Marxist-Leninism, A Hive-Mind Understanding

What one needs to understand when getting into communism (my notes are a growing work in progress, as I read. Every written before the study guide was my thoughts after about reading the first ten writings and my understanding of communism at the time, which is pretty much been strengthened by what I've read.)

Marxism-Leninism study guide notes. Below will be the list in the from the guide and notes on each. As who wants to read the entire writing, when one can skip to the main points. But first I am starting with the most basic principles and personality traits communism either supports or opposes. If one understand these, one has a basic understanding of communism. Theory is good to know but it's more for explaining it to and leading others.

1. Communism promotes aspects of these principles even it if criticizes the ideology:
    - Humanism
    - Humanitarianism
    - Egalitarianism
    - Scientism
    - Rationalism
    - Intellectualism
    - Proportionalism
    - Philosophy
    - Secularism
    - Deontology (Duty)
    - Kantianism  (Morality)

    - Antitheism

    - Anti-religious

    - Light Triad Thought

    - Democratic Centralism

    - On The Left

    - Left-Authoritian (Parental/guardianship)

These principles create a society that values human dignity, reason, and freedom, while fostering community and social responsibility. Prioritizing fairness, critical thinking, and evidence-based decision-making, aiming for a just, equitable, and enlightened world.

2. It opposes the principles of:
    - Egoism
    - Social Darwinism
    - Irrationalism
    - Opportunism
    - solipsism
    - Autarchism
    - Selfish Volunteerism
    - Sacralism

    - Sectarianism

    - Separatism

    - Segregational

    - Dark Triad Thought

    - Democratic Confederalism

    - On The Right

    - Left-Libertarian (irresponsiblity/Kleptocommunalist)

Opposition to these principles prevents a society that prioritizes self-interest over collective well-being, exploiting and harming others for personal gain. It stops a world where power and manipulation reign, and empathy and reason are ignored.

3. It promotes individualism that is:
    - Empathic
    - Sympathetic
    - Altruistic
    - Selfless
    - Humane
    - Benevolent
    - Supererogative
    - Philosophical
    - Inquisitive
    - Conscientious

    - Subservient

    - Light Triad

    - Collective minded

Promoting these characteristics fosters a culture of compassion, kindness, generosity, and a quest for enlightenment, recognizing our interconnectedness and oneness, and creating a harmonious and united society.

4. It opposes individualism that is:
    - Machiavellian
    - Megalomaniac
    - Narcissistic
    - Predatory Narcissistic
    - Psychopathic
    - Sociopathic
    - Sacralistic

    - Sectarian

    - Separatist

    - Segregationist

    - Despotic

    - Egoist

    - Dark Triad

    - Harmful (especially to the collective)

Opposing these characteristics prevents and abolishes cultures of manipulation, exploitation, and division, fueled by self-interest, conflict, and disunity, and disregard for our shared humanity and interconnectedness.

5. It prioritizes an uncompromising duty and collective obligation to:
    - Humanity
    - The planet
    - Collective well-being

An understanding that nothing and no one is more important than the collective well-being of humanity and the planet and that nothing will ever change that understanding.

6. Communism promotes:
    - Addressing human rights violations
    - Valuing labor and promoting fair compensation and working conditions
    - Abolishing capitalism's effects on society and humanity
    - Creating a humane and altruistic system with equal opportunities and collective ownership
    - Liberating humanity from oppression, exploitation, and human rights violations
    - Uniting people for collective well-being and global solidarity
    - Abolishing private property, segregation, and alienation
    - Prioritizing human needs, education, and critical thinking
    - Achieving revolution through conscious leadership and mass movements
    - Promoting humanist democracy, communal ownership, and collective decision-making
    - Eliminating exploitation, oppression, and human rights violations
    - Abolishing individual sovereignties that divide, oppress, and violate humanity
    - Promoting collective sovereignty of humanity as a whole
    - Maintaining and sharing resources, promoting collective stewardship and protection of the planet
    - Force and violence are sometimes needed and always an option, and must be proportionate to protect humanity or the planet

Collective oneness and obligatory stewardship of humanity and the planet by the collective whole of humanity or bust; having divided humanity into groups for any reason is anti-oneness, and no people who believe in oneness can support the division of humanity or the sectarian control and stewardship of any area on the planet. Oneness means we are all one.

Collectivism (Noun): The idea that the fundamental unit of the human species that lives, thinks, and acts towards common goals is not the individual but some group. Collectivism is not limited in size and can include the entirety of the human species, and the collective acts as a superorganism, separate from individuals and individual groups, finding its strength in unity.

Humanism (Noun): A form of collectivism and way of life centered on human interests, values, and well-being, especially a philosophy that rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual's dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason, logic, equity, egalitarianism, and naturalism, as opposed to religious dogma, supernaturalism, and other individual segregational, separatist, sectarian, identity politic groupings.

Communism (Noun): An altruistic, equitable-egalitarian system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, with actual ownership ascribed to the community as a whole. It is characterized by a light triad-minded, classless society, achieved via a transitional process to statelessness, and the equal distribution of economic goods. It is to be achieved by revolutionary and dictatorial (parental authority/guardianship) collectivism rather than gradualistic means. The ultimate and final form of humanism. And in the 21st century, communism can now only truly function via a hive-mind, via ultra-international democratic centralism, due to the capitalist indoctrination that has infected every aspect of humanity, culture, religion, and individualism alike.

A merging of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hoxha, Guevara, Trotsky, Chief Joseph, Chief Seattle, Black Elk, and others' thoughts is necessary for the continued existence of humanity.

Side note: All systems, ideologies, and beliefs are from philosophical thought that everything is seen through, typically but not always affected by dialectical materialism. To our anarcho-comrades, we must achieve democratic centralism and rehabilitate people to a light triad mind before we can attempt the stateless democratic confederalism, not before: it works partially for Kurdistan because that is a remote sectarian-controlled area of Earth.

True collectivism is hive-mind collectivism; a hive-mind collectivist is an ultra-international communist. Ultra Communism is Ultra Democratic-Centralism. Ultra democratic centralism is collective oneness and obligatory stewardship spoken of in Indigenous thought.

Rule One: Absolutely no environmental or human rights violations are acceptable. Humanity as a whole comes before the individual, with no exceptions and no excuses.

Rule Two: Loyalty is to humanity, the planet, and these rules, with allegiance to the innocent. There will no longer be loyalty to a nation, constitution, economy, currency, deity, flag, ego, or any other sectarian identity politic divisional group.

Rule Three: Anything, and private property, that violates or that requires the violation of rules one and two must be heavily regulated or abolished.

Rule Four: Upholding humanitarianism, humanism, social responsibility, personal accountability, communalism, and collectivism is mandatory. We are a secular humanist species that follows the duty aspects of Deontology and the morality aspects of Kantianism.

Rule Five: Progress in science and technology must not be hindered, unless it violates rule one.

Rule Six: Assistance will be provided to everyone, irrespective of their responsibility level, as they are part of our global community; human needs are an obligatory provision.

Rule Seven: Emergency decisions will be made decisively to prevent loss of human life or environmental damage. All other decisions will be done through democratic discussions and processes. Once a decision is made, it will be carried out quickly and meticulously for optimal efficiency; all decisions will go through and be carried out by the democratic centralism.

Rule Eight: There will be no compromises to the above seven rules for any reason, including faith, religion, political ideology, gender, sex, sexual orientation, education level, career, nationality, ethnicity, individual liberties and freedoms, or any other sectarian division one can think of. And Rule Three applies universally.

Our affirmations and statement: U.ó.c.a.e.: unite, organize, coordinate, act, and evolve. N.i.s.c.e.: numbers, intelligence, strategies, coordination, and execution. 0.0.0.0.: one people, living in one collective community, with one voice, on one planet. 01010111 01100101.

Lal salam, Ubuntu, Félagskapr, One Voice, Ke Dóó Hózhóó, Ohana-Hive Manao, Dekhbhaal, and Yili Xing. Per sanguinem et iurgia, gladium et catenas aufer, percute deos ac dominos. Tutus in undis inter chaos, ultra quod est, trudas oportet ad quod debet esse. Unus populus unitum, cum obligatoriae villicationis erga homines et planetas, per nos, alveare mentis.

(We offer revolutionary greetings, I am because we are a community with one voice, living in harmony, balance, and peace, as a family with shared consciousness of our interconnectedness and oneness. Through blood and strife, take away the sword and chains; strike the gods and masters. Safe on the waves amidst chaos, beyond what is, you must push toward what ought to be. One people united, with obligatory stewardship toward humanity and the planet, through us, a hive of minds.)

Who objects to the above? Only the dark triad evil minds, mentally ill, and indoctrinated.

☭

In conclusion, communism promotes a revolutionary transformation of society, prioritizing human rights, equality, and collective well-being, through the abolition of oppressive systems, collective ownership, and democratic decision-making. This approach seeks to create a humane, altruistic, and unified global community, contrasting with individualistic ideologies. This is demonized and challenged by those who oppose these principles. If you have any questions about anything above, consider those questions the beginning of your journey to finding the understanding of communism on your road to communism. And now it's time for the notes section. Stop here if you don't wish to read them. I will request that one reads the rules or actions allowed for the "dictatorship of the proletariat," if one is not gonna continue on.

