Marxist Thought on the Relationship between Practice and Theory: A Contemporary Reassessment and Refutation of Certain Incorrect Interpretations
Abhinav Sinha
The basic proposition of materialism is that matter is primary and consciousness is secondary and consciousness is a quality of matter itself which cannot exist independently of matter. This means that there can be no existence of consciousness independent of the matter; in other words, there can be no consciousness whose source is not the material reality/material world. Pre-Marxian materialism stops exactly at this point, for which Marx criticized Ludwig Feuerbach and wrote these celebrated words: “Philosophers have so far interpreted the world in various ways, the point, however, is to change it.”
Marx pointed out that Feuerbach’s materialism is contemplative. It views man as a species-being and not as a social being. It does not consider conscious actions of human beings and the possibility of change through such action. Marx pointed out that it merely interprets and does not raise the question of changing and precisely owing to this, its interpretation, too, is not accurate. Marx argues that consciousness is certainly a property of a particular form of matter and that it does not have an existence independent of matter, however, when an idea or consciousness penetrates and takes hold of broad masses, takes root among them, then it, too, becomes a material force which can change the material reality. However, this process does not take place on the basis of subjective will, but on the basis of the objective laws of transformation of the material world and is subject to these laws of motion. In fact, the true measure of the correctness or incorrectness of consciousness/knowledge is precisely the extent to which it develops an accurate and dynamic understanding of these laws. Marx and Engels point out that to control the forces of nature does not mean that one can do anything with nature according to their whims and fancies; this means that when one understands and appreciates the laws of nature (necessity) then this necessity translates into freedom. In other words, freedom is nothing but appreciation of necessity.
In the same way, change in society also cannot happen according to one’s wishes or desires. Its laws of motion have to be understood and based on that correct understanding the task of consciously transforming the society can be fulfilled. Here, too, the question of freedom is related to the appreciation of necessity. This correct understanding is develops through social practice, i.e., productive practice, class struggle, and scientific experimentation.
The question of changing and that of knowing are not separate but interconnected to each other. Without making an effort to change, one cannot know correctly. However, if the scattered perceptual knowledge gained from the efforts of changing is not generalized and not given the form of scientific theories, then the practice of changing also ends up in a blind alley or keeps revolving in round about, as Stalin pointed out.
Besides, if someone generalizes only their perceptual knowledge and ignores the historical social experience of productive practice, scientific practice and class struggle carried out through generations by the masses, ignores their established generalizations, then such a person is a narrow empiricist, not a dialectical materialist. In other words, the basis of knowledge is social practice, not individual practice, for instance, the practice of an individual or an organization/group. We have to undertake the scientific abstraction, generalization and summation of knowledge that has been accumulated through generations, as well as socially accumulated experience of social practice, rather than the experience of one or a few individuals or organizations/groups.
With the scientific abstraction and generalization of experience gained through social practice, only one stage of the never-ending process of knowledge is completed. However, without transitioning into the more important stage, that is, the stage of applying that knowledge in guiding our social practice to change the world, not only that knowledge is rendered useless, but the process of its continuous development, too, is interrupted and at the same time the level of practice does not progress to the higher stages and remains in the same backward state. Such knowledge becomes sterile.
A scientific theory can never be developed without continuously applying it in practice, because any scientific generalization is incomplete in two ways: first, since human observation always has a limitation, therefore, knowledge derived and distilled from it, too, has a limitation or an element of incompleteness; second, the material world (which includes both nature and society), the knowledge of which has to be acquired, is itself in continuous motion; so any knowledge about it will be relative and incomplete in this definite sense. Both these incompletenesses are related to each other. Absolute knowledge, if anything, is the sum total of all relative knowledge, as Lenin pointed out.
Absolute knowledge in itself is a myth, on which only religion can profess its claim, not science. The reason is that religion never asks the right questions and that is why it has all the answers. Since science asks the right questions about a constantly moving world, it does not and cannot have answers to all the questions at any given moment. True, that the unanswered questions of today are answered by science tomorrow; however, as soon as the current horizon of the unknown becomes known, a new horizon of the unknown is born. And how and why this new horizon is born?
