July 6, 1949
Dear J:
The 100th anniversary of the storming of the Bastille inaugurated the beginnings of monopoly capitalism riding on top of a boom - and the launching of the Second International as the expression, in the turbulent '80s, of the general opposite to capitalist private property. The aim of this international of labor was two-fold: (1) "political and economic expropriation of the capitalist class" as the ultimate or abstract aim; and (2) the "socialisation of the means of production" as the immediate opposite of "private property".
Before the decade's end and the rise of Bernsteinism (economic "coalitionism")1 and Millerandism (political coalitionism)2 - just 3 short years after the 2nd3 was begun - the largest party in the international with the outstanding theoretician of the Int. write the Erfurt program4 and draws from Engels the following two-fold criticism: (1) planlessness is not the characteristic of capitalism once trusts have been born; and (2) no good can come of abstract characterizations of state and concrete blurring of the immediate slogans for struggle against the precise state of Germany. (I know of no complete translation of the Engels letter: perhaps Grace has it in the Gesamtausgabe5 and can translate it). To these two direct criticisms can be added the third indirect one included in the same year's (1892) introduction to the new edition of Engels' Conditions of the Working-class in England,6 the substance of which is not the aristocracy of labor but the [...] masses are the genuine revolutionary [...].7
Engels' 2nd criticism of the Erfurt showed itself immediately not only in relation to German ruling class, but to the international working class when, despite the International's declaration for international labor solidarity with American proletariat's fight for 8 hour day through general one-day strike, the German party limits itself to indoor meetings on the Sunday following May 1.8
The '90s close with the final defeat of populism (in Russia through the unity of Marxists with striking workers as against Narodism;9 in America with trustified capitalism's triumph over agriculture and alliance or more accurately subordination of labor to farmer radicalism10) the defeat of the first phase of cartelism which tried to take advantage of favourable book conditions to fix prices so that the 1893 crash11 was the more drastic, and the expulsion of anarchism from the 2nd Int.12 The Second Int. never drew as clear a line to the right as to the left and reformism, i.e. petty bourgeois reconciliation with capitalism remains as blood of the blood, though a bastard, of a strata of labor.
The turn of the century opens with the first billion dollar trust which brings us to the second, and permanent features of cartelism as not mere price-fixers but regulators of production and of labor over whose primitive organization it won a decisive battle. Monopoly capitalism, on its road to state-monopoly capitalism "picks up" imperialism.
At the same time Russia first reaches progressive capitalism. At the turn of the century the young Lenin is a strictly Russian Marxist. He will prove that the home market for Russian capitalism is created through expanded production and not through "realisation of surplus value in a foreign market", and will draw his conclusions very concretely: the progressive, historical role of capitalism may be summed up in two brief postulates: increase in the productive forces of social labor and the socialisation of labour" (I, 255)13. Socialisation of labor here means: (1) collective character of prod. vs. individual character of appropriation: (2) concentration of prod. both in agric. and in ind.: (3) "squeezing out of" feature of personal dependence: "Compared with the labour of a pendent or bonded peasant, the labour of a free labourer is a progressive phenomenon in all branches of nat. eco." (I, pp. 257-8); (4) mobility of population; (5) predominance of industrial centres against rural idiocy; (6) increased need of union among population against capitalists; and finally (7) all these changes "cannot but bring about a profound change in the very character of the producers" (I, 258). At the end of the century, then, this Russian Marxist ends his Development of Capitalism in Russia on the note that this backward country worsens the conditions of producers who "suffer from capitalism as well as from the insufficient development of capitalism" (I, 259).
The great dividing line in the development of the productive forces comes in 1905. Trustification, imperialist conquest and wars have brought with it the organization of the proletariat as well as the "backward peoples" on a new, higher plane. The Zulu rebellion14 may not compare with the Russian Revolution15, or the formation of the IWW16 but the development of the productive forces, the struggle of capital and labor, is shown to be not a matter of mere theory but of very real life. Already the Second Int. misses the whole significance of 1905; that in fact is the beginning of the end; the Russian Revolution does not even appear on the agenda of the 1907 Congress.17 Rosa Luxemburg is the only one who creates a new category out of the creative energies of the Russian proletariat, but she will turn this general strike or spontaneous organization of the masses into an absolute way of overcoming bureaucratic leaderships.18 1905 transforms Russia into a bourgeois monarchy in the same manner in which the Paris Commune transformed France into a bourgeois republic. Lenin does not fully grasp the Soviet but he fully grasps that only the proletariat, even in a backward absolutist Russia, can lead the peasantry in the democratisation of a land. (Krupskaya mentions that before 1905 Lenin studied only the labor movement of the West, half envying them their republican form of government; after 1905 he studies also the general European governments and sees them as enslavers of capital in a very concrete sense19). Imperialism will now proceed along with rationalization, as against only concentration, of production, both in Germany and in America, but this is in an embryonic stage, and is completely obscured by the conspicuousness of developing imperialism.
