____________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ The Cover (only in hard copy-Ed) shows the wood cut of the ADie Freiwilligen@ (AThe Volunteers@) made by Kathe Kollwitz. This was produced in 1922, a time when in Germany, political sentiments were polarized. Kollwitz was an artist, whose husband who was a physician to the poor. Here, in her husband=s practice, she daily saw the medical effects of poverty on children. Her words for children were AThe Seed Corn@. Husband and wife brought their individual talents to the service of the poor. Her life experience in the Berlin slums of Germany, convinced her, of the need for socialism, and for socialist art. She worked with the group around John Heartfield working for the party. All her work is at the highest levels, of socialist realism. Perhaps her most famous work that is known by the communist movement, is her moving testament to Karl Liebnicht. Her woodcut of his body and mourners, after the fascists killed him, mourns the Proletarian Germany=s loss. But in fact, many others of her paper works are well know to the movement. Her less openly tendentious work, on the effects of grinding poverty, on women and children in particular, remains some of the most vivid portrayals of the capitalist system put to paper. More unknown to those outside of former East Germany, is her astonishing sculpture. This perhaps, is her most moving and original work. In Berlin today, the war memorial is still able to remind us of the needless deaths that were perpetrated by fascism and imperialism.     The severe disruption of the communist movement in the former USSR led to the destruction of the theoretical and practical center of the world communist movement. This confusion was reflected in the extraordinary proliferation of groups that called themselves communist and even Marxist-Leninists. Recently this situation was discussed by North Star Compass. In an editorial , the manner in which Lenin and Iskra forged unity was held up as an example. As the editorial in North Star Compass pointed out, Lenin had fostered a full and open debate before "Unity" could be achieved: "We declare that "Before we can unite, and in order that we may unite, we must first of all draw firm and definite lines of demarcation, as Iskra demands".
(Lenin V.I: "What is to be Done? Burning Questions Of Our Movements"; (1902); Coll Wrks Vol 5; p.367).
Lenin adds, why the Russian workers movement was especially in need of theoretical clarity : "For Russian Social democracy the importance of theory is enhanced.. firstly by the fact that our party is only in the process of formation, its features are only just becoming defined, and it has as yet far from settled accounts with the other trends of revolutionary thought that threaten to divert the movement from the correct path.. Secondly, the Social Democratic movement is in its very essence an international movement.. we must.. make use of the experiences of other countries."
(Lenin, "What is To Be Done?"; Ibid; Vol 5: p.369-370).
    The Russian movement itself, knew very well that this was the only way forward. It is not surprising then, that they have attempted such an open discussion. At the First Stalin seminar in 1994, a meeting was held in the former USSR to honour and record the achievements of Stalin. This Seminar was fully re-printed in issues number 10 and 11 of Alliance. (Since they are still the only compete printing of the Seminar in English that we are aware of, it should be pointed out the issues can still be obtained from Alliance).

    But this was followed, by the Second Seminar, held in Moscow in November 1996. This was on the subject of AThe Class Approach In the Contemporary communist Movement@. This was arranged by the International Center of Development of Contemporary Communist Doctrine, and was supported by the International Committee for the Restoration of the Soviet Union. There were some 39 parties or groups from the former USSR that attended; some 19 international groups either took part or sent papers; and a further 13 parties internationally sent later support to the resolution taken at the Conference.

    We here present three of the foreign submissions to the meeting. They came from Alliance (North America); Communist league (UK); and MLCP(Turkey). We print a summary of the Second Seminar (The Press release issued by the Central Committee of the International Center of Development of Contemporary Communist Doctrine); and the resolutions passed; and we print the papers of the three foreign groups mentioned above. In due course, all papers presented at Moscow will be printed, according to the organizing committee. These herein form an interim report then. We recognise that there are differences between the positions taken. As part of the rapidly evolving debate between the Marxist-Leninist forces of the world, we expect these positions to receive fraternal and scientific critique. From such a debate , the correct way forward and analysis of the classes of the world, that face the proletariat world wide, can be formulated.

Moscow, November 8-10 1996

Dear comrades and friends,
    Before starting to present our views on behalf of the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party (MLKP), we want to convey the warm and comradely greetings; of our Party's Central Committee, and all its members, both to the Russian and foreign comrades and friends. We, first of all want to express our sincere thanks to The International Committee For The Restoration Of The Soviet Union and the International Center For The Formation Of Modern Communist Doctrine, for the kind invitation they have extended to us for this important meeting. In the name of the MLKP I wish this seminar, will succeed in making its modest contribution to the unification of all truly communist forces in Russia. We believe that is the call and command of the exploited, oppressed, downtrodden and humiliated workers, toilers; and progressive intellectuals of this great land. A call addressed to all communists to Russia, a call and command which they neither disregard, nor decline. MLKP does not in the least doubt that the torch of The Great October Socialist Revolution will once more be lit. Lenin's and Stalin's Soviet Union will be restored in all its glory, and will once more take its place in the forefront of the great struggle against capitalism and imperialism.

    The fate of communist movement in Russia has always been closely associated with that of Turkey and Northern Kurdistan, and this has always been a topic of special interest for the communist and revolutionary movement in our country, for more than one reason. One of the most important reasons for this, is the establishment of the Communist Party of Turkey with the active support of Russian Communist Party, on September l0th, 1920, In Baku (part of Soviet Azerbaijan) under the leadership of Mustafa Suphi. The MLKP, which was founded on September 10th, 1934; after a very long interval of revisionism and opportunism is the heir to, and a continuation of, Mustafa Suphi's CP of Turkey. It is understandable. that MLKP too, does and will display a special interest in the heir and continuation of Lenin=s and Stalin's Bolshevik party, that is, the present-day Russian communist movement and feel itself very close to it.

    Dear Comrades and Friends,

    MLKP has been and is for the principled unification of all truly communist forces in each country and internationally under the banner of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin. Despite various contradictions and divisions among their ranks, bourgeoisie, imperialism and reaction are in general able to unite against the proletariat, peoples and revolution. We, the representatives and advanced sections of proletariat and toiling and oppressed peoples, should also be able to unite our own forces, both to form truly Communist Parties of the working class and to establish broad anti-imperialist and democratic fronts of all revolutionary and progressive forces in all countries, Let's put one thing straight : Bourgeoisie and imperialism, are perfectly aware of the fact that the existence of truly Communist Parties of the working class present a fatal danger for them; they know that only through the struggles of working classes led by such parties, can their rotten and inhuman order be overthrown, and the workers and toilers be liberated from exploitation and oppression. The experience of revolutionary struggles of the masses in the era of imperialism, and proletarian revolutions, have conclusively shown the vital and decisive importance of the presence of such parties armed with Marxism Leninism. Without truly Communist Parties of the working class, built on Leninist norms and principles, it is impossible to advance consistently on the path of revolution, to win a total victory in the struggle for democracy and socialism, to prevent bourgeoisie and imperialism from depriving the exploited and oppressed masses from the fruits of hard-won victories
and to begin the revolutionary transformation of bourgeois order and construction of socialism. Therefore, from the standpoint of their class interests, ie that of bourgeoisie imperialism, they first of all consider it vital to do all in their power to obstruct the formation of such parties and secondly, to disorientate, divide and destroy them if they have not been able to prevent their formation.

    Let me first make clear that, we are not aware of the details of the divisions among Russian comrades and friends on various theoretical and practical issues. Moreover, we do not consider ourselves as the self-appointed instructors and mentors of Russian Communist, revolutionary and working class movement. We fully trust the ability of Russian comrades and advanced workers to solve their own problems through principled discussion and active participation in the revolutionary
action of the masses. We also fully trust their ability to rebuild the Leninist-Stalinist Communist Party of Russian working class and to lead it in the struggle against Russian and foreign capitalists and their agents in the revolutionary and working class movement. This, however does not detract from the importance of an exchange of opinion and experience, between various detachments of the international communist and working class movement This position of ours, therefore will not
prevent us from conveying our opinions and judgments about the Russian movement, to our Russian comrades and friends. We are obliged to perform this task basing ourselves on our own understanding and experience. Relying on the inadequate and relatively little knowledge we have on the analysis of the situation, however, we can and will make the following comments.

    We first of all want to express our belief in the necessity of a complete rupture with all brands of revisionism and opportunism, for the formation of a truly Communist Party. This is a universally valid requirement. The experience of the international communist and working class movement ~ amply shown that, Communist Parties have in general been destroyed not from outside, through the action of the repressive apparatus of the bourgeoisie; but from inside, through the action of open and especially hidden revisionists.
    Transformation of Lenin=s and Stalin=s CPSU by Khrushchev-Brezhnev revisionist clique and of Enver Hoxha=s Party of Labor of Albania by the Alia clique into bourgeois-revisionist parties, are the most conspicuous examples of this tragic trend. That's why, true communists in all countries should decidedly take this experience into account in tackling the problem of building of a Leninist party of the working class. But, for two main reasons this universally valid requirement assumes an even more critical importance in present-day Russia. One of them, is the decades long ideological hegemony of Khrushchevite-Brezhnevite revisionism. The Russian communist and revolutionary movement has inevitably inherited this revisionist-bureaucratic tradition, which has led to the petrification of creative revolutionary thinking and of revolutionary initiative to a great extent. It has also inherited the tradition of separation from and alienation to the masses, which has penetrated deeply into the collective memory and consciousness of revolutionary rank and file of the revisionist CPSU. The communist forces of present-day Russia inevitably are building, and do have to build, a truly Marxist-Leninist party of the working class, out of the human material inherited from the past; a human material reared in tho revisionist bureaucratic tradition and tainted by it.
    Furthermore, they themselves are under the influence of this tradition, So they have to admit or presuppose these special difficulties openly and guard themselves against their manifestations and ramifications. We should remember that Lenin once had pointed out the difficulties of fighting against customs and habits and told how extremely hard they are to eradicate, even under Soviet power. And secondly, we want to point out the present economic, political and social conditions of Russia, which are characterized by extremely sharp contradictions in all fields of life. Some of the most important results of the acute crisis Russia is passing through are, the radicalization of great masses of workers and toilers and a growing yearning for the socialist past. This state of affairs, plus the onslaught of Imperialist bourgeoisie are forcing at least some sections of abolished revisionist CPSU and other discontented bourgeoisie and bureaucratic strata to pose as communists and to portray their opposition to Russian big bourgeoisie and especially foreign capitalism In communist colors. It is very well known that, these strata and groups want to take political power or at least a part of it into their own hands, by exploiting the revolutionary fermentation among the masses and the Ideological weaknesses and organizational inexperience of truly communist forces.

