A Summary Of The Basic Marxism-Leninism Study Guide

First, I wanna apologize if they're are any typos I missed. I wrote a lot of this during my overnight shifts, much I was too mentally exhausted to be note taking. This is also from a neurodivergent perspective who's experiences from the material conditions lived in from 1980 to present have shaped my views, understandings. And comprehension.

Einstein's "Why Socialism" argues that capitalism prioritizes individualism and self-interest over the greater good, leading to exploitation, inequality, and struggle. He advocates for a shift towards socialism, which prioritizes humanity's collective well-being and evolution over individual interests. Until humanity is enlightend enough to accept that and make the changes needed, human struggles will continue. Communism is humanism, it's altruism, it's mandatory social responsibility; it's the next step in what Einstein was eluding to in the this text. 

Communism, as described by Engels in "The Principles of Communism," involves the abolition of private property, centralization of control, internationalism, the elimination of social classes, the abolishment of religion, and the requirement of mandatory social responsibilities and obligations. Additionally, sex work would be abolished, as the body is considered private property, although it is unclear how this would apply to other forms of entertainment that also involve selling their body for other' gratification and benefit. If the entertainment is provided by choice and not exploitation, then the matter is ambiguous.

Marx's "Wage labor, and Capital" implies: Labor is a commodity and it's value is its cost to maintain, which is the minimum wage. Competition and supply and demand determine price of commodities. Capital is things produced and commodities which are changed. Thus having a working class is necessary. Current labor is less valuable then completed labor. Capitalists surpluses while workers profits are lost to cost of living. The worker and the capitalist have a symbiotic relationship. Capitalist must profit to survive, thus increasing the wage gap between workers and capitalists. The more the worker makes the capitalist, the more enslaved they become. Capitalists then use the surplus product to make the product cheaper and undercut their competitors. Which causes their competitors to seek to make the product cheaper, causing them to need to increase the surplus and in grease machines, causing less skill needed from the worker, allowing for more workers to work at a lower wage and more people required to cover the cost of living of a family. Creating a crisis.

The "three sources and three component parts of Marxism," shows the bias and prejudice against Marxism by bourgeoisie science, explaining that bourgeoisie science goes out of its way to justify wage slavery. It explains how Marx used philosophy, dialectical materialism, and socialism after studying the history of capital to explain the problems and solutions, while criticizing utopian socialism.

"Karl Marx, a Brief biographical sketch with an exposition of Marxism," says Marx was an evolutionist and not a creationist believing nothing is sacred. Materialism is cause and effect (or I don't understand what is being said). Marx explained that the middle class fights the bourgeoisie for self preservation, while the proletariat fights for revolution. Another economic lesson is gone into 🥱. Max exchange, just like Marxist theory explaining economics, repeats itself over and over, just to say everything can be broken down scientifically to nature and evolution. Capitalists exploit everyone with varying means, workers have no country and nations must be disbanded. A bunch of redundant rhetoric is spoken to say the workers must unite against the ruling class and not settle for passive democratic reform.

"The Communist Manifesto," says basically, under capitalism all relationships are for personal gain and all interactions are transactions. That it's the workers' duty to use revolutionary means to overthrow the capitalists and then by any means necessary including with use of violence, to insure and install a communist society, abolish anything and everything that divides the people including but not limited to religion, nations, and family, to make participation in society obligatory, unite everyone rural to urban and continent to continent. And then surrender power to the people once the transition is completed into a stateless (international) communist society where all resistance and opposition (including that from anarchists) has been defeated. 

"The German Ideology Vol. 1, CH 1," implies that human existence is deeply influenced by the social and economic structures in which they live. That people's identities, actions, and thoughts are shaped by their environment suggesting a deterministic view of human nature. Capitalism is inherently exploitative, as it reduces all relationships to transactional exchanges, effectively enslaving individuals to the demands of the market. Communism offers a path to liberation, allowing individuals to control their own production and become part of a unified, international community. The abolition of private property and the state is necessary for the self-preservation of humanity, and the ruling communists must be altruistic in their governance. Ultimately, the chapter implies that a revolutionary transformation is necessary to achieve true freedom and equality, and that this transformation requires a fundamental shift in the way society is organized, from the abolition of religion and aspects of cultures, to certain political views as communism and its principles including athiesm, must be made the universal political ideology and be adopted into all cultures.

"Socialism, Utopian and Scientific," implies that agnosticism is materialism and that historical materialism explains the development of modern society is rooted in the struggle between different social classes, particularly the bourgeoisie and the working class. Suggesting that capitalism, which emerged from the feudal system, is characterized by inherent contradictions and antagonisms that inevitably lead to social crises and conflicts. That the ultimate solution to these problems lies in the establishment of a socialist society, in which the means of production are collectively owned and controlled by the working class. Requiring the proletariat to seize power, abolish private property, and establish a new mode of production based on social regulation and cooperation. This transformation is not only necessary but also inevitable, as the contradictions of capitalism will ultimately lead to its downfall. Furthermore, the development of socialist thought, from the early socialists like Saint-Simon and Fourier to Marx, has provided a scientifically grounded understanding of the mechanisms of capitalism and the means of overcoming it.

"What is to be done," Says economism is a form of opportunism that undermines the socialist movement's principles and tactics uses by democratic socialists. We need theoretical clarity, critical analysis, and debate within the socialist movements; along with a strong, centralized organization of revolutionaries, rather than the amateurish methods of the Economists. We need an ideological pure political news and information source to unite and organize the revolutionary movement. Remember, 'freedom of criticism' is used to justify opportunistic and revisionist tendencies. There is a difference between the narrow, economistic focus of reformist politics and the broader, revolutionary goals of politics. Lenin emphasized the importance of party honor and party ties, arguing that opportunism and individualism must be opposed, showing a need for a principled and disciplined approach to socialist politics. The establishment left have turned that into party before policy, how many times have we heard, "vote blue no matter what."

Consciousness in the working-class movement, as spontaneity alone is insufficient for revolutionary change. Socialist ideology must be introduced to the working class from outside, as it won't develop naturally. The working class requires guidance and leadership to achieve revolutionary goals. Economism is misguided and harmful to the socialist movement. Socialists must lead the working-class movement, providebsocialist consciousness and guiding it towards revolutionary goals, showing the necessity of a vanguard for the working-class movement. Marxist theory is essential for understanding the relationship between spontaneity and consciousness. Without a clear theoretical foundation, the movement risks being directionless and ineffective. A revolutionary vanguard, guided by Marxist theory and a clear program, is necessary for achieving socialist revolution and the transition to communism's vision for a stateless society. 