Basle20 is more of an accident than a logical conclusion of the dominant tendency in the Second Int., which parallels the "peaceful" development of capitalism from its laissez faire to its monopoly stage. Or, more precisely, it is the logical abstract end of the petty bourgeois' horror of war and "hope" that it would "frighten" capitalism into maintaining the "peace". It will become however the concrete beginning of the new forces of true internationalism. But not to rush ahead. The theoretical root of the Second is best expressed by Victor Adler21 who thinks the "crime of war" would bring about "automatically - I say automatically! - mean the beginning of the end of the rule of the criminals" (Rise & Fall of 2nd Int.,22 p. 120). The key word is, of course, "automatic". That sums up the Second's conception of the inevitability of socialism, inevitability of capitalism's collapse, the historical tendency of capitalist accumulation, the abstract, abstract, abstract words that ended in the concrete Second's incorporation into capitalism and hence collapse.
Now then Lenin pre-1914. We have already seen him as a Russian Marxist. On the international field Kautsky is his leader. The criticism of the Erfurt program, even though published a decade late, does not leave an impression on him. In the field of philosophy he is the follower of Plekhanov. The Economic Doctrines of Karl Marx23 not only remains unchallenged but, although Russian capitalism is more like Volume II of Capital than Vol. I and Lenin never flounders in market underconsumptionism, he yet accepts as one democracy and freedom on competition. He has rejected Luxemburg's "third persons" but he seems content with Bauer's24 abstractions. But the revival of the labor movement in 1913-14 sends Lenin to reread Marx and Hegel. In July 1914 Lenin begins an essay on Marxism25 (It is important to note that whereas he was previously satisfied with Kautsky and even Bogdanov26 and hesitated writing an "independent" abstract, he now is anxious to do so). It is an absolute in relation to Imperialism or/and State and Revolution, but let us not forget that it is a new absolute. For the first time in the writings of Marxists since the death of Marx and Engels philosophy is not made into a separate "aspect" of Marxism, but is treated as a component part. But, although integral, Hegelian dialectics is not seen as a unity of opposition, and Marxian dialectics is merely contrasted to the evolutionary doctrine of development. Lenin is still worried about "the consistent extension of materialism to the domain of social phenomena" and does not see the constant technological revolutions as the breaker-up of social relations. Monopoly is still seen only in agriculture and absolutism in politics and in rent seems limited to that field while what is still presupposed in industry is "complete freedom of competition".27 Capitalist cartels, syndicates and trusts are still seen merely as manifestations of "large scale production" and not the new category he will discover soon. But the essay is not finished till November 1914 and Lenin does grasp hold of British monopoly democratizing the workers and creates a "bourgeoisified proletariat" and the opportunism of the Ger. S.D.28 and not only in Russia as result of backwardness or the old concept of petty bourgeois as individual, peasant, or small groceryman type of thing. But inevitability remains abstract.
August 1914. The capitalist world in chaos. The Second International collapses.
Just yesterday I finally got a hold of the idealist Ilyin's book on Hegel and when I noticed its title "The Philosophy of Hegel as a Doctrine of the Concreteness of God and of Man"29, I was on the verge of complaining when the very first sentence of the work struck me as the essence of what Lenin saw in Hegel in 1914. The sentence: "The first and fundamental thing that one who wishes adequately to understand and master the philosophic teachings of Hegel must do is to explain to one self his relation to the concrete empiric world". And a little below: "... the term 'concrete' comes from the Latin word 'concrescere'. 'Crescere' means 'to grow'; 'concrescere' - coalesce, to arise through growth. Accordingly, to Hegel 'concrete' means first of all srashcheniye (growing together)...