    We believe that, the building of a truly Communist Party of the working class should also take this fact into account. Therefore, the process of party building should absolutely go hand in hand with the systematic exclusion of petty bourgeois and careerist elements and former apparatchiki from the ranks of the communist and working class movement.
    To forestall a possible misunderstanding, we must expressly state our opinion to the effect that this principled stand with regard to ideological and theoretical consistency can not wholly and in its= entirety be transmitted to the domain of practical politics to the domain of politics and economic struggle of the working class and other toilers on the ground. There, Russian communists will have to employ flexible tactics, try to utilize the contradictions among various factions of the bourgeoisie and employ various forms of struggle and organization, taking care not to compromise and damage their revolutionary principles and long-term goals as their comrades in other countries will have to. It is a known fact that, the acute crisis Russia is passing through, has led to a series of violent confrontations between imperialism and Russian big bourgeoisie on the one hand and the great masses of workers and toilers on the other, who have at times found themselves fighting shoulder to shoulder with patriotic and national bourgeois elements.

    Therefore, it may be acceptable and at times even necessary to forge tactical alliances with patriotic and national bourgeois elements, as long as this facilitates the mobilization of still greater masses of workers and toilers against the reactionary and imperialist regime. BUT, firstly, they should not for a moment forget the weak and treacherous nature of these elements; secondly, they should never let the basic and unbridgeable distinctions between themselves and Russian patriots and nationalists to be obscured or concealed, even in the slightest degree; and thirdly, they should not forget that the sharpening, of contradictions between Western imperialists and Russian imperialists on the other are constantly reducing the possibility and desirability of such tactical alliances.

    To all these considerations, we must add another and a very important item from our own collective experience in Turkey. The struggle against revisionism and reformism can not and should not ever be confined to the realm of theory; it also is a matter of practical struggle of the masses. As Marx had said, communists are not philosophers bent only on interpreting the world, but, first of all fighters working actively to change it in a revolutionary way. In this sense, our theory is in the service of practical revolutionary struggle of the masses Therefore, if we are not just socialist intellectuals but primarily fighters standing at the forefront of the struggle, our parties should be the parties of factories, of mines, of plantations, of streets, of toilers' districts and of barricades. All tactics and political lines should be tested, for class collaborationist, capitulation-ist and counter-revolutionary tactics; and the political lines of all brands of revisionism and reformism should be exposed right there, in the fire and storm of mass struggle. Our communist tactics should aim at the isolation of revisionism and reformism. They should he devised in a way, which will help the workers and toilers to understand the correct-ness of our own Marxist-Leninist practice, and at the same time also the erroneous nature of the revisionists= and reformists= line, in the light of their own experience and revolutionary practice .

** ** ** ** ** **

    Allow me also to dwell upon the problems we've faced and are taking in the building of a truly Communist Party of the working class in Turkey and Northern Kurdistan. In his article : AUrgent Tasks of Our Movement A, Lenin said:

    As we've said in other places, this period of isolation of socialism and the socialist movement from the working class movement, has lasted too long in our country. The newly established and in-experienced CP of Turkey took the road of right opportunism, after its= leading cadres were slain by Kemalist bourgeoisie in January 1921. Although CP of Turkey continued its activities, its right opportunist and Menshevik line was consolidated in time, despite the criticism and interventions of the Comintern, In fact, it effectively terminated its existence in the second half of the 1930's. Police operations against this "party" and the emergence of Soviet modern revisionism in the 1950=s dealt the final blows to this political corpse. So, when the mass struggles of workers, student youth, poor peasants and Kurdish people once more began to rise during the 1960's, the new generation of revolutionary militants could not find any positive revolutionary heritage to rely upon. They had to learn almost everything from scratch. This state of affairs coincided with the destruction of Lenin's and Stalin's CPSU and of the international communist movement by Khrushchev-ites.

    So, the new revolutionary generations of the 1960's and the 1970=s, who instinctively turned away from modern revisionism, fell almost inevitably under the influence of various petty-bourgeois and anti-Marxist currents, such as Maoism and Guevara-ism. Restoration of the revisionist CP of Turkey, with the assistance of Soviet modern revisionism in the first half of 1970's, did not improve, but on the contrary adversely influenced the situation. The policy of the latter continued to be one of alliance with a section of trade-union bureaucracy and the so-called left wing of the bourgeoisie. The instinctive reaction of revolutionary militants, who did not have a systematic knowledge of Marxism-Leninism, against the political line of the CP of Turkey, continued to drive them away from the working class - and instead led them to embrace petty-bourgeois strata, that is, peasantry, semi-proletariat and youth.

    Only towards the end of 1970's, in the wake of the open attack of the Party of Labor of Albania against Maoism, were the first communist organizations able to emerge. These newly formed communist groups had evolved from revolutionary-democratism into Marxism-Leninism by means of an internal ideological struggle against Maoism and begun to orientate themselves gradually towards the working class. Understandably, they had very weak or almost no connections with the working class movement and were inevitably tainted more or less with the leftovers of their petty- bourgeois past ideologically, politically and organizationally. Moreover they - together with all revolutionary and progressive forces- would become the target of the vicious and all-sided attack of Turkish ruling classes, who, under the tutelage of US imperialists, organized a military-fascist coup d'etat in September 1980. Communist and revolutionary-democratic groups were able to resume their forward march only in the second half of the 1980's, and since then they've been fighting under extremely difficult conditions. Therefore, we are entitled to say that, the militant communist movement in our country, in fact has had a very brief past. its basic weaknesses and strength springs from these special traits of the history of the revolutionary movement in Turkey and Northern Kurdistan.

    Yes, we do also talk about the strength of the communist and revolutionary democratic movement in our country. We are proud of the fighting spirit of our Kurdish and Turkish workers and peoples, in the face of brutal colonialist and militarist aggression and the policy of systematic torture, murder, and massacres of the fascist regime. And we are proud of the will, staunchness and fighting spirit of a significant section of the revolutionary movement, which has enabled it to maintain the struggle under conditions of systematic police and military repression. We value these features built through the great sacrifices of the revolutionary generations since the 1960's very much. And we are aware of the fact that, they have been decisive in the resistance, that the revolutionary movement in Turkey and Northern Kurdistan has displayed, even in the face of the liquidationist wave that has overwhelmed many important and experienced parties the world over, following the demise of the revisionist bloc and the capitulation of socialist Albania.

    As to the weaknesses, we can start with the extreme fragmentation and the narrow group mentality that has been so characteristic of revolutionary movement in Turkey and Northern Kurdistan in the 1970's. The causes of this deformation can be traced to both the weakness of the proletarian base of the movement and the absence of a strong Marxist- Leninist organization, which could affectively fight against sectarian tendencies and play the role of a unifying center. Even today, a section of the communist movement in Turkey has not yet freed itself of the infantile disease of leftism and sectarianism and has been continuing to reject the call for a principled and militant unity issued by MLKP. Another section of the communist movement, on the other hand, has taken a liquidationist direction, and has all but abolished its illegal apparatus and is rapidly becoming a petty-bourgeois reformist party.

    Under these circumstances, the formation of MLKL-K(Marxist-Leninist Communist Party-Foundation) at a Unity Congress held on September 10, 1994, made possible through the unification of three communist groups, and its later transformation into the MLKP ( Marxist-Leninist Communist Party) in September 1995, which occurred after it was joined by still another communist group, have been a very important step forward. This process of unification we term 'unity revolution'- and the non-sectarian style of work of our Party, have dealt heavy blows at this infantile disease of the revolutionary movement and began to create a culture of unity. The persisting basic deficiency of the movement, however is the relative weakness of its ties to the vigorous working class movement trade-union movement, dominated by yellow reformist and Muslim-oriented confederations.
    At this point, to be able to present an all-sided picture of the hardships of the communist movement, we have to underline the sharp discrepancy between the militancy of the working class, in the realm of spontaneous and economic struggle - and its relative inability in taking part in the revolutionary political struggle. We also have to underline the fact that, at present, despite the existence of a very small politicized minority, the main mass of the working class remains rather indifferent to the massacres perpetrated against the heroic Kurdish people, the glorious struggles of political prisoners and our brave Saturday Mothers and militant youth. In addition to that, the tradition of militant solidarity of action among various detachments of the class itself is not sufficiently strong. This state of affairs is both an outcome of decades-long domination, of the reactionary bloc of bourgeoisie trade-union bureaucracy-revisionism over the working class movement; and of the petty bourgeois past, with the relative youth and amateur style of work of the militant communist movement. The working class of Turkey and Northern Kurdistan has waged a series of massive and heroic struggles and demonstrated its ability to lead all other exploited and oppressed classes and strata and to mobilize them around itself. But, its level of class consciousness remains low. We, of course should not, and can not forget that, the relationship between scientific socialism and the working class movement can not be understood without taking into account a whole set of specific conditions and traits pertaining to each country. ln his aforementioned article, Lenin also had said:

"But in each country this combination of socialism with the labor movement took place historically, was brought about in a special way, in accordance with the conditions prevailing at the time in each country."
(Ibidem, p.11)
    As we mentioned above, in Turkey, socialism and socialist movement on the one hand and the working class movement on the other, have been isolated from each other for a very long period of time. This means that, the influence of bourgeois ideology and its variants (including petty-bourgeois democratism) have been challenged very little in the ranks of the working class, where Marxism-Leninism has not penetrated to a significant extent and the advanced elements of the class have not definitely embraced Marxism-Leninism. In such countries, communist forces must be very steadfast, to underline their vanguard and leading role, their revolutionary initiative and will in transforming the class into a revolutionary force capable of performing its historical task. Therefore they should be much more on their guard against the danger of ouvrierisme and economism. The fact that they should be very much on their guard against the non-revolutionary and semi-reformist tendencies that are so prevalent even among part of the advanced workers, does not, of course mean that they should underestimate the opposite danger: that of depreciation and even negation of the central role and historical mission of the working class both in democratic and socialist revolution.
    Unless the yoke of trade- union bureaucracy, revisionism and bourgeoisie over the class is broken, and its advanced section is united firmly under a militant communist leadership, then the historical deficit and impasse of the revolutionary movement in our country will not be overcome,
and the durability and stability of the communist movement will not be guaranteed, the great revolutionary energy of the class will not be released, and the internationalist obligations of the working class vis-a-vis the Kurdish people, who have been courageously fighting against Turkish reaction especially since 1984, will not be met.

    Basing itself upon a correct assessment and a concrete and scientific analysis of the Turkish political scene in general, and the problems and prospects of the communist and working class movement in our country in particular, MLKP is determined to revolutionize the working class and the working class movement. It is doing this already in the fire and storm of mass struggle. Full of confidence in the revolutionary potential of the working class it has the will to overcome all obstacles on this road and liberate the workers and peoples of Turkey and Northern Kurdistan from the clutches of imperialism and capitalism.

    Dear comrades and friends,
    Before ending my words, allow me also to very briefly touch upon the question of the definition of the working class; a question that seems to be an important topic of discussion in the Russian communist and revolutionary movement. It is a known fact that, some revisionist thinkers have tried to broaden the definition of the working class and have included the great and growing mass of technical intelligentsia in it. But they forget that, under capitalism, as in all class societies based on the exploitation of direct producers, the monopoly and control over knowledge - over what Marx called 'intellectual means of production' - remains in the hands of the ruling classes that is of the bourgeoisie.

    As capitalism develops,

a) both the mass of the working class and of technical intelligentsia becomes greater and the composition of these social categories becomes more complex and diversified;

b) the ratio of wage laborers employed in production in general and in industry (the so-called blue-collar workers) in particular decreases, while the ratio of wage laborers employed in the service sector (the so called white-collar workers) increases;

c) cultural and technical level of the working class rises and workers tend more and more to perform jobs, which acquire the characteristics of mental labor to a certain extent and,

d) a sizable portion of the growing mass of technical intelligentsia, who quite often are part of the 'collective laborer', get closer to the workers, both in terms of earnings (or their share in social product) and in terms of their position vis-a-vis the means of production.

        BUT, these do not mean that:
A paper from the COMMUNIST LEAGUE (Britain):
The Concept of Social Class
The concept of social class as :
A a division or order of society according to status@, The Oxford English Dictionary', Volume 3; Oxford; 1989; p. 279).     is a very ancient one, the English word 'class' being derived from the Latin 'classis', meaning each of the: @..ancient divisions of the Roman people@. (Charles T. Onions (Ed.): 'The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology'; Oxford; 1985; p. 180.) Servius Tullius, king of Rome in the 6th century BC, organised a classification system Awhich divided citizens into five classes according to wealth". (New Encyclopedia Britannica', Volume 10; Chicago; 1994; p. 455.).
The Marxist Definition of Class

    Marxist-Leninists accept the concept of social class put forward above, but hold that a person's social class is determined not by the amount of his wealth, but by the source of his income as determined by his relation to labour and to the means of production.

"Classes are large groups of people 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 by law) to the means of production, 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 their mode of acquiring it".
(Vladimir I. Lenin: 'A Great Beginning: Heroism of the Workers in the Rear: 'Communist Subbotniks' in: 'Collected Works', Volume 29; Moscow; 1965; p. 421).
    To Marxist-Leninists, therefore, the class to which a person belongs is determined by objective reality, not by someone's opinion. On the basis of the above definition, Marxist-Leninists distinguish three basic classes in 19th century Britain:     These three basic classes are: The Landlord Class     Marxist-Leninists define the landlord class as that class which owns land and derives its income from ground rent on that land: "Land becomes... personified and... gets on its hind legs to demand . . its share of the product created with its help . . . : rent"
(Karl Marx: 'Capital: A Critique of Political Economy'. Volume 3; Moscow; 1971; p. 824-25.
    With the development of capitalist society, however, the landlord class progressively loses its importance and a new class emerges -- the petty bourgeoisie. Thus, in a developed capitalist society, there are still three basic classes, but these are now: "Every capitalist country ... is basically divided into three main forces: the bourgeoisie, the petty bourgeoisie and the proletariat''.
(Vladimir I. Lenin: 'Constitutional Illusions' ,in: 'Collected Works', Volume 6; Moscow; 1964; p. 202).

The Bourgeoisie

    The English word 'bourgeoisie' is derived from the French word 'bourgeoisie' meaning : AThe trading middle class" Charles T. Onions (Ed.): op. cit.; p. 110), as distinct from the landlord class. Marxist-Leninists define the bourgeoisie or capitalist class as : AThe class of modern capitalists, owners of the means of social production and employers of wage labour".
(Friedreich Engels: Note to: Karl Marx & Friedreich Engels: 'Manifesto of the Communist Party' in: Karl Marx: 'Selected Works', Volume 1; London; 1943; p. 204).
    The capitalist class includes persons whose remuneration may come nominally in the form of a salary, but which is in fact due to their position in the capitalist classes (e.g., the directors of large companies). It also includes persons who are not employers, but who serve the capitalist class in high administrative positions: "The latter group contains sections of the population who belong to the big bourgeoisie: all the rentiers (living on the income from capital and real estate ), then part of the intelligentsia, the high military and civil officials, etc."
(Vladimir I. Lenin: 'The Development of Capitalism in Russia', in: 'CW', Vo 3; Moscow; 1960; p. 504).
    It also includes the dependents of these persons.     The English word 'proletariat' is derived from the Latin 'proles', meaning offspring , since according to Roman law a proletarian served the state     Marxist-Leninists define the proletariat or working class as: Athat class of modern wage labourers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labour power in order to live".
(Friedreich Engels: Note to the 1888 English Edition of: Karl Marx & Friedreich Engels: 'Manifesto of the Communist Party', in: 'Selected Works', Volume 1; London; 1943; p. 204.)
    In modern society: Athe proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class".
(Karl Marx & Friedreich Engels: 'Manifesto of the Communist Party' in: Karl Marx: 'Selected Works', Volume 1; London; 1943; p. 216).
    so that, in producing the proletariat, the bourgeoisie produces: "Its own gravediggers".
(Karl Marx & Friedreich Engels: 'Manifesto of the Communist Party' in: Karl Marx:'Selected Works', Volume 1; London; 1943; p. 218).

 The 'Middle Class'

    The term 'middle class' is used by Marxists -- including Marx and Engels themselves -- in two different ways:
    Firstly, in the historical sense, in the sense of:     Secondly, when speaking of modern capitalist society, with the meaning of petty bourgeoisie', discussed in the next section. The Petty Bourgeoisie Between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, stands the petty bourgeoisie: "In countries where modern civilization has become fully developed, a new class of petty bourgeois has been formed"
(Karl Marx & Friedreich Engels: 'Manifesto of the Communist Party' in: Karl Marx: 'Selected Works', Volume 1; London; 1943; p. 231).
    The English term 'petty bourgeoisie' is an anglicisation of the French term 'petite bourgeoisie', meaning 'little bourgeoisie'. Marxist-Leninists define the petty bourgeoisie as a class which owns or rents small means of production which it operates largely without employing wage labour, but often with the assistance of members of their families: ''A petty bourgeois is the owner of small property."
(Vladimir I. Lenin: Note to: 'To the Rural Poor', in: 'Selected Works', Volume 2; London; 1944; p. 254).
    As a worker, the petty bourgeois has interests in common with the proletariat; as owner of means of production, however, he has interests in common with the bourgeoisie. In other words, the petty bourgeoisie has a divided allegiance towards the two decisive classes in capitalist society. "Thus, the 'independent' petty bourgeois producer is cut up into two persons. As owner of the means of production he is a capitalist; as a labourer he is his own wage-labourer".
(Karl Marx: 'Theories of Surplus Value', Part 1; Moscow; undated; p. 395).
    and consequently petty bourgeois: "Are for ever vacillating between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie".
(Josef V. Stalin: 'The Logic of Facts', in: 'Works', Volume 4; Moscow; 1953; p. 143).
    This divided allegiance between the two decisive classes in modern capitalist society applies also to a section of employed persons -- those who are involved in superintendence and the lower levels of management -- e.g., foremen, charge-hands, departmental managers, etc. These employees have a supervisory function, a function is to ensure that the workers produce a maximum of surplus value for the employer. On the one hand, such persons are exploited workers, with interests in common with the proletariat (from which they largely spring); on the other hand, their position as agents of the management in supervising the efficient exploitation of their fellow employees gives them interests in common with the bourgeoisie: "An industrial army of workmen, under the command of a capitalist, requires, like a real army, officers (managers) and sergeants (foremen, overlookers) who, while the work is being done, command in the name of the capitalist".
(Karl Marx: 'Capital: An Analysis of Capitalist Production', Volume 1; Moscow; 1959; p. 332).