ML- Study Guide (Use audiobooks if you're neurodivergent). Books are divided into 5 categories: 1. Beginner, 2. Student, 3. Practitioner, 4. Vanguardist, 5. Theorist-level scholar:

Level 1: Beginner

1.  Why Socialism
2.  The Principles Of Communism
3.  Wage, Labor, and Capital
4.  Three Sources and There Components Parts of Marxism
5.  Karl Marx : a brief biographical sketch with an exposition of Marxism
6.  The Communist Manifesto
7.  The German Ideology Vol. 1 Chapter 1
8.  Socialism, Utopian and Scientific
9.  What is to be done
10. The state and revolution
11. The Proletarian Revolution and The Renegade Kautsky
12. The Historical Destiny of the Doctrine of Karl Marx
13. Opportunism and the collapse of the second international
14. The Collapse of the Second International
15. Imperialism and the split on Socialism
16. Certain features of the historical development of Marxism
17. Marxism and Revisionism
18. Marxism and reformism
19. “Left-Wing” Communism: an Infantile Disorder
20. Anti-Dühring Part III: Socialism
21. The Foundations of Leninism
22. On Contradiction
23. Anti-Duhring Part I: Philosophy
24. Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy
25. Theses On Feuerbach
26. Value Price and Profit
27. Anti-Dühring Part II: Political Economy
28. Capital Vol 1.
29. Imperialism the Highest Stage of Capitalism
30. Dialectical and Historical Materialism
31. On Practice
32. Marxism and Humanism
33. On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People
34. Oppose Book Worship
35. Combat Liberalism
36. Frederick Engels on 'Anarchist Nonsense'
37. Political Indifferentism
38. The Bakuninists At Work
39. Anarchism and Socialism
40. Socialism and Anarchism
41. Anarchism or Socialism
42. Critique of the Gotha Programme
43. Marxism and The National Question
44. Difference In The European Labor Movement
45. The State: A Lecture Delivered at the Sverdlov University
46. On Cooperation
47. Interview Between Stalin and Roy Howard
48. Bill Bland’s “On Terrorism”
49. The Proletarian Class and the Proletarian Party
50. Armed Insurrection and Our Tactics
51. The Fourth World: An Indian Reality

Level 2: Student

52. The ABC of Communism, Nikolai Bukharin and Evgenii Preobrazhensky, 1919
53. The Attitude of the Workers' Party to Religion, V.I. Lenin, 1909
54. Why Religion and Communism are Incompatible, Nikolai Bukharin and Evgenii Preobrazhensky, 1919
55. Stalin's speech calling for an "atheist five-year plan", Joseph Stalin, Varies
56. Atheist (Bezbozhnik) journal, Soviet League of Militant Atheists, Varies
57. Atheist at the Workbench (Bezbozhnik u Stanka) journal, Soviet League of Militant Atheists, Varies
58. League of Militant Atheists' publications, Soviet League of Militant Atheists, Varies
59. Against All Gods, A.C. Grayling, 2013
60. The Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, Karl Marx, 1844
61. The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, Friedrich Engels, 1884
62. History and Class Consciousness: Studies in Marxist Dialectics, Georg Lukács, 1923
63. Socialism and Man in Cuba, Che Guevara, 1965
64. The Socialist Alternative: Real Human Development, Michael A. Lebowitz, 2010
65. The Communist Horizon, Jodi Dean, 2012
66. One Step Forward, Two Steps Back, V.I. Lenin, 1904
67. Reform or Revolution, Rosa Luxemburg, 1899
68. The Revolution Betrayed: What is the Soviet Union and Where is It Going?, Leon Trotsky, 1936
69. Imperialism and the Revolution, Enver Hoxha, 1978
70. Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR, J.V. Stalin, 1952
71. Capital, Volume 2: The Process of Circulation of Capital, Karl Marx, 1885
72. Capital, Volume 3: The Process of Capitalist Production as a Whole, Karl Marx, 1894
73. The Accumulation of Capital, Rosa Luxemburg, 1913
74. Imperialism and the Accumulation of Capital, Paul Baran & Paul Sweezy, 1966
75. A Brief History of Neoliberalism, David Harvey, 2005
76. The Divide: A Brief Guide to Global Inequality and its Solutions, Jason Hickel, 2017
77. Less is More: How Degrowth Will Save the World, Jason Hickel, 2020
78. Red Star Over the Third World, Vijay Prashad, 2019
79. A Dying Colonialism, Frantz Fanon, 1959
80. Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation, Amartya Sen, 1981
81. An Uncertain Glory: India and its Contradictions, Jean Drèze & Amartya Sen, 2013
82. Inequality Kills, Oxfam International, 2022
83. Levels & Trends in Child Mortality, UNICEF/World Health Organization (WHO), 2023
84. Global Burden of Disease Study, Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), 2024

Level 3: Practitioner

85. Amenable Mortality: A Global Health Metric for the 21st Century, Harvard/Lancet Global Health Commission, 2018
86. Progress on Household Drinking Water, Sanitation and Hygiene, U.N./W.H.O./UNESCO, 2024
87. Critique of the BBOC's Methodology and Death Toll (via Sen/Drèze), Noam Chomsky, Varies
88. Review of The Black Book of Communism (Anti-communist Polemic), Peter Kenez, Varies
89. Communism: A Very Short Introduction (Discussions of BBOC), Leslie Holmes, 2007
90. The Black Book of Communism Controversies (Article on Werth/Margolin split), Le Monde, 1997
91. Retracted Edition of The Black Book of Communism (Pre-corrected Version), Harvard University Press, Varies
92. Article on The Black Book Controversies (Mediation Efforts), Karel Bartošek, Pre-1997
93. Editorial Board Split (Analysis of Internal Disagreements), *Communisme* (journal), 1993
94. Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism, Michael Parenti, 1997
95. Another View of Stalin, Ludo Martens, 1994
96. Khrushchev Lied: The Evidence That Every "Revelation" of Stalin's... is Provably False, Grover Furr, 2011
97. The Moscow Trials as Evidence, Grover Furr, 2018
98. Fraud, Famine, and Fascism: The Ukrainian Genocide Myth from Hitler to Harvard, Douglas Tottle, 1987
99. The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1931-1933, R.W. Davies & S. Wheatcroft, 2004
100. Molotov Remembers: Inside Kremlin Politics, Vyacheslav Molotov, 1993
101. Mission to Moscow, Joseph E. Davies, 1941
102. The Stalin Era, Anna Louise Strong, 1956
103. Stalin: A New World Seen Through One Man, Henri Barbusse, 1935
104. 1930s Journalistic Reports (On USSR Famine/Progress), Walter Duranty, Varies
105. Eyewitness-style Accounts of Soviet Achievements, Graham Robertson (and others), Varies
106. Analyses of Declassified CIA/MI6 Files (On Soviet Figures), John W.R. Murphy, et al., Varies
107. Articles and Pamphlets (Historical Defense), Stalin Society/Harpal Brar, Varies
108. Publications Advocating Historical Truth (Historical Defense), Int'l Council for Friendship and Solidarity with Soviet People, Varies
109. Reports and Essays (Historical Defense), Rethinking the Cold War Project, Varies
110. Publications (Theoretical and Political Line), Maoist Internationalist Movement (M.I.M.), Varies
111. Red Lives: Our Years in the US Communist Party (1950–2000), Vol. 1, Carl Mirra (ed.), 2012
112. Road to Socialism USA (US Party Ideology), Communist Party USA (CPUSA), Varies
113. Programmatic Statement (US Party Ideology), Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL), Varies
114. Program and Constitution (US Party Ideology), Freedom Road Socialist Organization (FRSO), Varies
115. The Crisis of Capitalism (US Party Ideology), Workers World Party (WWP), Varies
116. Preamble to the Constitution (US Organization Ideology), Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), Varies
117. Why I Am a Communist (Pamphlet), Charles E. Taylor, Early 1920s
118. Revolutionary Socialism: The Only Hope of the Workers (Pamphlet), Charles E. Taylor, 1910s–1920s
119. The Truth About Butte (Speech/Pamphlet), Charles E. Taylor, c. 1917–1920
120. "The Case of the Radical Press" (Essay/Speech), Charles E. Taylor, 1920s
121. Articles and Pamphlets (Various Dates), Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB), Varies
122. The Path Which Led Me to Leninism, Ho Chi Minh, 1960
123. On the Party's Ideological and Organizational Work, Kaysone Phomvihane, 1978
124. On the Juche Idea, Kim Jong Il, 1982
125. Workers' Self-Management in Yugoslavia (Law and Speeches), Josip Broz Tito, 1950 (and later)
126. Socialist Democracy in Poland, Edward Ochab, 1968
127. Socialist Development in Hungary, János Kádár, 1976
128. The Industrialization of Socialist Romania, Nicolae Ceaușescu, 1970
129. Problems of the Construction of an Advanced Socialist Society, Todor Zhivkov, 1971
130. Towards an All-Round Developed Socialist Society, Gustáv Husák, 1976
131. Socialism: The Road to Peace and Social Security, Erich Honecker, 1979
132. The Non-Capitalist Road, Yumjaagiin Tsedenbal, 1971
133. The Cambodian Revolution: The Great Victory, Ieng Sary, 1977
134. Basic Principles of the Revolutionary Duties, Nur Muhammad Taraki, 1978
135. To Establish the Power of the Working People, Agostinho Neto, 1977
136. Ethiopia's Revolution and the Construction of Socialist Society, Mengistu Haile Mariam, 1984
137. The Political Report of the Central Committee, Ali Nasser Mohammed, 1980
138. Soviet Ukraine: Life and Aspirations of the Working People, Petro Shelest, 1970
139. The Development of Socialist Culture, Pyotr Masherov, 1975
140. The Fourth World, George Manuel & M. Posluns, 1974
141. "Sentencia de la muerte" (Death Sentence), Túpac Amaru II, 1781
142. "The Will to Smash the Empire" (Speech), Evo Morales, 2003
143. The Story of Colors / La Historia de los Colores, Subcomandante Marcos, 1999
144. Prachanda Path: The Maoist Way, Prachanda, 2002
145. Guitar Army: Rock and Revolution with The MC5 and the White Panther Party, John Sinclair, 1972
146. It's All Good: A John Sinclair Reader, John Sinclair, 2004
147. Marijuana Revolution, John Sinclair, 1971
148. All Power to the People: The Story of the Black Panther Party, Terry Cannon, 1970
149. "Where Do We Go From Here?" (Speech/Essay), Martin Luther King Jr., 1967
150. "The Ballot or the Bullet" (Speech), Malcolm X, 1964
151. The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, John Maynard Keynes, 1936
152. The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith, 1776
153. Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand, 1957