"The concrete empiric is something in the order of being (Sein), something real (Realitat), actuality (Wirklichkeit), something existing, (Existenz), something byvaniye (Dasein). In its totality, this reality forms a world, a whole world of things (Dinge, Sachen), existences (Existenzen), realities - the 'objective' world, a realm of 'objectivity'. The real, objective world is also the CONCRETE world, but only the EMPIRIC-CONCRETE".30
Now it is this type of empiric-concrete world that Lenin, in reorganizing his whole method of thought, went searching for in the study of imperialism and the why of the collapse of the Second. The moment he looked at the world with the new Marxian-Hegelian eyes he saw that the empiric concrete world of imperialism, was something quite different from the catchword, imperialism, that all Marxists, including himself, had been playing with the catchword, imperialism, without seeing that behind it was a new absolute, MONOPOLY. Had anyone done with MONOPOLY what Marx had done to COMMODITY? Categorically no; he writes his aphorism as he reads Hegel: "No Marxist of the past half century understood CAPITAL...".31 He himself had merely applied what Marx had written in Capital to the specific country, Russia. But this new phase of capitalism, which Marx had not lived to see, - dialectics means LEAP and he was ready to go into the "patience, suffering, labor" of the negative.32
Behind the new empiric concrete there is a notion - and thus he for the first time separates himself from the "incompleteness" of Hilferding's definition which he now (1916) sees as the basis of all of Basle. Now then let us see his new definition. (NB THE TRANSLATION IN VOL. V33 IS WRONG ON THIS POINT. It reads: "The concentration of production: the monopoly arising therefrom; the merging or coalescence of banking with industry; this is the history of finance capital and what gives the term 'finance capital' its content". I had not been using that translation so did not note it. The Russian reads ((and a similar translation appears in the Vanguard Press edition34)):
"The concentration of production; the monopoly growing out of it; the merging or coalescence of banking and industry - that is the history of the rise of finance capital and the content of its notion".
I need hardly tell you that there is a world of difference between the words, "term", and "notion". Finance capital isn't just a term; that's what it was to Marxists before 1914; but Lenin post-1914 saw Monopoly and that is the content of the new notion.
Now he has new absolute and he will shout it to the housetops of the world. Imperialism is MONOPOLY. A syndicate, a cartel, a trust is MONOPOLY. Free competition has become transformed into its opposite, MONOPOLY; it has not been transcended; it coexists with it; but it is its opposition at the point of TRANSITION to a higher stage. Because this new phase of capitalism shows capitalism "rotting alive", the most profound differences because bourgeois democracy and reactionary monarchy become insignificant. In truth when commodity production transited from freedom of trade and competition to monopoly, democracy ceased being integrally part of bourgeois world. MONOPOLY in economics cannot be divorced from MONOPOLY in politics, and democracy has therefore become the property of the proletariat. You have done a magnificent job here, Jimmy35, and I repeat parts of it only to enable me to make my transition along the lines I had been working out when I had stopped at monopoly in economics cannot be separated from monopoly in politics.
I shall now proceed my own economic path. What law of motion does he draw out from this new absolute, monopoly capitalism? He says the tendency of monopoly is to decay and stagnation. Now Marx drew from his tendency to decline in rate of profit a certain conclusion: degradation of the proletariat. Lenin draws from his tendency of decay and stagnation two things: (1) Decay and stagnation, rotting alive, abolishes differences in political forms and democracy can remain alive only if the proletarian transforms into its absolute; (2) Decay and stagnation means deprivation of liberty and self-determination of nations acquires a new "URGENCY". He tells Junius36 Democracy is not an absolute, but a new content. Democratic mobilization of masses means including broad masses BROAD MASSES BROAD MASSES THE ENTIRE POPULATION to struggle with capitalism. It will be February 1917 before he will also, say, on the basis of the "material" given him by the Soviets, and also to run the state "to a man" for soviet is not just a form but the CONTENT of the dictatorship of the proletariat which is fully proletarian democracy.
But not to rush ahead. He is analyzing something concrete, imperialism, and he found Engels, and "simply clutched", as Krupskaya tell us at the attack on the general abstract, and the demand for the concrete, concrete, concrete. Now here is how he uses it to distinguish himself from other critics of imperialism: "But 'general' arguments about imperialism which ignore, or put into the background, the fundamental differences of social-economic systems, inevitably degenerate into absolutely empty banalities..." (V, 76)37. It isn't just imperialism, it is MONOPOLY CAPITALIST imperialism. Now the new relationship arising from national and international monopoly - relations based on division of world among Big Powers means a change in that makes self-determination "feasible" under capitalism. Moreover, it has given the proletariat a new ally - as great an ally as the revolutionary peasantry is the oppressed nation; from Ireland to Poland to the Negro in the United States the socialist proletariat can come onto the historic scene.