"The labour of supervision and management . . . has a double nature. On the one hand, all labour in which many individuals cooperate necessarily requires a commanding will to coordinate and unify the process. . . . This is a productive job. . . . On the other hand… this supervision work necessarily arises in all modes of production based on the antithesis between the labourer, as the direct producer, and the owner of the means of production. The greater this antagonism, the greater the role played by supervision (Karl Marx: 'Capital: A Critique of Political Economy', Volume 3; Moscow; 1971; p. 383-84).

    Because of this divided allegiance, which corresponds to that of the petty bourgeoisie proper, Marxist-Leninists place such employees (and their dependents) in the petty bourgeoisie. For the same reason, Marxist-Leninists also place persons in the middle and lower ranks of the coercive forces of the capitalist state -- the army and police -- (and their dependents) in the petty bourgeoisie The Polarisation of Capitalist Society     Because of the small size of their means of production, petty-bourgeois are in constant danger of sinking into the proletariat: "The lower strata of the middle class . sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital .. is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists, partly their specialised skill is rendered worthless by new methods of production".
(Karl Marx & Friedreich Engels: 'Manifesto of the Communist Party' in: Karl Marx: 'Selected Works', Volume 1; London; 1943; p. 213).

"The working class gains recruits from the higher strata of society A mass of petty industrialists and small rentiers are hurled down into its ranks".
(Karl Marx: 'Wage-Labour and Capital', in: 'Selected Works', Volume 1; London; 1943' p. 280).

    and even the old, once highly respected petty bourgeois professions become proletarianised: "The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage-labourers".
(Karl Marx & Friedreich Engels: 'Manifesto of the Communist Party', in: Karl Marx: 'Selected Works', Volume 1; London; 1943; p. 208).
    Thus, as capitalist society develops, it becomes increasingly polarised into two basic classes -- wealthy bourgeois and poor proletarians: "Society as a whole is more and more splitting up… into two great classes facing each other - bourgeoisie and proletariat".
(Karl Marx & Friedreich Engels: 'Manifesto of the Communist Party', in: Karl Marx: 'Selected Works', Volume 1; London; 1943; p. 205-06).

"Accumulation of wealth at one pole is, therefore, at the same time accumulation of misery, agony of toil, slavery, ignorance, brutality, moral degradation, at the opposite pole".
(Karl Marx: 'Capital: A Critique of Political Economy'. Volume 1; Moscow; 1959; p. 645).

The Peasantry
    The English word 'peasant' is derived from the Latin 'pagus', meaning a: "country district";
(Charles T. Onions (Ed.): op. cit.; p. 660).
    and is defined as: "One who lives in the country and works on the land".         ('The Oxford English Dictionary', Volume 11; Oxford; 1989; p.402).     The above definition excludes the landlord class from the peasantry since, even if a landlord 'lives in the country' he does not 'work on. the land' , but derives his income from ground rent.

    The peasantry do not form a class of society, but consist of a number of different classes which live in the country and work on the land:

"It is best to distinguish the rich, the middle and the poor peasants".
(Vladimir I. Lenin: 'To the Rural Poor: An Explanation for the Peasants of what the Social-Democrats want' (hereafter listed as 'Vladimir I. Lenin (1903'), in 'Selected Works', Volume 2; London; 1944; p. 261).
    The peasantry is composed of: Firstly, rich peasants, or rural capitalists, who employ labour, that is, who exploit poorer peasants: "One of the main features of the rich peasants is that they hire farmhands and day labourers. Like the landlords, the rich peasants also live by the labour of others. $ . . They try to squeeze as much work as they can out of their farmhands, and pay them as little as possible".
(Vladimir I. Lenin (1903: ibid.; p. 265).
    Sometimes rich peasants are called 'kulaks', a word derived from the Russian 'kulak', originally meaning a :     Secondly, the middle peasants or the rural petty bourgeoisie, who own or rent land but who do not employ labour. Speaking of the middle peasantry, Lenin says: "Only in good years and under particularly favorable conditions is the independent husbandry of this type of peasant sufficient to maintain him and for that reason his position is a very unstable one. In the majority of cases the middle peasant cannot make ends meet without resorting to loans to be repaid by labour, etc., without seeking 'subsidiary' earnings on the side".
(Vladimir I. Lenin: 'The Development of Capitalism in Russia', in: 'Collected Works', Volume 1; p. 235).
    Thirdly, the poor peasants or rural proletariat. The poor peasant lives not by the land, not by
his farm, but by working for wages: "He . . has ceased to be an independent farmer and has become a hireling, a proletarian."
(Vladimir I. Lenin (1900): op. cit.; p. 265-67).
    Sometimes Marxist-Leninists describe poor peasants as:         "semi-proletarians",
(Vladimir I. Lenin (1900): ibid.; p. 267).
    to distinguish them from urban proletarians, regarded as 'full' proletarians.     'Revisionism' is: " a trend hostile to Marxism,... within Marxism itself".
(Vladimir I. Lenin: 'Marxism and Revisionism , in: 'Collected Works', Volume 15; Moscow; 1963; p. 32).
    In other words, a revisionist poses as a Marxist but in fact puts forward a programme which objectively serves the interests of a bourgeoisie: "The revisionists spearheaded their struggle mainly against Marxism-Leninism .. and replaced this theory with an opportunist, counter-revolutionary theory in the service of the bourgeoisie and imperialism".
(Enver Hoxha: Report to the 5th Congress of the Party of Labour of Albania, in: 'Selected Works', Volume 4; Tirana; 1982; p. 190).
    Despite all the torrents of propaganda levelled against it, Marxism-Leninism still retains enormous prestige among working people all over the world. It is for this reason that many modern revisionists call themselves 'Neo-Marxists' or 'Western Marxists' -- claiming that they are not revising Marxism but merely bringing it up to date, bringing into the age of the electronic computer which Marx and Engels never knew.

    In general, 'neo-Marxists' pay their loudest tributes to Marx's early writings, before he became a Marxist. 'Neo-Marxism' is essentially a product not merely of universities, but of the worst kind of university lecturer who equates obscurantism with intellectualism. One sees admiring students staggering from his lectures muttering 'What a brilliant man! I couldn't understand a word!'.

    Even sociologists sympathetic to 'neo-Marxism' speak of

"The extreme difficulty of language characteristic of much of Western Marxism in the twentieth century".
(Perry Anderson: 'Considerations of Western Marxism'; London; 1970; p. 54).
    But, of course, this obscure language has a great advantage for those who use it, making it easy to claim, when challenged, that the challenger has misunderstood what one was saying. Much 'Neo-Marxism' is an eclectic hotchpotch of Marxism with idealist philosophy -- giving it, it is claimed, a 'spiritual aspect' lacking in the original. A typical example is the French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre who writes: "I believe in the general schema provided by Marx",
(Jean-Paul Sartre: 'Between Existentialism and Marxism'; London; 1974; p.53),
    but -- and it is a big 'but' -- it must be a 'Marxism' liberated from: "The old guard of mummified Stalinists".
(Jean-Paul Sartre: ibid.; p. 53).
    And how, according to Sartre, is this 'liberation' to be effected? By merging it with the existentialism of the Danish idealist philosopher Soren Kierkegaard! "Kierkegaard and Marx . . . institute themselves . . . as our future".
(Jean-Paul Sartre: ibid.; p. 169).
    However, this paper is concerned only with revisionist theories which are based on distortions of the Marxist-Leninist definition of class.

    In particular, it will be concerned with 'neo-Marxist' definitions of the proletariat which narrow and restrict it as a class. While to these 'neo-Marxists' the proletariat may still be, in words, 'the grave-digger of capitalism', they portray it as a gravedigger equipped with a teaspoon instead of a spade.

The Unemployed     Some 'neo-Marxists' exclude the unemployed from the proletariat on the grounds that someone who is not working cannot be regarded as a member of the working class!

    But Marx explicitly characterises the unemployed, the "industrial reserve army" (Karl Marx: 'Capital: A Critical Analysis of Capitalist Production', Volume 1; Moscow; 1959; p. 628).
as part of the working class, as:

"a relative surplus population among the working class",
(Karl Marx: 'Capital: A Critique of Political Economy', Volume 2; Moscow; 1974; p. 518).
    and speaks of: "The working class (now actively reinforced by its entire reserve army)".
(Karl Marx: 'Capital: A Critique of Political Economy', Volume 2; Moscow; 1974; p. 414).
    Clearly, therefore, the founders of Marxism did not exclude the unemployed from the working class.     Other 'neo-Marxists' exclude all workers engaged in non-productive labour from the working class, Certainly, for the purpose of analysing the complexities of capitalist society, Marx differentiated labour into productive and unproductive labour. According to Marx, "Only that labour is Productive, which creates a surplus value".
(Karl Marx: 'Theories of Surplus Value Part 1; Moscow; n.d.; p. 45).
    It is on this basis that the Greek revisionist Nicos Poulantzas excludes non-productive workers from the working class: "I have a rather limited and restricted definition of the working class..The criterion of productive and unproductive labour is sufficient to exclude unproductive workers from the working class."
(Nicos Poulantzas: 'Classes in Contemporary Capitalism'; London; 1975; p. 119, 121).
    Poulantzas therefore assigns non-productive workers to the "new petty bourgeoisie",
(Nicos Poulantzas: ibid.; p. 117).
    asserting that: "The new petty bourgeoisie constitutes a separate class".
(Nicos Poulantzas: ibid.; p. 115).
    But : "the distinction between productive and unproductive labour has nothing to do .  . with the particular speciality of the labour".
(Karl Marx: 'Theories of Surplus Value', Part 1; Moscow; n.d.; p. 186)".
    The same kind of labour may be productive or unproductive: "The same labour can be productive  and unproductive when I buy it as a consumer." (Karl Marx: 'Theories of Surplus Value', Part 1; Moscow; n.d.; p. 186     For example, a teacher in a private school is engaged in productive labour (in the Marxist sense of the term), because his labour produces surplus value for the proprietors of the school. But a teacher in a state school, working under identical conditions, is engaged in unproductive labour, because his labour does not create surplus value.