Level 4: Vanguardist (None listed yet)
Level 5: Theorist-level scholar (None listed yet)


Notes:
Einstein's "Why Socialism" posits that People must express their views on socialism, regardless of education level. Economic science cannot plan for a socialist future. Current and past laws are incompatible with socialism. Socialism is about ethical social responsibility, humanism... Science can provide the tools for a socialist transition but the ethics to install it have to first installed into others by ethical people. Over estimating the role of the average person is one of the biggest flaws in political science. Capitalist are social-darwinists with dark triad personalities typically leaning towards either despotism or egoism. While humanity wants independence it is dependent on the collective like an ant in a hive. Humans are shaped by culture, communication, and environment. Capitalism is pure social darwinists exploitation, oppression, and both planetary and human rights violation at its core. It's pure individualism via the dark triad personalities, where the worst vices are seen as virtues. Capitalists are a stain on society, and currently the bane of human existence. Instead of subservient altruism, capitalism produces cutthroat competition. Socialism proposed an alternative, a centralized equitable and egalitarian light triad society the pushed obligatory humanism. A planned economy without ethics can be dangerous for humanity. Einstein was right socialism protects human rights from government power but like him, it doesn't go far enough because it allows for harmful individualism to directly or indirectly hurt humanity. Which is why Socialism must be enacted in the form of communism, with the ability to merge into intl' communism, the world needs global democratic centralism.

Communism, as described by Engels in "The Principles of Communism," is the written explanation for why workers/wage earners should be free by law. Under capitalism, all workers are wage slaves; they are slaves to the capitalists. The only way for the worker to be free is to abolish private property. Contractors, subcontractors, and other independent workers that can employee others are bourgeoisie and not workers; independent workers that exploit markets and extort workers with their prices or conditions aren't workers. The Industrial Revolution made it so less people had to work. However, it was a social systematic failure of not taking care of people combined with unregulated capitalism that was the problem, as it made it so people no longer had the means to take care of themselves. That problem also leads to wealth hoarding and the buying of political power. Capitalism created a lack of self-control on both consumption and production, leading to societal crashes a minimum of once a decade.

Society as a whole, instead of individual sects, is to take control of economic factors. Everyone is required to participate, ending the social Darwinist economies. Private property, which is controlled by social Darwinists with dark triad personalities, is to be replaced with communal property, and goods are to be distributed based on communal agreement. Furthermore, the abolition of sex work is posited, based on the premise that the body is considered private property, though its application to other forms of consensual, non-exploitative entertainment involving the body remains ambiguous, which is hypocritical as psychologists state sex is good for physical and mental health, just like other forms of physical entertainment are good for health but that's besides the point. While peaceful abolition of private property is desired, the historical violations of the workers say it's unrealistic. While Engels calls for private property to be abolished in a transition phase until means are available, if society is controlling everything, there should be no reason to leave it private. This is to be achieved by some form of social revolution.

The revolution must start with a democratic Centralist constitution that heavily focuses on economics and quality of life. Communist revolution is a complete global transition, enforcing obligatory social responsibility of consumption and production, regardless if it starts at one or many countries at a time. The community would become responsible for each other, rural and city folk, especially the children; or as indigenous people put it, obligatory stewardship of humanity. Since that is the role of religion currently, religion would be abolished.This means the only reason for couples to be together becomes for physical pleasure and companionship. Nationalities and nations are to be dissolved.

Communists don't seek to regress, as society has evolved to a point of no return and cannot revert to past phases of humanity. Instead, communists seek to free people from oppression, exploitation, and violations; as long as the system is sustained through reform it cannot be done. Communists make temporary alliances with democratic socialists as long as the democratic socialists are not attacking communists or working for the benefit of capitalists. Communists are open to temporary alliances with all anti-capitalists. Communists will work with liberal parties but understand they work for the capitalists and will call them out every opportunity they're given. The goal of communism is a humanist society and collective human civilization of and by the light triad personalities, abolishing harmful individualism and dark triad personalities where all possible.

Marx's "Wage labor, and Capital" implies: Labor is a commodity whose value is its cost of maintenance, the minimum wage, with commodity prices determined by competition and supply and demand. Capital, being produced things and exchanged commodities, necessitates a working class where current labor is less valued than completed labor. Capitalists accumulate surpluses while workers' earnings are largely consumed by the cost of living. Despite a superficial symbiotic relationship, a fundamental conflict exists due to the capitalist's drive for profit, inherently increasing the wage gap and the worker's dependence as they generate more capital. Capitalists reinvest surplus to cheapen production and undercut rivals, forcing competitors to do the same, leading to increased mechanization and the deskilling of labor, resulting in lower wages and necessitating more family members working, ultimately creating economic crises. The relentless drive for cheaper production through division of labor and machinery intensifies competition among both capitalists and workers. Increased productivity initially benefits the innovating capitalist but soon becomes widespread, forcing them to produce more for less profit per unit, requiring larger markets and driving wages down to the cost of subsistence. Workers are coerced to work harder for the same or less pay, further intensifying competition, while machinery exacerbates unemployment by replacing skilled labor with unskilled. Even during capital growth, workers' relative position worsens as profits increase faster than wages, widening the social divide, demonstrating the antagonistic relationship inherent in capitalism's logic of increasing productivity and decreasing labor value, leading to recurring crises; and turning workers into wage slaves.

The "three sources and three component parts of Marxism," shows the inherent bias against Marxism within bourgeois science, which actively justified wage slavery. Marx's work, drawing upon materialist philosophy (presented as truthful against superstition and idealism, with dialectical materialism illustrating the evolution of matter and extending to historical materialism to show the evolution of civilization), English political economy (labor theory of value and surplus value), and French socialism (the doctrine of class struggle), offered a comprehensive and coherent materialist worldview that stood in stark opposition to superstition and oppression. This framework, developed through a study of capital's history, explains societal development via historical materialism, where evolving productive forces shape economic systems, which in turn determine social consciousness and political structures, using the rise of capitalism from feudalism as a key example; it was asserted that the overthrow of feudalism was merely the replacing of oppressors. Marx's economic analysis in Capital, where he explained more economics, revealed the exploitation inherent in commodity exchange, where labor-power became a commodity generating surplus value for capitalists, leading to capital concentration, unemployment, and crises. While criticizing utopian socialism for its lack of a concrete revolutionary agent, as it failed because it lacked answers, Marxism identified the proletariat and the doctrine of class struggle as the driving force behind historical development, a truth proved in political advancements, as the forces capable of overthrowing oppressive structures, offering the working class a path towards liberation through understanding and organization based on their class interests. This perspective was met with hostility from bourgeois academia because it fundamentally challenged the foundations of capitalist society; Marx's writings were credited with freeing people from religious slavery and exposing their wage slavery, and it was stated that the truth of people still being slaves should unite them under Marxist-Leninism.

"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 liberal reform. And what is liberal reform, it's no different then the reforms of social fascism; reforms to create Stockholm Syndrome.

"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 the use of violence, to ensure 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 and 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 and neutralized. Today, Progressives, Blue Wavers, Resisters, Liberals, etc. are brazenly indifferent to the suffering of humanity, prioritizing the interests of their privileged clique above all else. They shamelessly perpetuate the concentration of wealth and power among the elite, further entrenching the oppressive systems they claim to oppose. They masquerade as champions of humanity while advancing a narrow, self-serving, social-Darwinistic agenda that betrays the very principles of humanism. And thus, they are what they fight against. They don't want to end inequality; they want privileges, and thus are not socialist, communist, or anarchist-communist. Poverty, used to oppress, exploit, and cause suffering, would be abolished. This means no landlords or rent, no corporations, but instead, homes and industry. People still get to keep their personal property, such as clothes, furniture, electronics, etc. People get to keep their jobs, but nobody owns them. They are no longer human capital or wage slaves, but that doesn't mean they don't have social obligations. Equality for all means eliminating superiority. All people are equal and one. Women are equal to men, like they were in ancient cultures. And borders and countries no longer exist. There are no foreigners, only humans. Capitalists are indoctrinated to say, "We cannot afford to take care of all of them." I assure you that all 9 billion of us can take care of each other. The only reasons one thinks they cannot take care of each other are greed and superiority, both personal and national. No amount of oppression or exploitation is acceptable, meaning anything that can cause these is to be centralized to avoid potential occurrence. And the needs of humanity will always come first, meaning nobody will go without medical treatment, housing, food, education, clothing, etc. Progressives, Blue Wavers, Resisters, Liberals, etc. are acting like feudal socialists, probably because if they're socialist at all, they're bourgeois socialists (right-wingers) as described by Marx or social fascists, and that is why they are achieving nothing except stocking fear of the elite and powerful. They seek to keep the system and those who run it in power and in control. They are social-Darwinistic in their approach, prioritizing the interests of their own clique over the needs of humanity. Industries will either regress to maintain things and halt human growth or advance, and society must evolve with it. Systems cannot be reformed and must be replaced to benefit all. Also, there cannot be unity if people only want to be concerned with themselves. There's no room for separatists or sectarians. Anarchy is incompatible with unity. Humanity's needs must come before the individual, meaning every member of society cannot be off doing their own thing without first considering the impact on humanity. And anarchists put self before everything. What makes Ancoms different from Ancaps is that, although both are egoist first, Ancoms follow it up with collectivism instead of social Darwinism. Political alliances are acceptable, and revolutions are to be supported as long as there is no compromise on values and principles. No amount of oppression or exploitation is acceptable. Justice and equality must be for all. Society should benefit all, meaning anything that can be used against humanity must be centralized to avoid human exploitation and oppression. There will be a democracy via democratic centralism, but protecting humanity will always take precedence and cannot be compromised or changed.