It is precisely the same process in which the old unknown is transformed into the known. It happens because precisely in the process of answering the old questions, science always raises new questions. This, too, is an extremely important aspect which often goes unnoticed. New questions do not usually come from outside, from without, rather, they emerge precisely from the exploration undertaken to solve old questions itself. That is to say, science does not only give answers but also raises the correct logical questions. In fact, the conditions for answer to any question are implicit in the question itself, or to put it in other words, we can regard only those questions as the logical and concrete questions, at least the preconditions for the answers to which, already exist or are in the process of making, in the very formulation of the question. This is the dialectical motion of science, which is a reflection of the dialectical motion of nature itself. Marx explains this in A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy in the following words:
Mankind thus inevitably sets itself only such tasks as it is able to solve, since closer examination will always show that the problem itself arises only when the material conditions for its solution are already present or at least in the course of formation.[1]
Marxist epistemology is an inseparable part of dialectical materialism. It states that materialism of knowledge is that without practice there can be no knowledge and dialectics of knowledge is that knowledge illuminates the path of practice, without which practice wanders in the darkness and the process of development of knowledge, too, becomes stagnant. This essentially means that, on the one hand, Marxism, opposes rationalism, which severs knowledge from practice and considers knowledge as the creation of the human mind; while, on the other, Marxism also opposes empiricism, which keeps harping on practice (pragmatism, too, is influenced by this philosophical stream), but does not give any importance to theory and does not accept its role in directing practice. Marxism states that the first mistake, i.e., rationalism, is incorrect about the source of knowledge, while the second mistake, that is to say, empiricism, does not understand the dialectic of mutual transmutability of matter into consciousness and consciousness into matter and believes that mere uncritical, continuous and endless engagement in practice will enable us to accomplish our goals.
Another point related precisely to this is that some theories and principles are established on the basis of practice of the past because their universality has been validated in practice. They stand the test of the facts of the material world. Till those particular processes of the material world or society are not over, are not changed or qualitatively transformed, those universal scientific theories and principles are valid. It can be understood by a few examples from natural and social sciences.
The earth revolves around the sun. This is a scientifically proven fact, solid concrete evidence exist for the same which are irrefutable. As long as the existing universe, the existing galaxy, the existing solar system continue to exist in its present form, this scientific law is an irrefutable truth, an established and universally applicable scientific theory. There is no scope for empiricism and pragmatism on this subject. However, even today there are people in the world who believe that the sun revolves around the earth, or that the earth is flat like a saucer, etc. There are some who are skeptics and negate all the universal theories established by science till now and say that we ourselves will discover afresh whether it is earth which revolves around the sun. This, too, is an expression of a ridiculous kind of empiricism.
Similarly, there are some established facts in social science as well. Such as this one: as long as there are classes in society, there will be class struggle and this class struggle will either end in the mutual destruction of the warring classes or else it will lead the society to a new higher social order through the transitional stage of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and this process will eventually culminate in a classless society, if we do not degenerate into the pit of barbarism or complete destruction. There is no third option before humanity. This teaching of Marx and Engels is an irrefutable universal truth and is therefore an established scientific theory. If someone says today that I will discover these theories anew from my own practice then they are only exhibiting the worst kind of dogmatic empiricism and pragmatism.
Similarly, Lenin introduced some universal and general theses regarding imperialism as well as some theses about imperialism which are conjunctural. Revisionists and social-democrats like Prabhat Patnaik declare the entire thesis of Lenin to be conjunctural so that a new social-democratic, reformist, nationalist understanding of imperialism can be concocted and Lenin’s scientific understanding can be rejected. They deliberately push those theoretical and scientific aspects of Lenin’s thesis into the background which can be applied universally.
Some of the characteristics of imperialism as explained by Lenin are universal in nature, and till the time imperialism remains imperialism, those characteristics, too, will be present, such as the export of capital, the division of the world into monopolies, and so on. There were also some characteristic features, which were particularities of imperialism of Lenin’s time, but now they do not exist, or at least have become secondary trends, such as the presence of colonies, semi-colonies and neo-colonies. Today these have become a secondary trend. In other words, such characteristics were conjuntural. However, no one can say that ‘I will explore the meaning of imperialism afresh and will see whether the universal characteristics exist or not, which Lenin has spoken about.’ These characteristics are constitutive of imperialism and they will vanish only with imperialism.