    Furthermore, many kinds of unproductive labour, such as the labour of clerical workers in a capitalist production firm:

‘while it does not create surplus value, enables him (the employer -- Ed.) to appropriate surplus value which, in effect, amounts to the same thing with respect to his capital. It is, therefore, a source of profit for him".
(Karl Marx: 'Capital: A Critique of Political Economy', Volume 3; Moscow; 1971; p. 294).
    Thus the question of whether an employee is engaged in productive unproductive labour has no relevance to the question of whether he belongs the proletariat.     In developed capitalist states, the bourgeoisie, by plundering the colonial and weak nations, has been able to bribe the upper stratum of the proletariat with crumbs from the superprofits". (Vladimir I. Lenin: Draft Programme of the RCP (B), in: 'Collected Works', Volume 29; Moscow; 1965; p. 104). Superprofits are profits "Obtained over and above the profits which capitalists squeeze out of the workers of their 'own' country".
(Vladimir I. Lenin: Preface to the French and German Editions of 'Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism', in: 'Collected Works', Volume 22; Moscow; 1964; p. 193).
    Marxist-Leninists call employees in receipt of a share in such superprofits as: "the labour aristocracy";
(Vladimir I. Lenin: ibid.; p. 194).
    Some 'neo-Marxists' exclude employees who share in superprofits from the proletariat. Thus, according to the London-based 'Finsbury Communist Association', in Britain "the proletariat consists of the workers on subsistence wages or below".
(Finsbury Communist Association: 'Class and Party in Britain'; London; 1966; p. 4).
    However,Lenin defines the labour aristocracy as a part of the proletariat, as a "privileged upper stratum of the proletariat",
(Vladimir I. Lenin: 'Imperialism and the Split in Socialism', in: 'Collected Works', Volume 23; Moscow; 1965; p. 110).
    as: "the upper stratum of the proletariat",
(Vladimir I. Lenin: Draft Programme of the RCP (B), in: 'Collected Works', Volume 29; Moscow; 1965; p. 104).
    as: "the top strata of the working class".
(Vladimir I. Lenin: 'How the Bourgeoisie utilises Renegades", in: 'Collected Works', Volume 30; Moscow; 1965; p. 34).
    Furthermore, while Lenin characterises the 'labour aristocracy' as "an insignificant minority of the working class",
(Vladimir I. Lenin: 'Under a False Flag', in: 'Collected Works', Volume 21; Moscow; 1964; p. 152).
    the 'Finsbury Communist Association' presents it as: "The overwhelming majority of Britain's workers"'.
(Finsbury Communist Association: 'Class and Party in Britain'; London; 1966; p. 5,.4).
    Thus, according to the 'Finsbury Communist Association', the British imperialists pay the overwhelming majority of Britain's workers' above the value of their labour power. Since there is not even a Marxist-Leninist party, much less a revolutionary situation, in Britain at present, this can only be out of the sheer goodness of their hearts!

    Clearly the 'neo-Marxist' picture of imperialism bears no relation to reality. It merely lends spurious support to the false thesis that, since the workers in developed capitalist countries are 'exploiters', the future for socialism lies only in the less developed countries in the East!


                ARTICLE THREE:

'The Communist Manifesto@ (Marx K and Engels F: The Communist Manifesto@; "1 Bourgeois and Proletarian@; p. 82; Penguin Edition, London, 1985, p. 82).
    Marx and Engels above, graphically illustrated capitalism=s relentless drive to extend its sphere of action. This drive has resulted in several changes since the days of Marx and Engels. Many of these changes have taken place, in the industrialized nations of the world. But the nature of these changes, are not explained by the capitalist ruling class and its ideologists - the bourgeois sociologists. Instead the ruling class exploit the changes to further disguise reality, in order to confuse Marxist Leninist communists. These confusions include such allegations that : AMarx=s theory of classes is irrelevant nowadays@; AClasses are no longer relevant to understanding modern day society;@ AThere is no significant proletarian working class any longer; only >technical and scientific managers=;@ AThe higher wages of workers now changes their class from proletarians into middle classes@; Etc.     But in reality, the changes in modern day industrial societies confirm the general analysis of Marx and Engels. From the writing of AThe Communist Manifesto@, Marx and Engels identified the key features of class society. These features have not changed, and so, the Marxist-Leninist analysis is not refuted by recent changes. We will briefly illustrate this, by examining some key features of the Marxist analysis of classes. We start with definitions of the classes in modern Western capitalism - including that of >productive= and >non-productive labour=; examine the role of >high wages=; the continuing pauperization of the non-proletarians; the objective constant need of accumulation of capital to expand the working class; and we end by asking which classes have revolutionary potential; and in which alliances the proletariat must enter. ABy bourgeoisie is meant the class of modern Capitalist, owners of the means of social production and employers of wage labour. By proletariat the class of modern wage-laborers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labour power in order to live. A
(Note by Engels to English edition of 1888 of ACommunist Manifesto@ p. 79, Ibid).
    This is the only definition which has any real meaning - of the word proletariat. The word proletariat can be substituted for by the term >worker=, or by >wage laborer=. As is obvious in the quote, the proletariat does not exist in isolation from its class enemy - the Capitalist.


    Very early on in their revolutionary careers, Marx and Engels, in AThe Communist Manifesto@, pointed out that the previous complex layers of society were being radically simplified. The process, which was led by capitalism, was converting whole layers of different >social ranks= into two great ranks that >faced each other - the bourgeois and the proletariat.=

AIn the earlier epochs 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. Our epoch the epoch of the bourgeoisie possesses however this distinctive feature: It has simplified the class antagonism. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other: Bourgeois and Proletariat.@
(Communist Manifesto: ibid; p. 80; Emphasis added).

    It is true that there are strata or layers of both these two classes. But this does not mitigate the existence of Two basic classes, that confront each other. But strata within each of the class may have divergent interests. Thus with respect to the working class or proletarians, Engels talked of the >labour leaders= opportunism and desire for >respectability= :

AThe Alabour leaders A preferred to deal with their aristocratic friends and be Arespectable@, which in England meant acting like a bourgeois.@
(Engels F, 1874:@The English Elections@; In >Marx and Engels Article on Britain=; Moscow; 1971; p.369.
    This layer was the one that Lenin was later to term the labour aristocracy a part of the proletariat but one that was a: APrivileged upper stratum of the proletariat@.
(V.I.Lenin :@Draft Programme of the RCP(B); V.I.Lenin :@Draft Programme of the RCP(B); Collected Works; Volume 29; Moscow; 1965; p. 104.
    Nonetheless the labour aristocracy is still a part of the proletariat. The same considerations apply to the bourgeoisie, namely, that there is not one homogenous class. To explain the complexities of the Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, Marx described the factional battles that took place within the class of the bourgeoisie: AThe history of the Constituent National Assembly since the June days is the history of the domination and the disintegration of the republican faction of that bourgeoisie, of that faction which is known by the names of tricolour republicans... It was not a faction of the bourgeoisies held together by great common interests and marked doff by specific conditions of production. It was a clique of republican minded bourgeois writers lawyers, officers and officials that owed its influence to... French nationalism.. It fought the financial aristocracy, as did all the rest of the bourgeoisie opposition.. The industrial bourgeoisie was grateful to it for its slavish defence of the French protectionist system..@
(Marx K. >The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte=; Collected Works Marx and Engels Volume 11; Moscow; 1979; p.113.)
    Later Lenin was famously, to recognise that there had been a merging of finance with industrial capital to form a new and higher stage of capitalism known as finance imperialism. In his analysis of imperialism, Lenin defines imperialism by "Five essential features ". Apart from the export of capital, and division of the world between the monopolies, Lenin pointed out a feature of inter-capitalist divisions: "2. The merging of bank capital with industrial capital and the creation on the basis of its "finance capital" of a "financial oligarchy ".
(Lenin V.I., AImperialism-The Highest Stage of Capitalism@; Chapter VII, p. 89.
    Thus Lenin identified that: "Imperialism.. is marked by.. the merging or coalescence of banking with industry." (V.I.Lenin, "Imperialism the Highest Stage Of Capitalism ")     Nowadays the Banks are not the prime source of finance for capitalist industry. In Britain for example, banks (mainly merchant banks) own only: "0.3% .. of company shares."
(Cited 'Combat', Communist League, London, Data from "Stock Exchange Official Year Book: 1984-85" London; 1985. p. 969. See Alliance 3 for a fuller explanation).
    Furthermore, banks in Britain provide only 6% of the external funding of industry in the form of loans and these have been traditionally short term loans to provide: "Working (as opposed to investment) capital."
(G.Ingham " Capitalism Divided ", Basingstoke, UK.1984. p.67-8.)
    Industry is itself is now financing much of its own investments. The huge multi-nationals have such currency reserves that they have eroded the power of the banks to some extent: "The old economy is highly leveraged and deeply in debt. The emerging New Economy isn't..There has been enormous structural changes since the era not long ago, when the US corporate sector regularly incurred large financial deficits.. In the first quarter of 1992, Corporate America generated a financial surplus of $109.6 billion ( US ) - the largest such surplus in US history (Surplus is cash flow minus capital spending and working capital requirements)..Today's huge surpluses stem from the fact that corporate cash flows in the New Economy - in industries like pharmaceutical, software and computers - exceed internal requirements to finance capital spending inventory and the like.. the shift to surplus is driving interest rates lower.. Gone are the days when the US sector was a net user of the personal saver's savings.. The corporate sector is driving the US economy to a degree unthinkable in the old economy. Conventional wisdom that the economy is driven by consumer spending is no longer as true as it once was."
(Globe And Mail, Business News; Toronto; p.B26, Sep 22,1992).
    These divisions between the wings of capital are recognised overtly by business. Thus when the U.S. Democrats were resistant to a monetary policy, they preferred their own representative, an industrialist Mr.G.William Millar, to be at the Federal Reserve Board. He was: "Seen by many within and outside the Federal Reserve System as being too closely tied to President Carter and insufficiently attuned to the needs of the financial sector, was replaced by Paul Volcker. As the Wall Street Journal later reported it : ' Wall Street shoved Volcker down Carter's throat."
(G.Epstein, AFederal Reserve Behaviour and the limits of monetary policy in the current economic crisis.@ In "The Imperiled Economy. Book One." New York. 1987; p. 250).
    In fact the relation between the profits of the financial capitalist class, and the industrial capitalist class are inversely related. But the essential >class solidarity= of the capitalists unites them against the proletarians.

