council now being in the happy position of having its hand
directly on this great lever of the proletarian revolution, what
folly, we might say even what a crime, to let this lever fall into
purely English hands!
The English have all the material necessary for the social
revolution. What they lack is the spirit of generalisation and
revolutionary ardour.....

England cannot be treated simply as a country along with

other countries. Is must be treated as the metropolis capital.

(Marx - MECW- Vol. 21- pp. 86/87 (1870)

Belgium

. . . . There exists but one country in the civilised world where

every strike is eagerly and joyously turned into a pretext for the
official massacre of the working class. That country of single
blessedness is Belgium, the model state of continental

622
constitutionalism, the snug, well-hedged, little paradise of the
landlord, the capitalist, and the priest. The earth performs not
more surely its yearly revolution than the Belgian Government
its yearly working men's massacre. The massacre of this year
does not differ from the last year's massacre, but by the ghastlier
number of its victims, the more hideous ferocity of an otherwise
ridiculous army, the noisier jubilation of the clerical and capitalist
press, and the intensified frivolity of the pretexts put forward by
the Governmental butchers.

(Marx - Belgian Massacres MECW Vol. 21- p. 47 (May 4, 1869)

The Belgian capitalist has won fair fame in the world by

his eccentric passion for, what he calls,the liberty of labour. So
fond is he of the liberty of his hands to labour for him all hours of
their life, without exemption of age or sex, that he bas always
indignantly repulsed any factory law encroaching upon that
liberty. He shudders at the very idea that a common workman
should be wicked enough to claim any higher destiny than that of
enriching his master and natural superior. He wants his workman
not only to remain a miserable drudge, over worked and
underpaid, but like every other slave-holder, he wants him to be a
cringing, servile, broken-hearted, morally prostrate, religiously
humble drudge. Hence his frantic fury at strikes. With him, a
strike is a blasphemy, a slave's revolt, the signal of a social
cataclysm. Put, now, into the hands of such men - cruel from
sheer cowardice the undivided, uncontrolled, absolute sway of
the state power, as is actually the case in Belgium, and you will no
longer wonder to find the sabre, the bayonet, and the musket
working in that country as legitimate and normal instruments for

623
keeping wages down and screwing profits up. But, in point of fact,
what other earthly purpose could a Belgian army serve? When, by
the dictation of official Europe, Belgium was declared a neutral
country, it ought as a matter of course, have been forbidden the
costly luxury of an army, save, perhaps, a handful of soldiers, just
sufficient to mount the royal guard and parade at a royal puppet -
show. Yet, within its 536 square leagues of territory, Belgium
harbours an army greater than that of the United Kingdom or the
United States. The field service of this neutralised army is fatally
computed by the number of its razzias upon the working class ....

Perhaps, the Belgian Government flatters itself that

having, after the revolutions of 1848-49, gained a respite of life by
becoming the police agent of all the reactionary governments of
the continent, it may now again avert imminent danger by
conspicuously playing the gendarme of capital against labour.
This, however, is a serious mistake. Instead of delaying they will
thus only hasten the catastrophe. By making Belgium a by word
and a nickname with the popular masses all over the world, they
will remove the last obstacle in the way of the despots bent upon
wiping that country's name off the map of Europe.

(The Belgian Massacre - MECW Vol. 21- pp. 49/51 ( 1869)

Ireland

If England is the bulwark of landlordism and European

capitalism, the only point where official England can be struck a
great blow is Ireland.

624
 In the first place, Ireland is the bulwark of English
landlordism. If it fell in Ireland, it would fall in England. In
Ireland this is a hundred times easier because the economic
struggle there is concentrated exclusively on landed property,
because this struggle is at the same time national, and because the
people there are more revolutionary and more exasperated than in
England. Landlordism in Ireland is maintained solely by the
English army. The moment the forced union between the true
countries ends, a social revolution will immediately breaks out in
Ireland, though in outmoded forms. English landlordism would
not only lose a great source of its wealth, but also its greatest
moral force, i.e., that of representing the domination of
England over Ireland. On the other hand, by maintaining the
power of its landlords in Ireland, the English proletariat makes
them invulnerable in England itself.

In the second place, the English bourgeoisie has not only

exploited Irish poverty to keep down the working class in England
by forced immigration of poor Irishmen, but it has also divided
the proletariat into two hostile camps. The revolutionary fire of
the Celtic worker does not go well with the solid but slow nature
of the Anglo - Saxon worker. On the contrary in all big industrial
center in England there is profound antagonism between the Irish
proletarian and the English proletarian. The average English
worker hates the Irish worker as a competitor who lowers wages
and the standard of life. He feels national and religious
antipathies for him. He regards him somewhat like the poor
whites of the Southern States of North America regarded black
slaves. This antagonism among the proletarians of England is

625
artificially nourished and kept up by the bourgeoisie. It knows that
this scission is the true secret of maintaining its power.

