Opinion | Emil McLeod
The proletariat has no weapon in its struggle for power except organization. The proletariat, disunited by the rule of anarchic competition within the bourgeois world, crushed by forced labor in the service of capital, constantly thrown into the “abyss” of the most complete misery, brutalization and degeneration, can and will inevitably become an invincible force only if its ideological unity through the principles of Marxism is strengthened by the material unity of the organization, which unites the millions of workers in the army of the working class.i
– Lenin, One Step Forward, Two Steps Back
The current state of the effort to reconstitute the Communist Party USA as a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist party is that of dispersion and disorganization. This situation has been caused by the complex and explosive struggles that emerged openly in the spring of 2022, which led to the attempted liquidation of the Committee to Reconstitute the Communist Party USA (CR-CPUSA). Since then there has been a proliferation of small groups across the country, some have formed independent organizations, others have formed “networks”, and others have integrated into other organizations entirely. This is a situation that is harmful to the revolutionaries in the United States that earnestly desire to reconstitute the Party based on a correct ideological conception of Maoism. Sectarianism and subjectivism are twin problems, inevitably reproduced by the scattered nature of our forces. These small groups have become accustomed to fragmentation and ideological chaos within our movement due to the lack of an organizational and ideological-political center, and as a result, focus their efforts primarily on their own local practical work. They reject, or do not yet understand, the absolute necessity of the unity of all Maoists in a single centralized Party and the organizational, ideological, and political process by which this is brought about.
When the recent sequence of Maoism in the United States was initiated, in 2014, most comrades had no political experience. In fact, many had bad experience as they were not accustomed to the communist method of organization, but, rather, to liberal and post-modernist activism. Furthermore, many of these comrades, while earnestly desiring to grasp and apply Maoism, understood it insufficiently, and in some cases, incorrectly. This led to certain errors of practice, which with historical examination, can be understood as inevitable as these comrades lacked any leadership with experience to guide them. The process that led to the formation of an ideological-political-organizational center, while taking Maoism as its basis, was fraught with problems that would later explode outwards violently in the form of a split.
The reconstitution of the Communist Party is still a pending task, and is the indisputable central question of our movement. On the question of reconstituting the Communist Party, two lines are delineated: those who favor reconstituting the Party (the reconstitutionalists), and those who favor the continuation of dispersion and reject the reconstitution of the Party (the liquidationists). Connected to this is the necessity of uniting around a correct conception of Maoism as the basis for forging organic unity, i.e. Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, principally Maoism, with the contributions of universal validity of Chairman Gonzalo. This is the primary contradiction on the question of the Party that has been posed to the communists in formation since the liquidation of the Communist Party USA in 1944. Connected to this question is how is this Party reconstituted, by what means and forms does this take? How are the Maoists gradually and patiently united through two-line struggle to build an organization capable, as Lenin said, of being
“…large enough to cover the whole country; vast and varied enough to be able to introduce into it a rigorous and detailed division of labour; strong enough to know how to continue its work unswervingly under all circumstances and in the face of all ‘turns’ and unexpected situations; flexible enough to know, on the one hand, how to avoid battles in the open against an enemy dangerous because of his overwhelming strength, when he concentrates all his strength on one point, but knowing, on the other hand, how to take advantage of the clumsiness of movement of this enemy and to attack him on the spot and at the moment when he least expects to be attacked.”ii
As has already been said, what exists currently are scattered and small “nuclei” of revolutionaries across the country. The term “nuclei” has been used here in The Worker, but also throughout the history of the International Communist Movement, yet, it is not clearly understood by many comrades what a nuclei is and its history. This essay examines these questions in the light of a historical examination of the constitution of the Bolshevik Party, developed and led by the great Lenin.
To begin, it must be established that there are, of course, significant differences in the objective conditions between Tsarist Russia at the turn of the 20th century and the contemporary imperialist United States. The proletariat within the U.S. is more numerous than the Russian proletariat was, and the economy itself is more highly developed along monopoly capitalist lines, with a high degree of development of finance capital. Yet, the subjective conditions, that is, the state of the organization of the proletariat and the organization of its leadership, i.e. the communists, are quite similar, and this is where we must begin our historical examination.