    Another example is the existence of factions of capital in the =smaller= less powerful imperialist nations such as Canada. One faction sees its interests as acting in a junior partnership with the USA, and therefore it is content to join the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). This faction contains parts of Québécois capitalists as well. But another faction prefers to be quite independent. None of these differences within the Canadian bi-national state obviate the basic unity of the ruling class of the capitalists within Canada. In Canada, at the current time, the National Question of Quebec, has been buried within the factional struggles around the NAFTA axis with the USA. However, despite these factions, the central unity of the capitalists is welded around implacable opposition to the proletarians.

In conclusion: There are >two great hostile camps, two great classes=, and this is undiminished by the presence of sectional or strata interests within the classes. This constant simplification of the class complexities is of enormous implication to the Communist movement. It means that our forces are constantly growing. It explains the world wide phenomenon of an increasing proletariat formed out of the previous layers of workers. The proletariat has come into being as the conglomeration of several older >social strata= of toilers.

    From where has this class of proletarians come? It has come from peasants from tradesmen and handicraft workers. This is an inevitable sinking of the previously >independent= or semi-independent= workers, into that larger class of proletarians, who have no option but to sell their labour power to live: AThe lower strata of the middle class - the small tradesmen, shopkeepers and retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants- all these sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists, partly because their specialized skill is rendered worthless by new methods of production. The proletariat is recruited from all classes of the population.A (Communist Manifesto: Ibid; p. 88).     As Marx and Engels in their manifesto pointed out, there is a transformation from >small peasant proprietors= to the >new class of petty bourgeois=: AThe feudal aristocracy was not the only class that was ruined by the bourgeoisie.. the mediaeval burgesses and the small peasant proprietors were the precursors of the modern bourgeoisie. In those countries which are but little developed industrially and commercially, these two classes still vegetate side by side with the rising bourgeoisie. In countries where modern civilization has become fully developed, a new class of petty bourgeois had been formed, fluctuating between proletariat and bourgeois and ever renewing itself as a supplementary part of bourgeois society. The individual members of this class however are being constantly hurled down into the proletariat by the action of competition and as modern industry develops they even see the moment approaching when they will completely disappear as an independent section of modern society to be replaced, in manufacture, agriculture and commerce, by overlookers bailiffs and shopmen.@
(Communist Manifesto: Ibid; p. 88).
    This >middle= position of the petty bourgeois is reflected in their susceptibility to notions of >class harmony= and fruitless attempts to reconcile the irreconcilable class struggle: AThe petty-bourgeois democrats, these sham socialist who replaced the class struggle by dreams of class harmony, even pictured the socialist transformation in a dreamy fashion-not as the overthrow of the rule of the exploiting class, but as the peaceful submission of the minority to the majority which has become aware of its aims. This petty-bourgeois utopia which is inseparable from the idea of the state being above classes, led in practice to the betrayal of the interests of the working classes, as was shown for example, by the experience of the >socialist= participation in bourgeois Cabinets in Britain France Italy and other countries at the turn of the century=. (V.I.Lenin A1917: @The State and Revolution@; Selected Works; Volume 2; Moscow 1977; p. 254-255.)     In conclusion: The petty bourgeoisie is an irresolute, vacillating class that fluctuates between the working classes and the bourgeoisie. It is prone therefore to subjective illusions that betray its own objective position.     In many countries of the most modern capitalist states the peasantry which forms part of the petty bourgeoisie is either vanishing or has vanished. Thus in Britain there is no longer a peasantry as such, and this process was largely complete by the end of the 19th century. In other countries, such as Canada and the USA, the peasantry has also been largely diminished, although there are remnants of a small land holder farmer who works the land and cannot hire a significant labour force. But it is important to note that the large agri-capitalist farms are busily forcing such smalholdings into bankruptcy. The process of monopolization of land and farming resources that was described by Lenin in AData On Development of Capitalism In Agriculture In the USA.@ : AIn effect the fundamental and principal trend of capitalism is the displacement of small-scale by large scale production both in industry and in agriculture. But this displacement should not be interpreted merely as immediate expropriation. Displacement also implies the ruin of the small farmers and a worsening of conditions on their farms, a process that may go on for years...The question of the expropriation of the small farmers is immensely important to an understanding of assessment of capitalism in agriculture... The general statistics in all capitalist countries show that the urban population is growing at the expense of the rural, that of the population is abandoning the countryside.. The tendency of capitalism to expropriate small scale agriculture is so strong that the American ANorth@ shows an absolute decrease in the number of landowners in spite of the distribution of tens of millions of acres of unoccupied free land. Only two factors still serve to paralyse this tendency in the U.S.A.:
(1) The existence of the still unparcelled slave holding plantations in the South, with its oppressed and downtrodden Negro population; and
(2) that fact that the West is still partly unsettled.@
(Lenin; AData On Development of Capitalism In Agriculture In the USA.@ ALenin On the USA@; Moscow 1967; pp.172; 187; 190-191).

AThe principal trend in capitalist agriculture is the conversion of small-scale enterprise which remains small in terms of acreage, into large scale enterprise, in terms of output, in the development of livestock raising, the quantity of fertilizers, the scale on which machinery is used and the like’.
(Lenin; Ibid >Data On Development=; p.171)

    This process has accelerated in North America since Lenin described it as above. In some parts of Western Europe a peasantry does still exists. But where it still exists, it is a peasantry that is forced increasingly, into a position of either impoverishment and expropriation - as described by Lenin for the USA, or into becoming a >petty landed proprietor=: AUnder capitalism the small farmer-whether he wants to or not, whether he is aware of this or not- becomes a commodity producer. And it is this change that is fundamental , for it alone, even when he does not as yet exploit hired labour, makes him a petty bourgeois and converts him into an antagonist of the proletariat. He sells his product while the proletarian sells his labour-power. The small farmers as a class, cannot but seek a rise in the prices of agricultural products, and this is tantamount to their joining with the big landowners in sharing the ground rent and siding with the landowners against the rest of the society. As commodity production develops, the small farmer in accordance with his class status inevitably becomes a petty landed proprietor."
(Lenin; Ibid; p.198).
    There is in all these Western type countries a rural proletariat. One that is either employed by the big capitalist agri-farms who increasingly are the >big landowners=, or by the shrinking >petty landed proprietors=. As Lenin points out peasants are divided by the class struggle in the countryside: AWe put the word >peasantry= in quotation marks in order to emphasize the existence .. Of an absolutely indubitable contradiction: in present -day society the peasantry of course no longer constitutes an integral class... In as much as in our countryside the serf-owning society is being eliminated by >present day >bourgeois) society, insomuch the peasantry ceases to be a class and becomes divided into the rural proletariat and the rural bourgeoisie (big, middle, petty and very small)."
( Lenin VI: 1902 ; >Agrarian Programme of Russian Social Democracy=; Collected Works; Volume 6; Moscow; 1985; p.113-114).
    Under conditions of Western type capitalism, increasingly this stratification is being simplified into capitalist farmers and rural poor peasants, who can be also termed the rural proletariat. Like the urban proletariat, this person is forced to hire out his time: AA peasant who has no horse is one who has become quite poor. He is a proletarian. He gains a living (If you can call it a living; it would be truer to say that he just contrives to keep body and soul together) not from the land, not from his farm, but by working for hire. He is brother to the town worker.@
(V.I.Lenin >To The Rural Poor: An Explanation for the peasants of what the Social Democrats Want=, 1903; Volume 6; Moscow; 1985; p.384).
    In conclusion: In the most advanced capitalist imperialist countries, the peasantry is a small, if not a vanished force. In each country of course, this needs to be evaluated by the Marxist-Leninist vanguard in that country. World wide there is a large peasantry. This peasantry of course still faces the same forces of >simplification= and intensification of the class struggle, that has been undergone by previous peasantries. But world-wide, in colonial type countries even now, the peasant based struggle remains vital to the proletarian struggle for socialism. Alliance and the Communist League, and the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party (Turkey) have proposed analyses of the class struggles, and the necessary class alliances, in these types of countries elsewhere. (See Alliance 5 (On India; October 1993 ); See Communist League (Revolutionary Process in Colonial -Type Countries; July 1993); and see Joint statement of Alliance, Communist League, and Marxist Leninist Communist Party (Turkey) >An Open Letter to Comrade Ludo Martens= March 1996). (See web sites:     To distinguish between proletarians and non-proletarian, it is necessary to determine whether the worker is performing >productive labour=. But what is this? It is simply the necessary consequence of the definition given above of the Proletariat. For Marx defines productive labour on the basis of whether the worker is producing a Asurplus@, for the capitalist employer. This applies no less, and no more - to the factory production worker, to the school master, to a singer. So long as the worker is producing surplus value, then the worker is a >productive worker=: ACapitalist production is not merely the production of commodities, it is essentially the production of surplus-value. The laborer produces, not for himself, but for capital. It no longer suffices, therefore, that he should simply produce. He must produce surplus-value. That laborer alone is productive, who produces surplus-value for the capitalist, and thus works for the self-expansion of capital. If we may take an example from outside the sphere of production of material objects, a schoolmaster is a productive laborer 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 of in a sausage factory, does not alter the relation. Hence the notion of a productive laborer implies not merely a relation between work and useful effect, between laborer and product of labour, but also a specific, social relation of production, a relation that has sprung up historically and stamps the laborer as the direct means of creating surplus-value. To be a productive laborer is, therefore, not a piece of luck, but a misfortune. A
(K.Marx; 1867: Capital Volume I Ch. 16 As transcribed for the Internet address: "Http://". Section entitled: The Production Of Absolute And Of Relative Surplus-value Chapter XVI Absolute And Relative Surplus-value. Transcribed for the Internet by Allan Thurrott. (Emphasis added).
    The type of work that is performed, by either productive or un-productive labour, may be exactly the same. What is relevant is: AWhether the labour itself produces Surplus Value; ie What is the relationship to the capitalist class?@ As Marx points out: AThe 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.. 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 produces capital.@ (K.Marx; = ATheories of Surplus Value - Volume IV of Capital@ Part 1; Addenda=; Moscow; 1963; p.401.)     Moreover Marx explicitly points out that even the non-productive labourer plays such an ancillary role to the production of surplus value, that such labour becomes a source of surplus value: AWhile it does not create surplus value, it enables (the capitalist) to appropriate surplus value which in effect amounts to the same thing with respect to his capital. It is therefore, a source of profit to him.@
( Marx K. ACapital- Volume 3"; Moscow; 1971; p.294).
    Some revisionists like Nicos Poulantzas, object that many workers in State employment, are classified by Marxist-Leninists as proletarian. But this can be clearly seen, to be a revisionist diversionary objection, from Marx=s own writings as cited above.