German philosophy critiqued and condemned the existence of religion, because "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 as society becomes egalitarian.

"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; i.e. equitable-egalitarianism. 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 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 (social-liberal fascism) 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, provide socialist 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 an eventual 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. Trade 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 information 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 (social fascists), 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 (social fascist), 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 (social fascism), 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 (social fascists). 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 (i.e. social-fascism), 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.

Dialectical and Historical Materialism Marxist-Leninist philosophy combines dialectics and materialism. Dialectics studies phenomena through contradictions, while materialism interprets phenomena in terms of material conditions.

The Marxist dialectical method has four key features:

1. Interconnectedness of phenomena.
2. Constant change and development in nature.
3. Gradual quantitative changes lead to fundamental qualitative transformations.
4. Internal contradictions drive development.

Applied to social life, this method emphasizes historical context and constant change. Revolutionary transformations drive qualitative changes, and class struggle is the engine of historical development.

Marxist philosophical materialism opposes idealism, emphasizing material conditions and class struggle. It asserts the material world's existence independent of consciousness and that matter is primary, with consciousness secondary.

Marxist materialism holds that the world and its laws are knowable through experiment and practice.

In social life, Marxist materialism reveals social connections and interdependencies as laws of societal development. Socialism transformed from a dream to a science, bonding theory and practice.

Historical materialism explores the relationship between social being and consciousness. The mode of production determines social development, comprising productive forces and relations of production.

Changes in productive forces precede changes in relations of production. Five main types of relations of production are:

1. Primitive communal
2. Slave
3. Feudal
4. Capitalist
5. Socialist

Each type corresponds to the state of productive forces. The development of productive forces leads to changes in relations of production.

New productive forces and relations emerge within the old system spontaneously and unconsciously. Men adapt and improve within existing constraints.

Marx stated, "In social production, men enter into definite relations indispensable and independent of their will, corresponding to a definite stage of development of their material productive forces."

Changes in relations of production occur through revolutionary overthrow. New social ideas, institutions, and power emerge from conflicts between productive forces and relations.

Marx emphasized:

- The proletariat makes itself the ruling class through revolution.
- Force drives social revolution.
- The mode of production conditions social life.
- Social being determines consciousness.

Marx's Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy formulated historical materialism's essence:

- Relations of production correspond to productive forces.
- Conflict sparks social revolution.
- Economic conditions determine ideological forms.
- No social order perishes before developing all productive forces.
- New relations emerge when material conditions mature.

These principles comprise Marxist materialism applied to social life and history.

On Practice Dogmatism rejected the Chinese revolution's experience, while empiricism focused solely on fragmented experiences, neglecting theory's importance. Before Marx, materialism failed to connect knowledge with social practice. Marxists recognized production as the primary practical activity shaping human knowledge.

Knowledge develops through social practice, including production, class struggle, politics, science, and art. Marxism emphasizes practice as the criterion for verifying knowledge. Success confirms anticipated results, while failure prompts correction. Lenin stated, "Practice is higher than theoretical knowledge, possessing universality and immediate actuality." Marxist philosophy's dialectical materialism has two key characteristics: class nature (serving the proletariat) and practicality (emphasizing theory's dependence on practice).

Truth is determined by objective results in social practice, not subjective feelings. Human knowledge arises from practice through perception, conceptualization, and logical inference. Marxism combines theory and practice, ensuring truth is determined by objective results. Mao's essay aimed to rectify the Party's ideological errors and promote a balanced approach to Marxist theory and practice.

Marxist materialism, developed by Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin, solved the problem of knowledge development. This dialectical-materialist theory emphasizes practice as the foundation of knowledge. There are two stages of cognition: perceptual (lower) and logical (higher), unified on the basis of practice. Perception solves the problem of phenomena, while theory solves the problem of essence.

Genuine knowledge originates in direct experience, with most knowledge coming from indirect experience. Knowledge from past times and foreign lands requires scientific abstraction. The proletariat's knowledge of capitalist society progressed from perceptual to logical through practice. Similarly, the Chinese people's understanding of imperialism deepened through experience and struggle.

Effective leadership requires systematic understanding and open-mindedness. The process of cognition involves contact with the external world (perception) and synthesizing data (conception, judgment, and inference). Marxism emphasizes that knowledge begins with experience, stressing materialism. Idealist rationalism prioritizes reason over experience.

The sequence of cognition is perceptual experience followed by rational understanding, with social practice as the foundation. Knowledge begins with practice, develops through practice, and returns to practice. Practice is the criterion of truth. Revolutionary leaders must correct ideas and plans when errors are discovered.

Marxist-Leninist theory recognizes that relative truths constitute absolute truth. The development of objective processes and human knowledge is infinite and contradictory. Marxism-Leninism opens roads to knowledge of truth through practice. The unity of subjective and objective, theory and practice, knowing and doing, is concrete and historical.

The proletariat and its party must correctly know and change the world. This requires changing the objective world and the subjective world, cognitive ability, and relations between the subjective and objective world. By emphasizing the importance of practice, Mao's essay provides a foundational framework for understanding Marxist theory and its application.

Marxism and Humanism Marxism and humanism intersect in the concept of "real humanism," which emphasizes individual freedom, respect for legality, and human dignity. This shift marks a transition from socialism to communism. The objective of revolutionary struggle has always been the liberation of humanity from exploitation, initially taking the form of class conflict.

Marx's early work was influenced by Enlightenment philosophy, emphasizing reason and freedom. He believed the State should embody reason and human nature, but became disillusioned when the Prussian State failed to reform. Marx then adopted Feuerbach's "communalist" humanism, emphasizing the alienation of human reason and the importance of communal relationships.

Marx saw history as the process of humanity's alienation and realization. He believed humans are only truly free when part of a communal whole. Marx's new theory of humanism led him to advocate for a practical revolution to restore humanity's alienated nature. This revolution would result from an alliance between philosophy and the proletariat.

In 1845, Marx broke with traditional philosophy, rejecting the essence of man as a theoretical basis. He replaced old concepts with new ones, establishing a new problematic and systematic way of asking questions. Marx's theoretical anti-humanism recognizes humanism as an ideology, rather than a theoretical basis for understanding history and politics.

Ideology is a system of representations with a historical existence and role within a given society. It is distinct from science and has a more important practico-social function. Ideology expresses how people experience their relationship with their environment, encompassing real and imaginary aspects.

The ruling ideology in a class society belongs to the ruling class, serving both to govern the exploited class and shape the ruling class's identity. In a classless society, ideology remains crucial for transforming individuals to adapt to their conditions of existence.

The concept of "real humanism" is defined by its opposition to abstract humanism. The adjective "real" signals a direction and destination, pointing to the need to study society and its social relations. Marx crossed the frontier from ideology to scientific theory, discovering that the concept of man is not scientific but ideological.

The signpost of "real humanism" remains in the old domain, but once crossed, new concepts are needed to understand reality. The concept of real humanism can serve as a practical slogan but not as a theoretical concept. It can point out problems but not solve them. Marxist theory must not confuse practical concepts with theoretical ones, and the recourse to ethics in humanist ideology may hinder truly posing and solving problems.

The recourse to ethics in humanist ideology may hinder truly posing and solving problems, which are organizational problems of economic, political, and individual life. These problems must be called by their scientific names to be resolved.

In a class-based society, the dominant ideology belongs to the ruling class. However, this class is not only the master of its ideology but also its captive. The ruling ideology serves the ruling class in its governance over the exploited class and in shaping its own identity as the ruling class.

Even in a classless society, ideology remains crucial. It is essential for transforming individuals to adapt to their conditions of existence. Ideology expresses the need for transformation, measures the gap between the current and desired states, and facilitates resolving this contradiction.

In a classless society, ideology enables individuals to understand their position in the world and history, benefiting all people. Ideology is a system of representations that exists historically within a society, distinct from science and with a more significant practical function.

Ideology is an integral part of every social structure, and societies cannot exist without it. Ideology expresses how people experience their relationship with their environment, encompassing both real and imaginary aspects. This relationship is a complex unity of real and imaginary components.

The concept of "real humanism" is defined by its opposition to abstract humanism. The adjective "real" is a practical concept, signaling a direction and destination. It points to the need to study society and its social relations to understand humanity.

On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People by Mao implies There is the people are the workers, socialists, revolutionaries, and light triad personalities, which are divided into the workers and non workers. The non workers are the peasants and intellectuals. Then there is the enemy are which are the opportunists, anti-socialists, counter-revolutionaries, dark triad personalities. Mao says, "the state is where freedom and democracy are exercised within the ranks of the people under centralized guidance." The idea of communism is to eliminate hierarchies but here the workers seem to be putting above teachers, scientists, intellectuals, and the peasants. While the system may operate on principles and ethics, the people must be treated equally, the state must be egalitarian. The west/US can never be free under its current system. True freedom and democracy are not abstract; they are relative and specific to historical conditions. For the people, this means a balance of democracy with centralism and freedom with discipline, forming "democratic centralism" that ensures broad freedoms while maintaining socialist order.

For ideological disagreements among the people, democratic methods like discussion, criticism, persuasion, and education should be tried, rather than force. While rules are needed for public order, they must be combined with persuasion. This approach follows the "unity—criticism—unity" formula: start with a shared goal, address issues through criticism, and achieve a new, stronger unity. This method proved successful within the Communist Party and is applied more broadly. Internal contradictions are usually non-antagonistic, they can turn antagonistic if mishandled. Such instances in a socialist country are generally localized and temporary because exploitation has been abolished, and people's core interests align. This democratic approach to resolving internal contradictions is a core Marxist principle, now more prominent as the struggle with external enemies has lessened. Not confusing internal contradictions with those against the enemy, distinguish between the two.