Back to our concrete and absolute new category MONOPOLY. Is socialisation of labor now an opposite? Note the definitions of socialism of labor, 1914: (1) Monopoloy is socialization of production; so is interlocking; (2) technology is socialized (that in fact CONCRETELY gives it its decaying character; watch US; (3) commodity production is undermined for basis of financial manipulation and oligarchy is socialized production; (4) monopoly or socialized production has not overcome crises on the contrary crises increase as result of concentration and monopoly; (5) banking is universal bookkeeping - a form of socialized destruction of means of production; finally (6) it is a transition to something. Now that is the key. Under commodity production in Development of Capitalism in Russia38, socialization of labor was the "mission of capitalism", the end, the aim. Under imperialism, monopoly capitalism, socialization of labor is a transition. To what? "Organized" capitalism? He rejects that. Taylorism? He omits that? World capitalism? Present contradictions exclude that. It is a transition to something. The class struggle will decide.
We finally come then to the two mutually exclusive opposites: capital and labor. But it isn't capital and labor "in general". It is concrete. It is the specific stage of monopoly capitalism which has "bought off" the working class, its upper stratum, which turned out to be the "bulwark" of the Second and caused its collapse. Back to Marx and Engels. And here Lenin makes an outline of the article he intends writing on Imperialism and the Split in Socialism39, and in it appears the following:
Engels18581892especially NB: to let yourself down LOWER to the UNSKILLED workers, to the mass"
We know how he lingered over this in the actual article, how he found what Marx had said in 1858 and how the whole period, 1858 to 1892, fought the bourgeoisified English proletariat. Lenin has found his connection: MONOPOLY, British monopoly in that case; "that is why opportunism could prevail in England for decades". This labour aristocracy must be smashed and a return made to the masses. Truth is always concrete; we must end with Kautsky's sophistries on the "masses" and see the mass dialectically: "Engels draws a distinction between the 'bourgeois labour party' of the old trade unions, the privileged minority, and the 'lowest mass', the real majority, and he appeals to the latter, who are not infected by bourgeois respectability'. This is the essence of Marxist tactics!" If we wish to remain Marxists then we must go down "lower and deeper to the real masses" (XI, 762)40.
Before 1914, he had rejected Luxemburg's explanation of imperialism and her theory of 'third persons'. Now he rejects also:
Hilferding's "incompleteness"Kautsky's ultra-imperialism
(I feel certain that Lenin modeled his "critique of imperialism" - that is attitude of various strata and classes to imperialism, - on Hegel's the three Attitudes to Objectivity, and I have asked Grace to work this up).
Bukharin's imperialist economism and Trotsky's US of Europe.
Now, if I may tabulate what we have found.
1) Lenin pre-1914 sees nothing new in imperialism. He was going to cast his polemic against Luxemburg in the cast of his dispute with the Norodniki: production versus market, not masses versus aristocracy of labor. As he put it later, pre-1914 the Marxists were playing with the catchword, imperialism, and saw neither the notion nor the concrete. Post-1914 Lenin "clutches" Engels' attack on abstract and demand for concrete, and links the concrete imperialism to MONOPOLY.
2) Lenin pre-1914 sees no new phase of capitalism - cartels, syndicates, trusts, are just forms of large-scale production. Post-1914 Lenin grasps a new category, MONOPOLY, a whole phase of capitalism which appeared after the death of Marx and Engels and which none of the Marxists saw till the world toppled over their heads.
Lenin pre-1914 sees socialization of labor as an end, and aim. Post-1914 Lenin sees socialization of labor as a transition to something higher.
3) Lenin pre-1914 sees opportunism as due either (1) to backwardness of Russia, or (2) "peaceful" character of capitalist development. Post-1914 Lenin sees opportunism as result of a stage in the development of capitalism, MONOPOLY, creating an aristocracy of labor which is bulwark of Second and which must be destroyed along with capitalism. He sees a new division, a break-up of labor into lower-, deeper, unskilled masses and bourgeois proletariat.
4) Lenin pre-1914 sees Self-Determination as a sort of principle of socialism. Post-1914 Lenin sees imperialism creating an URGENCY on the question of self-determination as a result of the new relationship between oppressed and oppressor and also within oppressor nations due to division of world among Big Powers along with not merely an exploitation of "agrarians" but advanced Western Europe.
