Marx-Engels | Lenin | Stalin | Home Page
Basic Economic Law of Monopoly Capitalism - Transition to ImperialismOstrovityanov K.V. Shepilov D.T. Leontiev L.A. , Laptev I.D. Kuzminov I.I. Gatovsky L.M
State publishing house of political literature. Moscow. 1954
Economic theories of the opportunists of the Second International and contemporary right‐wing socialists.
The countless attempts of bourgeois science to ʺdestroyʺ Marxism did not in the least shake its positions. Then the struggle against Marxism began to be waged in a doubledealing way, clothed in the form of ʺimprovementsʺ and ʺinterpretationsʺ of Marxʹs theory. ʺThe dialectic of history is such that the theoretical victory of Marxism forces its enemies to disguise themselves as Marxistsʺ [5] .
In the 90s of the 19th century, revisionism appeared on the scene, the main representative of which was the German Social Democrat E. Bernstein. The revisionists took up arms against the teachings of Marx and Engels on the inevitability of the revolutionary downfall of capitalism and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. They subjected to a complete revision (revision) all parts of the revolutionary economic teachings of Marx. The revisionists proposed to combine Marxʹs labor theory of value with the theory of marginal utility, and, in essence, to replace it with the latter.
They interpreted the Marxist doctrine of surplus value in the sense of ʺmoral condemnationʺ of capitalist exploitation. Under the guise of supposedly ʺnew dataʺ on the development of capitalism, the revisionists declared ʺoutdatedʺ Marxʹs doctrine of the victory of large‐scale production over small production, of the impoverishment of the proletariat in capitalist society, of irreconcilability and aggravation of class contradictions, and of the inevitability of economic crises of overproduction under capitalism.
They called on the workers to abandon the revolutionary struggle for the destruction of the capitalist system and confine themselves to the struggle for current economic interests. In Russia, the views of revisionism were taken up by the so‐called ʺlegal Marxistsʺ, who were in fact bourgeois ideologists.(P. Struve, M. Tugan‐Baranovsky and others), representatives of the opportunist group of ʺeconomistsʺ and the Mensheviks.
A more subtle form of distortion of Marxism was used by the opportunists of the Second International K. Kautsky (18541938), R. Hilferding (1877 ‐ 1941) and others. At the beginning of their activities, they were Marxists, contributing to the spread of Marxist teachings. In the future, they actually switched to the position of opponents of revolutionary Marxism, continuing for the time being to act under the guise of ʺorthodoxʺ, that is, allegedly orthodox disciples of Marx and Engels. By objecting verbally ‐ and then very inconsistently ‐ against certain assertions of the revisionists, these opportunists emasculated the revolutionary essence of Marxism and tried to turn Marxism into a dead dogma. They rejected the doctrine of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is the soul of Marxism, they denied the absolute impoverishment of the working class, they asserted that crises under capitalism become rarer and weaker. The revisionists sought to adapt proletarian political economy to the interests of the bourgeoisie.
In order to gloss over the deep contradictions of monopoly capitalism, K. Kautsky interpreted imperialism only as a special kind of politics, namely, as the desire of highly developed industrial countries to subjugate the agrarian regions. This theory sowed illusions about the possibility of a different, nonaggressive policy under monopoly capitalism. During the First World War, Kautsky came up with the anti‐Marxist theory of ultra‐imperialism (super‐imperialism), arguing that under imperialism it is possible, through collusion between the capitalists of different countries, to eliminate wars and create an organized world economy. This reactionary theory is characterized by the separation of economics from politics and ignorance of the law of uneven development of the capitalist countries in the era of imperialism. The theory of ʺultraimperialismʺ embellished imperialism and disarmed the working class to please the bourgeoisie, creating illusions about the possibility of a peaceful and crisis‐free development of capitalism.
The same goal was served by the vulgar ʺtheory of productive forcesʺ preached by Kautsky, according to which socialism is supposedly a mechanical result of the development of the productive forces of society, without class struggle and revolution.