Contradictions drive all change, yet applying this to socialist society is challenging, as many don't acknowledge internal contradictions crucial for progress. Socialist contradictions are non-antagonistic and are solvable within the system. Despite the socialist system's superiority and economic growth, mixed economies and semi-socialist co-ops cause problems. Contradictions will persist between production relations and forces, and between the superstructure and economic base, fueled by bourgeois ideology and bureaucracy. Keeping any form of capitalism is to sustain class struggle. Thus, distinguishing and correctly handling contradictions among the people versus with the enemy is vital for unity, development, and solidifying a new socialist state.

Eliminating counter-revolutionaries is a crucial task, often misunderstood by those on the "Right;" enemies and allies must be clearly determined and treated as such, without tolerance or compromise. The elimination of counter revolutionaries and resistance will create stability, and allow for sound economic policies and improved living standards. Standards and practice must constantly be reviewed and upgraded, keeping everything streamlined. Vigilance will be necessary, as hidden elements and foreign agents will seek to cause trouble. The threat must be taken seriously without over or underestimating the risk.

Agricultural co-operatives are vital for rural population, their transformation will resolve the conflict between industrialization and individual farming despite inherent difficulties. The co-ops must consolidate within five years or slightly longer and require continuous resolution through careful management of production and distribution. And the raising of all peasants to at least a middle-peasant living standard. Though workers have higher incomes due to productivity and lower living costs, some wage adjustments are deemed necessary to address peasant dissatisfaction. This is bound to cause problems, wages with except to those who provide basic human needs and life saving/protection services, should all be the same; one flat rate.

The bourgeoisie must assimilate into the working class, and the entire population must be reformed and re-educated to adapt to the new society as they merge into one people. Even after the initial phase, the re-education must continue and society must continue to constantly evolve. While it would be preferable if it was voluntary, it must be obligatory.

Contradictions will occur among intellectuals as they adapt to the new, a minority will remain skeptical. Their trust is necessary for improved relations, and practical support to unleash their talents. They must be made to get along. Intellectuals are haughty and will need continued pressure to humble themselves. This fundamental ideological shift is a long-term, necessary, and process, given the changed social system. Patience and assistance are key, though those unwilling to fully embrace Marxism-Leninism must still to be given work if they meet state requirements but be kept from the population to prevent outbursts.

Strengthening political education, emphasizing the study of Marxism, current events, and politics, as correct political orientation will be crucial. Reforming individuals and society must be mandatory, not optional, there can be no exceptions or compromises. The educational policy must be aimed to produce individuals with socialist consciousness and culture, instilling diligence and thrift, and ensuring youth understands that building a prosperous society requires decades of hard work, not a ready-made life. National, state, and local chauvinism, is harmful and must be abolished, requiring full attention. Time tables must be put in places with audits and adjustments as needed.

The guiding principle involved considering the entire populace and making proper arrangements in consultation with all parties, rejecting a "small circle" mentality. This approach emphasizes uniting positive factors and transforming negative ones for socialist construction. While the government guides, public organizations and the masses must also capable of devising solutions, aligning with this principle.

The slogans "Let a Hundred Flowers Blossom, Let a Hundred Schools of Thought Contend" and "Long-Term Coexistence and Mutual Supervision" were introduced to address socialist contradictions and boost China's development. The "hundred flowers" policy fostered free artistic and scientific development through discussion, rejecting administrative control and acknowledging that new ideas often faced initial opposition. Class struggle in the ideological realm will continued between the proletariat and bourgeoisie; re-education must continue. Marxism, must develop through this struggle. This ideological struggle, based on reasoned debate, not coercion, will be long-term, but socialism must hold an advantage. Wrongful ideas must be debated, shunned, and criticized using dialectical methods, carefully distinguishing "fragrant flowers" from "poisonous weeds." Revisionism is a particularly dangerous threat, as it undermined Marxism's core.

Under Mao, political criteria was established to judge words and deeds, focusing on unity, socialist benefit, consolidation of the people's democratic dictatorship and democratic centralism, strengthening Party leadership, and promoting international socialist unity/peace. The socialist path and Party leadership is paramount. These criteria aimed to foster free discussion, applying to all artistic and scientific activities. The "long-term coexistence and mutual supervision" policy allowed democratic parties to exist alongside the Communist Party, providing mutual supervision so long as they adhered to these political criteria and served socialism without compromise or exception.

If the dark triad personalities are not nipped in the bud and eliminated, isolated disturbances by by society members who prioritize immediate personal gains and don't fully grasp the past struggles or future efforts needed for socialism will occur. Education and solutions to societal problems must continue to advance and evolve. Individuals who deliberately break laws or incited trouble must faced legal action, and not because allowed to continue to create disturbances. Disturbances, though undesirable, must be studied and used to correct societal problems. These changes will be achieved through the socialist system and united efforts of the population. Everyone must hold each other accountable and take personal and social responsibilities.

Ambition demands a strict economy. The economy needs to be a continuous, guiding principle across all sectors. The population must focus on building and repairing society without pursuing luxuries, a crucial economic and political task. Im China, a dangerous trend of personnel seeking personal gain instead of sharing hardships with the masses needed correction by streamlining organizations and reassigning cadres. All citizens must be reminded that transforming poor, backward society into a prosperous and strong nation required decades of diligent, thrifty struggle, collective oneness and obligatory stewardship of humanity and the planet.

In Mao's China, China's industrialization path centered on heavy industry as the core, but also emphasized agriculture and light industry. As a large agricultural nation, robust agricultural development was crucial; it supplied raw materials, markets for both light and heavy industry, and capital for heavy industry's growth. Accelerated growth in agriculture and light industry during the Second and Third Five-Year Plans was projected to ensure faster heavy industry development, potentially reaching 20 million tons of steel output or more within three five-year plans. China was still gaining experience in economic construction, learning from past revolutionary mistakes to minimize costs. The gap between economic laws and their understanding was to be resolved through practice.

Learning from the Soviet Union's advanced experience is paramount, as they provided vital industrial assistance. While learning from all countries was beneficial, the primary focus must remain on the Soviet Union, with an emphasis on adapting, not dogmatically copying, their experiences. Strengthening solidarity with socialist countries, and peace-loving nations must be fundamental policy. Peaceful coexistence and trade with imperialist countries can be pursued to prevent war, but unrealistic expectations about them must be avoided. No capitalist nations should ever be trusted. The goal must be for communist nations to merge into a single entity for the benefit of humanity.

"OPPOSE BOOK WORSHIP," states investigation and practical experience are necessary for effective leadership and revolutionary success, especially within the Communist Party. Communist do not speak information without prior confirmation of factuality and are fluent in history. Conclusions without full knowledge cannot be done and those who do erode trust with superficial observations.

Blindly following directives or solely relying on written theory without considering actual conditions is a form of formalism that could undermine any party's goals. Mao is justifying sacrificing principles based on the environment and people. Correctness of Marxist theory stems from its proven effectiveness in practice and struggle, not from any prophetic quality. (Theory is not prophetic, it's a set of principles, ethics, and guiding rules, without the principles of theory, what is communism? And furthermore, the people decided what their struggle is and the solution, and might find liberalism or libertarianis, is the solution, for all we know.)

The lack of investigation into any actual situation would inevitably lead to idealistic appraisals of class forces and idealistic guidance in work, resulting in either opportunism or putschism. The aim of social and economic investigation is to accurately assess class forces and formulate effective tactics for the struggle. Investigations should focus on all social classes, not just isolated phenomena, to understand their political and economic situations and their interrelations. Specific social classes require investigation, from industrial proletariats to landlords, and one needs to understand both urban and rural conditions for the revolutionary struggle.

We must understand conditions, and shift from liberal conservativism or conservative liberalism to progressive militant Communist ideas rooted in direct engagement and investigation among the masses. Technique of investigation by organized groups require fact-finding meetings with diverse participants (I.E. different comprehension levels and biases), detailed outlines, personal participation by leaders, deep probing into specific problems or places, and personal note-taking to ensure accurate, comprehensive data collection, and that everyone shares the same inference from the data.

To quickly summarize, Mao says don't speak unless you're knowledgeable, be willing to sacrifice principles and ethics depending on the environment and people, get a diverse group (with different comprehension levels and biases), and make sure the group agrees on all information, creating an echo chamber with cognitive bias; which despite what Mao says, will lead to different sects of the ideology or even a rejection of communism by the people based on their conditions. Mao is calling for investigation and discussions among a diverse group, to create a rigid approach to information, while abandoning a rigid approach to ideology. How can society shift to progressive militant Communist if theory and principles are sacrificed or ignored depending on conditions. I mean take America for a second, it has a diverse group of people and there are a large portion that view communism and fascism as the same, there's also a group that views capitalism as less harmful then socialism and communism. That is the conditions of America, does that mean we abandon communism completely?

"Combat Liberalism," was pretty clear. Liberalism is an enemy of the people. Lineralism is about pacifying dissent among society. Liberalism is private irresponsibility that sustains problems. Liberalism is about personal opinions and attacks that support the counter-revolutionary. Liberalism fails to protect the people when necessary when Liberal interests were at-risk. Liberalism doesn’t have accountability or responsibility. It's premise is to divide and divert attention from revolutionary movements and ideologies. It prevents policies that truly aid the masses. Liberalism originated from petty-bourgeois selfishness, prioritizing personal interests over those of the revolution, thereby leading to ideological, political, and organizational forms of liberalism. Liberals are opportunists and objectively beneficial to the enemy of the people, thus making their presence within the revolutionary ranks unacceptable. All loyal, honest, active, and upright communists must unite against these liberal tendencies and guide those exhibiting them towards the correct path and treat their resistance to communism proportionally to the amount of hostility they are given in return.