Similarly, in relation to the question of nation and nationality as well as the question of language, Lenin and Stalin have established the fundamental universal theories and principles of Marxism, which were later developed further by brilliant Maoists like Ibrahim Kaypakkaya[2]. What is a nation, what is national oppression, what is language, what is the relationship between language and dialects, etc. are certain questions about which scientific theories have been established by Marxism, whose universal validity is proven by history. If someone says today that I will accept the validity of these universal principles only if I discover these again anew, then this, too, will be the exhibition of the same kind of narrow empiricism. Or if, say, A shows to B that B’s understanding of nation and language is not correct according to Marxism-Leninism, then B cannot go ahead and say to A that ‘since we are not content with your practice, we will not respond to you!’ This, too, is a breed of empiricism. Usually, in a polemic, when someone says something like this that ‘you don’t have practice’, then it is just a lie and simply an excuse to run away from the debate. The fact is that even if such a claim were true, it cannot be a valid reason to escape from the debate.
To come back to the first basic point, practice is the starting point and theory cannot exist independently of practice. To iterate this is merely reiterating the basic materialist thesis that consciousness originates from a particular form of matter, matter is primary and consciousness cannot exist independent of matter. The other aspect of this thesis is that despite being the starting point, practice will remain in the primitive stage without being guided by the theory; theory, too, cannot go through that endless and inevitable scientific process of what we call ‘minimization of errors’ without directing practice. Precisely through this process, the theorization of a constantly moving reality by human beings can remain constantly dynamic. The scientific generalization of experience of practice produces theory and the theory directs practice and leads it to higher levels and elevates itself to higher levels in the same process. In other words, the development of theory is not possible apart from practice, and the development of practice is also not possible apart from the development of theory. These are dialectical pairs, which, through constant dialectic, continue to develop each other and transmute into each other, in a spiral path.
Like any dialectic, in this dialectical process, too, sometimes one aspect becomes principal while at others, the other aspect becomes principal. Of course, practice is of primary importance and must continue ceaselessly as theory would be inconceivable without practice, just as we cannot imagine social consciousness without social existence. However, this does not mean that the aspect of social consciousness never becomes the principal aspect in the historical process. If this was true then the process of revolution itself would not be conceivable. One of the reasons behind the criticism of economism by Marxism was its vulgar understanding that the material conditions themselves will automatically or spontaneously lead to social revolution. That meant that there is no need to make conscious efforts for the development of socialist consciousness; instead, according to economism, the material conditions of capitalism themselves will give rise to those conditions of economic struggles which will lead to the formation of political consciousness in a spontaneous fashion, and then result equally spontaneously in social revolution. Lenin opposed this understanding and explained that socialist consciousness does not develop in the working-class movement in a spontaneous process. Instead, this task has to be carried out consciously by Marxists, who are equipped with an understanding of Marxist philosophy and Marxist science, or, dialectical materialism and historical materialism.
The Marxist science of revolution is nothing but the scientific abstraction, generalization and summation of historical experience of the struggles of the working class and this, too, develops through continuous practice. The summation of the experiences of practice in a continuous process as well as the internalization of all such summations of the experience of historical practice, which can be placed under the category of theories having universal validity, is indispensable. Without this process, practice is bound to fall into the pit of empiricism and pragmatism. In the practice-theory dialectic, at times one aspect might be principal whereas at other, the other aspect might become principal. As Mao explains in his well-known article, On Contradiction, dialectics is identified precisely by the fact that the principal aspect becomes secondary and the secondary aspect becomes principal aspect. In fact, the stages in the development of a dialectic can be identified precisely by this change. No dialectic can have the same aspect as principal for all times; if it were true, then it cannot be called a dialectic. Dialectic itself means a dynamic process in which the principal aspect and secondary aspect transmute into each other.