Socialists should focus on developing comprehensive political consciousness among the working class and all other classes. This requires conscious leadership, direction, and intervention in every sphere of social and political life. Dyelo's program was and is seen as insufficient because it views the political struggle as merely the most developed form of economic struggle. Socialists need to move beyond economism and develop a broad political strategy that prioritizes the interests of the working class and all other classes. To achieve this, Socialists should engage with all classes of society, not just the working class. Propaganda and agitation are crucial for spreading Socialist ideas and developing political consciousness. Intellectuals must play a vital role in providing political knowledge and leadership to the working-class movement. Comprehensive political exposure is necessary for revealing and criticizing the injustices and abuses of the ruling class. Martynov's views on exposure literature were and are seen as too narrow, focusing solely on economic struggles. Instead, literature should be used to develop comprehensive political consciousness. Organizing nationwide exposes the government's abuses and having a nation-wide press are essential for facilitating revolutionary activity. Ultimately, Socialists need to develop and apply a consistently Socialist theory to guide their work, combining conscious leadership, direction, and intervention with a deep understanding of revolutionary theory and history.

Astrong, centralized organization led by professional revolutionaries was necessary to overthrow the capitalist system and establish a socialist society. This organization should be separate from trade union organizations, which focus on improving workers' economic conditions. The organization of revolutionaries should be secret and exclusive, with strict selection of members and training of professional revolutionaries. Stressing the need for discipline, planning, and strategy to achieve movement goals, criticizing the tendency to worship spontaneity and the lack of struggle against the political police. Tradee union organizations should be broad and public, aiming to improve workers' economic conditions. Socialists should participate in trade union organizations to guide the movement. However, trade union organizations should maintain their independence from socialist organizations. Professional revolutionaries should lead the labor movement, with strategic planning and coordination, secrecy and security, discipline and organization, adapting to changing circumstances, and provide training and education for revolutionaries; this will increase the active participation of the masses and ultimately achieve revolutionary goals. By centralizing secret functions and promoting professional revolutionaries, this can withstand the pressures of the police and other enemies, and effectively lead the spontaneous struggle of the proletariat.

Leftist critics oppose the idea to create a central information source, saying it was and will be too focused on theory and not enough on action. Claiming detachment from the actual revolutionary work on the ground and promote "armchair ideas." The idea was and is meant to bring everyone together, create a unified movement, and provide a framework for people to work together. It's about creating a powerful tool for organizing and mobilizing people but irresponsible, reckless and unserious people have issues with that because they lack discipline and maturity needed for a revolution. The idea lenin had was an nformation network of agents who could maintain revolutionary work continuity, train in political awareness, and coordinate actions for a potential uprising. To create a more disciplined and adaptable organizational structure. Something left libertarian ideologies from libsocs ro Ancoms oppose. Lenin criticized them and others for being too negative and critical, saying they weren't offering any constructive solutions. Lenin and his followers knew it was all about creating a strong, unified movement that could make a real difference. The immediate task was to end the current period of disunity and compromise, emphasizing the need for ideological clarity meaning understanding of principles and values of communism needed for a revolution and organizational strength. Unifying the left under communist ideology with a clear plan, a central information source is key to making a revolutionary movement happen.

Lenin implied with "The State and Revolution" that socialist parties have been compromised by opportunism and social-chauvinism (My opinion: since at least 1917), adapting to the interests of national bourgeoisies and states. The struggle for workers' freedom requires a struggle against opportunist prejudices concerning the state. Those who deny the necessity of proletarian class struggle and socialist revolution are opportunists, and their methods are insufficient. A rejection of individualistic ideologies prioritizing personal gain over collective well-being and religious ideologies legitimizing oppression is imperative. Understanding the state's role in relation to the socialist proletarian revolution requires focusing on material concerns over spiritual ones. The state is a "special coercive force" that becomes unnecessary when class distinctions are abolished. A violent revolution to abolish the bourgeois state is necessary; afterward, the proletarian state will eventually "wither away" as democracy becomes more complete. The state machine must be smashed by the proletariat, who will establish a new, more democratic form of power. Marx's communist theory emphasizes the dictatorship of the proletariat as a transition to a classless society, which is distorted or ignored by opportunists who reduce Marxism to the theory of class struggle. True Marxist-Leninists recognize the necessity of the dictatorship of the proletariat, a distinction crucial in understanding the responses of opportunists and reformists.

Marx supported the Paris Commune, emphasizing that the working class cannot simply take control of the existing state machinery but must instead smash and destroy it. The Commune replaced the standing army with the armed people, made officials elected and subject to recall, and reduced their salaries to workmen's wages. These measures represented a shift from bourgeois to proletarian democracy, where the majority of people suppressed their oppressors. Representative institutions should be working bodies, not mere talking shops. The abolition of the standing army and the election and recall of officials were seen as a shift from bourgeois to proletarian democracy. Abolishing bureaucracy at once is unrealistic, but smashing the old bureaucratic machine and constructing a new one is feasible. This new machine would make possible the gradual abolition of all bureaucracy. Marx discussed the Commune's plan for national organization, where communes would elect a "National Delegation," transferring power from a central government to communal officials, making them strictly responsible. The Commune's discovery of a new political form, under which the economic emancipation of labor could take place, was a crucial breakthrough.

Marx's conclusions about the state were forgotten, and later socialists misunderstood or distorted his views. Marx and Engels critiqued the anarchists' views on authority and the state. Marx argued that the working class needs a temporary, revolutionary state to achieve its goals. Engels emphasized that authority is necessary in complex societies and that the state will disappear after the socialist revolution. Engels argued that the phrase "free people's state" is nonsensical, suggesting replacing the word "state" with "community," emphasizing that the state is a transitional institution used to suppress adversaries. Marxist-Leninists envision a future communist society where the need for violence and subordination would disappear. Engels distinguished between the "abolition of the state" and the "withering away of the state," emphasizing that the latter is a gradual process. The state, in the context of communist society, would undergo a transformation. Between capitalist and communist societies lies a transitional period, during which the state can only be the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. In this transitional period, democracy will become more complete, and the need for a special machine of suppression (the state) will begin to disappear. Eventually, communism will make the state absolutely unnecessary.