R. Hilferding in his work Finance Capital (1910), devoted to the study of the ʺrecent phase of capitalismʺ, giving a scientific analysis of some aspects of the economy of imperialism, at the same time obscured the decisive role of monopolies in modern capitalism and the aggravation of all its contradictions, ignored the most important the features of imperialism are parasitism and the decay of capitalism, the division of the world and the struggle for its redistribution. During the years of temporary, partial stabilization of capitalism, Hilferding, following the bourgeois economists, argued that the era of ʺorganized capitalismʺ had begun, when competition, anarchy of production, and crises disappear due to the activity of monopolies, and planned, conscious organization begins to dominate. Hence the reactionary leaders of the Social Democracy concluded that trusts and cartels were peacefully
ʺgrowingʺ into a planned socialist economy;
Thus, the embellishment of imperialism by Kautsky, Hilferding and other reformist theorists of Social Democracy is inextricably linked with their preaching of the “peaceful growth of capitalism into socialism”, aimed at diverting the working class from the tasks of the revolutionary struggle for socialism, towards subordinating the labor movement to the interests of the imperialist bourgeoisie. This goal was served, in particular, by the apologetic theory of ʺeconomic democracyʺ spread by some right‐wing socialist leaders between the two world wars. According to this theory, workers, acting as representatives of trade unions in factory management and other bodies, allegedly take an equal part in the management of the economy and gradually become the masters of production.
A variation of the reformist theory of the peaceful growth of capitalism into socialism is the theory of ʺcooperative socialismʺ, built on the illusion that, while maintaining the dominance of capital, the spread of cooperative forms would allegedly lead to socialism.
In Russia, anti‐Marxist, Kautskyian views on questions of the theory of imperialism were spread by the enemies of socialism—the Mensheviks, Trotskyists, Bukharinites, and others. Preaching apologetic theories of ʺpure imperialismʺ, ʺorganized capitalismʺ, etc., they sought to cover up the growing contradictions of monopoly capitalism. Denying the law of the uneven development of capitalism in the era of imperialism, they tried to poison the consciousness of the working class with the poison of disbelief in the possibility of the victory of socialism in one country.
In the period after the Second World War, right‐wing reformist leaders of the British Labor Party, right‐wing socialist leaders in France, Italy, West Germany, Austria, and other countries (L. Blum, K. Renner ) acted as defenders of capitalism . and others). Acting as agents of the imperialist bourgeoisie in the workersʹ movement, the leaders of the right‐wing socialists defend the monopolies, preach a class peace between the workers and the bourgeoisie, and actively support the reactionary domestic and aggressive foreign policy of imperialism. In an effort to reconcile the working people with imperialism, to inspire the working class with faith in the possibility of improving its plight while maintaining the capitalist system, right‐wing socialist theorists have composed the theory of ʺdemocratic socialismʺ, which is a version of the theory of the peaceful growth of capitalism into socialism.
The theory of ʺdemocratic socialismʺ asserts that in England, in the USA, in France and in other capitalist countries there is no longer any exploitation and opposition between the class interests of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, moreover, the imperialist state is declared a supra‐class organization, and any enterprise that is the property of this state, ‐ ʺsocialistʺ enterprise. The Labor leaders proclaimed the nationalization of the Bank of England, the railways, and certain branches of industry, carried out during their time in power after the Second World War, as a triumph of ʺdemocratic socialismʺ. In reality, the Labor nationalization was a bourgeois measure that did not change the economic nature of the nationalized enterprises as capitalist enterprises. The real masters in England continued to be the imperialist bourgeoisie and the big landowners, the landlords. Owners of previously unprofitable nationalized enterprises have received generous compensation and high income security, and workers in the nationalized industries are forced to work even harder at low wages. The theory of ʺdemocratic socialismʺ serves as a screen covering the growing oppression of the working masses by state‐monopoly capitalism, which is the highest stage of domination by the financial oligarchy.
While preaching ʺclass peaceʺ in capitalist society, the leaders of the right‐wing socialist parties are at the same time actively helping the bourgeoisie to carry out a broad offensive against the living standards of the working masses, to stifle the labor movement in the metropolitan countries and the national liberation movement in the colonies and dependent countries. In interpreting and evaluating all the most important economic phenomena of the modern era, they follow in the footsteps of the bourgeois economists.
A consistent struggle against the reactionary ʺtheoriesʺ of bourgeois economists and right‐wing socialist leaders is waged by communist workersʹ parties, which are guided in their activities by the theory of Marxism‐Leninism.
The ideas of progressive Marxist‐Leninist theory are becoming more and more widespread among the progressive part of the intelligentsia of the capitalist countries, including among economists. An army of advanced scientists and public figures of various views and directions is growing and multiplying, taking an active part in the struggle for the national independence of their peoples, for peace, for the development of economic and cultural ties between all countries, regardless of differences in their social system.