5) Lenin pre-1914 sees the 3 constituent elements of Marxism as 3 separate "phases" of Marxism.41 Lenin in 1914 brings about unity in these elements but dialectics remains a superior instrument to evolution. In 1915 dialectics becomes the theory of knowledge, with unity of opposites not as a sum of examples, but as "the recognition (discovery) of the contradictory, mutually exclusive, opposite tendencies, in all phenomena and processes of nature (including mind and society)". He sees self movement in the creativity of the proletariat, and moves toward "clutching" at the Soviets of 1917 as the new type of democracy to replace what decadent bourgeoisie had lost and what will become the beginning of the new social order.
1 This is a reference to Marxist reformism in the Second International. Eduard Bernstein (1850-1932) was one of the most senior figures in the Second International. Bernstein had collaborated with Engels, and became his literary executor when Engels died in 1895. After Engels' death Bernstein began to advocate a reformist revision of Marx, a stance which was vigorously debated by members of the Second International.
2 Alexandre Millerand was a socialist and the first member of the Second International to accept a Cabinet post in a bourgeois government. Millerand's rationale for collaborating with other bourgeois politicians was that the crisis in French politics, (that was manifested in the Dreyfus Affair), meant that the Third Republic was threatened by a coup d'etat from monarchists and nationalists. Rosa Luxemburg critiqued Millerand's stance in articles published in the SPD publication Neue Zeit during 1901 and 1902. These articles were later collated and published as The Socialist Crisis in France. For a brief overview of the debate see Chris Harman's article, 'The history of an argument', (2005).
3 The Second International.
4 The Erfurt Program was formulated by Eduard Berstein, August Bebel and Karl Kautsky, to replace the Gotha Program of 1875. Engels outlined a number of critiques of the Erfurt Program in a letter to Karl Kautsky (A Critique of the Draft Social-Democratic Program of 1891). Kautsky did not share these criticisms with the membership of the German Social-Democratic Party and the SPD voted to adopt the Program at the Party Assembly, in Erfurt, in 1891.
5 'Gesamtausgabe': German, usually translated into English as 'collected works'. In this case it is a reference to the German edition of the collected works of Marx and Engels.
6 Engels wrote two new prefaces to The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1892; one was a preface to the second German edition (the English translation of this version is not available on the MIA because Lawrence and Wishart claim copyright on it) and a preface to the English edition. The latter preface is available on the MIA.
7 There appears to be a crease on this part of the manuscript. Parts of the text are indecipherable.
8 The year 1889 is widely viewed as the inaugural year of the Second International, even though what was to formally become the International was split across two Congresses (a 'Possibilist' one, and a 'Marxist' one). The 'Marxist' Congress passed the following motion in support of the agitation for an eight hour day, which was being led by American workers.
A great international rally is to be organized for a specified date, in such a way that at the same time in all countries and in all cities on a previously agreed day the workers demand of the public authorities that the working day be fixed at eight hours and carry out the other resolutions of the International Congress of Paris.Given the fact that such a rally has already been fixed for the first of May 1890 by the American Federation of Labor at its December 1888 Congress held in St. Louis, this date will be adopted for the international rally.The workers of the various nations will have to implement the rally in the manner prescribed for them by the conditions in their country.
This motion marked the creation of May Day as a day of international working-class solidarity. On the first of May 1890, across Europe and in North America, leading sections of the labour movement went on strike. The last clause of the motion passed at the 'Marxist' Congress, however, enabled various national affiliates - notably the Belgian, German and British - to mark May Day, while limiting their activity to 'solidarity' that did not involve industrial action.
9 Narodnism was a populist revolutionary tendency in Tsarist Russia which believed that Russia did not have to develop to socialism via capitalism and viewed the peasantry as a revolutionary class who could overthrow Tsarism.
10 In the USA in the late 1880s and early 1890s an alliance of radical small farmer, farm labourer and industrial worker organisations came together over common demands - abolition of national banks, free coinage of silver, tax reform, tariff reform, an eight hour working day and electoral reform - that led to the formation of the People's Party (more popularly known as the Populist Party). Which stood as an independent third party in the 1892 Presidential election. The Party were a significant electoral force in the mid-West - they won the vote in Colorado, Kansas, Idaho, and Nevada, and received a share of the electoral college votes in Oregon and North Dakota - but failed to make much impact in urban areas. At the 1896 Presidential election they supported the Democrat Presidential candidate, a move that went alongside the gradual reabsorption of the most active elements into the Democratic Party. Contemporary articles, written by leading American socialists, Eugene V. Debs and Daniel deLeon are available on the MIA.
11 The New York stock market crash of 5th of May 1893 marked the beginning of a period of economic depression, centred on the USA.
12 The 1893 Congress of the Second International voted to expel anarchist delegates and enacted rules barring anarchists from future Congresses.