Marx noted that the first phase of communist society, often referred to as socialism, will still be stamped with the birthmarks of the old capitalist society. The means of production will be collectively owned, and people will receive goods and services based on the amount of labor they contribute. In the higher phase of communist society, people work according to their abilities and receive according to their needs. This phase is characterized by the absence of division of labor, inequality, and the state. The leading theoreticians of the Second International, including Plekhanov and Kautsky, failed to adequately address the question of the relation of the proletarian revolution to the state, evading or ignoring this crucial issue and leading to the distortion and vulgarization of Marxism. Kautsky's writings against opportunism revealed his systematic deviation from Marxism, particularly regarding the state. His failure to address the state's role in the revolution led to a complete swing towards opportunism. Kautsky's controversy with Pannekoek in 1912 further highlighted his retreat from Marxist principles. Pannekoek believed that the state machine must be destroyed and replaced by a new one, with the armed workers in control. Kautsky opposed this view, advocating for a democratic republic where the government would be elected by the people. Ultimately, the controversy between Kautsky and Pannekoek represented a fundamental divide within the socialist movement.

While Kautsky's views were seen as opportunistic and counter to Marxist principles, Pannekoek's views represented a revolutionary approach to socialism. This fundamental divide within the socialist movement highlights the irreconcilable differences between reformist, anarchist-revolutionary and communist-revolutionary approaches to achieving a socialist society and why a big tent between these three ideologies types cannot work but for a temporary amount of time. The second the revolution gets close, the reformists will side with the bourgeoisie to protect the system, and the anarchists will turn on the communists for their attempts to set on motion the replacement of the state. These three are temporary allies at best, each having different principles prioritizing different values and goals.

Lenin's "The Proletarian Revolution and The Renegade Kautsky" implies Kautsky distorted Marx's concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat, interpreting it as abolishing democracy rather than as a transitional phase from capitalism to communism. He redefined dictatorship as a "condition of domination," downplaying revolutionary violence. His emphasis on "pure democracy" and "universal suffrage" was naive, ignoring the class struggle and the role of violence. Kautsky's analysis of the Paris Commune was superficial, missing its lessons on smashing the bourgeois state. His liberal critique of capitalism ignored the violence and oppression inherent in bourgeois democracy, and he was silent on the treatment of striking workers, promoting a deceptive narrative about democracy. He failed to see that democracy under capitalism serves the ruling class, advocating for a meaningless "pure democracy" that obscured class struggle. Marx and Engels clarified that the state is a tool for the rich to exploit the poor, contrasting bourgeois democracy with the more inclusive proletarian democracy in Soviet Russia, where, for example, people elected judges and had more participatory governance. Kautsky's simplistic view of democracy, where the majority decides and the minority submits, ignored class complexities. His objection to Bolsheviks limiting the rich's voting rights contradicted Marx and Engels's views on breaking bourgeois resistance.

The transition to communism requires force against the resistance of the rich, whom Kautsky naively thought could be equal with the poor. He misinterpreted Marx and Engels, cherry-picking quotes to fit liberal ideals while ignoring the necessity of class suppression for proletarian victory. Kautsky's reluctance to see Soviets as state organizations reflected his petty-bourgeois worldview, fearing real class struggle. He misleadingly criticized the Bolsheviks for destroying democracy, ignoring the Soviet republic's advantages over parliamentary democracy. In the revolutionary context, formal rights were secondary to revolutionary interests. The Constituent Assembly was out of touch with the populace's shift towards the Bolsheviks, leading to its dispersal. Kautsky's formalistic approach missed this class analysis. Lenin criticized Kautsky for misunderstanding the Soviet Constitution's disfranchisement of the bourgeoisie, which was a response to their counter-revolutionary actions. Kautsky's internationalist views were reformist, contrasting with Lenin's support for revolutionary action over waiting for majority support. Lenin argued the Bolshevik seizure of power was crucial for global inspiration and for establishing a higher form of democracy. He also defended the grain requisition policy against Kautsky's criticisms, highlighting its necessity for urban survival and the war effort. Kautsky's arguments were seen as similar to those of counter-revolutionary bourgeois parties, lacking in practical revolutionary action. Lenin believed Kautsky's work was unnecessary in light of the German revolution, where power had shifted to workers' and soldiers' councils. 

Lastly, Lenin critiqued Vandervelde for misrepresenting Marxist concepts, illustrating the ideological bankruptcy of the Second International. Lenin offered a scathing critique of Émile Vandervelde's book "Socialism versus the State," viewing it as a clear sign of the ideological and practical bankruptcy of the Second International. Vandervelde, a prominent Belgian socialist and leader within the International, was accused by Lenin of using Marxist terminology and catchphrases not to advance socialism but to disguise his departure from revolutionary principles. Lenin's critique was part of a broader denouncement of the reformist tendencies within the Second International, which he believed had failed the working class by not preparing for or advocating true revolutionary change, especially during and after the events of World War I. This critique was not just about Vandervelde but was indicative of Lenin's broader disdain for what he saw as the opportunistic and reformist betrayal by many socialist leaders of that era, which in modern times can be paralleled by figures like Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and other members of "The Squad" in the U.S., who are often criticized for blending socialist rhetoric with actions that maintain capitalist structures and the status quo. This ideological battle underscored the split between those advocating for immediate revolutionary action and those preferring gradual reform within capitalist systems, a divide that would lead to the formation of the Third International (Comintern) under Lenin's leadership, aiming for a more militant, revolutionary approach to international socialism.

"The Historical Destiny of the Doctrine of Karl Marx" Showed there are three main periods in the development of Marxist doctrine. The first one, from 1848 to 1871, was all about pre-Marxian socialism. But then the revolution of 1848 and the Paris Commune happened, and it became clear that the proletariat was the real socialist force. This led to the creation of independent proletarian parties. The second period, from 1872 to 1904, was pretty quiet, with no major revolutions. Socialist parties started to form and learned how to use parliament and the press. Marxism became super popular, but then liberal opportunism showed up, pretending to be Marxist. These opportunists gave up on the class struggle and just wanted to make things better for workers within the existing system. To day these are your establishment left, your democratic socialists, progressives, and social democrats.The third period, starting in 1905, was a whole different story. The Russian revolution sparked a wave of revolutions across Asia. This period has been all about mass struggle, democratic independence, and the clear difference between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Both Europe and Asia have shown that liberalism is weak and fake, and that we need a strong, independent democratic movement. Throughout all these periods, Marxist doctrine has been proven right and has achieved some amazing successes. And the best part is, an even bigger triumph is waiting for Marxism in the future. For Lenin, the struggle for socialist ideals was global, with Asia and Europe working together. The main thing rhe implied Marx wanted us to focus on was to stay committed to the class struggle and Marxist principles, and not get fooled by liberal opportunism or non-class socialism.