The development of the Marxist political economy of capitalism by VI Lenin. Development of a number of new provisions of the political economy of capitalism by IV Stalin.
The economic doctrine of Marx and Engels received its further creative development in the works of V. I. Lenin (1870 ‐ 1924). Marx, Engels, Lenin are the creators of truly scientific political economy. As a faithful follower and continuer of the teachings of Marx and Engels, Lenin launched an uncompromising struggle against the open and hidden enemies of Marxism. Lenin defended the revolutionary teachings of Marx and Engels from the attacks of bourgeois pseudoscience, from its distortions by revisionists and opportunists of all stripes. Based on the generalization of the new historical experience of the class struggle of the proletariat, he raised the teaching of
Marxism to a new, higher level.
Lenin entered the arena of political struggle in the 90s of the 19th century, when the transition from pre‐monopoly capitalism to imperialism was being completed, when the center of the world revolutionary movement moved to Russia, a country in which the greatest peopleʹs revolution was brewing.
In the works of the 90s ‐ “On the so‐called question of the markets” (1893), “What are the “friends of the people” and how do they fight against the social democrats?” (1894), ʺThe economic content of populism and criticism of it in the book of Mr. Struveʺ (1894), ʺOn the characteristics of economic romanticismʺ (1897) ‐ Lenin consistently fought both against the populists and against the ʺlegal Marxistsʺ who glorified capitalism, glossed over its profound contradictions, and sought to subordinate the growing working‐class movement to the interests of the bourgeoisie. The ideological defeat of populism was completed by Leninʹs classic work The Development of Capitalism in Russia (1899), which is the largest work of Marxist literature since the publication of
Marxʹs Capital.
In this work and in other works of the 1990s, Lenin gave a deep analysis of the Russian economy, revealed the economic foundations of class contradictions and class struggle, and the prospects for the revolutionary movement. Summarizing the experience of the economic and political development of Russia and other countries in the last decades of the 19th century, Lenin defended and developed the provisions of Marxism on the laws of the emergence and development of the capitalist mode of production, on its insoluble contradictions and inevitable death. Having refuted populist fabrications about the ʺartificialityʺ of Russian capitalism, Lenin revealed the peculiar features of the economy and social system of Russia, connected with the peculiarities of its historical development, in particular, the combination of methods of capitalist exploitation with numerous remnants of feudal oppression, which gave social relations in Russia a special urgency.
In the struggle against the scornful attitude of populism towards the proletariat, Lenin showed that the development of capitalism inevitably leads to an increase in the number, organization, and consciousness of the working class, which is the vanguard of the entire mass of working and exploited people. He comprehensively substantiated the leading role of the proletariat in the revolution.
Lenin found out the essence of the processes of differentiation of the peasantry in post‐reform Russia and the close interweaving of the remnants of feudal bondage with the oppression of capitalist relations, refuting the populist idea of the peasantry as a homogeneous mass. He gave an economic substantiation of the possibility and necessity of a revolutionary alliance of the working class with the working and exploited masses of the peasantry.
Lenin revealed the economic basis of those features of the Russian revolution that made it a revolution of a new type ‐ a bourgeois‐democratic revolution under the hegemony of the proletariat, which had the prospect of developing into a socialist revolution.
The Development of Capitalism in Russia summarizes a number of Leninʹs works on the theory of capitalist reproduction. In these works, he shattered the Simmondist assertions of the populists about the impossibility of realizing surplus value without the presence of small producers and a foreign market, and gave a comprehensive justification for the Marxist position that the market for capitalism is created in the course of the development of capitalism itself. Lenin further developed Marxist propositions on the contradictions of capitalist realization, on the growth of the organic composition of capital as a factor in the impoverishment of the proletariat, and on the inevitability of periodic crises of overproduction under capitalism.
The most valuable contribution to Marxist political economy is Leninʹs work on the agrarian question, in which extensive material on the development of capitalism in agriculture in Russia and a number of other countries (France, Germany, Denmark, the USA, etc.) is scientifically summarized. In his works The Agrarian Question and the ʺCritiques of Marxʺ (1901‐1907), The Agrarian Program of Social Democracy in the First Russian Revolution of 1905‐1907 (1907), New Data on the Laws of the Development of Capitalism in Agriculture ”(1914 ‐ 1915) and others, Lenin deeply and comprehensively studied the laws of the capitalist development of agriculture, which were outlined by Marx only in general terms.