The first Marxist group was created in 1883 by Georgi Plekhanov, known as the Emancipation of Labour group. Plekhanov was a former Nardonikiii who had renounced Narodism for Marxism, and had immediately set to work propagandizing Marxism among the workers across Russia, primarily through the translation of several important works of Marxism into Russian for the first time such as, The Manifesto of the Communist Party, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, and Wage Labour and Capital. The Emancipation of Labour group
“…raised the banner of Marxism in the Russian press abroad at a time when no Social-Democratic movement in Russia yet existed. It was first necessary to prepare the theoretical, ideological ground for such a movement. The chief ideological obstacle to the spread of Marxism and of the Social-Democratic movement was the Narodnik views which at that time prevailed among the advanced workers and the revolutionary-minded intelligentsia.”iv
Plekhanov’s group undertook clearing away the colossal heap of rubbish that was Narodism in Russia by criticizing its three main errors. The first error was that the Narodniks considered it still an open-ended question whether capitalism would develop in Russia, to which Plekhanov correctly pointed out that capitalism had already emerged in Russia, and that the main task was not to attempt, futilely, to prevent its development, but to help organize and lead the revolutionary class brought into being by capitalism, the proletariat, by creating a revolutionary proletarian party. Secondly, Plekhanov proved that the proletariat is the only class that can construct socialism, and that this could only prove possible with the dictatorship of the proletariat, contrary to the Narodniks’ views that the peasantry and the commune were the basis for establishing socialism, which negated the leading role of the proletariat and the necessity of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The third error Plekhanov criticized was the primacy that the Narodniks placed upon the individual’s role in history, with the Narodniks claiming that the individual “hero” is the driving force of social transformation, while the masses are nothing but an amorphous “mob”, condemned to only reactively follow the ideas and actions of these “heroes”. Therefore, through Plekhanov’s interventions, he was able to land serious blows to the incorrect ideas of the Narodniks regarding who the leading class of the revolution must be, the means and methods of leading this class to victory, and the role of the proletariat and its allies in social transformation. In so doing he defended and propagated the Marxist theses on the necessity of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the necessity for the Party to lead the proletariat in conquering power, and that changes in society are not determined by the will of individuals or “heroes”, but by the class struggle and the development of the mode of production.
While Plekhanov, through his translations of Marx and Engels’s works, and through authoring monumental Marxist works of his own such as The Development of the Monist View of History, The Materialist Conception of History, and On the Role of the Individual in History, was able to crack the ideological foundation of Narodnism, the death blows were to be later landed by Lenin, who, using Marxist political economy, outlined in detail the development of capitalism in Russia. Besides these important contributions towards laying a firmer and more consolidated ideological and theoretical foundation for the constitution of a Marxist party, it must also be added that the Emancipation of Labour group was able to produce two preliminary drafts of a program for a Russian Marxist party, in 1884 and 1887. While these draft programs were important preparatory steps in the formation of the Party, they contained several ideological remnants of Narodism within them, mainly, its sanctioning of individual terrorism, a conciliatory attitude towards the bourgeoisie, and the inviability of the proletariat leading and allying with the peasantry in the revolution.
The activities of the Emancipation of Labour group from 1884-1894 “…only laid the theoretical foundations for the Social-Democratic movement and made the first step towards the working-class movement.”v It accomplished this not only through the ideological struggle against Narodism, but also by simultaneously developing and encouraging the formation of workers’ circles, led by Marxists. Regarding the purpose of these circles, Stalin said that they were “…to create among the workers themselves a group that would subsequently be able to lead the movement. Therefore, these circles were made up of advanced workers—only chosen workers could attend them.”vi These workers’ study circles confined themselves to agitation and propaganda, and had little to no connection with the mass working class movement, until after the spontaneous strike waves of 1894-1896 when they began to develop and fuse their agitational and propagandistic activities with the spontaneous revolts and strikes of the mass of workers. Lenin rightly characterized this period as akin to “fetal development”, due to the small and scattered nature of the workers’ study circles, and the weak ties the Marxists had with the proletarian movement. It would later be Lenin himself that would undertake the historic task of developing and uniting these disparate groups, specifically by using the newspaper Iskra as the central organizer, making a qualitative leap towards the constitution of a Marxist party in Russia.
In 1895 Lenin achieved the unification of twenty of the Marxist study circles in St. Petersburg into the League of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class. Lenin pushed the League to develop closer connections with the working class movement, and in so doing to give this movement political leadership. This task necessitated passing from the propagation of Marxism to politically advanced workers gathered in the study circles, to political agitation within the broader proletarian movement around the issues of the day, such as wages, length of the work day, conditions etc. It was the League of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class that began to fuse communism with the working class movement, a fundamental task for the creation of a Marxist party.