"Opportunism and the collapse of the second international" by Lenin implied, the Second International failed to denounce the war, exposing its internal conflicts. The 1912 Basle Manifesto criticized imperialist wars, advocating for proletarian revolution by highlighting the capitalist motives behind these conflicts. However, some socialist leaders supported national war efforts, betraying socialist principles and revealing deep divisions within the movement. This period marked a clear split between revolutionary and opportunist socialism, with opportunism aligning openly with the bourgeoisie, leading to a necessary break from these opportunists to advance the proletarian struggle. The bourgeoisie cheered on socialist parties that turned opportunist, rewarding leaders with government positions or legal status for supporting imperialism. In Germany, the Social-Democratic Party became counter-revolutionary, with internal conflicts labeled "class hatred." Opportunists wanted to keep the old party unity that benefited the bourgeoisie. "Monitor" warned that moving further right would lead to a more radical new party. Kautsky tried to pacify militant workers with empty revolutionary talk. Engels criticized the Fabians for fearing revolution, while Kautsky pushed "ultra-imperialism," and Axelrod was seen as too cautious, talking revolution for the distant future but opposing it in the present.

Revolutionaries should urge workers to reject opportunists and engage in revolutionary action now, not wait. Kautsky and Axelrod's strategies were counter-revolutionary, protecting opportunists. David, a leading German opportunist, opposed turning the world war into civil war, unlike Lenin's proactive approach for revolution. David criticized revolutionary tactics as "folly," a view Plekhanov echoed, calling them a "farcical dream." However, tactics by Liebknecht and the Zimmerwald Left were necessary responses to the crisis, focusing on illegal organizations to spread truth and push for revolution, aiming for a proletarian victory. The Second International fell apart because of what Lenin called social-chauvinism, which was basically opportunism on steroids, where socialist parties cheered for their national war efforts, completely against what socialism should stand for. This was all part of a plan by the ruling class to water down the revolutionary spirit. Only the leaders got to vote on supporting the war, leaving the working class out in the cold. This split was necessary for the real revolutionaries to push forward, with Kautsky and others mixing opportunism with revolutionary talk, leading to ideological clashes. All this showed that for socialism to work, leaders need to stick to their guns, engage in real revolutionary action because after the war, class conflicts got sharper, and the masses were ready for something big.

"The Collapse of the Second International" Implied The International Socialist movement collapsed during World War I as its leaders failed to uphold socialist principles. Despite the Basle Manifesto of 1912 explicitly condemning imperialist wars, prominent figures like Karl Kautsky and Georgi Plekhanov supported their nations' war efforts, betraying socialist convictions with nationalist and imperialist rhetoric. They ignored or distorted the manifesto's call for opposition to such conflicts. Kautsky and Plekhanov justified their positions with simplistic arguments; Plekhanov with the "who started it?" approach, and Kautsky by claiming defending one's homeland was a right and duty, both misrepresenting Marxism to align with national interests. They overlooked the war's imperialist nature and the exploitation of the working class.

Kautsky's theory of "ultra-imperialism" suggested a new phase of capitalism where global finance capital would exploit the world without national conflicts, potentially leading to peace. However, this was criticized as an opportunist distortion, ignoring that imperialism is inherently tied to capitalism. His vision of peaceful democracy replacing imperialism was seen as naive, failing to recognize the escalating tensions within capitalism and the inevitability of further wars and revolutions. These ideas, part of "Struvism," were accused of stripping Marxism of its revolutionary essence, turning it into a tool for justifying collaboration with the bourgeoisie. Kautsky's theories were further critiqued for promoting division among the proletariat by favoring national opportunists over international solidarity.

The war revealed the deep-seated nationalist tendencies within the socialist movement, necessitating a re-examination of commitments to internationalism and anti-imperialism. Lenin criticized these leaders as social-chauvinists, highlighting the dire consequences of their actions: the fragmentation of the socialist movement and the rise of communist parties. The situation was ripe for revolution, with economic disparity and public unrest at its peak, yet leaders like Kautsky and Karl Legien chose to prioritize maintaining legal organizations over revolutionary action, fearing dissolution and arrests. This was seen as opportunistic and a betrayal of socialist ideals, advocating instead for a blend of legal and illegal methods, as exemplified by Russian Social-Democrats.

The betrayal of socialist principles by leaders of the Second International during World War I wasn't merely theoretical; it had profound practical implications. The war's exposure of opportunism necessitated a complete organizational severance of these elements from workers' parties. The epoch of imperialism couldn't accommodate both revolutionary proletarians and semi-petty-bourgeois aristocrats within the same party. Kautsky's "golden mean" theory, which used Marxist catchwords to justify opportunist practices, was seen as a significant deception of the workers. Amidst the war, the proletariat, previously disunited by chauvinism and martial law, began to develop revolutionary sentiments, with the potential for a sudden change in mood similar to the "Gaponade" in Russia in 1905. 

Lenin's "Imperialism and the split on Socialism" Implied By the early 20th century, imperialism in America and Europe had hit its peak, turning into what was called monopoly, parasitic, and decaying capitalism. A few "Great" Powers were exploiting millions in less developed nations. Karl Kautsky had this idea that imperialism was just a finance capital policy, but that was seen as a weak definition since it didn't connect the dots between imperial politics and economics. His theory was criticized for being more about justifying a comfy, reformist approach than following true Marxism. Meanwhile, the Russian Kautskyites like Axelrod, Martov, and Trotsky kept quiet on this whole Kautskyism issue. On the flip side, J.A. Hobson from England hit the nail on the head, pointing out how imperialism was all about economic parasitism, where richer countries sucked resources from their colonies to spoil their own elites and keep their workers happy enough not to rock the boat. He warned about this creating a kind of Western parasitism, where the rich countries would live off the tribute from places like Asia and Africa, potentially leading to a future where the actual industries would vanish, replaced by goods from colonies. Marx and Engels had already seen this coming in England, where the industrial boom meant British workers got better deals, but at the cost of becoming too cozy with the bosses, leading to what they called a "bourgeois labor party." This party was more about keeping the bourgeoisie happy than fighting for workers.

As the 20th century rolled in, new powers like the US, France, and Germany joined the imperialist game, competing for more territories and resources, which just meant more exploitation for colonized folks. The rich used this wealth to keep labor leaders in their pockets, creating these "bourgeois labor parties" that weren't really for the workers. The message was clear: the labor movement needed to wake up, reject these bribes from the rich, and get back to truly representing the working class. This meant a big shake-up in how labor movements operated, focusing on class struggle rather than playing nice with the bosses. The political scene was all about manipulating the masses with promises and lies, with figures like Lloyd George in England or Scheidemann and Plekhanov elsewhere using their clout to keep workers loyal to the bourgeoisie, not their own class. Despite the spin, the workers weren't buying it, increasingly seeing through these leaders. The Kautskyites tried to smooth things over between workers and these "bourgeois" parties, but it was a lost cause. Marx and Engels had warned of this opportunism, noting how even trade unions, supposed to be for the workers, got corrupted. Engels made a point to call out the difference between the sold-out "bourgeois labor party" and the real working class, those not caught up in being "respectable." 