In the struggle against Western European and Russian revisionism, which declared agriculture to be that area of the economy where the laws of the concentration and centralization of capital were allegedly inapplicable, Lenin gave a scientific analysis of the peculiarities of the development of capitalism in the countryside. He showed the profound contradictory nature of the economic position of the main peasant masses and the inevitability of their ruin in bourgeois society. Lenin defended and developed the Marxist theory of differential and absolute land rent! Having revealed the significance of absolute rent as one of the most important factors hindering the development of productive forces in agriculture, Lenin comprehensively developed the question of the possibility, conditions, and economic consequences of land nationalization in bourgeois‐democratic and socialist revolutions.
He exposed the bourgeois economists, who preached the pseudoscientific ʺlaw of diminishing fertility of the soil.ʺ Fighting against the opportunist line of the Western European parties of the Second International and Russian Menshevism, including Trotskyism, in relation to the peasantry, Lenin substantiated the need for such a policy of the working class, which is designed to turn the bulk of the peasantry into an ally of the revolutionary proletariat.
The Leninist theory of the agrarian question was a deep economic justification for the policy of the Communist Party of Russia in the field of relations between the proletariat and the peasantry, and in particular its programmatic demand for the nationalization of the land. Leninʹs works on the agrarian question form the theoretical basis of the agrarian program and agrarian policy of the fraternal communist parties.
Of great importance for the development of Marxist theory is the struggle that Lenin waged in defense of dialectical and historical materialism in his famous work Materialism and Empirio‐Criticism. This book dealt a crushing blow to the very roots of the revisionist ʺtheoriesʺ ‐ their idealistic philosophy.
Lenin exposed the complete inconsistency of the revisionist critique of Marxist political economy. He showed the bankruptcy of revisionism in all the fundamental questions of the political economy of capitalism ‐ in the theory of value, in the theory of surplus value, in the theory of concentration of capital, in the theory of crises, etc.
Marx and Engels, who lived in the era of pre‐monopoly capitalism, naturally could not give an analysis of imperialism. The great merit of the Marxist study of the monopoly stage of capitalism belongs to Lenin.
Relying on the main propositions of Capital and generalizing the new phenomena in the economies of the capitalist countries, Lenin was the first of the Marxists to give a comprehensive analysis of imperialism as the last phase of capitalism, as the eve of the social revolution of the proletariat. This analysis is contained in his classic Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (1916) and in other works of the period of the First World War: Socialism and War, On the Slogan of the United States of Europe, On the Caricature of Marxism and on ʺImperialist Economismʺ, ʺImperialism and the Split of Socialismʺ, ʺThe Military Program of the Proletarian Revolutionʺ.
Leninist theory of imperialism proceeds from the fact that the deepest foundation of imperialism, its economic essence, is the domination of monopolies, that imperialism is monopoly capitalism. Lenin subjected to a comprehensive study the main economic features of imperialism and the specific forms of monopoly rule. In Leninʹs teaching on imperialism, on the replacement of free competition by the rule of monopolies earning high monopoly profits, on the sources and methods of securing these high monopoly profits, the basic propositions of the basic economic law of monopoly capitalism were given. Describing imperialism as a new, higher stage of capitalism, he determined the historical place of imperialism and showed that imperialism is capitalism: monopoly, parasitic or decaying and dying.
The Leninist theory of imperialism reveals the contradictions of capitalism at the monopoly stage of its development—the contradictions between labor and capital, between metropolises and colonies, between imperialist countries. It reveals the profound causes that make imperialist wars for a new redivision of the world inevitable. The aggravation and deepening of all these contradictions reaches the extreme limits beyond which the revolution begins. Lenin substantiated the just character of the liberation struggle of the peoples against imperialist oppression and enslavement.
Lenin worked out the question of state‐monopoly capitalism, of subordinating the apparatus of the bourgeois state to monopolies. He showed that state‐monopoly capitalism means the highest form of capitalist socialization of production and the material preparation for socialism, on the one hand, and an all‐out intensification of the exploitation of the working class and all the working masses, on the other.
Lenin discovered the law of unevenness economic and political development of the capitalist countries during the period of imperialism. Proceeding from this law, he made a great scientific discovery about the possibility of breaking the chain of world imperialism at its weakest link, the conclusion about the possibility of the victory of socialism initially in several countries or even in one country taken separately and the impossibility of the simultaneous victory of socialism in all countries.