“When a strike broke out in some factory, the League of Struggle, which through the members of its circles was kept well posted on the state of affairs in the factories, immediately responded by issuing leaflets and Socialist proclamations. These leaflets exposed the oppression of the workers by the manufacturers, explained how the workers should fight for their interests, and set forth the workers’ demands. The leaflets told the plain truth about the ulcers of capitalism, the poverty of the workers, their intolerably hard working day of 12 to 14 hours, and their utter lack of rights. They also put forward appropriate political demands.”vii
Lenin penned several pamphlets for the League to use in its propaganda and agitational work, such as On Strikes and To the Tsarist Government, helping to link the struggle of the workers for their daily demands to the larger political struggle against Tsarism and capitalism. The formation of the League in St. Petersburg, alongside its activities in the workers’ movement there, provided a powerful impetus for the amalgamation of workers’ circles elsewhere in Russia into similar leagues. The significance of Lenin’s League cannot be understated as it was the first “…real rudiment of a revolutionary party which was backed by the working class.”viii
In 1895, Lenin was arrested for his revolutionary activities. While imprisoned he continued to carry out work for the League, writing leaflets and pamphlets, and even developing a draft program for a Marxist party. However, during Lenin’s imprisonment, the leadership of the League became dominated by the Economists. The Economists thought, contrary to Lenin, that the workers should only wage an economic struggle against their employers, and that the political struggle should be led by the liberal bourgeoisie.
“In practice, their actions found expression in the view that it was their duty to conduct only local activities in this or that town. They displayed no interest in the organization of a Social-Democratic workers’ party in Russia; on the contrary, they regarded the organization of a party as a ridiculous and amusing game which would hinder them in the execution of their direct “duty”—to wage the economic struggle. Strikes and more strikes, and the collection of kopeks for strike funds—such was the alpha and omega of their activities.”ix
It was in this period that the consolidating of the circles, groups, and leagues as the Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party was achieved through the struggle against the remnants of Narodism and the Economists. In Lenin’s book What the “Friends of the People” Are and How They Fight the Social-Democrats he put forth the revolutionary alliance of the proletariat and peasantry as a necessary condition for the overthrow of Tsarism, landlordism, and the bourgeoisie. He also criticized the methods of individual terrorism employed by Narodnik groups like Narodnaya Volya, stating that such methods were harmful to the development of a revolutionary mass movement because it focused on the struggle of individual “heroes” rather than the struggle of the masses. Lastly, but most importantly, Lenin maintained that the principal task was to unite the dispersed circles, groups, and leagues into a single centralized Marxist party. These efforts by Lenin led to the complete ideological defeat of Narodism in the 1890s.
In regards to the Economists, the movement in St. Petersburg had fizzled out due to the Economists focus on building up the industrial organizations of the workers in lieu of constituting a Marxist party, and subsequently, the strikes and workers’ organizations were smashed and infiltrated by the police and informants, frustrating the efforts of the class conscious workers and leading to exile and imprisonment of many of the finest combative workers. Yet, the development of the workers struggle, despite the opportunism and liquidationism of the Economists, proved the best teacher for the working class, because as the struggle for economic demands developed it assumed a more open political character. This was seen in the development of the political demonstration, culminating in the Kharkov May Day rally in 1900, as a new form of struggle by the working class. The political demonstration, unlike the strikes by the workers focused solely on the individual manufacturer, assumed wider political demands, and connected the daily demands of the workers (wages, hours, conditions) with the political question of overthrowing Tsarism, landlordism, and the bourgeoisie.
In 1898, the Leagues of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class in St. Petersburg, Moscow, Kiev and Ekaterinoslav held the First Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP), but no party program, rules, or leading center were produced, meaning that while this party existed on paper, it really had no form and no organizational means of uniting the circles, groups, and leagues. It was only through Lenin’s establishment of the revolutionary newspaper, Iskra, in 1900, that an organizational center was established that could unite the disparate groupings together into a single party, for the first time forming a real Marxist party in Russia. This process culminated in the constitution of the RSDLP. Although this party would later split, its red fraction, the Bolsheviks led by Lenin, would later lead the proletariat and peasantry in the victorious democratic and socialist revolutions in Russia.