Throughout the history of the communist movement, the constant and continuous presence of both practice and theory remains; however, at different points, changes in the relative weight of the importance of theory and the importance of practice is natural and inevitable. This is the reason that great teachers have said different things at different times about this. Marx once said:
Every step of the real movement is more important than a dozen programs.[3]
Marx said this in a letter written to Wilhelm Bracke in 1875, while Marx was presenting a critique of the Gotha Program. The context of this statement was that Marx, while presenting a criticism of the program of the Eisenach Party (German Social Democratic Labor Party which in association with the General German Workers’ Union became the United Workers’ Party of Germany at the Gotha Congress held in 1875, the criticism of whose program was presented by Marx in his ‘The Critique of Gotha Program’), pointed out that had this party merely made some compromises or agreements for action against the common enemy instead of immediately issuing a complete programme, it would have been better. The reason is that it would have been better to present the program based on the summation of experiences after a considerable period of common activities, however, since it was not done, this program was incorrect on the basic questions of the science of revolution. Marx continues in this letter:
But by drawing up a programme of principles (instead of postponing this until it has been prepared for by a considerable period of common activity) one sets up before the whole world landmarks by which it measures the level of the Party movement.[4]
The specific historical context in which Marx spoke about the aspect of the practice to be the principal aspect was perfectly accurate according to the stage of practice-theory dialectic in that particular period.
In another period, Lenin emphasized upon the primary importance of theory and said that in the times of theoretical confusion and disarray, repeating the above statement of Marx ad infinitum, by severing it from the context in which it was said, causes great harm. Lenin writes:
Thus, we see that high-sounding phrases against the ossification of thought, etc., conceal unconcern and helplessness with regard to the development of theoretical thought. The case of the Russian Social-Democrats manifestly illustrates the general European phenomenon (long ago noted also by the German Marxists) that the much-vaunted freedom of criticism does not imply substitution of one theory for another, but freedom from all integral and pondered theory; it implies eclecticism and lack of principle. Those who have the slightest acquaintance with the actual state of our movement cannot but see that the widespread of Marxism was accompanied by a certain lowering of the theoretical level. Quite a number of people with very little and even a total lack of theoretical training joined the movement because of its practical significance and its practical successes. We can judge from that how tactless Rabocheye Dyelo is when, with an air of triumph, it quotes Marx’s statement: “Every step of real movement is more important than a dozen programs.” To repeat these words in a period of the theoretical disorder is like wishing mourners at a funeral many happy returns of the day. Moreover, these words of Marx are taken from his letter on the Gotha Programme, in which he sharply condemns eclecticism in the formulation of principles. If you must unite, Marx wrote to the party leaders, then entered into agreements to satisfy the practical aims of the movement, but do not allow any bargaining over principles, do not make theoretical “concessions”. This was Marx’s idea, and yet there are people among us who seek-in his name to belittle the significance of theory!
Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement. This idea cannot be insisted upon too strongly at a time when the fashionable preaching of opportunism goes hand in hand with an infatuation for the narrowest forms of practical activity. Yet, for Russian Social-Democrats the importance of theory is enhanced by three other circumstances, which are often forgotten: first, by the fact that our Party is only in process of formation, its features are only just becoming defined, and it has as yet far from settled accounts with the other trends of revolutionary thought that threaten to divert the movement from the correct path. On the contrary, precisely the very recent past was marked by a revival of non-Social-Democratic revolutionary trends (an eventuation regarding which Axelrod long ago warned the Economists). Under these circumstances, what at first sight appears to be an “unimportant” error may lead to most deplorable consequences, and only short-sighted people can consider factional disputes and a strict differentiation between shades of opinion inopportune or superfluous. The fate of Russian Social-Democracy for very many years to come may depend on the strengthening of one or the other “shade”.[5]
As we can see, here Lenin is underlining the particularity of the practice-theory dialectic according to the specific stage of the social-democratic movement in Russia. It does not mean that theory is something independent of practice. In fact, even in those periods in which theoretical development and clarity become the principal task, it becomes principal precisely so that the theory can give revolutionary direction to the practice. These are the things that are self-evident and need not be repeated ad nauseum, however, still, some dogmatists consider it to be an innovation to keep parroting the same thing. Lenin clearly recognized the importance of revolutionary theory. The reason is that the revolutionary theory is nothing else but the scientific generalization and summation of the historical experience of class struggles of the people.
This is why Engels wrote:
In particular, it will be the duty of the leaders to gain an ever clearer insight into all theoretical questions, to free themselves more and more from the influence of traditional phrases inherited from the old world outlook, and constantly to keep in mind that socialism, since it has become a science, demands that it be pursued as a science, that it be studied.[6]
In 1899 itself Lenin was recognizing the particular importance of revolutionary theory, especially, in the initial period of the movement and also in times of crisis. He writes:
There can be no strong socialist party without a revolutionary theory which unites all socialists, from which they draw all their convictions, and which they apply in their methods of struggle and means of action. To defend such a theory, which to the best of your knowledge you consider to be true, against unfounded attacks and attempts to corrupt it is not to imply that you are an enemy of all criticism.[7]
This is the reason why Lenin immensely admired Liebknecht’s slogan “Learn (or Study), Propagandize, Organize!” [Studieren, Propagandieren, Organisieren]:
…[T]he words of Liebknecht, veteran of German Social-Democracy, serve as the watchword of our activities: “Studieren, propagandieren, organisieren”—Learn, propagandize, organize— and the pivot of this activity can and must be only the organ of the Party.[8]
Many people, quite mistakenly, try to portray Mao as a common empiricist or positivist, who does not emphasize on the importance of theory. In particular, those who are hard up in both, revolutionary theory as well as revolutionary practice, are precisely the ones who, usually without engaging in any considerable practice, themselves keep asking for certificates of practice from those who criticize their theoretical weaknesses and deviations; even though they are far behind their critics in practice, too. In particular, Mao’s article On Practice is presented as an empiricist, pragmatist, and positivist work by such intellectual lilliputs. This is a distortion of Marxism and it is a fundamental Marxist-Leninist task to oppose such distortion. Let us see how dialectically Mao conceptualizes the relationship between practice and theory:
Perception only solves the problem of phenomena; theory alone can solve the problem of essence.[9]
Mao further writes:
To think that knowledge can stop at the lower, perceptual stage and that perceptual knowledge alone is reliable while rational knowledge is not, would be to repeat the historical error of “empiricism”. This theory errs in failing to understand that, although the data of perception reflect certain realities in the objective world (I am not speaking here of idealist empiricism which confines experience to so-called introspection), they are merely one-sided and superficial, reflecting things incompletely and not reflecting their essence. Fully to reflect a thing in its totality, to reflect its essence, to reflect its inherent laws, it is necessary through the exercise of thought to reconstruct the rich data of sense perception, discarding the dross and selecting the essential, eliminating the false, and retaining the true, proceeding from the one to the other and from the outside to the inside, in order to form a system of concepts and theories–it is necessary to make a leap from perceptual to rational knowledge. Such reconstructed knowledge is not more empty or more unreliable; on the contrary, whatever has been scientifically reconstructed in the process of cognition, on the basis of practice, reflects objective reality, as Lenin said, more deeply, more truly, more fully. As against this, vulgar “practical men” respect experience but despise theory, and therefore cannot have a comprehensive view of an entire objective process, lack clear direction, and long-range perspective, and are complacent over occasional successes and glimpses of the truth. If such persons direct a revolution, they will lead it up a blind alley.