    In conclusion therefore: We will emphasize here, that the productive labourer, is any one who is employed by the capitalists, to make a surplus value from. It is not relevant what type of work is done by the labourer, whether it is manual or mental or >artistic=. This point is expanded upon below. Recent fashionable revisionists of Marxism, like Nicos Poulantzas - suggest that the >New petty bourgeoisie= is a class of intellectuals, or and technicians. This is false and underestimates the objective strength of the proletariat, while magnifying the strength of the subjective illusions of >mental= based intellectuals and workers.

    Bourgeois sociologists, and revisionist >Marxists= like Nicos Poulantzas, make a false dichotomy between mental and manual labour. They assert that those who are workers, are mainly if not wholly manual workers. Allegations are made by bourgeois sociologists that when machines transform the workers job into a >manager= of machines and into a very skilled series of operations, that the worker then is some-how no longer a >real worker=. Instead it is alleged that ANow the worker is a manager@.

    But whether the work which is done as productive labour (ie as creation of a surplus value) is mental or manual is irrelevant. As Marx puts it: AIn order to labour productively, it is no longer necessary for you to do manual work yourself; enough, if you are an organ of the collective labourer, and perform one of its subordinate functions@. This is a consequence of the increasing complexity of production and the nature of the wide collective type of production that is developed under capitalism. Marx first explains that a potential for conflict between mental and labour forms of specialisation, does exist as soon as production goes beyond the stage of >appropriating natural objects=. But Marx then goes on to show that, this conflict is resolved, in the form of the type of labour that he terms the >collective labourer=. Here the product of the labour >ceases to be the direct product of the individual, and becomes a social product=. Here it is no longer >necessary to do manual work yourself.. If you are an organ of the collective labourer=:

AIn Chapter V... we stated, "If we examine the whole labour-process, from the point of view of its result, it is plain that both the instruments and the subject of labour are means of production, and that the labour itself is productive labour."..
So far as the labour-process is purely individual, one and the same labourer unites in himself all the functions, that later on become separated. When an individual appropriates natural objects for his livelihood, no one controls him but himself. Afterwards he is controlled by others. A single man cannot operate upon Nature without calling his own muscles into play under the control of his own brain. As in the natural body head and hand wait upon each other, so the labour-process unites the labour of the hand with that of the head. Later on they part company and even become deadly foes. The product ceases to be the direct product of the individual, and becomes a social product, produced in common by a collective labourer, i.e., by a combination of workmen, each of whom takes only a part, greater or less, in the manipulation of the subject of their labour. As the co-operative character of the labour-process becomes more and more marked, so, as a necessary consequence, does our notion of productive labour, and of its agent the productive labourer, become extended. In order to labour productively, it is no longer necessary for you to do manual work yourself; enough, if you are an organ of the collective labourer, and perform one of its subordinate functions..@
(K.Marx; 1867: Capital Volume I Chapter 16 As transcribed for the Internet address: "Http://". Section entitled: >The Production Of Absolute And Of Relative Surplus-value Chapter XVI Absolute And Relative Surplus-value. Transcribed for the Internet by Allan Thurrott. (Emphasis added).)

    Because capital is being constantly accumulated from the surplus labour of the workers, and because this accumulation is put into constant capital, so must the need for the proletariat expansion be continuous at times of boom. To follow this we must understand Marx=s designation of Constant ( ie Value of the means of Production ) and variable capital (ie The sum of the wages), and the relationship between the two as the organise composition of capital. (N.B. Emphases below added):

AConsider the influence of the growth of capital on the lot of the labouring class. The most important factor in this inquiry is the composition of capital and the changes it undergoes in the course of the process of accumulation. The composition of capital is to be understood in a two-fold sense. On the side of value, it is determined by the proportion in which it is divided into constant capital or value of the means of production, and variable capital or value of labour-power, the sum total of wages. On the side of material, as it functions in the process of production, all capital is divided into means of production and living labour-power. This latter composition is determined by the relation between the mass of the means of production employed, on the one hand, and the mass of labour necessary for their employment on the other. I call the former the value-composition, the latter the technical composition of capital. Between the two there is a strict correlation. To express this, I call the value-composition of capital, in so far as it is determined by its technical composition and mirrors the changes of the latter, the organic composition of capital. Wherever I refer to the composition of capital, without further qualification, its organic composition is always understood.@
(K.Marx. 1867: Capital Volume 1; Chapter XXV : the General Law of Capitalist Accumulation. Section 1.The Increased Demand for Labour-Power that Accompanies Accumulation, the Composition of Capital Remaining the Same. From the Internet-address: ""; A.Thurrott. Emphasis added.)
    An increase in capital following profiteering or accumulation, leads to an increase in demand for labour power, thus an increase in variable capital. If the constant capital is unchanged, wages may rise. Especially is the case at times of >opening of new markets= etc: AGrowth of capital involves growth of its variable constituent or of the part invested in labour-power. A part of the surplus-value turned into additional capital must always be re-transformed into variable capital, or additional labour-fund. If we suppose that, all other circumstances remaining the same, the composition of capital also remains constant (ie, that a definite mass of means of production constantly needs the same mass of labour-power to set it in motion), then the demand for labour and the subsistence-fund of the labourers clearly increase in the same proportion as the capital, and the more rapidly, the more rapidly the capital increases. Since the capital produces yearly a surplus-value, of which one part is yearly added to the original capital; since this increment itself grows yearly along with the augmentation of the capital already functioning; since lastly, under special stimulus to enrichment, such as the opening of new markets, or of new spheres for the outlay of capital in consequence of newly developed social wants, etc, the scale of accumulation may be suddenly extended, merely by a change in the division of the surplus-value or surplus-product into capital and revenue, the requirements of accumulating capital may exceed the increase of labour-power or of the number of labourers; the demand for labourers may exceed the supply, and, therefore, wages may rise. This must, indeed, ultimately be the case if the conditions supposed above continue. For since in each year more labourers are employed than in its predecessor, sooner or later a point must be reached, at which the requirements of accumulation begin to surpass the customary supply of labour, and, therefore, a rise of wages takes place...The more or less favourable circumstances in which the wage-working class supports and multiplies itself, in no way alters the fundamental character of capitalist production.".
(K.Marx; 1867: Capital Volume I: Internet address Ibid;. Section entitled: Chapter XXV : the General Law of Capitalist Accumulation. Section 1The Increased Demand for Labour-Power. Ibid.)
    Marx has above, anticipated the many later apologists for capital, who gratefully saw a capitalist stabilisation in the 1950's and 1960's. These apologists would claim that the >rising wages= of the proletariat, coupled with the >Welfare State=, somehow had altered their class position as workers. Marx points out in an anticipation of this, that the essence of capitalist relations are un-changed, and that profit or surplus value is still being made on their backs despite higher wages.

    Moreover, Maurice Dobbs analysing economic data for several countries including Britain, and the USA showed a great stability of wages as a proportion of national income over decades :

AWhat is surprising is that the available statistics of wages as a proportion of the national income seem to show a quite remarkable stability.. Both over short periods of time (Such as the duration of a single trade cycle) an over longer periods.@
(Dobbs M. AWages@; Cambridge; 1960; p.19).
    As Dobbs goes on to show, much work estimates that wages as a proportion of the net home-produced national income were for Britain 39% in 1880, and were 39 % in 1913; rising to 42 % in 1925, and being no more than 41 % for 1944; and coming to a maximum of 43.6% in 1953. Dobbs cites similar figures, with a similar constancy over the same decades for the USA. (Dobbs; Ibid; p. 19-21).