"On Anarchists Nonsense," Engels and Marx held the belief that the future proletarian revolution would gradually dissolve the state, which they viewed as an instrument of economic oppression by the wealthy minority. However, they also maintained that the working class must first seize control of the state's organized political power to overcome capitalist resistance and reorganize society. Engels stated that anarchists inverted this process, advocating for the abolition of the state at the revolution's outset. He argued that this approach would destroy the very mechanism by which the victorious proletariat could consolidate power, suppress capitalists, and execute the necessary economic revolution, potentially leading to defeat and mass slaughter, as seen after the Paris Commune. Marx had anarchists expelled from the International for this. Marx did not care for anarchist tactics or writings. Anarchists are the antithesis of Marx's writings and of communism, and their views in the ordered of operations and tactics put humanity at risk; which makes sense as anarchists put individualism and ego before collectivism and altruism.

"Political indifferentism," an ideology that discouraged the working class from any form of political or economic engagement. This doctrine argued against workers forming parties, taking action, or striking, claiming such efforts implicitly legitimized the state or wages, thus compromising "eternal principles." It even deemed any gains, like better working conditions or education, as "compromises" that stained these ideals. Furthermore, it condemned workers establishing a revolutionary dictatorship or forming unions, pushing for passive waiting for an undefined "social liquidation" while advocating daily obedience to the capitalist state. This was seen as "anarchist nonsense," viewing it as an idealistic and dangerous betrayal of the working class that prioritized abstract principles over the tangible needs and liberation of humanity.

"The Bakuninists At Work" says The Bakuninists, despite their proclaimed ultra-revolutionary principles of anarchy, immediate worker emancipation, and absolute abstention from politics and the state, fundamentally contradicted and abandoned these principles in practice when faced with a real revolutionary situation. They ended up participating in bourgeois politics, forming provisional governments, and adopting tactics that were either ineffective (like the general strike in Barcelona) or disastrously disorganized (like the isolated cantonal uprisings). Showing the complete ideological and practical bankruptcy of Bakuninist theory when put to the test. According to Engels, a combination of inherent flaws in Bakuninist ideology and the resulting practical blunders highlights their lack of centralized leadership and a coherent program, leading to fragmented, uncoordinated actions where each town acted "on its own" and declared "separation from them" (other towns) as a principle. Their tactic of a general strike, without sufficient organization or funds, was presented as a miraculous lever but proved easily ridiculed or ineffective when confronted by state power. Furthermore, their disdain for political action meant they couldn't effectively leverage existing political opportunities, instead falling into alliances with bourgeois factions who exploited them and then discarded them. Engels detailed critique of their operational approach, demonstrating its inherent weakness and ultimate self-sabotage. Bakuninist principles and tactics are detrimental to genuine proletarian revolution and organization. It's not just about a failed revolution but about demonstrating why it failed, and by extension, why Bakuninist ideology itself is flawed. Their "ultra-revolutionary rantings" led to either "appeasement" or "uprisings that were doomed to failure," ultimately resulting in the "disorganisation of the International in Spain" and the vilification of workers' movements. The writing's core purpose is to validate a more centralized, disciplined, and politically engaged approach to revolutionary struggle by exposing the practical shortcomings and destructive consequences of Bakuninist anarchism. Democratic confederalism is a seriously flawed ideological system that anarchists rely on.

"Anarchism and Socialism" pointed out anarchism represents a misguided and ultimately destructive form of Utopianism that failed to grasp the scientific principles of social evolution and the practical necessities of a successful proletarian revolution. It seeks to highlight that despite any superficial similarities in ultimate societal goals, the anarchist approach to achieving those goals was profoundly detrimental. The Marxist-Leninist framework of scientific socialism, emphasizing that societal ideals evolve with productive forces and that a socialist transition requires the proletariat to seize and wield state power, was presented in direct contrast to the anarchist demand for immediate state abolition and its aversion to political engagement, which were dismissed as impractical and dangerous "indifferentism." Anarchist principles translated into practical failure during the Spanish cantonal revolts. This historical account detailed how Bakuninist ideological inconsistencies, their lack of centralized leadership, and reliance on ineffective tactics like the general strike led to disorganization, fragmentation, and ultimately, the suppression of the revolutionary movement. The failures in Spain served as empirical evidence supporting the theoretical arguments against anarchism. Engels in his text articulated this critique was to solidify the theoretical and practical superiority of scientific socialism over anarchism and to protect the integrity and effectiveness of the working-class movement. The primary reason was to expose anarchism as an ideology that, far from being more radical or logical, actually undermined the essential tools for proletarian liberation: organization, discipline, and the conquest of state power. By detailing the "utter confusion, inactivity and helplessness" and the subsequent "disorganization of the International" caused by Bakuninist actions, Engels aimed to persuade workers and socialists to reject anarchist influence and instead embrace a disciplined, centralized, and politically active approach necessary for achieving a genuine communist society.

"Anarchism or Socialism" showed class struggle is the driving force of modern social life, with different classes embodying distinct ideologies like liberalism for the bourgeoisie and socialism for the proletariat. Socialism itself is categorized into three trends: reformism, anarchism, and Marxism. Reformism, seen as advocating peaceful class collaboration and viewing socialism as a distant ideal, is dismissed as irrelevant. The focus shifts to Marxism and anarchism as the two active and contending forces vying for the proletariat's allegiance. The dialectical method describes life as a continuous process of destruction and creation, where the growing elements are invincible and the decaying ones are doomed. This development includes both evolutionary (quantitative) and revolutionary (qualitative) changes, with evolution preparing the ground for revolution. The materialist theory, conversely, asserts that social being determines consciousness, meaning that material conditions and economic development form the basis of social life, with ideological superstructures adapting in response. Valid ideals must be rooted in economic conditions and that radical economic changes are necessary for societal transformation. This involves a systematic exposition followed by a direct refutation of anarchist criticisms. Stalin systematically addresses anarchist "accusations," starting with their claim of plagiarism regarding the Communist Manifesto, which is dismissed as baseless slander. He refutes anarchist misrepresentations of Marxist materialism as a "belly theory" or a "poorly disguised dualism." He directly confronted anarchist claims, such as their denial of Social Democracy's revolutionary nature or their mischaracterization of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Stalin argued that anarchists are fighting "figments of their own imagination." Stalin firmly establish Marxism as the sole legitimate and scientifically grounded path to proletarian socialism, while thoroughly discrediting anarchism. His explicit goal was to demonstrate that anarchism, despite its active presence, is fundamentally at odds with Marxism due to "entirely different principles." The inherent conflict between anarchism's focus on individual emancipation and Marxism's emphasis on mass emancipation, exposes anarchist ignorance and contradictory positions on key philosophical and tactical issues, such as their confusion of Hegel's metaphysics with his scientific dialectical method, their misinterpretation of Marxist materialism, and their flawed understanding of revolutionary action and the dictatorship of the proletariat. By portraying anarchists as uninformed and illogical "critics" who slander Marx and Engels, Stalin solidified the intellectual and revolutionary authority of Marxism and guides the proletariat towards its doctrines, away from what is depicted as an errant and ultimately ineffective path. Stalin sought to provide a clear theoretical and practical guide for the proletarian movement, emphasizing the necessity of class struggle, socialist revolution, and the dictatorship of the proletariat under the guidance of a strong, centralized Social-Democratic Party.

Critique of the Gotha Programme provides a detailed critique of a workers' party program, summarizing its theoretical and practical flaws, largely attributing them to the influence of Ferdinand Lassalle. Labor is the source of all wealth, as it ignores the role of nature and the ownership of the means of production. Wealth is created by social labor and that while this labor benefits capitalists in a capitalist society, it should benefit all in a communist one, after necessary deductions for things like expanding production and social services. A truly communist society can only move beyond this "bourgeois right" of equal exchange when production is abundant enough to distribute according to need. The program's focus on vague concepts like "undiminished proceeds of labor" and "fair distribution" lacks analytical rigor and fails to address the fundamental issue of who controls the means of production. The critique extends to the program's political demands, which are seen as timid and limited to a national framework, betraying the internationalist and revolutionary spirit of true communism. Lassalle’s "iron law of wages" was outdated and scientifically incorrect, arguing it misrepresented how capitalism exploits labor. The program was a step backward for the workers' movement, marked by "criminal levity" and a reliance on bourgeois and statist ideas, rather than a clear call for a revolutionary transformation of society. The critique also emphasized that a transitional state must exist for as long as there are enemies to the proletariat and threats to the transition to communism.

Marxism and the national question: Stalin's 1913 work explains nationalism as a tool the rich use in diverse empires like old Russia to divide workers by ethnicity, masking class exploitation as fights for cultural pride, better known as sectarian politics to keep people split. He defines a nation simply as a group sharing language, land, economy, and mindset formed under capitalism, and rejects ideas like separate cultural rules for minorities because they weaken worker unity and empower reactionaries. Instead, he pushes for self-determination, letting oppressed groups choose independence or autonomy, but always tied to the bigger class struggle, with democratic rights like equal languages and schools, so workers can unite internationally to overthrow oppression and build socialism without ethnic divisions holding them back. While he does allow for divisions, he sas socialism will always side against those who wish to breakup worker solidarity.  Those divisions , he mentions are nothing more than identity politics; and as we see after the first quarter of the twenty-first century is, if you allow identity politics you went up with division because there is no true oneness. Instead, we have people fighting over gender, sex, religion, ethnicity, nation, and a plethora of other things, including class. Stalin says there must be internationalism but that can only truly exist, if people accept they're part of a shared global communal, adopt an international democratic centralist governing system, and accept that everyone has an obligatory stewardship to humanity and the planet. I am an activist-misanthrope, Stalin's optimism assumed proletarian victory would naturally foster oneness and solidarity, I disagree with Stalin and ask, doesn't  dialectical materialism say nothing is natural and everything is a product of its environment?