Moreover, this antagonism is reproduced on the other side

of the Atlantic. The Irish, chased from their native soil by the
bulls and the sheep, reassembled in North America where they
constitute a huge, ever-growing section of the population. Their
only thought, their only passion, is hatred for England. The
English and American governments (that is to say, the classes they
represent) play on these feelings in order to perpetuate the covert
struggle between the United States and England. They thereby
prevent a sincere and serious alliance between the working classes
of both sides of the Atlantic, and, consequently, their common
emancipation.

Furthermore, Ireland is the only pretext the English

Government has for retaining a big standing army, which if need
be, as has happened before, can be used against the English
workers after having had its drill in Ireland.

Lastly, England today is seeing a repetition of what

happened on a monstrous scale in ancient Rome. Any people that
oppresses another people forges its own chains.

Thus, the position of the International Association with

regard to the Irish question is very clear. Its first concern is to
advance the social revolution in England. To this end a great blow
must be struck in Ireland.

626
 it is a precondition to the emancipation of the
English working class to transform the present forced union (i.e.
the enslavement of Ireland) into equal free confederation if
possible, into complete separation if need be.
(The General Council to the Federal Council of Romance Switzerland-
MECW Vol. 21 pp. 86/89 (1870)

Sicily
Through the history of the human race no land and no
people have suffered so terribly from slavery, from foreign
conquests and oppressions, and none have struggled so
irrepressibly for emanicipatuion as Sicily and Sicilians. Almost
from the time when Polyphemus promeneded around Etna, or
when Ceres taught the Sicily the culture of grain, to our day,
Sicily has been the theartre of uninterrupted invasions and wars,
and out of unflinching resistence, the Sicilians are a mixture of
almost all southern and northern races: first, of the aboriginal
Sicanians, with Phoenicians, Carthagians, Greeks and Slaves from
all region under heaven, imported into the island by traffic or war;
and then of Arabs, Normans, and Italians. The Sicilians, in all
these transformations and modifications, have battled, and still
battle, for their freedom ....

But both under the Syracusan Dionysius and under the

Roman rule, the most terrible slave insurrection took place in
Sicily, in which the native people and the imported slaves often
made common cause. During the breaking up of the Roman
Empire, Sicily was visited by various invaders. Then the Moors
got hold of it for a time; but the Sicilians, and above all the
genuine people of the interior resisted always, more or less

627
successfully, and step by step maintained or conquered various
small franchises. The dawn had scarcely begun to spread over the
medieval darkness, when the Sicilians stood forth, already armed,
not only with various municipal liberties, but with rudiments of a
constitutional government, such as at that time existed nowhere
else. Earlier than any other European nation, the Sicilians
regulated by vote the income of their governments and sovereigns.
Thus the Sicilian soil has ever proved deadly to oppressors and
invaders and the Sicilian Vespers stand immortal in history. When
the House of Aragon brought the Sicilians into dependence on
Spain, they knew how to preserve their political immunities more
or less intact; and this they did alike under the Hapsburg and the
Bourbons. When the French Revolution and Napoleon expelled
the tyrannical reigning family from Naples, the Sicilians incited
and seduced by English promises and guaranties received the
fugitives, and in their struggle against Napoleon sustained them
both with their blood and their money. Everyone knows the
subsequent treachery of the Bourbons, and the subterfuges or
impudent denials by which England has tried and still tries to
varnish her own faithless abandonment of the Sicilians and of
their liberties to the tender mercies of the Bourbons.

(Marx - Sicily and the Sicilians - MECW -Vol. 17-pp.370/71 (1860)

Future of the Human Race

But between Nature and state stands economic life.Technical

science liberated man from the tyranny of the of the old elements
- earth , water, fire , and air only to subject him to its own

628
 tyranny.Men ceased to be a slave to nature only to become a slave
to the machine, and, still worse, a slave to supply and demand.The
present world crisis testifies in especially tragic fashion how man ,
who dives to the bottom of the ocean , who rises up to the
stratosphere, who converses on invisible waves with Antipodes,
how this proud and daring ruler of nature remains a slave to the
blind forces of his own economy. The historical task of our epoch
consists in replacing the uncontrolled play of the market by
rational planning, in disciplining the forces of production,
compelling them to work togrther in harmony and obediently
serves the needs of mankind. Only on this new basis will man be
able to stretch bis weary limbs and - every man and every
woman, not only a selected few - become a citizen with full
power in the realm of thought.

But this is not yet the end of the road. No, it is only the
beginning. Man calls himself the crown of creation. He has a
certain right to that claim.But who has asserted that present-day
man is the last and highest representative of the species Homo
sapiens? No, physically as well as spiritually he is verey far from
perfection, prematurely born biologically, with feeble thought,
and has not produced any new organic equilibrium.

It is true that humanity has more than once brought forth giants
of thought and action who tower over their contemporaries like
summits in a chain of mountains.The human race has a right to be
proud of its Aristotle, Shakespeare, Darwin, Beethoven, Goethe,
Marx, Edison, and Lenin. But why are they so rare? Above all,
because almost without exception, they came out of the upper and
middle classes. Apart from rare exceptions, the spark of genius in
the suppressed depths of the people are choked before they can
629
burst into flame. But also because the processes of creating,
developing, and educating a human being have been and remain
essentially a matter of chance , not illuminated by theory and
practice, not subjected to consciousness and will.