13 Lenin, The Development of Capitalism in Russia, (1899/1908).
14 The Zulu Rebellion (1906) was an uprising in Natal in southern African against the imposition, by the British colonial authorities, of a 'poll tax'. The tax was introduced as a way of forcing African workers into the labour market.
15 The Russian Revolution of 1905.
16 The Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), which still operates as an international union, was founded in Chicago in 1905. It was created as an explicitly revolutionary syndicalist union.
17 The Second International Congress in Stuttgart (1907).
18 Rosa Luxemburg The Mass Strike, (1906).
19 Krupskaya, Reminiscences of Lenin, (1933).
20 In November 1912 the Second International held an 'extraordinary' Congress in the Swiss city of Basel. The Congress was called to discuss the unstable situation in Europe and the threat of war. The Congress formulated and agreed an anti-war Manifesto, which stated that, in the event of war breaking out, it was the duty of all members of the Second International 'to intervene in favor of its speedy termination and with all their powers to utilize the economic and political crisis created by the war to arouse the people and thereby to hasten the downfall of capitalist class rule'.
21 Victor Adler established two socialist journals, Gleichheit ("Equality" - 1886-89) and the Arbeiter Zeitung ("Workers' Paper" - which he set up after Gleichheit was banned). He was a founding member of the Social Democratic Party of Austria and became its first chairman (1889-1918).
22 Josef Lenz, The Rise and Fall of the Second International, New York: International Publishers (1932). On the version of this text available on archive.org the quote appears on page 119.
23 Karl Kautsky The Economic Doctrines of Karl Marx, (1887/1903).
24 Otto Bauer was a leading figure in the Austrian Social Democratic Party. He was a leading theoretician of what is sometimes referred to as the Austro-Marxist theory on the 'national question'.
25 Lenin, Karl Marx: A Brief Biographical Sketch With an Exposition of Marxism (written in 1914, published in 1915).
26 Aleksandr A. Bogdanov (1873-1928) was one of the Old Bolsheviks. He joined the Bolsheviks in 1903 but was expelled in 1909 after leading the ultra-left, boycottist (or ultimatist) tendency. He maintained that the party could only work through illegal organizations (due to the suppression of political parties during this period). Lenin's Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, was written as a polemic against Bogdanov and others, dealing with the influence of Positivism in the Bolshevik Party.
27 The quotes are from the 'Marx's Economic Doctrine' section of the Granat essay on Marx.
28 German Social Democracy.
29 Ivan Alexandrovich Ilyin (1883-1954) was a Russian of aristocratic descent. He supported the 1917 February Revolution, but was an opponent of the October Revolution. He was appointed as a law professor at Moscow University in 1918, the year in which his major work on Hegel was published. He was exiled in 1922 for his opposition to the Bolshevik government. In exile he became one of the main ideologues of the White Movement, of Russian exiles, and a supporter of fascism. His major work on Hegel was published in German in 1946 and in English, in two volumes, as Hegel's Philosophy as a Doctrine of the Concreteness of God and man in 2010 and 2011. Dunayevskaya appears to have been working with the original Russian text.
30 The text inside brackets are the German terms used by Hegel.
31 The quote is from Lenin's Notebooks on Hegel, (1914), the section on the Doctrine of the Notion in Hegel's Science of Logic.
32 The quote is from Hegel. See, for example, #19 of the Preface to the Phenomenology of Spirit.
33 Dunayevskaya appears to be referring to the English language edition of V. I. Lenin Selected Works Volume V: Imperialism and Imperialist War (1914-1917), issued by the Moscow-based Marx-Engels-Lenin Institute in 1936.
34 The editor has not been able to identify the text that Dunayevskaya refers to here.
35 'Jimmy' is CLR James.
36 Rosa Luxemburg wrote the anti-war polemic, The Junius Pamphlet in 1915, using the pseudonym 'Junius'.
37 Dunayevskaya appears to be referring to the English language edition of V. I. Lenin Selected Works Volume V: Imperialism and Imperialist War (1914-1917), issued by the Moscow-based Marx-Engels-Lenin Institute in 1936. Chapter 6 of Imperialism (1916).
38 Lenin, The Development of Capitalism in Russia, (1899/1908).
39 Lenin, 'Imperialism and the Split in Socialism', (1916).
40 V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, Volume XI: The Theoretical Principles Of Marxism, (International Publishers, 1939). The essay being quoted is 'Imperialism and the Split in Socialism', (1916).
41 Lenin 'The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism', (1913).