Difference In The European Labor Movement implies: Revisionism and anarchism as tactical deviations from Marxism within the labor movement emerged due to deep-rooted economic and social factors rather than individual errors. These deviations stem from the rapid influx of less-educated members into the labor movement, uneven capitalist development across regions causing partial adoption of Marxist principles, and the dialectical nature of social development leading to exaggerated, one-sided interpretations of capitalism. The persistence of these trends is linked to the bourgeoisie's dual strategies of force, which suppresses reforms and fuels anarcho-syndicalism's rejection of parliamentary tactics, and liberalism, which grants superficial rights (M4A, UBI) and intensifies revisionism by misleading workers into dismissing class struggle. Both revisionism and anarcho-syndicalism, rooted in a bourgeois worldview, hinder Marxism's goal of uniting workers into disciplined, class-conscious organizations capable of sustained action (too much mutual aid, trying to put band aids on problems instead of studying and figuring out the best way to take on the system mixed with anti communist authoritianism (anti-democratic centralism).

The State: A Lecture Delivered at the Sverdlov University where Lenin discussed the nature, origin, and significance of the state, emphasizing its complexity and the deliberate confusion sown by bourgeois scholars to obscure its role as a tool of class oppression. He explained that the state emerged historically with the division of society into classes, specifically when exploiters and exploited appeared, such as during the transition from primitive, classless societies to slave-owning systems, followed by feudalism and capitalism. Lenin traced how the state functioned as a machine of coercion, through armies, prisons, and laws, to maintain the dominance of one class (slave-owners, feudal lords, or capitalists) over another (slaves, serfs, or proletarians), adapting its forms (monarchy, republic, aristocracy, or democracy) to the technical and economic conditions of each era. He argued that bourgeois claims of the state representing "popular will" or "liberty" were deceptive, as even democratic republics like the United States and Switzerland served as instruments of capitalist domination, suppressing workers' movements with force or co-opting them with superficial reforms. Lenin stressed that the Communist Party, aiming to overthrow capitalism, viewed the state as a tool to be seized by the proletariat to dismantle exploitation, ultimately aiming to abolish the state itself when class divisions ceased. He urged his audience to study key works like Engels’s *The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State* and to approach the topic repeatedly from different angles to counter bourgeois distortions and develop a clear, independent understanding of the state’s role in perpetuating class rule.

"On cooperation" says, In the early 1920s, following the October Revolution and the introduction of the New Economic Policy (NEP), Soviet Russia emphasized the cooperative movement as a critical pathway to socialism, despite its underappreciation. The working class’s control over political power and the means of production made organizing the population into cooperative societies a practical step toward socialism. Earlier cooperators’ dreams were dismissed as unrealistic for ignoring the necessity of class struggle to overthrow exploiters, but with the exploiters defeated, the NEP’s concessions to private trade enabled cooperatives to blend individual commercial interests with state oversight, aligning with collective goals. The state’s dominance over large-scale production and the proletariat’s leadership over the peasantry laid the foundation for this system. However, many underestimated cooperatives’ importance, both as a principle of state ownership and as an accessible means for peasants to engage in socialism. Cooperatives received material privileges, like favorable loans, to foster mass participation, but the challenge was ensuring genuine, informed involvement rather than passive engagement. Achieving socialism through cooperatives required a cultural revolution, including universal literacy and economic stability to guard against crises like famines, shifting focus from revolutionary zeal to practical, educational efforts to create “civilized cooperators” who could trade efficiently in a modern manner. Cooperatives, backed by the socialist state, were seen as synonymous with socialism, marking a transition to cultural and economic development. The concept of state capitalism, referenced from 1918 writings, framed cooperatives as distinct from private enterprises under the NEP, operating on state-owned land and aligning with socialist goals, grounded in the working class’s political victory. This victory redirected efforts toward organizational and educational work to integrate peasants into cooperatives, requiring a cultural revolution to overcome illiteracy and build a material base for socialism.

In modern U.S. society, self-proclaimed revolutionaries often advocate for cooperatives, such as community gardens or mutual aid, as immediate solutions, bypassing the revolutionary struggle and political groundwork emphasized in the Soviet experience. These efforts, while well-intentioned, remain vulnerable to bourgeois rule, as the state can regulate or dismantle them when they threaten capitalist interests, as seen with the clearing of self-sufficient homeless encampments. This approach overlooks the necessity of a process that addresses the current stage of societal development, including the need for political power to challenge existing structures. Like the Soviet cooperators who built on the foundation of proletarian victory, modern movements must recognize that cooperatives alone, without dismantling bourgeois dominance, risk being temporary and subject to suppression, requiring a strategic focus on both political and economic transformation to achieve lasting change.

"Interview Between Stalin and Roy Howard" conducted on March 1, 1936, and published in Pravda on March 5, 1936, Joseph Stalin discussed with American journalist Roy Howard the geopolitical tensions in the Far East and Europe, focusing on potential Japanese and German aggression, the nature of Soviet socialism, and prospects for peaceful coexistence with other systems. Stalin addressed Japan's military activities near the Mongolian People's Republic, stating that the Soviet Union would defend Mongolia's independence if attacked, as communicated to Japan in 1921 and reiterated in 1936. He noted Japan's troop concentrations along Mongolia's borders but observed no new aggressive actions at that time. On German and Polish intentions, Stalin suggested that history showed aggressive states often sought or "borrowed" frontiers to launch attacks, citing Germany's 1914 invasion of Belgium and 1918 use of Latvia as examples, though he avoided specifying which borders Germany might target. He identified capitalism’s imperialist tendencies as the primary driver of global war risks, arguing that capitalist states sought to redivide territories and resources, as seen before World War I. He dismissed fears that the Soviet Union aimed to forcibly export revolution, clarifying that while Soviet people hoped for global change, revolutions depended on local will, not Soviet intervention. What Stalin should've said was that the Soviet Union would not go out of its way to force revolutionary but would use proportional measures to counter the West's anti-revolutionary tactics but hindsight is 20-20. On U.S.-Soviet relations, Stalin defended the Soviet Union's adherence to the 1933 Roosevelt-Litvinov agreement, which prohibited subversive activities, emphasizing that the Soviet government controlled such actions and offered asylum to political emigrants without supporting their subversive efforts, unlike some U.S.-based anti-Soviet groups. He acknowledged speeches by American Communists like Browder and Darcy but argued they operated legally in the U.S., not under Soviet direction. Stalin distinguished Soviet socialism, based on public ownership, from fascism in Germany and Italy, which preserved private property and capitalism, and he rejected claims that Soviet socialism sacrificed personal liberty, asserting it provided true freedom by eliminating exploitation and unemployment. He envisioned peaceful coexistence and competition between the Soviet system and American democracy, rejecting the notion that one could evolve into the other. Stalin outlined the upcoming Soviet constitution (conditions of parentship/guardianship of society), which would introduce universal, equal, direct, and secret suffrage, enabling lively election campaigns driven by public organizations, not competing parties, to address practical governance issues. The interview aimed to clarify Soviet foreign and domestic policies, counter Western misconceptions, and assert the Soviet Union's commitment to peace and socialism amid rising global tensions.

"Bill Bland’s “On Terrorism” provided a Marxist-Leninist critique of terrorism, analyzing its emergence, nature, and consequences. Bland argued that terrorism, as a tactic, was fundamentally flawed and counterproductive to the goals of socialist revolution, serving instead the interests of the capitalist state. The essay was written in the context of a decade marked by the rise of terrorist groups and tactics, such as those employed by the “Angry Brigade” in Britain and the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA), as well as certain groups in countries like India claiming Marxist-Leninist affiliations. Bland’s central point was that terrorism, rooted in petty-bourgeois rebelliousness and a lack of faith in the working class, diverted revolutionary energy from the necessary political mobilization of the masses and provided pretexts for state repression. Bland explained that terrorism emerged as a response to the failures of revisionist Communist Parties, which had abandoned revolutionary principles for reformist (social fascist) illusions of peaceful, parliamentary transitions to socialism. This opportunism left a vacuum in revolutionary leadership, leading disaffected individuals, often from the petty bourgeoisie, to adopt terrorism as an expression of their frustration with capitalism’s injustices. He drew on Lenin’s and Stalin’s analyses to describe terrorism as a form of anarchism, characterized by individualistic, spontaneous acts that prioritized personal rebellion over collective struggle (union of egoists's acts). These acts, such as assassinations or bombings, were seen as futile because they failed to weaken the capitalist state significantly, replacing one judge or rebuilding a courthouse did little to disrupt state power, and often alienated the working class by harming innocent people.

The essay outlined how terrorism operated in practice, often involving small, secretive groups of intellectuals disconnected from the broader working-class movement. Bland critiqued the spurious arguments of terrorists, who claimed their acts weakened the state or inspired revolutionary enthusiasm. He cited Lenin to argue that such actions neither transferred significant power to revolutionaries nor mobilized the masses, instead creating short-lived sensations that led to apathy or passive waiting among the people. Moreover, terrorism provided the state with excuses to strengthen its repressive machinery, as seen in examples like King Hussein’s 1970 crackdown on Palestinian forces in Jordan, justified by terrorist hijackings, or Britain’s use of IRA bombings to expand police powers and conduct raids on progressive groups. Bland also warned of the role of *agents provocateurs*, state agents who could infiltrate revolutionary groups to incite terrorism, further justifying repression, as exemplified by the 1933 Reichstag fire used to suppress the German Communist Party. Bland contrasted terrorism with revolutionary guerrilla warfare, which he supported as a legitimate tactic when conducted under a Marxist-Leninist party’s leadership, with mass support, and at an advanced stage of class struggle. Guerrilla warfare aimed to weaken the state’s forces, train revolutionary leaders, and secure resources for the movement, but only when integrated with the broader struggle of the working class. In contrast, terrorism was isolated, premature, and lacked mass backing, as seen in the Provisional IRA’s shift to indiscriminate bombings, which eroded support among both Irish and British workers. Bland also criticized groups like certain Maoist and Trotskyite factions in Britain for premature assaults on police during anti-fascist protests, labeling these as terrorist acts that disorganized the movement and aided fascist forces by inviting state crackdowns.