Lenin substantiated the enormous role of the peasantry as an ally of the proletariat in the revolution. Lenin worked out the national‐colonial question and outlined ways to resolve it. He proved the possibility and necessity of uniting the proletarian movement in the developed countries and the national liberation movement in the colonies into a common front of struggle against the common enemy—imperialism. Leninʹs theory of imperialism was the rationale for the need for a socialist revolution, substantiation of the dictatorship of the working class in the conditions of a new historical epoch, the epoch of direct decisive battles of the proletariat for socialism. Thus, Lenin created a new, complete theory of socialist revolution. This theory served as a guide to revolutionary action on a gigantic scale ‐ to the Great October Socialist
Revolution in the USSR.
Lenin worked out the foundations of the doctrine of the general crisis of capitalism ‐ the historical period of the collapse of the capitalist system and the victory of the new, higher, socialist system. As early as the years of the First World War, he came to the conclusion that the era of comparatively peaceful development of capitalism had passed, that the imperialist war, which was the greatest historical crisis, was ushering in the era of socialist revolution. The war created such an immense crisis, Lenin pointed out on the eve of the Great October Socialist Revolution, that mankind faced a choice: either perish, or hand over its fate to the most revolutionary class for the fastest transition to a higher mode of production ‐ socialism. From the fact established by Lenin that the maturation of the socialist revolution in different parts of the world capitalist system is different in time, the following conclusion follows: that the collapse of capitalism and the victory of socialism occur through the falling away from the capitalist system of individual countries, in which the working class is victorious, coming to power in close and inseparable alliance with the main working masses of the peasantry and rallying the overwhelming majority of the people around itself. Lenin substantiated the possibility and necessity of peaceful coexistence over a long historical period of two systems ‐ capitalist and socialist.
Lenin developed the theory of imperialism and the general crisis of capitalism in an uncompromising struggle against the bourgeois economists and opportunists of the Second International. He revealed the complete theoretical groundlessness and political harmfulness of Kautskyʹs antiMarxist theory of ʺultra‐imperialismʺ and its varieties presented by Trotsky and Bukharin. In the struggle against Bukharinʹs anti‐Marxist perversions, Lenin repeatedly emphasized that ʺpure imperialismʺ, without the main base of capitalism, never existed, does not exist anywhere, and never will exist.
What characterizes imperialism is precisely the combination of monopolies with exchange, the market, and competition. Rising above the old capitalism as its superstructure and direct continuation, imperialism further sharpens all the
contradictions of bourgeois society.
Lenin showed the deep connection between opportunism and imperialism and exposed the political role of the opportunists as agents of the bourgeoisie in the labor movement. Lenin laid bare the roots of the opportunist currents in the working‐class movement, showing that these currents grow on the basis of the bribery and corruption of the upper strata of the working class by the bourgeoisie. Lenin dealt a crushing blow to the opportunistsʹ apologetic interpretation of state‐monopoly capitalism, which they tried to pass off as ʺsocialismʺ. Leninʹs works directed against opportunism are of great importance for the revolutionary movement, because without exposing the ideological and political content of opportunism and its treacherous role in the workersʹ movement, there can be no real struggle against imperialism.
The problems of Marxist‐Leninist political economy were further developed and concretized in the decisions and documents of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, in the works of I. V. Stalin (1879 ‐ 1953) and other associates and students of Lenin.
Relying on the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, who created a truly scientific political economy, Stalin put forward and developed a number of new provisions in the field of economic science based on the generalization of the new experience of historical development, the new practice of the struggle of the working class and its Communist Party. At the same time, Stalinʹs works give a consistent defense of Marxist political economy against the enemies of revolutionary Marxism, and popularize its main problems and provisions.
Exposing the falsity of the assertions of bourgeois economists and reformists about the mitigation of the contradictions of capitalism in the course of its historical development, Stalin substantiated the inevitability of further deepening and aggravation of these contradictions, indicating the inevitability of the death of capitalism. Stalinʹs writings developed a number of important propositions in the area of the agrarian question.
In the fight against revisionism, Stalin, relying on new arguments, showed the complete inconsistency of the theory of ʺstabilityʺ of small peasant farming. Only the abolition of the system of capitalist slavery can save the peasantry from ruin and poverty. The peasant question is the question of transforming the exploited majority of the peasantry from a reserve of the bourgeoisie into a direct reserve of the revolution, into an ally of the working class fighting for the destruction of the capitalist system. In his work ʺMarxism and the National Questionʺ (1913) and in other works, Stalin gave a further development of the national question. He substantiated the importance of the economic conditions of society in the formation of nations and nation‐states. The common economic life of people is one of the main features of a nation. The process of the liquidation of feudalism and the development of capitalism is at the same time the process of the formation of people into nations. Stalin revealed the significance of the national market for the process of creating national states in Western Europe, and outlined the originality of the historical course of the formation of states in the East.