The core of Marxist strategy was to fight against this opportunism by making the working class aware of how they were being misled. This meant highlighting the betrayals by leaders who were more interested in keeping their own privileges than in advancing the workers' cause. The goal was to educate the masses about their genuine political interests, steering them away from the false promises of the bourgeoisie and towards true class solidarity. This fight involved a lot of grassroots work, like organizing, educating, and agitating. It was about showing workers that the so-called "labor leaders" were often just part of the system they were supposed to be fighting against. By revealing how these leaders were defending only the temporary advantages of a small segment of workers, Marxists aimed to unite the broader working class under a revolutionary banner. The strategy included leveraging events like strikes, protests, and economic downturns to demonstrate the failures of capitalism under imperialism. It was about building a movement that wouldn't be co-opted by the bourgeoisie, one that genuinely represented the interests of all workers, not just a privileged few. This meant advocating for internationalism over nationalism, recognizing that workers worldwide shared common enemies in the form of imperialist powers. Ultimately, the aim was to prepare the proletariat for a revolution that would dismantle the capitalist structures of imperialism. This wasn't just about economic reform but about a total transformation of society, where the workers would take control of production and governance, ending the exploitation both at home and abroad. It was about creating a world where the interests of the many would finally outweigh the interests of the few, ushering in an era of true socialism.

"Certain features of the historical development of Marxism," Implied Marxism, as emphasized by Engels, was not a dogma, but a guide to action. However, this aspect of Marxism was often lost sight of, leading to a one-sided and distorted understanding of the doctrine. In Russia, the years leading up to the early 20th century saw abrupt changes in the social and political situation, necessitating a re-evaluation of Marxist principles. These changes can be divided into two distinct three-year periods: one ending around 1907 and the other around 1910. The first period was marked by rapid changes in the state system, with various classes actively engaging in different fields. This led to a clash between two different tendencies in Russia's bourgeois development, forcing Marxists to provide theoretical formulations corresponding to these tendencies.

In contrast, the second period was characterized by stagnation, with medieval diehards propagating a spirit of dejection and recantation. This led to a loss of faith in reforms and a growing interest in anti-social doctrines and mysticism. The change from one period to the other was a natural consequence of the preceding period's events. As a living guide to action, Marxism reflected the changes in the conditions of social life. However, this led to a profound disintegration and disunity among Marxists, with various trends and ideologies emerging. The crisis of Marxism was characterized by a revision of its philosophical fundamentals, the influence of bourgeois philosophy, and the prevalence of empty phrase-mongering. Un-Marxist trends emerged, including otzovism and the recognition of otzovism as a "legal shade" of Marxism. The spirit of renunciation and liberalism also permeated some Marxist trends. The purpose of the article was to illustrate the depth of the crisis and its connection to the social and economic situation.

The questions raised by this crisis could not be brushed aside, and it was essential to rally all Marxists who realized the profundity of the crisis and the necessity of combating it. This required a resolute resistance to disintegration and a struggle to uphold the fundamentals of Marxism. The dialectics of historical development reflected the astonishingly abrupt change in the conditions of social life. This change was reflected in profound disintegration and disunity, in every manner of vacillation, and in a very serious internal crisis of Marxism. Resolute resistance to this disintegration and a resolute struggle to uphold the fundamentals of Marxism were again placed on the order of the day. The repetition of "slogans" learnt by rote but not understood had led to empty phrase-mongering and un-Marxist trends. The first three years had awakened wide sections to a conscious participation in social life, sections that were now beginning to acquaint themselves with Marxism in real earnest. The bourgeois press was creating far more fallacious ideas on this score than ever before, and was spreading them more widely. Under these circumstances, disintegration in the Marxist ranks was particularly dangerous. Therefore, to understand the reasons for the inevitability of this disintegration at the present time and to close their ranks for consistent struggle against this disintegration was, in the most direct and precise meaning of the term, the task of the day for Marxists.

"Marxism and Revisionism," implied that In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Marxism faced significant resistance due to its implications for capitalist societies. Marxist doctrines, advocating for the enlightenment, organization, and revolution of the working class, met opposition from bourgeois scholars and theologians. Marxism contended with philosophical idealism, economic theories like Proudhonism, and other socialist factions. As Marxism influenced labor movements, it clashed with anarchism and other ideologies within workers' organizations like the International.

By the 1890s, Marxism had largely triumphed within the labor movement, with Latin countries adopting Marxist principles. However, revisionism, led by figures like Bernstein, challenged traditional Marxism. Revisionists proposed amendments, suggesting capitalism could evolve without revolutionary overthrow, citing new economic developments like cartels and trusts. Orthodox Marxists, like Plekhanov, critiqued revisionism as theoretically unsound, blurring class consciousness and diluting revolutionary potential. Marxist thinkers emphasized class struggle, dialectical materialism, and historical determinism, advocating for workers' enlightenment and organization.

The debates between revolutionary Marxism and revisionism highlighted fundamental disagreements about capitalism's future, class conflict, and socialism's path. Orthodox Marxists saw revisionism as a threat to revolutionary potential, while revisionists argued for democratic reforms. This ideological struggle reflected broader societal tensions between capitalist evolution and socialist revolution.

"Marxism and reformism," Implied Marxists were okay with fighting for reforms, things that made workers' lives better without upending the capitalist system. But they had a major issue with reformists, who were all about chasing small victories without aiming for the big overthrow. Reformism was and still are seen as the bourgeoisie's way of pacifying workers, keeping them content with their lot as wage slaves. The liberal elite would and still offer reforms but then claw them back or use them to keep workers divided and under control. Even if reformists were sincere, in practice, their ideas just diluted the workers' revolutionary spirit. History showed that those who bought into reformism ended up getting played.

However, workers who really understood Marx knew that under capitalism, reforms were just temporary fixes. They used these reforms to sharpen their fight against wage slavery. Reformists tried to distract workers with small gains, but those who saw through the trickery used reforms to fortify their class struggle. These reformist tactics are that of the modern Labour Party (UK), Democratic Party (US), and Liberal Party (CAN) who continue to derail worker revolutionary progress.

The more reformist ideas took hold among workers, the weaker their fight became, making it easier for the bourgeoisie to undo any progress. But when workers maintained their independence and kept broader goals in sight, they were better at keeping and using these reforms. Reformists were everywhere, trying to lull workers into complacency. In Russia, the liquidators were the reformists, pushing for a legal party and forgetting the revolutionary past. When they had to defend themselves, their arguments didn't hold up. 