Some Lessons
In light of our historical examination of the prolonged process of constituting the Marxist party in Russia, several universal truths can be deduced. The first such truth is that a nucleus of revolutionaries should be formed, as it is the most basic organizational unit. A nucleus is the central and most important part of an object, movement, or group, forming the basis for its activity and growth. The organizational form of the nucleus must allow it to do mass work, and at the same time, to prevent the exposure of its members to the class enemy, the police, and their lackeys, and, therefore, must necessarily be clandestine. It should hide itself from the enemy but reveal itself to the masses through struggle. In discussing the efforts of many students who attempted to form Marxist circles between 1894-1901, Lenin notes that a certain “primitiveness” and “amateurishness” in organizational methodology prevailed during that period.
The characterization of “primitiveness” denotes that these nuclei failed to link up with other circles and nuclei in their district, city, or region. Instead, they preferred to focus on their own local work, which necessarily led them into the bog of Economism because they could not develop a broader perspective and understanding of the country-wide working class movement, tailing instead behind their own local spontaneous workers’ struggles. Developing a necessary country-wide perspective requires the exchange of methods, ideas, personnel etc., along with establishing organizational links between nuclei, in order to achieve a wide-ranging and deep understanding of the daily demands of the working class as a whole, and how to link these with larger revolutionary political tasks. The affect of this “primitiveness” was that
“Raids became so frequent, affected such a vast number of people, and cleared out the local circles so thoroughly, that the masses of the workers literally lost all their leaders, the movement assumed an incredibly sporadic character, and it became utterly impossible to establish continuity and connectedness in the work. The fact that the local active workers were hopelessly scattered, the casual manner in which the membership of the circles were recruited, the lack of training in and narrow outlook on theoretical, political, and organizational questions were all the inevitable result of the conditions described above. Things reached such a pass that in several places the workers, because of our lack of stamina and inability to maintain secrecy, began to lose faith in the intelligentsia and to avoid them: The intellectuals, they said, are much too careless and lay themselves open to police raids!”x
Furthermore, Lenin correctly pointed out that these nuclei and circles, unable to look up from their local, practical work, and operating their workers’ circles semi-openly, demonstrated a “…failure to understand that a good organization of revolutionaries cannot be built on the basis of such narrow activity, and lastly — and this is the main thing — attempts to justify this narrowness and to elevate it to a special ‘theory’, i.e., subservience to spontaneity on this question too.”xi In contrast, Lenin said that
“If we begin with the solid foundation of a strong organization of revolutionaries, we can ensure the stability of the movement as a whole and carry out the aims both of Social-Democracy and of trade unions proper. If, however, we begin with a broad workers’ organization, which is supposedly most ‘accessible’ to the masses (but which is actually most accessible to the gendarmes and makes revolutionaries most accessible to the police), we shall achieve neither the one aim nor the other; we shall not eliminate our rule-of-thumb methods, and, because we remain scattered and our forces are constantly broken up by the police, we shall only make trade unions of the Zubatov and Ozerov type the more accessible to the masses.”xii
To achieve this “solid foundation”, in our current conditions, ideological unity must first be achieved, specifically, ideological unity in Maoism. Ideological unity must precede organizational unity, and it is with organizational unity, combined with a unified basis of Maoism, that the revolutionaries can truly begin to organize themselves as communists in formation, i.e., accustom themselves to communist methods of organization and communist methods of work. This process is the only way to build a strong organization of revolutionaries because it sees Party reconstitution in its motion, complete with the contradictions contained within it, expressed in the struggle between two lines, itself an expression of the class struggle present in society. These lines emerge in all organizations of the proletariat, even the nuclei, no matter their stage of development. However, these lines do not emerge completely formed, but incompletely, having their own process of formation, specifically through the organization of two-line struggle within the proletarian organization.