Anthropology, biology, physiology, and psychology have

accumulated mountains of material to raise up before mankind in
their full scope the tasks of perfecting and developing body and
spirit. Psychoanalysis, with the inspired hand of Sigmund Freud,
has lifted the cover of the well which is poetically called the
'soul'. And what has been revealed? Our conscious thought is
only a small part of the work of the dark psychic forces.Learned
divers descend to the bottom of the ocean and there take
photographs of mysterious fishes. Human thought, descending to
the bottom of its own psychic sources , must shed light on the
most mysterious driving forces of the soul and subject them to
reason and to will.

Once he has done with the anarchic forces of his own society
man will set to work on himself, in the pestle and retort of the
chemist. For the first time mankind will regard itself as raw
material, or at best as a physical and psychic semi-finished
product. Socialism will mean a leap fro the realm of necessity into
the realm of freedom in this sense also, that the man of today,
with all his contadictions and lack of harmony, will open the road
for a new and happier race.

(The Age of Permanent Revolution- A Trotsky Anthology (1932)- Edited by

Isaac Deutscher -pp.364/65- 1964)

630
 Bibliography
1) Marx-Engels - Collected Works(MECW) -- Vols.1 t04O - Progress Publishers -
Moscow-1975 to 1983
2) Marx- Capital -Vol.1 - Progress Publishers, Moscow -- 1965
3) Marx - Capital - Vol.2 - Progress Publishers, Moscow- 1961
4) Marx - Capital- Vol.3 - Progress Publishers - 1971
5) Marx -Theories ofSurplus Value- Capital --Vol.4- Part 1 -Progress Publishers
6) Marx-Capital -Vol.4 -Part2 - Progress Publishers
7) Marx- A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy - Progress Publishers
- Moscow 1984
8) Marx-Engels - Selected Works. Vols. 1 &11- Foreign Languages Publishing
House-1963
9) Marx-Engels - Selected Correspondence -1965

10) Engels - Anti-Duhring- Foreign Languages Publishing House-Moscow-1962

11) Engels Dialectics ofNature - Progress Publishers- Moscow-1964

12) Lenin -Collected Works- Vols.1 to 36- Foreign Languages Publishing House &
Progress publishers -Moscow -1960 t001968

13) 1905-Trotsky-Penguin Books-1971

14) Documents of the Fourth International- The Formative Years -1933-1940)

15) Trotsky- History of the Russian Revolution - Vols.1,2 &3-0x/ord

16) Trotsky - In Defense of Marxism - Pioneer Publishers, New York-1939

17) Leon Trotsky On Britain-Monad Press-1973

18) Marxism and Military Affairs(1921-1924 ) Young Socialist Publication, Sri

Lanka- 1969

19} Trotsky- My Life - Grosset & Dunlop, New York -1960

20 ) Trotsky - On Lenin- Notes Towards A Biography( 1924) George G. Harrap & Co.
Ltd. -1972)

21) Trotsky- Permanent Revolution-(1930)- Gupta Press, Calcutta-1947

22) Trotsky- Problems ofEveryday Life- Monad Press, New York-1957

23) Trotsky- Revolution Betrayed(1936) Pioneer Publishers, New York -1957

631
 24) Trotsky - Stalin - (1940) Grosset & Dunlop

ZS) Trotsky - Terrorism and Communism (1921) - Ann Arbor Paperbacks _1963

26) Trotsky _ The Challenge ofthe Left Opposition_ Pathfinder Press, New York -
1980

27) Trotsky - The First Five Years of the Communist International _Vols. 1&2 -
Pioneer Publishers -1953

28) Trotsky - The New Course (1923) - New Park Publications -1956

29) Trotsky- The Third International After Lenin - Pioneer Publishers,NY -1957

30}Trotsky- The Spanish Revolution (1931-39 ) Pathfinder Press, New York- 1973

31) Trotsky -The Struggle Against Fascism - Pathfinder Press -1971

32) Trotsky - Their Morals And Ours (1938 ) -Pioneer Publishers -Mexico

33) Trotsky- Literature and Revolution- (1924 )- Ann Arbor Paperbacks -1971

34) Writings ofLeon Trotsky-(1929) -Pathfinder Press Inc. -1975

35) Writings ofLeon Trotsky - 1930/31 - Pathfinder Press Inc. - 1973

36) Writings ofLeon Trotsky - -1932 - Pathfinder Press Inc. -1973

37) Writings ofLeon Trotsky- 1932/33 - Pathfinder Press Inc.- 1972

38) Writings ofLeon Trotsky- (1933/34) -Pathfinder Press Inc. -1972

39) Writings ofLeon Trotsky-1934/40-Pathfinder Press Inc.- 1973

40) Writings ofLeon Trotsky- 1937/38 -Pathfinder Press Inc.

41) Writings ofLeon Trotsky-1938/39-Pathfinder Press Inc. -1974

42) Writings ofLeon Trotsky-1929/33 - Pathfinder Press Inc.- 197939)

632