For example, Sedov from the liquidators dropped two of Marx's key demands, keeping only the eight-hour day, which was just a reform. Their big conference did the same, pushing non-reformist demands to the sidelines. They even criticized workers' movements that aimed beyond reformism, dismissing them as foolish. In practice, while the liquidators claimed not to be all about reforms, their actions told a different story. Meanwhile, Marxists were on the ground, not just advocating for but strategically using reforms in elections, union activities, and legal fights.

By abandoning Marxism, the liquidators were just muddling the workers' movement. They also tried to equate Russia's political situation with Europe's, ignoring Russia's unique history and struggles. In Europe, reformism meant ditching Marxism for a bourgeois social policy, but in Russia, it meant undermining the Marxist organization and settling for a liberal-labor approach, which was a step back from true revolutionary aims.

“Left-Wing” Communism: an Infantile Disorder Implied, The Russian Revolution of 1917, led by the Bolsheviks, had far-reaching implications beyond Russia's borders. Lenin believed the revolution's core elements had universal relevance, but acknowledged that Russia's status as a revolutionary model would likely diminish once the proletarian revolution succeeded in more developed countries.

The Bolsheviks' success was attributed to their strict discipline, centralized approach, and close ties with the working class. Their strategic flexibility and critical analysis of political situations allowed them to navigate revolutionary politics and shape Marxist thought and practice for decades to follow.

The Russian Revolution demonstrated the importance of adapting strategies to specific contexts. The Bolsheviks' cautious approach allowed them to seize power in 1917. In Germany, Communist Party infighting occurred between mainstream and opposition groups. The opposition advocated for a proletarian dictatorship and criticized parliamentary methods, but their stance was seen as simplistic. The Bolsheviks emphasized engaging with trade unions and participating in parliamentary activities to educate and organize workers, approaches the German "Left" Communists rejected.

The "Dutch-Left" and German "Left" Communists' rejection of parliamentary participation and compromise was criticized for its historical inaccuracies and logical fallacies. The Bolsheviks, on the other hand, emphasized the importance of combining legal and illegal struggle, and engaging in all levels of workers' organizations.

The "Left" Communists' approach was seen as simplistic, dismissing parliaments and rejecting compromise, which could alienate the party from the broader working class and small peasants. They also lacked strategic thinking, failing to recognize the need for temporary alliances and tactical maneuvers to strengthen their position and educate the masses.

The Bolsheviks' approach, in contrast, emphasized strategic flexibility and compromise. They believed in combining legal and illegal struggle, using both parliamentary and non-parliamentary means to advance the revolutionary cause. They also participated in all levels of workers' organizations to educate and organize workers towards socialism, using temporary alliances and tactical maneuvers to strengthen their position, educate the masses, and isolate opportunists.

In the early 1920s, Britain's communist movement gained momentum, but disagreements arose over parliamentary participation and Labour Party affiliation. The "Left" opposed parliament, viewing it as a compromise with reactionary forces, driven by a hatred for bourgeois politicians and a desire for direct communism. However, critics argued that this approach lacked strategy and that working within existing structures like Parliament was necessary to expose leadership inadequacies and prepare the masses for communism.

The proposed strategy for British Communists involved uniting into a single party, participating in parliamentary elections, and possibly forming tactical agreements with Labour leaders. This approach aimed to increase visibility, demonstrate parliamentary democracy's limitations, and advance Soviet-style governance.

The Russian Revolution of 1905 marked a significant chapter in world history, showcasing the proletariat's influence. The emergence of Soviets challenged bourgeois parliamentarianism and democracy, inspiring a global working-class movement against Menshevism and Left-wing communism. The Third International gained ground, defeating the Second International, and Communists had to adapt tactics to engage broader masses and navigate complex class dynamics.

"Anti-Dühring by Frederick Engels 1877 Part III: Socialism" Implied Marx, as explained by Engels, criticized utopian socialists like Saint-Simon, Fourier, and Owen as unrealistic dreamers. Their idealized solutions ignored economic realities, history, and class struggle. Society is shaped by production and trade, and its structures evolve with economic changes. Capitalism replaced feudalism but now faces similar contradictions, with workers bearing the brunt of crises, unemployment, and inequality caused by its inability to manage productivity. The solution is for society, not just workers, to control production, aligning it with its social nature to end chaos and enable planned progress for all. The proletariat's mission is universal emancipation, and scientific socialism provides the theoretical framework to understand and achieve this.

Herr Dühring's economic commune was deeply flawed. Its principle of "equal labor for equal labor" led to accumulation, inequality, and exploitation, while its use of money enabled usury. The idea of "true value" was impractical, as labor cannot have a separate value, and paying workers the "full proceeds of labor" was unworkable. Dühring's proposal undermined socialist principles and failed to address economic realities.

Dühring's vision of a future society was authoritarian and regressive. It (rightfully, my opinion) banned religion but also restricted or regulated individual freedom (which is only okay if done right, again my opinion), and imposed a rigid, narrow education system focused on outdated sciences and his own philosophy. His moralistic views on marriage and relationships lacked practical guidance and emphasized an abstract "perfection of the human form." Dühring's sexist and hypocritical stance on women's experiences ignored their realities, criticizing prostitution and marital double standards without understanding their lives. His ideas, likely influenced by personal limitations, were unrealistic, outdated, and disconnected from human experiences.

"The foundation of Leninism," an extension of Marxism developed by Vladimir Lenin, focuses on imperialism's contradictions and the revolutionary potential of the working class to overthrow capitalism and establish socialism. Emerging in Russia, it addresses global imperialism, highlighting monopolistic corporations, financial group struggles, and the exploitation of colonized peoples. Leninism is a dynamic, adaptable theory of proletarian revolution, emphasizing tactics like mass mobilization, political general strikes, and the need for the working class to seize power in favorable conditions. It tests theoretical ideas in real-world struggles, reorganizes party work through self-criticism, and trains new leaders under proletarian rule, recognizing that both capitalists and the working class may prioritize self-interest over humanity in the modern era.

Lenin transformed the imperialist war into a civil war, critiquing the ineffective Second International and emphasizing party sincerity, learning from mistakes, and focusing on finance capital's dominance, capital export, and the financial oligarchy's power. He viewed these as exposing monopolistic capitalism's parasitic nature, driving the masses toward revolution. Considering the global economy, Lenin argued that imperialism's chain breaks at its weakest links, with bourgeois-democratic revolutions leading to proletarian ones. He rejected "permanent revolution," insisting power must transfer to the proletariat after exhausting peasant revolutionary energy. The dictatorship of the proletariat, a ruthless war against the bourgeoisie, is essential for socialism, tasked with breaking resistance, organizing construction, and arming against foreign enemies in a long, conflict-ridden transition from capitalism to communism.