The Communist Party of the Soviet Union, under the leadership of the Central Committee headed by I. V. Stalin, defended the Marxist‐Leninist theory in general, the Marxist‐Leninist economic doctrine in particular, from the attacks of the enemies of Leninism ‐ Trotskyites, Bukharinites, bourgeois nationalists, and of particular importance for the fate of socialism in the USSR and throughout the world, the defense and further development of Leninʹs teaching on the possibility of the victory of socialism in one country, Leninʹs theory of the socialist revolution, had a defense.
In a number of Stalinʹs works (ʺOn the Foundations of
Leninismʺ, ʺOn the Questions of Leninismʺ, ʺEconomic Problems of Socialism in the USSRʺ, reports at congresses and conferences of the CPSU), Leninʹs theses are developed on the economic and political essence of imperialism and the general crisis of capitalism, on the patterns of development of the monopoly capitalism. Relying on Leninʹs classical instructions about the economic essence of imperialism, which consists in the domination of monopolies, about monopoly high profits, Stalin formulated the basic economic law of modern capitalism. He gave a detailed analysis of the general crisis of capitalism and its two stages: the first, which began during the First World War, and the second, which unfolded during the Second World
War, especially after the peopleʹs democracies in Europe and
Asia fell away from the capitalist system.
Exposing the servants of the bourgeoisie, who sing of the capitalist system of economy, he proved that modern capitalism is in a state of general all‐round crisis, embracing both the economy and politics. The most striking expression of the general crisis of capitalism is the world‐historic victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution in the USSR and the split of the world into two systems ‐ capitalist and socialist. An integral part of the general crisis of capitalism is the crisis of the colonial system of imperialism.
Stalinʹs works elucidate the essence and significance of such features of the general crisis of capitalism as the extreme aggravation of the market problem, the chronic underutilization of enterprises, and constant mass unemployment. Having given an analysis of the changes in the nature of the capitalist cycle and economic crises in the modern era, Stalin showed the futility of the attempts of the bourgeois state to fight crises, the groundlessness of assertions about the possibility of a planned economy under capitalism. Stalinʹs writings exposed the deeply reactionary and aggressive essence of fascism and the treacherous role of contemporary right‐wing socialists.
Marxist‐Leninist political economy, as well as the theory of Marxism‐Leninism as a whole, finds its further development and enrichment in the decisions of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the fraternal communist parties, in the works of Leninʹs disciples ‐ the leading figures of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the leading figures of the fraternal communist parties.
[1] K. Marx, Capital, vol. I, 1953, p. 12.
[2] K. Marx, Capital, vol. I, 1953, p. 13.
[3] V. I. Lenin, Three sources and three components of
Marxism, Works, vol. 19, p. 7.
[4] V. I. Lenin, Three sources and three components of
Marxism, Works, vol. 19, p. 3.
[5] V. I. Lenin, Historical fate of the teachings of Karl Marx,
Works, vol. 18, p. 546.
NOTES
(1) Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism
(2) Lenin, Introduction to “N.I. Bukharin: Imperialism and
World Economy”
(3) N.I. Bukharin, Imperialism and World Economy
(4) Lenin, Address To The Second All‐Russia Congress Of
Communist Organisations Of The Peoples of The East
(5) Lenin, Lecture on the Proletariat, and War
(6) Lenin, The Social‐Chauvinists’ Sophisms
(7) Lenin, Junius Pamphlet
(8) Lenin, Extraordinary Seventh Congress of the R.C.P.(B.)
(9) Lenin, Report On Foreign Policy
(10) Lenin, Left‐wing Communism
(11) Stalin, Report on the Work of the Central Committee to the Eighteenth Congress of the C.P.S.U.(B.)
(12) Lenin, Under a False Flag
(13) Lenin, Speech At A Meeting In Butyrsky District
(14) Stalin, Economic Problems of the USSR, 1951
(15) Stalin, 7th Extended Plenary Session of the ICCI
(16) Stalin, Notes on modern topics
(17) Stalin, On the results of the July Plenum of the Central Committee of the All‐Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks