By Mwaivu Kaluka, National Chairperson of the communist Party of Kenya.

 

Our Party has been subjected to a series of hairbrained slanders and lifeless diatribes from the Trotskyite World Socialist Website(WSWS). Initially, we chose not to respond to their constant attacks because, in most of their publications, they had hardly raised any fundamental questions about Marxism and its political practice. Most of the vitriol attacks were not questions of general principles, and we thought it would be a waste of time to give attention to such Ideologically deranged characters. 

 

What is even worse is the author's incapability of using his real name, but on the contrary, he uses a pseudo-name, "Kipchumba Ochieng"; this decision is not out of circumstance, maybe fearing repression from the authorities and opting for a 'nom de guerre,' but it is out of avoiding accountability. Trotskyists, whenever they have appeared, have never taken on the challenging task of building the revolution, particularly of creating an organisation. You would mostly find them in academic circles or lecture halls, and when they are not in their printing press, you will find them on street corners selling their magazines like the "Jehovah's Witnesses" adherents. It is an irrefutable fact that no Trotskyist organization or movement has ever led a successful socialist advance in the world. 

 

Leon Trotsky, their ideologue, exhibited these characteristics. He has no history of building organizations, but he has always formed factions and sectarian groupings to frustrate the collective will. We always laugh at the jest of those who claim that Trotsky was the ‘rightful successor’ of Lenin. At the same time, it is well known that Lenin waged an unrelenting ideological struggle against Trotsky from 1903 onward, over fundamental questions of Marxism and the building of an organization, until the eve of the revolution, when Trotsky was allowed back into the Bolshevik Party.

 

Lenin, in describing Trotsky in his publication, "The right of nations to self-determination", remarked that, " Trotsky has never yet held a firm position on any important question of Marxism. He always contrives to worm his way into cracks of any given difference of opinion and desert one side for the other. At the moment, he is in the company of the Bundists and liquidators. And these gentlemen do not stand on ceremony where the Party is concerned"[Lenin, Vol 20, p 447.8]

 

We have chosen to respond to WSWS only on the question of our political line of advancing the National Democratic Revolution. This was necessitated by the fact that this is a question of political line, but we wish that energy had been directed elsewhere. The restraint was not out of failing to combat wrong Ideas, but in the spirit of Lenin, who was also tired of Trotsky's slanders and innuendos. Lenin, for example, in 1912, wrote a letter to the editors of Pravda advising them not to reply to Trotsky's disruptive and slanderous campaigns against Pravda.

 

In 1914, after the factional break-up of the August block, Lenin recounted that " Trotsky, however, has never had any 'physiogmomy' at all, the only thing he does have is a habit of changing sides, of skipping from liberals to the Marxists and back again, of mouthing scraps of catchwords and bombastic parrot phrases". [Lenin, collected works, Vol. 20, pp. 159-161]

 

It is not for this reply to go deep into Trotskyism and its underpinnings; we shall reserve that subject for another publication. We only wanted to show the Ideological roots of the WSWS before we embark on the question of the National Democratic Revolution, which they have charged us with. 

 

They have called us "STALINISTS" and "MAOISTS" in bold letters as if these are things to be ashamed of. We embrace these labels with pride. We know that Leninism is the advancement of Marxism in the era of monopoly capitalism; on the other hand, Stalinism is nothing but the defense of Leninism against Trotskyism. Our Party also upholds Mao Tse-Tung's thought as the highest development of Marxism-Leninism in the concrete conditions of semi-feudal and semi-colonial countries. 

 

We have returned to this path because, from the outset, it is essential to draw firm lines of demarcation between Leninism and Trotskyism, as these are two hostile camps with clear and principled differences. We hold it that unity is a product of opposites, but how can we even imagine a unity between the two? The only time Trotsky found himself in unity with Lenin was when he abandoned his puerile positions and rejoined the Bolsheviks. 

 

Trotsky himself came to admit his wrong positions and how his conciliation with the party liquidators had harmed the Bolshevik Party,

 

"The big differences that divided me from the Bolshevism for a whole number of years and in many cases placed me in sharp and hostile opposition to Bolshevism, were expressed most graphically in relation to the Menshevik faction. I began with the radically wrong perspective that the course of the revolution and the pressure of the proletarian masses would ultimately force both factions onto the same path. Therefore, I considered a split to be an unnecessary disruption of the revolutionary forces. But because the active role in the split by with the Bolsheviks – since it was only by ruthless demarcation, not only ideological but organizational as well, that it was possible, in Lenin opinion, to assure the revolutionary character of the proletarian Party ( and the entire subsequent history has fully confirmed the correctness of those policies)- my conciliationism led me at many sharp turns in the road into hostile clashes with Bolshevism’- [ Trotsky, Our differences, Nov. 1924]

 

 

 

Comrade Stalin clearly recounted this experience in a 1924 speech.

 

“ How could it happen that Trotsky, who carried such a nasty stock-in-trade on his back, found himself, after all, in the ranks of the Bolsheviks during the October movement? It happened because at that time Trotsky abandoned that stock-in-trade; he hid it in the cupboard. Had he not performed that operation, genuine cooperation with him would have been impossible. The theory of the August bloc, i.e, the theory of unity with the mensheviks, had already been shattered and thrown overboard by the revolution, for how could there be any talk about unity when an armed struggle was raging between the Bolsheviks and the mensheviks? Trotsky had no alternative but to admit that his theory was useless. 

 

The same misadventure happened with the theory of permanent revolution, for not a single Bolshevik contemplated the immediate seizure of power on the morrow of the February revolution, and Trotsky could not help knowing that the Bolsheviks would not allow him, in the words of Lenin, 'to play at the seizure of power’. Trotsky had no alternative but to recognize the Bolshevik policy of fighting for influence in the soviets, of fighting to win the peasantry……………….

 

What is the lesson to be learnt from this? Stalin asked, and he answered, “ Only one: that prolonged collaboration between Leninists and Trotskyists is possible only if the latter completely abandons his old stock-in-trade, only if he completely accepts Leninism. Trotsky writes about the lessons of October, but he forgets … the one I have just mentioned, which is of prime importance to Trotskyism. Trotskyism ought to learn that lesson of October too,” [ Stalin, collected works, vol 6, pp 366-367]

 

Clearly, we can see that there is a sharp difference between Leninism and Trotskyism; we should not expect any congruence in analysis from the WSWS. Trotskyism does not influence the working class in Kenya. Kipchumba Ochieng should tell us which organisation he belongs to and what kind of mass work they have been doing in Kenya, or whether the WSWS has a chapter in Kenya. We know he won't take this challenge because he is writing from the comfort of a library armchair, wholly divorced from the arena of actual struggle. Even in his attack on CPM-K's role during the Gen-Z uprising, he never tells us what he and his fellows were doing. 

 

Friedrich Engels, in the preface to his book 'Anti-Dühring', recalls that he and Marx chose not to reply to Prof. Dühring until his publications began circulating among social democrats and workers in Germany. For Kipchumba, we shall not let their infantile publications confuse even a fraction of the Kenyan working class. We shall combat his erroneous ideas before they see the light of day.

 

The Trotskyist camp has accused us of advancing 'bourgeois-democratic revolution'; they have also attacked the two-line strategy as an abandonment of the socialist revolution. The Trotsky camp has also gone so far as to attack our minimum programme for the National Democratic Revolution and claim that we are advancing a path of developing Kenyan capitalism. Our concept of the Revolutionary United Front has been called a conciliation with the local bourgeoisie class. We have reduced their attacks to these four issues, which we must clarify our positions and expose the lies and dirty Propaganda against our great Party. The problem with the WSWS is a problem of understanding the laws of movement and development of our society, in particular.

 

We want to dive into these key questions in four parts. 

 

1) The question of the National Democratic Revolution 

 

2) The  two-stage strategic line

 

3) Our minimum programme of the National Democratic Revolution 

 

4) On the United Front

 

 

 

1) The question of the National Democratic Revolution 

 

The National question has always been an integral part of the world socialist revolution. It is important to note that the attacks from WSWS are not new; comrade Lenin waged a fierce Ideological battle with Trotsky on the National question. For us to grasp the National question scientifically, we must use historical and dialectical materialism to understand how this question has manifested itself in different epochs and in various conditions, for the soul of Marxism is to do concrete analysis of every concrete condition. This will also help to understand the dialectical relationship between class struggle and the National question. We doubt if the rigid doctrinaires of the WSWS are ready to tread this path. 

 

The Trotsky camp does not appreciate the dialectical relationship between the struggle for self-determination and the world socialist revolution. They view it metaphysically, not in its interconnectedness and interrelation. These were the same positions espoused by Kievsky, Trotsky, and, to some extent, Rosa Luxemburg, which Lenin repudiated. 

 

In Lenin's pamphlet " A caricature of marxism and economic imperialism", Lenin repudiated Kievsky on his wrong analysis of seeing the 'unachievability' of the National self-determination in the era of Imperialism. This was the same position held by Luxembourg that finance capital could not be eradicated except by a proletarian revolution, and that any political struggle in the political sphere which did not challenge the economic power of Finance capital was meaningless because it would only advance bourgeois nationalism. 

 

Lenin waged an ideological struggle against these economistic wrong lines, and he went on to explain what role the proletariat would play in the different epochs of capitalism and as a leader of the National movement. We must also analyse the role that the National movement has played in the different epochs of capitalism, from its womb during the period of 'mercantilist imperialism' to its mature stage of competitive capitalism (Laissez-faire) and to its highest and decadent stage of monopoly capitalism.

 

In Western Europe, capitalism had heralded a new society that had defeated feudalism. It played a progressive role in developing the productive forces, which the feudal relations of production had hindered. The development of the steam engine and industrial Mills had a positive impact on the development of the productive forces that had not occurred before. This progressive aspect also happened with the enslavement of the people of Africa, Latin America, and Asia, something that most white scholarship has refused to admit. 

 

This progress in Western European societies also came with the defeat of most feudal monarchies, and their nobility and nation-states were established against empires like Rome. The bourgeoisie class that arose during this time developed its National capital and had control of the home market. A National culture was also created, but it represented the culture of the ruling class; languages were also instituted against the alien Latin language. Liberal democracy was preached through concepts such as universal suffrage, individual liberty, and the elevation of women in society, which breathed new life into the relief from feudal vestiges. Nation-states were consolidated with the bourgeois class as the new ruling class. Here, the national bourgeoisie played a leading role in the national movement. 

 

The case was, however, different in Eastern Europe, where capitalism had not reached its mature stage; most of these societies were still held back by semi-feudal relations and little commodity production. This led to ‘Multinational states’ in which the bourgeois class of the dominant nationality dominated the other minority nationalities. In the first case, and to a lesser degree in the second, the local bourgeoisie played a progressive role in the national movement.

 

In the colonies and semi-colonies, the National movement was different. The period of monopoly capitalism was decadent, moribund, and parasitic. Although Imperialism helped develop the productive forces, this development did not reach maturity. Imperialism sustained semi-feudal relations, and the majority of the people remained engaged in petty-commodity production in Agriculture, and handicraft was not transformed into modern industry. The national bourgeoisie that could arise here and in this epoch was spineless and weak, and the rule of Finance Capital inhibited the development of national capital and a home market, as it did in Western Europe during the bourgeois-democratic revolutions. 

 

The National bourgeoisie, if we are to locate any, had a diminutive Capital, and they mostly vacillated to be comprador as they would often make concessions with imperialist finance capital, which they also saw as a threat to the realisation of their full potential as a fully fledged local bourgeoisie that would extract surplus nationally.

 

This meant that such a National bourgeoisie could not play a leading role in the national movement. In the case of the alliance between the Chinese Communist Party (CPC) and the Kuomintang of Chiang Kai-shek, the CPC ensured that it had won over the working class, the peasantry, and other progressive forces, to the extent that the Kuomintang was forced into an alliance to defeat Japanese Imperialism. The CPC, however, made sure that this alliance was under the leadership of the working class and its Party.

 

Understanding how differently the national question has manifested itself across the different stages of capitalism is fundamental, and, sadly, we have had to go to the trouble of reminding the Trotskyite camp. We find this problematic because Lenin had already waged a relentless struggle against Kievsky, Trotsky, and Luxembourg, and practice has confirmed the validity of Lenin's postulations. In 1920, during the second congress of the Communist International, Lenin presented his draft theses on the National and colonial question, which further clarified the correct character of the National movement in the colonies and how these struggles were essential and part of the World proletarian revolution.

 

Comrade Stalin also explained this in one of his speeches during the commemoration of the first anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution in 1918. He observed that the victory of the Russian Revolution had expanded the scope of the national question, transforming colonial and semi-colonial struggle into revolutionary democratic revolutions aligned with the world proletarian-socialist revolution. 

 

Mao Tse-tung, following the line developed by Lenin, advanced it further and showed how the National movement would differ from the 'bourgeois-democratic' revolution that occurred in Europe. Mao explained that the New Democratic Revolution was 'New' because it was different from the 'old bourgeois-democratic revolution with the proletariat now being it’s leader, it was ‘National’ because it brought all nationally oppressed classes except for the comprador and the landlord class under the banner of the National movement, and it was democratic because it seeks the broadest possible participation of all nationally oppressed classes in the struggle against foreign oppression and feudal relations of production. 

 

2) The two-stage strategic line

 

The WSWS has attacked the two-stage theory as bankrupt

 

"This perspective has served, historically, to subordinate the working class to bourgeois nationalism across the former colonies from China to Egypt to South Africa. It functions to justify alliance with a section of the capitalist class under the banner of 'National development ...........the two-stage perspective is bankrupt. In the epoch of Imperialism, democratic and national tasks- Land reform, economic sovereignty, and popular rule cannot be separated from socialist ones. Only the independent mobilization of the working class, in alliance with oppressed layers across Africa and the world, can achieve these aims."( quoted from the WSWS website)

 

Kipchumba posits that democratic and national tasks cannot be separated from socialist ones; no one has erected a Chinese wall between the two. The problem with Kipchumba is his metaphysical conception of social phenomena: he views two stages as isolated rather than interconnected. For Kipchumba, a thing cannot be that thing and another thing at the same time. If Kipchumba gropes in the dark with such philosophical questions of Marxist monism, how then do we expect him to fare in understanding natural science, like in quantum mechanics, in the theory of wave-particle duality?

 

For Kipchumba and his Trotskyite camp, they compartmentalise the two stages as two distinct things; this mechanical view of stages as water-tight compartments is what clouds their thinking. One even wonders how they understand socialism as a transitional stage to communism, or when Lenin talks about a transition within the transition period of the 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat"

 

Comrade Joe Slove captured it well when he addressed similar characters who had difficulty in understanding the stages of the revolution.

 

" It is necessary at once to state a rather obvious proposition, namely, that it is implied in the very concept of stages that they cannot be considered in isolation; they are steps in development. A stage which has no relation to a destination is not final, and constituting a stage for yet another destination is a linguistic and logical absurdity. The concept of 'stage' implies that it is at one and at the same time a point of arrival and a point of departure".[Slovo, 1988, South African working class and the National democratic revolution, pp 13]

 

Kipchumba also tells us that these 'democratic' and 'national' tasks can only be achieved with the independent mobilization of the working class, in alliance with the oppressed layers across Africa and the world. He implies that the National task is impossible until the working class allies with all other oppressed layers of the world to carry out the National land reform, economic sovereignty, and popular rule. 

 

So the working class in Kenya should wait for this indefinite period, during which its alliance with other oppressed layers of the world unfolds globally, notwithstanding the different conditions around the globe. Kipchumba, who charges us with indefinitely postponing the socialist revolution, is not telling us how or when this alliance will be forged. This is not proletariat internationalism, but a fleet of ideological fog of someone detached from political practice. It's clear that we are dealing with mental gymnastics clocked as Marxism.

 

Kipchumba does not understand the class content of the National struggle and the National content of class struggle. The question of the National United Front is obscured so that he can sound like an internationalist. Such abstractions should not be allowed to obfuscate reality. We shall return to this question of a United Front in detail in the fourth segment. 

 

3) Our minimum programme of the National Democratic Revolution 

 

Kipchumba has also attacked our minimum programme of advancing the National Democratic Revolution. In one of their series of articles, he notes;

 

"Today CPM-K presents itself as the tribune of the ' National Democratic Revolution ', advocating for the preservation of the profit system and a supposed National, state-led, path to developing Kenyan capitalism, as a first step to socialism. The CPM-K calls for a 'mixed economy system where the state, private sector, and cooperative sector  co-exist."(WSWS website).

 

This is what the WSWS had to say about our program. We have, in many instances, clarified that our minimum programme of the National Democratic Revolution aims to resolve the principal contradiction between Imperialism and the people of the neo-colonial Kenya. The New Democratic Revolution aims to end Imperialism, comprador-bureaucratic capitalism, and Feudal landlordism. As we observed earlier, Imperialism in the colonies and semi-colonies led to the development of limited commodity production while, at the same time, sustaining semi-feudal relations for its own existence. 

 

Most Kenyans have not been drawn into commodity production and remain engaged in small petty-commodity production under semi-feudal relations. This means that our immediate aim is to defeat Imperialism, comprador-bureaucratic capitalism, and semi-feudal landlordism. Its main target class enemies are the imperialist bourgeoisie, its local agents the comprador-bureaucratic bourgeoisie, and the landlord class. 

 

The National Democratic Revolution seeks to establish the People's Democratic state under the leadership of the working class, and its alliance with the other nationally oppressed classes. This joint dictatorship, 'the people's democratic dictatorship’  of the nationally oppressed, is the embryo stage of the dictatorship of the proletariat during the socialist construction.

 

The People's Democratic state, with the working class as its leader, will allow the development of national capital, which has been hindered by foreign finance capital and semi-feudal relations. This national capital will be of a special type, as it will be under the workers' state and will be restricted to operate within the state's plan for planned and proportional development. This is different from capitalism, where a few individuals own capital and use it to extract surplus from the majority of society. 

 

In China under Mao's 'New Democracy', this state capital did not exist 'chiefly to make a profit for the capitalist but to meet the needs of the people and the state'. For example, in China under the new democracy, Income tax constituted 34.5%, welfare fund 15.0%, accumulated fund 30.0%, and dividends to the capitalists 20.5%, and this constituted the national product of state capital. State capital consolidated itself as the dominant sector, and private capital as a minor sector; in this way, capitalist relations were slowly being replaced by socialist construction through the developing state capital of a new type, ruling out the road of the old bourgeois democratic revolution that had occurred in Western Europe, which had developed capitalism. Mao explained it in detail that;

 

" China's economy must develop along ' the regulation of capital' and 'the equalisation of land ownership' and must never be 'privately owned by a few', we must never permit the few capitalist and landlords to 'dominated the lives of the people', we must never establish a capitalist society of the European-American type or allow the old semi-feudal society to survive. Whoever dares to go counter to this line of advance will certainly not succeed but will run into a brick wall. Such is the economy of new democracy, and the politics of New Democracy are the concentrated expressions of the economy of the New Democracy "[ Mao, the economy of new democracy, Vol II, pp 353, collected works]

 

This is what we have outlined in our minimum program, which the WSWS calls a path to Kenyan capitalism. They have no understanding of the laws of development of society, and they want to throw ultra-leftist high-sounding catchwords to discredit us. 

 

4) On the United Front 

 

The Trotskyite ilk of the WSWS has also accused us of class collaboration with the local bourgeoisie class in Kenya; this is neither here nor there. They have not furnished any proof for this claim. Had they bothered to look into our ‘theses on the National United Front’, which the Party Politburo produced, it would have saved them the embarrassment, but what do Trotskyites do? As Lenin observed,

 

"The obliging Trotsky is more dangerous than the enemy! Trotsky could produce no proof except 'private conversation' (i.e., simply gossip), in which Trotsky always subsists, classifying the 'Polish marxist ' in general as supporters of every article by Rosa Luxembourg"[Lenin, Vol. 20, pg. 447-8, collected works].

 

Our theses on the National United Front set out clearly how this Front would be formed. It identifies the friends and enemies of the revolution, outlines the revolutionary forces to be rallied under the banner of the National Democratic Revolution, and identifies the target enemies. Still, we shouldn't expect anything meaningful from the Trotskyist camp, as we had observed earlier. The working class in Kenya is told that only by allying with the oppressed layers of the world can they carry out the national task. What we are not told is whether these other oppressed layers have already resolved the national question at home; only a person who does not understand the relationship between patriotic nationalism and proletarian internationalism would call us parochial nationalists. 

 

In our theses, we were more deliberate in using the term 'National United Front' to refer to the current, immediate stage of our revolution. We shall explain later how the National United Front is interlinked with the Anti-Imperialist International United Front.

 

The basic foundation of the National United Front is the basic alliance of the working class and the peasants. In a semi-colonial and semi-feudal country like Kenya, where Imperialism has hindered the development of modern industry, the working class constitutes a minority of the population. The peasantry, who are numerically significant and who are also still oppressed by Imperialism and semi-feudal relations, are the most reliable and formidable ally of the working class. 

 

The working class remains the decisive force of our revolution, but they cannot do this alone; they must offer leadership and rally behind them the other nationally oppressed non-proletarian classes and strata of Kenyan society. We are not blanquists who play at the seizure of power by advancing adventurist and premature attempts to use a minority to seize power. We must rely on bringing other nationally oppressed classes to defeat the principal enemy, which is Imperialism. 

 

This class alliance is principled, and it does not mean there are no contradictions between these classes; they exist, but in political practice, we must identify the primary and secondary contradictions. For example, the contradictory interests of the rich, middle, and poor peasants are brought together in the minimum agrarian programme; the other contradictions are resolved when carrying out the maximum programme of total collectivization and socialization of agriculture. How is the anti-feudal class line carried out in the rural areas? These are not questions of importance to the Trotskyite camp, which expects a 'pure class struggle'.

 

After consolidating and strengthening the basic alliance of the working class and the peasants, our Party will use this foundation to win over the middle forces, particularly the petty bourgeoisie, while acknowledging their vacillating character. 

 

The alliance of the national revolutionary classes must be rallied under the banner of National Democratic Revolution to defeat the target enemy class, that is, the imperialist bourgeoisie, the comprador-bureaucratic bourgeoisie, and the landlord class.

 

Our Party must continue to offer working-class leadership at the united front level while maintaining its independence. We have never claimed that the national bourgeoisie will lead the National Democratic Revolution; these are baseless claims by Kipchumba, which cannot suffice when presented with evidence. The Party of the working class, CPM-K, must remain the general staff of the revolution, and our leadership will not be imposed; we will win the people through Ideological persuasion.

 

Let us now return to the international level. Our Party sees the National Democratic Revolution not as isolated from the world proletarian revolution, but as part of the world socialist revolution. This is the spirit of proletarian internationalism. We do not seek to establish parochial or bourgeois nationalism.

 

We appreciate that Imperialism has become global, requiring international coordination and solidarity among revolutionary forces worldwide. Our Party must actively support and participate in the Anti-Imperialist United Front that brings together revolutionary movements, communist parties, and revolutionary mass organisations from across the world.

 

 

 

Addendum

 

This issue was produced in response to many attacks on the communist Party of Kenya from the World socialist Website, which is a Trotskyist platform. The questions replied to are only those that concern the political line of CPM-K. To understand the context, our readers are advised to go through some of the articles published by the WSWS attacking our Party, and also to return to the debates between Lenin, Kievsky, Trotsky, and Luxemburg on the national question. Trotskyism as a trend has been used and bankrolled by the CIA to spread Propaganda against communist regimes and experiments. Platforms like the American International Communist League, the International Marxist Tendency, and many other Trotskyite formations have remained mostly in America and Western Europe. They have celebrated the fall of the soviet union, the fall of the Berlin Wall, and they constantly attack the regimes in China, Cuba, Venezuela, DPRK, and many other countries, claiming that they are the only people who can bring 'real socialism'. This trend is bad for the Kenyan oppressed people, which is why we must relentlessly wage an ideological struggle against them and lead our people along the correct lines and policies. Trotsky must remain only in the footnotes of history as a reference to counter-revolutionary forces. 

 

 

 

 

 

REFERENCES

 

Against Trotskyism, The struggle of Lenin and the CPSU against Trotskyism [INSTITUTE OF MARXISM-LENINISM OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF CPSU], Progress Publishers, Moscow. 

 

Debates on class, state and Imperialism – Edited by Yash Tandon( Mkuki wa Nyota).

 

H. Brah- Trotskyism or Leninism

 

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2025/10/19/iwxt-o19.html.

 

J. Slovo- The working-class and the National Democratic revolution. 

 

J. Stalin- collected works. 

 

M. Tse-tung – On New Democracy, pp 339-380, Vol II, Collected Works.

 

M. Tse-Tung – On Contradictions, pp 311-345, Vol. I, Collected Works. 

 

L. Trotsky- Our difference, chapter 25.

 

P. Patnaik & U. Patnaik- The worker-peasant alliance in the transition to socialism, Monthly Review. 

 

R. Luxemburg- The National Question (www.marxist.org).

 

V.I. Lenin- Draft These on the National and Colonial Question

 

V.I. Lenin- Alliance Between Workers and Exploited Peasants

 

V.I. Lenin- A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist economism.

 

V.I. Lenin- The Right of Nations to Self-determination, collected works.

 

V.I. Lenin- Two tactics of Social democracy.