Soviet power, uniting local Soviets into a state led by the proletariat, combines legislative and executive functions to dismantle bureaucratic and judicial remnants, drawing masses into democratic administration for labor emancipation. Leninism shaped Soviet power, recognizing the peasantry's revolutionary potential, leading to the 1917 February Revolution. Post-consolidation, Lenin prioritized economic tasks like strengthening nationalized industry and linking it with the peasant economy through co-operatives, supported by state initiatives like the Flax Centre, viewing small peasants as allies in building socialism.

On the national question, Leninism links self-determination to anti-imperialism, subordinating national rights to proletarian revolution and judging movements by their impact on imperialism. It divides the world into oppressor and oppressed nations, requiring unity against imperialism for a single world economic system, with the October Revolution succeeding due to imperialist distractions. Lenin emphasized strategic leadership—utilizing reserves, concentrating forces, and choosing the right moment—while tactical leadership mastered all struggle forms, focusing on central tasks. Revolutionaries see reforms as by-products to strengthen revolution, unlike reformists who prioritize them, making alliance impossible.

The Party, central to Leninism, is the proletariat's highest organizational form, providing political leadership, training workers, and maintaining iron discipline to achieve and sustain the dictatorship of the proletariat. Combining Russian revolutionary sweep with American efficiency, Leninism avoids empty schemes and narrow practicalism, emphasizing revolutionary perspective in daily work to produce the ideal Leninist worker. This theory underscores the need for a revolutionary party, Soviet power as the bourgeois state’s gravedigger, and support for oppressed nations, driving a global, class-conscious movement toward socialism.

"On Contradiction," says materialist dialectics, led by Lenin, studies internal contradictions within objects, guided by the law of contradiction and the essence of dialectics, which holds that development arises from the unity of opposites. Two world outlooks exist: metaphysics, viewing things as isolated and static, and dialectics, seeing development as the interplay of opposites. Contradictions drive all things’ development, with a movement of opposites persisting from beginning to end, each form of motion and society shaped by its specific contradiction and essence.

The universality of contradiction means it exists in all development processes and involves a constant interplay of opposites. However, the particularity of contradiction requires deeper study: in complex systems, multiple contradictions coexist, with one principal contradiction determining or influencing others, its dominant aspect defining the system’s main characteristics. Contradictions evolve through leaps, where new aspects supersede old ones, and understanding both principal and non-principal contradictions and aspects is essential for shaping strategic and tactical policies.

The identity of opposites describes their coexistence and potential transformation into each other under specific conditions, while antagonism emerges as a form of struggle when contradictions reach a critical stage. In class society, revolutions and revolutionary wars are inevitable, requiring Communists to expose reactionary propaganda and analyze each struggle’s unique conditions. The law of contradiction, or unity of opposites, is the fundamental law governing nature, society, and thought, opposing the metaphysical outlook and marking a revolutionary shift in human knowledge.

"Anti-Duhring Part I: Philosophy," says Herr Dühring’s philosophy was criticized for its idealism, lack of originality, and failure to engage with materialism, sharing a structure and perspective similar to Hegel’s idealism. His views on mathematics, reality, and being were contradictory, with a flawed concept of infinity and an inconsistent definition of life. Critics also found his ideas on the organic world, sensation, and pleasure/pain lacking in depth, revealing a simplistic and unoriginal approach.

Dühring’s concept of equality, rooted in abstract ideas rather than real social relations, was deemed ideological and detached from material conditions. His attempt to apply mathematical certainty to social sciences further highlighted his metaphysical thinking, while his misinterpretation of Marx’s "negation of the negation" and failure to account for motion, change, and contradiction exposed methodological flaws. These inconsistencies undermined his claims of a comprehensive worldview, revealing a philosophy limited by his own knowledge and biases.

"Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy," Says Hegel’s philosophy revolutionized thought by revealing the transitory nature of all things, but its systematic limits led to the rise of the Young Hegelians. Feuerbach advanced materialism by recognizing the material world as the sole reality, a step beyond Hegel’s idealism, but his philosophy remained constrained by his era. Unable to fully escape abstraction, he rejected responsibility for the shallow materialism of natural scientists, and his philosophy of religion and ethics exposed lingering idealism, with his views on morality lacking depth and originality.

Feuerbach’s historical conception of nature was limited, and he remained bound by traditional idealist thinking in social domains, failing to address the central philosophical question of the relation between thinking and being comprehensively. Marx overcame these limitations, replacing Feuerbach’s abstract focus on "man" with a science of real people and their historical development. He identified class struggles, driven by economic forces, as the engine of history, revealing interconnections that ended philosophy’s speculative role in historical analysis.

Marx recognized the state’s role in enforcing class supremacy, transforming the oppressed class’s fight into a political struggle against the ruling class. His historical materialism marked a significant leap, grounding philosophy in the concrete dynamics of class conflict and economic conditions, surpassing the idealist constraints of Hegel and Feuerbach.

"Theses On Feuerbach," goes on to say Feuerbach’s materialism, limited to viewing reality as an object of contemplation rather than human practice, failed to grasp sensuous activity as objective and practical. While idealism abstractly developed the active side, it overlooked real, sensuous human activity. Feuerbach distinguished sensuous objects from thought objects but couldn’t conceive human essence as the ensemble of social relations, abstracting from historical processes and fixing religious sentiment as an isolated, abstract phenomenon, reducing it to a generic "genus" rather than a social product.

This contemplative materialism neglected that circumstances are changed by people and that educators themselves need educating, dividing society into superior and inferior parts. The truth of thinking, a practical rather than theoretical question, must be proven in practice, rendering disputes over isolated thought scholastic. Feuerbach resolved the religious world into its secular basis but failed to address the self-contradictions within that basis, missing that all social life is inherently practical and that mysteries leading to mysticism find resolution in human practice.

Marx overcame these limits, recognizing that the coincidence of changing circumstances and human activity is revolutionary practice, not mere interpretation. While Feuerbach’s materialism contemplated single individuals and civil society, Marx’s new materialism embraced human society as social humanity, driven by class struggles and historical development. Philosophers had only interpreted the world; the point was to change it.