    But accumulation has yet another effect on the proletarian. There is an integral link, between capitalist accumulation and its need and drive to produce yet more proletarians. Although this relationship may be concealed and hidden, the expansion of accumulation, leads to an ever larger size of the proletarian class :

AAs simple reproduction constantly reproduces the capital-relation itself, i.e., the relation of capitalists on the one hand, and wage-workers on the other, so reproduction on a progressive scale, i.e., accumulation, reproduces the capital-relation on a progressive scale, more capitalists or larger capitalists at this pole, more wage-workers at that. The reproduction of a mass of labour-power, which must incessantly re-incorporate itself with capital for that capital's self-expansion; which cannot get free from capital, and whose enslavement to capital is only concealed by the variety of individual capitalists to whom it sells itself, this reproduction of labour-power forms, in fact, an essential of the reproduction of capital itself. Accumulation of capital is, therefore, increase of the proletariat. A
(K.Marx. 1867: Capital Volume 1; Transcribed for the Internet address; Ibid; Chapter XXV : the General Law of Capitalist Accumulation. Section 1 The Increased Demand for Labour-Power. Emphasis added).
    Therefore the drive to >take over= jobs previously not >productive= such as in medicine, or in writing etc; becomes even more intense. This transforms these spheres of work into productive labour.

    In Conclusion:
    Under capitalism, the increasing intensity of work leads to all spheres of toil and work, becoming sources of surplus value. All these fields of toil are transformed into fields of >productive labour=.

    Concomitant with the need of the capitalist class to preserve its own profits and to limit the wages it pays, the capitalists created a fear of unemployment. This pauperizes the mass of workers and creates a reserve army of unemployed. This leads to the widespread capitalist phenomenon of mass unemployment. AThe course characteristic of modern industry, viz., a decennial cycle (interrupted by smaller oscillations), of periods of average activity, production at high pressure, crisis and stagnation, depends on the constant formation, the greater or less absorption, and the re-formation of the industrial reserve army or surplus-population. In their turn, the varying phases of the industrial cycle recruit the surplus-population, and become one of the most energetic agents of its reproduction... The expansion by fits and starts of the scale of production is the preliminary to its equally sudden contraction; the latter again evokes the former, but the former is impossible without disposable human material, without an increase, in the number of labourers independently of the absolute growth of the population. This increase is effected by the simple process that constantly "sets free" a part of the labourers; by methods which lessen the number of labourers employed in proportion to the increased production. The whole form of the movement of modem industry depends, therefore, upon the constant transformation of a part of the labouring population into unemployed or half-employed hands... The whole process.. always .. take on the form of periodicity. When this periodicity is once consolidated,.. That the production of a relative surplus-population -- i.e, surplus with regard to the average needs of the self-expansion of capital -- is a necessary condition of modern industry."
( K.Marx, 1867: "Capital Volume 1" ; Internet Address Ibid; Part VII The Accumulation Of Capital Chapter XXV The General Law Of Capitalist Accumulation. Section 2. Relative Diminution Of The Variable Part Of Capital Simultaneously With The Progress Of Accumulation And Of The Concentration That Accompanies it.)
    In Conclusion:
    It should be apparent, that the unemployed are then, also a section also of the proletariat. That they may be used as >scabs= or strike breakers, does not change their objective position in class society. It is sometime argued by representatives of the bourgeoisie that these are workers whose poverty should justify their being pitted against the >high earning= regular workers. This is a blatant attempt at fostering class ruptures- a blatant attempt to >Divide and rule=.     Marx and Engels are unequivocal about the answer to this question: AOf all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is the 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 class, the small manufacturer the shop keeper, 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. Nay more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheels of history. If by chance they are revolutionary, 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.@
(Communist Manifesto, Ibid; p. 91).

AAll 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 the immense majority. The proletariat , the lowest stratum of our present society, cannot stir, cannot rise itself up.... Without the whole superincumbent strata of official society being sprung into the air.@
(Communist Manifesto, Ibid, p. 92).

    It is for this reason that all Marxist-Leninists recognise the fundamental basis of their movement to be the workers. This does not obviate the necessity to form class coalitions.     The proletariat or working class is composed then of working people who are employed directly by capitalist or capitalist firms that is those, who sell their labour power directly to capitalists or capitalist firms; In addition, the proletarians involved in farming are known in some countries as landless peasants.
    The working people is composed of all people who live primarily by their own labour. In addition to the working classes, it consists of : 1) The semi-proletariat, composed of working people who obtain their livelihood partly by working as employees of capitalist of capitalist firms and partly by working, with their labour and that of members of their family, small means of production of which they have tenure; semi-proletarians involved in farming are known in some countries as poor peasants.

2) The petty-bourgeoisie, composed of working people who work small means of production with their labour and that of members of their family; petty bourgeois elements involved in farming are known in some countries as middle peasants.

    The dictatorship of the proletariat is the state form necessary to build and maintain a socialist society: AThe revolution will be unable to crush the resistance of the bourgeoisie, to maintain its victory and to push forward to the final victory of socialism unless, at a certain stage in its development, it creates a special organ in the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat as its principal mainstay."
(J.V.Stalin: >The Foundations of Leninism@ in >Works= Volume 6; Moscow; 1953; p. 112).
    In the dictatorship of the proletariat, political power is held by the working class alone: AThe class which took political power into its hands did so knowing that it took power alone. That is a part of the concept of Dictatorship of the proletariat.. The class of the proletarians does not, and cannot share power with other classes.
(J.V.Stalin: >Concerning Questions of Leninism=, in >Works=, Vol. 8; Moscow; 1964; p. 27).
    The establishment and maintenance of the dictatorship of the proletariat requires an alliance between the proletariat and other strata of the working people: AThe power .. Of the class of proletarians .. Can be firmly established and exercised to the full only by means of a special form of alliance between the classes of proletarians and the labouring masses of the petty bourgeois classes, primarily the labouring masses of the petty bourgeois classes@.
(J.V.Stalin; Ibid; p. 27-28).
    But the term >alliance= does not mean a >sharing of power=, For: AThe classes of proletarians .. Does not and cannot share power with other classes." (J.V.Stalin: Ibid; p. 27.)     It is an alliance in which the leading role is taken by the political party of the proletariat, which does not share power with other parties: ADoes this alliance with the laboring masses of other non- proletarian, classes wholly contradict the idea of the dictatorship of one class?
This special form of alliance consists in that the guiding forces of this alliance is the proletariat. This special form of alliance consists in that the leader of the state, the leader in the system of the dictatorship of the proletariat is one party, the party of the proletariat, the Party of the Communists, which does not and cannot share leadership with other parties."
( J.V.Stalin; Ibid; p. 28.)


    As we have noted Marx pointed out the inevitable disintegration of the petty bourgeois, as it becomes ground between the two classes that confront each other in modern society - the bourgeois and the proletariat. But this half way house, leads the petty bourgeois to be especially susceptible to the lure of fascism. The petty bourgeoisie is encouraged to think of themselves as being >better= than the workers, and are thus deluded into believing that they have different aims and objectives. In objective truth, they are destined to become workers. But subjectively they have been encouraged to foster illusions. This leads them at critical times to be attracted to, and wooed by, fascism.

    Fascism is the open terrorist dictatorship of a reactionary ruling class, that is exercised through a fascist political party with a mass base. The ideology of fascism is based on appeals to racist and chauvinist prejudices, combined with demagogic >anti-capitalist= propaganda. The class base of fascism is the monopoly capitalist class; but it has, or tries to develop, a mass base in the petty bourgeois and the lumpen proletariat, and extends this as far as is possible into the working class and its organisations.

    In a monopoly capitalist country the development of the movement for socialist revolution is inevitable, as is a counter offensive by monopoly capital aimed at the forcible suppression of the movement for socialist revolution. Thus the attempt by monopoly capital to impose some form of fascist dictatorship becomes inevitable at a certain stage in the development of the movement for socialist revolution.

    The attempt by monopoly capital to impose a fascist dictatorship will be made at a time when the development of the movement for socialist revolution, led by a Marxist-Leninist Party of the working class , has reached the stage where it is making >parliamentary democracy=, with the democratic rights and liberties associated with this, an unsuitable form of state power for monopoly capital, but before it has developed to the point where it is capable of overthrowing the state power of monopoly capital in a socialist revolution. The attempt by monopoly capital to impose a fascist dictatorship will thus constitute a pre-emptive strike against the working class.

    For this reason the movement for socialist revolution is not capable on its own, of defeating the attempt of monopoly capital to impose a fascist dictatorship. Therefore, even though the membership of the anti-fascist united front should be directed primarily to the working class, it cannot be limited to that. It cannot reject those declaring readiness to participate in organized resistance against fascism, for example immigrant and Jewish petty bourgeois and capitalist who are likely to be the victims of fascist racial persecution along with workers.

    The defeat of the attempt of monopoly capital to impose a fascist dictatorship can be achieved only by the organisation of a much broader united front than that formed by the movement for socialist revolution at a particular stage of its development, than that is by the organisation of the broadest possible anti-fascist united front embracing, so far as is possible, all persons and organisations which, irrespective of their current attitude to socialist revolution, or indeed any other questions are prepared to participate actively against fascism in resistance.

    Despite attempts to divert this resistance of fascism (By Trotskyites and social democratic leaders, revisionists etc ) the main enemy against which the struggle of the anti-fascist united front must be directed is fascism itself. The role of the social democratic, revisionist, and Trotskyite leaders in seeking to sabotage this struggle must be used to expose them as objective agents of monopoly capital.

    An accurate depiction of the class forces in society is necessary for socialist revolution. Only a Marxist-Leninist vanguard party in each country can perform this essential task, needed for the construction of socialism.