The illegality of revolution in general presupposes the illegality of the nucleus in particular. This necessitates that it begin to develop its capacities for secret work in its most basic forms, which is only possible with a certain level of internal discipline and organization, i.e., a democratic centralist form of organization and discipline. This is not just to ensure the continuity of leaders and provide a basis of the movement’s stability, as Lenin discussed, but also allows the nucleus to engage in ideological-political construction simultaneously with organizational construction. In regards to this simultaneous ideological-political and organizational construction of the nuclei, using the League for the Struggle of the Emancipation of the Working Class as an example, Lenin says the following:
“The socialist activities of Russian Social-Democrats consist in spreading by propaganda the teachings of scientific socialism, in spreading among the workers a proper understanding of the present social and economic system, its basis and its development, an understanding of the various classes in Russian society, of their interrelations, of the struggle between these classes, of the role of the working class in this struggle, of its attitude towards the declining and the developing classes, towards the past and the future of capitalism, an understanding of the historical task of international Social-Democracy and of the Russian working class. Inseparably connected with propaganda is agitation among the workers, which naturally comes to the forefront in the present political conditions of Russia and at the present level of development of the masses of workers. Agitation among the workers means that the Social-Democrats take part in all the spontaneous manifestations of the working-class struggle, in all the conflicts between the workers and the capitalists over the working day, wages, working conditions, etc., etc. Our task is to merge our activities with the practical, everyday questions of working-class life, to help the workers understand these questions, to draw the workers’ attention to the most important abuses, to help them formulate their demands to the employers more precisely and practically, to develop among the workers consciousness of their solidarity, consciousness of the common interests and common cause of all the Russian workers as a united working class that is part of the international army of the proletariat. To organize study circles among workers, to establish proper and secret connections between them and the central group of Social-Democrats, to publish and distribute working-class literature, to organize the receipt of correspondence from all centers of the working-class movement, to publish agitational leaflets and manifestos and to distribute them, and to train a body of experienced agitators…”xiii
The members of the nucleus must internally develop themselves ideologically by studying the ideology of the international proletariat (Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, principally Maoism, with the contributions of universal validity of Chairman Gonzalo), and must then seek to propagandize among the workers, through the organization of study circles, this ideology and how it understands and analyzes the contradictions of the capitalist system. Connected to this must be agitation among the workers around the spontaneous and daily struggles of these workers for basic demands, and in so doing, to begin to merge the activities of the nucleus with the practical activities of the workers. In order to do both of these effectively, Lenin notes that “proper and secret” connections must be made between these various “centers”, i.e. nuclei. Without the connection between nuclei, dispersion is maintained and worsened, leading inevitably to the primitive and amateurish methods discussed by Lenin, and, in turn, recreating dispersion and primitive and amateurish methods because the scattered nuclei can not accurately assess, on a broad scale, the general demands of the working class, nor can they link their activities in such a way as to provide real revolutionary leadership to the workers beyond a single locality. In such conditions either right or “left” economism is the inevitable result, and any attempts at creating organizational connections or networks are frustrated in favor of maintaining the “narrow outlook”.
Lenin’s famous dictum that “Without a revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement” speaks to the importance of the propagation of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, first to the advanced workers, by the revolutionaries gathered in the nuclei. This is in order to lay the theoretical and ideological groundwork necessary to create among the workers leaders who are theoretically and practically capable of leading, and to construct a real basis of unity between the scattered nuclei, connecting their activities with those of the workers. Lenin said that “…attention must be devoted principally to the task of raising the workers to the level of revolutionists; but without, in doing so, necessarily degrading ourselves to the level of the ‘laboring masses’.”xiv The propagation of theory also helps to combat tendencies that emerge that preach opportunism, largely in the form of tailing the spontaneous workers movement, and the promotion of the “narrowest forms of practical activity”, i.e. preference towards one’s own local work to the neglect of the theoretical and practical experience of others.
Regarding the importance of theory in a period when the Party was still being constituted, Lenin stated that
“…our party is only in the process of formation, its features are only just becoming outlined, and it has not yet completely settled its reckoning with other tendencies in revolutionary thought which threaten to divert the movement from the proper path. Indeed, in very recent times we have observed (as Axelrod long ago warned the Economists would happen) a revival of non-Social-Democratic revolutionary tendencies. Under such circumstances, what at first sight appears to be an ‘unimportant’ mistake, may give rise to most deplorable consequences, and only the short-sighted would consider factional disputes and strict distinction of shades to be inopportune and superfluous. The fate of Russian Social-Democracy for many, many years to come may be determined by the strengthening of one or the other ‘shade’.”xv
Here Lenin clearly notes that the theoretical question is of the utmost importance for the constitution of the Party, as theories alien to Marxism, which might seem to be minuscule in their affect, can transform into significant obstacles to the constitution or reconstitution of the Party. In our contemporary conditions there is still a theoretical poverty that reigns supreme, precisely due to the dispersion of our forces and the limited practical experience in the movement generally, but also due to the fact that our ideological and practical activities have not yet gripped the lowest and deepest section of the proletariat. To think that all the various “shades” of opinion that have cropped up represent anything close to united understanding of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, gleaned from the study and application of our ideology in the class struggle, would be short-sighted and incorrect.