Bland's intent was to clarify the Marxist-Leninist stance against terrorism, emphasizing its objective role in serving capitalist interests by disorganizing revolutionary forces and justifying state repression. Bland urged a principled struggle against terrorism’s ideology, advocating for the political education and mobilization of the working class under a disciplined Marxist-Leninist vanguard party. By exposing terrorism’s roots in petty-bourgeois or conservative-socialist despair and its failure to advance proletarian struggle, Bland sought to redirect revolutionary energy toward building a mass movement capable of dismantling the capitalist state, that had the understanding to use the tools of the current state as needed.

"The proletarian class and proletarian party" says the slogan "Russia, one and indivisible" became obsolete as society divided into antagonistic classes: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, whose struggle formed the core dynamic of modern life. Initially obscured by localized conflicts, this divide sharpened as proletarian strikes and demonstrations united workers across towns, pitting bourgeois Russia against proletarian Russia. Each class mobilized under a vanguard party: the liberal party for the bourgeoisie and the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP) for the proletariat, providing organized leadership to channel the class war effectively. As the proletarian vanguard, the RSDLP was a compact, centralized body of leaders excelling in consciousness and experience to guide the broader, less aware working class. This structure arose because capitalism's poverty and fragmentation blocked full proletarian awareness, necessitating a dedicated cadre to educate, unify, and direct the masses toward socialism through coordinated action. Party membership demanded full adherence to its program, tactics, and principles, plus active participation in an organization and financial contributions, subordinating personal aims to collective goals. This forged a disciplined fortress of tested revolutionaries (explaining why obtaining membership can be hard and why it can be secretive), impervious to autocratic or liberal subversion, rather than a diffuse network of passive sympathizers. Lenin's Paragraph One formula codified this by requiring acceptance of the program, funding, and organizational work, ensuring ideological and practical centralism. Martov's rival version permitted mere "personal assistance" under Party guidance without organizational involvement, inviting opportunists (anarchists, Lib Socs, Libertarians, Social Fascists, Liberals, etc.) and eroding unity by broadening access to uncommitted elements (like modern leftists suggesting putting different ideological views under a big tent coalition). The Second Congress's adoption of Martov's formula was an error born of haste, fragmenting the vanguard; Lenin urged its reversal at the Third Congress to preserve the RSDLP as a cohesive force for proletarian victory.

"The proletarian class and proletarian party" says the slogan "Russia, one and indivisible" became obsolete as society divided into antagonistic classes: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, whose struggle formed the core dynamic of modern life. Initially obscured by localized conflicts, this divide sharpened as proletarian strikes and demonstrations united workers across towns, pitting bourgeois Russia against proletarian Russia. Each class mobilized under a vanguard party: the liberal party for the bourgeoisie and the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP) for the proletariat, providing organized leadership to channel the class war effectively. As the proletarian vanguard, the RSDLP was a compact, centralized body of leaders excelling in consciousness and experience to guide the broader, less aware working class. This structure arose because capitalism's poverty and fragmentation blocked full proletarian awareness, necessitating a dedicated cadre to educate, unify, and direct the masses toward socialism through coordinated action. Party membership demanded full adherence to its program, tactics, and principles, plus active participation in an organization and financial contributions, subordinating personal aims to collective goals. This forged a disciplined fortress of tested revolutionaries (explaining why obtaining membership can be hard and why it can be secretive), impervious to autocratic or liberal subversion, rather than a diffuse network of passive sympathizers. Lenin's Paragraph One formula codified this by requiring acceptance of the program, funding, and organizational work, ensuring ideological and practical centralism. Martov's rival version permitted mere "personal assistance" under Party guidance without organizational involvement, inviting opportunists (anarchists, Lib Socs, Libertarians, Social Fascists, Liberals, etc.) and eroding unity by broadening access to uncommitted elements (like modern leftists suggesting putting different ideological views under a big tent coalition). The Second Congress's adoption of Martov's formula was an error born of haste, fragmenting the vanguard; Lenin urged its reversal at the Third Congress to preserve the RSDLP as a cohesive force for proletarian victory.

"Armed Insurrection and Our Tactics," J.V. Stalin argues that Russia's escalating revolutionary unrest, evidenced by events like barricade fights in Lodz, strikes in Ivanovo-Voznesensk, uprisings in Odessa, mutinies in the Black Sea Fleet and Libau depot, and clashes in Tiflis, signaled an inevitable armed uprising to overthrow the tsarist autocracy. He attributed this necessity to the regime's intensifying repression, martial law, and hollow reform promises, which fueled widespread discontent and demanded the destruction of autocratic rule to forge a renewed social order aligned with popular aspirations. Stalin urged the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party, as the proletarian vanguard, to shift from mere agitation to comprehensive organizational and technical preparation, rejecting "tailist" passivity that treated insurrection as unorganizable spontaneity. This preparation entailed forming specialized groups to acquire and produce arms, establish explosives workshops, and raid state and private armories, as demonstrated by ongoing Baku collaborations among Party committees, the Balakhany-Bibi-Eibat group, and the Gnchak Committee. For execution, Stalin called for disciplined fighting squads under Party direction to lead the masses, trained in weaponry to seize armories, communications, and infrastructure while countering Black Hundreds reactionaries and directing public fury against the government. He opposed arming the masses broadly due to scarcity and seizure risks, favoring centralized control by these units to convert scattered skirmishes into a unified national revolt establishing a provisional revolutionary government. Stalin emphasized rigorous planning, including terrain analysis, pinpointing enemy vulnerabilities, central coordination of local efforts, and secrecy alongside proletarian military education drawn from expert comrades. This approach ensured proletarian hegemony in the revolution, shaping the ensuing democratic republic as a foundation for socialist advance.

George Manuel and Michael Posluns co-authored "The Fourth World: An Indian Reality," first published in 1974, the concept of a "Fourth World," a global community of Indigenous peoples connected by a spiritual relationship to their lands, distinct from the First, Second, and Third Worlds, inspired by 1960s decolonization movements in Africa and Asia. This vision emphasized Indigenous values of sharing, respect for all things, collectivism, egalitarianism, and shared stewardship as a potential universal ideal, achievable only through recognition of Indigenous rights, title, and sovereignty, fostering collective oneness and human sovereignty over individualistic or colonial domination; underscoring that all Indigenous structures and values developed from a spiritual bond with the land, promoting collective oneness where customs wed peoples to their environments like forests to soil.


Manuel grew up in the Secwepemc territory in British Columbia's Interior with his grandfather, an "Indian Doctor" born before European contact when Secwepemc law prevailed. Manuel recalled vivid incidents of change in Indigenous lives, such as his grandparents being denied access to a traditional berry-picking patch by a gate and No Trespassing signs, which shaped his understanding of racism as a tool for land dispossession. He endured hunger and oppression designed to undermine Indigenous values and instill inferiority, as he noted that residential schools served as the perfect instrument for undermining both values and economic bases, instilling a strong sense of inferiority, and that hunger was both the first and last thing he remembered about the school. These experiences fueled his lifelong pursuit of advocacy, driven by the need to resist church and government oppression, preserve Indigenous ways of knowing through collective memory and shared responsibility, and counter the rapid colonization of the Canadian West that ignored Indigenous perspectives, aligning with broader Indigenous calls for obligatory stewardship of humanity and the planet.

Manuel's political activism began in 1959 when he became president of the North American Indian Brotherhood of BC. Serving as Chief of the Neskonlith Indian Band east of Kamloops and confronted Indian Agents, priests, and bureaucrats in dramatic encounters, such as driving over treacherous roads in an old Chrysler, sometimes in reverse on steep inclines, to challenge authority at reserve meetings, revealing the ignorance, corruption, and racism faced by early activists. The 1969 White Paper, a Trudeau government assimilation policy, sparked widespread opposition and directly inspired the book. Manuel pursued these goals to achieve Indigenous self-determination, recognizing shared spiritual connections to land among global Indigenous groups, as he observed that underlying diverse customs was a common soil of social and spiritual experience forming the Fourth World. He founded and presided over the World Council of Indigenous Peoples from 1975 to 1981, which advanced international advocacy by connecting Indigenous struggles worldwide, contributing to the eventual creation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and embodying collective oneness through global solidarity and mutual aid against colonial structures.

Through persistent local, national, and international efforts, including travels to meet Indigenous leaders in Australia, New Zealand, Tanzania, and Sweden to identify common struggles, Manuel achieved milestones like promoting band-run schools, such as the 1975 opening of the Mount Currie Community School in Secwepemc territory, the second such school in Canada, marking a renaissance in Indigenous-controlled education rooted in collective governance. His work connected British Columbia's struggles to a global Indigenous movement, influencing recognition of rights amid ongoing colonial challenges, while critiquing how Indigenous worlds depended on the good faith and morality of dominant societies. Despite not fully attaining liberation, Manuel's advocacy highlighted the inseparability of Indigenous and North American histories, envisioning a future where Indigenous values of collective unity, egalitarianism, and shared planetary stewardship prevailed, rejecting egoism, nationalism, or sectarian supremacy in favor of universal human sovereignty and obligatory communal responsibility, true to traditional Indigenous wisdom that aligned with principles of collective oneness, obligatory stewardship enforced by democratic centralism and international communism without Marxist terminology.