"Value Price and Profit," notes Marx argued that both production and wages are variable, shaped by changes in how goods are produced and distributed. He emphasized that workers should have the right to organize and fight for higher wages, rejecting the idea that wage increases automatically raise prices. Instead, he argued that the outcome depends on factors like shifts in production and economic conditions. Marx analyzed the broader effects of a general rise in wages, noting that while prices might temporarily increase, the real impact would be a reduction in capitalists' profit rates. Using historical examples, such as rising wages in 19th-century England, he showed that higher wages did not lead to economic collapse.

Marx’s analysis highlighted the complexity of wage dynamics. He argued that a commodity’s value is determined by the amount of socially necessary labor required to produce it, not by wages. He clarified that profits come from selling goods at their true value, which reflects the labor embedded in them, not from overcharging buyers. Marx distinguished between labor and labor power, explaining that workers sell their ability to work, i.e. labor power to capitalists, not the work itself. Capitalists extract surplus value from this labor power, which they then divide into profits, rent, and interest. Marx rejected the idea that a commodity’s value is simply the sum of wages, profits, and rent. Instead, he showed that its value comes from the labor added during production, minus the cost of raw materials and tools. This value remains the same, no matter how it is split between workers and capitalists.

Marx explored how changes in productivity and living standards affect the value of labor. He noted that limits on working hours have only been achieved through laws, while actual wages depend on the balance of supply and demand. He warned that capitalism naturally pushes wages down over time, eroding workers' living standards. To address this, Marx argued that a general rise in wages would reduce profit rates but not ruin the economy. He urged trade unions to fight for better wages and, ultimately, to work toward abolishing the wage system entirely, freeing the working class from exploitation.

"Anti-Dühring Part II: Political Economy," Implies Herr Dühring’s ideas were flawed and he, himself deserved dismissal. Political economy studied how societies produced, exchanged, and distributed goods and services. It was a historical science because these processes varied across time and place. The methods of production and exchange determined how goods were distributed, which often led to conflicts between social classes over wealth and power.

Economic development, not political force, drove changes in production and exchange. The separation of property from labor resulted from economic conditions, not coercion. These conditions also shaped warfare and military development. Historically, communities cultivated land under shared ownership. As these communities grew, common interests and social roles gave rise to class divisions. The incorporation of outsiders as labor forces, often through slavery, further entrenched these class relationships.

Human society evolved when family labor produced more than needed for survival, creating a surplus. This surplus laid the foundation for economic and social change. The anticipated social revolution aimed to transform production into a shared resource, stripping the privileged class of its control. The value of commodities depended on the human labor required to produce them. Capital, which emerged in the 16th century, originated from money and marked a historical phase driven by surplus labor. This surplus labor became surplus value, a concept Marx carefully distinguished from profit, grounding it in historical and economic context.

"Capital Vol 1.," is a book of redundancies; if you have the patience to take notes from a book that each chapter is a novel in itself, feel free. It's an 11-hour audio book and very repetitive with my neurodivergences; it makes me not wanna read it. It's concepts and points get lost on the redundancy that is Marx's writing. Luckily, you probably already know a good portion of it from the other twenty some odd books. Anyhow, this is my logic, and a brief, and I do mean brief summary of capitalism.

People often say capitalists, those who own businesses and control money, don't serve any useful purpose, but I think they could if they weren't focused on owning things, exploiting workers and hoarding wealth, i.e. being capitalists. In theory, capitalists should save or create time for workers by organizing how goods and services are made, moved, and sold, so workers can focus on their jobs without worrying about those details; they should act like representatives, neutral administrators for workers, facilitating commerce fairly, not acting as their owner or ruler but instead as a service provider, a worker.

Marx explains that's not how it works. Instead, capitalists have twisted this role into an exploitive system where they profit by stealing from workers, paying them less than the value of what they make, and overworking them, treating them like cattle, creating the oppressive economy we see today. Marx provides the reasons why capitalism must be repealed and replaced with communism through a transitional phase; he shows that only systemic change can end this exploitation and violation of humanity and the planet itself.

Capital is about how money and work shape our world. Marx says that in a capitalist system, capitalists own the factories, tools, and businesses, while workers, better known as wage slaves in the 21st century, have to work for them to earn a living. Capitalists make money by paying workers less than the value of what they produce. For example, if one makes a $10 toy but only gets paid $2, the boss keeps the extra $8 as profit. This "extra" is called surplus value, and it's how capitalists get rich.

Marx explains this system is unfair and a human rights violation because it exploits workers, making them work long hours for little pay, while capitalists get richer without doing much. This system also causes problems like poverty, inequality, homelessness, and death by design; anyone reading this can look around at the problems in the world and see it. Marx shows workers should fight for a fairer world where everyone shares the wealth they create together, promoting equity, egalitarianism, and collectivism.

"Imperialism the Highest Stage of Capitalism," Says In 1916, a pamphlet explained that capitalism caused World War I because big countries fought (and are still fighting today) over colonies and financial power. However, some socialists ignored (and still ignore) how this imperialism, where rich nations exploit weaker ones for profit, leads to revolution. Starting in the 1860s, especially in Germany and the US, businesses grew massive. By the 1900s, monopolies controlled everything: prices, production, and profits. They caused chaos by cutting supplies or slashing prices to stay in charge. Banks got (and remain) incredibly powerful, merging with industries to create "finance capital." This let them decide who succeeds or fails through loans, spreading this control worldwide to seize resources and colonies, which sparked endless conflicts.

Imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism, where a few rich countries dominate through five key features: giant companies ruling industries, banks and industries merging into finance capital, sending money abroad to make more money, global monopolies dividing markets, and carving up the world into colonies. This system makes rich countries lazy, living off interest and dividends. They use huge profits to bribe some workers, dividing the working class. Some workers get benefits (and often become opportunistic), but most face unemployment, extreme poverty, and even death, trapped in a cycle of exploitation.

From 1862 to 1914, Britain, France, and Germany invested heavily abroad, spreading finance capital and dividing the world, much like America and its allies do in the 21st century. This fueled colonial struggles and oppression. Imperialism causes decay and stagnation, making capitalism "moribund" (dying) because it is driven solely by profits and power, leading to exploitation and conflict. It bribed (and still bribes) workers to keep the system alive, especially in Britain. However, this divides workers and hides the fact that capitalism's vast, connected production clashes with its outdated private ownership. Lenin warned this dying system would collapse, sparking revolution as oppressed nations and workers fight back against its greed and chaos. Yet in the 21st century, figures like Bernie Sanders and AOC defend the system by pushing reforms. They stand as roadblocks between revolutionaries and the end of oppression, delaying the collapse Lenin foresaw. This delay has allowed the rise of fascism, a direct result of capitalism's decay and the refusal to bury it once and for all.