It should also be noted that the law of uneven development also plays a role in the process of Party reconstitution in the United States. This law expresses the general spasmodic development of imperialism in the stage of its decomposition, where the economic development of countries are sharply demarcated, and the world is divided and redivided among the imperialists through inevitable wars and conflicts between them. This uneven development, however, allows imperialism to be broken at its weakest link, and for the proletarian revolution to be victorious in one country first. This also means that in these “weak links” in the chain of imperialism, that the revolutionary movement will generate proletarian revolutionaries and leaders of a higher quality based on a greater degree of practical revolutionary experience. This is necessarily so as it is an expression of the unevenness in development of the world proletarian revolution, where the principal contradiction in the world is between the oppressed nations and imperialism, and historically, it has been in these countries were the proletarian revolution has developed most qualitatively. The United States, as the sole, hegemonic, imperialist superpower, with all of its opportunism and bribery, is not able to produce the kind of revolutionary consciousness found in Russia then, nor in the Third World today. This must be grasped in order to understand our own amateurishness, in combination with what was outlined above.
The nuclei that exist are already engaged in rudimentary forms of revolutionary work, some more open, and some more secret. Yet, the conditions of dispersion hinder even the meager efforts of these already existing nuclei. Through the organization of two-line struggle, ideological unity based in a correct conception of Maoism must be achieved as a basis to thereafter develop proper organizational unity. Our movement cannot do without unity if we wish to live up to the task that the international proletariat, and specifically the American proletariat, have set for us, that is, the reconstitution of the Communist Party USA. In this respect we have a long way to go, as we are still far from accomplishing what even Plekhanov’s Emancipation of Labour group achieved, and even further yet from accomplishing the historic feats of Lenin’s League of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class. The brief historical outline above, and the lessons it provides, are instructive for revolutionaries currently active in their own organizations, or revolutionaries still dispersed and disorganized. Studying the process by which the great Lenin, one of the master organizers of communists, constituted the Bolshevik Party, is instrumental to understanding the process by which the Communist Party USA can begin to be reconstituted, which for us, is our pending principal task.
i Vladimir Lenin, “One Step Forward, Two Steps Back,” Marxists.org, October 24, 2024, https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1904/onestep/.
ii From the forward by the Institute of Marxism-Leninism of the Central Committee of the CPSU (Instituto de Marxism-Leninismo adjust al CC del PCUS) of the 1981 Spanish publication of the Selected Works Vol. 5 by Editorial Progresso.
iii Narodnik, a follower of the ideology of Russia’s peasant democrats, Narodism. Narodism emerged in the 1870s as revolutionaries began to go among the peasantry and agitate among them for the “equalization of land”. This trend engaged in political assassinations of individuals within the Tsarist State, such as the assassination of Alexander II by the Narodnaya Volya in 1881. The ideology of Narodism was established by Alexander Herzen and Nikolay Chernyshevsky.
iv Joseph Stalin, “History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks) Short Course,” Marxists.org, October 8, 2024, https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/.
v Vladimir Lenin, “The Ideological Struggle in the Working Class Movement,” Marxists.org, October 12, 2024, https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/may/04.htm.
vi Joseph Stalin, “The Russian Social Democratic Party and Its Immediate Tasks,” Marxists.org, October 12, 2024, https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1901/11/x01.htm.
vii Joseph Stalin,“History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks) Short Course,” Marxists.org, October 8, 2024, https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/.
viii Ibid.
ix Joseph Stalin, “The Russian Social Democratic Party and Its Immediate Tasks,” Marxists.org, October 12, 2024, https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1901/11/x01.htm.
x Vladimir Lenin, Collected Works of V. I. Lenin Vol. 4: The Iskra Period 1900-1902 (United States: International Publishers, 1929), 178-179.
xi Ibid, 180.
xii Ibid, 194.
xiii Vladimir Lenin, “The Tasks of the Russian Social-Democrats,” Marxists.org, October 15, 2024, https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1897/dec/31b.htm.
xiv Vladimir Lenin, Collected Works of V.I. Lenin Vol. 4: The Iskra Period 1900-1902 (United States: International Publishers, 1929), 204.
xv Ibid, 110.
Photo: Members of the League of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class, pictured in 1897. Standing (left to right): Alexander Malchenko, P. Zaporozhets, Anatoly Vaneyev. Sitting (left to right): V. Starkov, Gleb Krzhizhanovsky, Vladimir Lenin, Julius Martov.