Rational knowledge depends upon perceptual knowledge and perceptual knowledge remains to be developed into rational knowledge–this is the dialectical-materialist theory of knowledge. In philosophy, neither “rationalism” nor “empiricism” understands the historical or the dialectical nature of knowledge, and although each of these schools contains one aspect of the truth (here I am referring to the materialist, not to the idealist, rationalism, and empiricism), both are wrong on the theory of knowledge as a whole.[10]
Mao writes in this article:
Our conclusion is the concrete, historical unity of the subjective and the objective, of theory and practice, of knowing and doing, and we are opposed to all erroneous ideologies, whether “Left” or Right, which depart from concrete history.[11]
Further:
Start from perceptual knowledge and actively develop it into rational knowledge; then start from rational knowledge and actively guide revolutionary practice to change both the subjective and the objective world. Practice, knowledge, again practice, and again knowledge. This form repeats itself in endless cycles, and with each cycle, the content of practice and knowledge rises to a higher level. Such is the whole of the dialectical-materialist theory of knowledge, and such is the dialectical-materialist theory of the unity of knowing and doing.[12]
Now compare these ideas of Mao to the views of those illiterate “Marxists” who have fallen prey to pragmatism and empiricism and you will understand the difference yourself; these fellows are victims of nationalist deviation and linguistic identitarianism and owing to being out at the elbows in the matters of theory, they ridiculously harp on practice when there is need for theoretical debate and criticism and when, on the contrary, you probe about their practice, they hark back to harping on theory. This shows that such people are equally scroungy in matters of theory as well as that of practice. Also, you can see how such people distort and misinterpret Mao’s article On Practice. The funny thing is that even in the matters of practice, such empiricists and pragmatists are proving to be worthless laggards. That is why Stalin said:
Of course, theory becomes purposeless if it is not connected with revolutionary practice, just as practice gropes in the dark if its path is not illumined by revolutionary theory.[13]
The great teachers of the proletariat do not view the theory-practice dialectic from a mechanical or metaphysical perspective, rather, they understand it from a dynamic point of view, which alone is a dialectical approach. Practice is the foundation and the basic criterion, just as matter is the foundation and basic criterion. This had been recognized by pre-Marxian materialism. However, consciousness, that originates from matter itself, can change matter, provided that the condition of scientific generalization has been fulfilled in a correct manner and it has been continuously developed by testing it on the touchstone of constant practice. Pre-Marxian materialism had not understood this. Pre-Marxan materialism, i.e., non-dialectical or mechanical materialism, later became the source of vulgar empiricism, positivism and pragmatism, too. In fact, this same mechanical pragmatism and empiricism lies at the root of economism, which does not understand the importance of theory and is content with the vulgar empiricist practice. Change is not a conscious action for it, but rather a spontaneous process.
This is the reason why Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao all actively participated in debates on the issues pertaining to the revolutionary theory of the movement and responded to all accusations and attacks on Marxism in the most passionate fashion, whenever any such debate commenced. Regardless of the fact whether the debate or polemic was initiated by a revolutionary individual or organization actively engaged in revolutionary practice or from an intellectual, they always responded to them. The benchmark for whether to participate or not participate in a debate was never as to who was raising the questions, but what questions were being raised. More important than who is speaking is what is being said. Is what is being said indicative of an alien trend in the working-class movement? If yes, then in the words of Marx, ‘to leave an error unrefuted is to commit intellectual dishonesty.’
As we have illustrated above, there have always been people within the movement who neither have any hold over practice nor over theory. As such, they adopt quite an interesting strategy. When someone asks them about their practice, they start talking about theory and say that it does not matter what or how good is their practice, one must answer the theoretical questions first! When someone raises a theoretical question to them, they instantly quip ‘you do not have sufficient practice for us to answer you!’ That is to say: ‘catch me if you can!’ There is a need to be cautious about such people and it is also extremely important to continuously expose their ideological deviations.
[1] Marx. 1976. A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Foreign Languages Press, Peking, p. 4
[2] Ibrahim Kaypakkaya (1949-73), was a Turkish Maoist, one of the founders of Turkish communist party TKP (ML). He was tortured and killed by the Turkish forces after being captured during the people’s war in Turkey.
[3] Marx, Karl. 2021. The Critique of the Gotha Program, Foreign Languages Press, Paris, p. 5
[4] Marx, Karl. op.cit., p. 6
[5] Lenin, V.I. 2021. What is to be done?, Foreign Languages Press, Paris, p. 24-25
[6] Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. 1958. Collected Works, Volume 2, Progress Publishers, Moscow, p. 170
[7] Lenin, V. I. 1977. ‘Our Program’, Collected Works, Volume 4, Progress Publishers, Moscow, p. 211
[8] Lenin. V.I. 1977. ‘Our Immediate Tasks’, Collected Works, Volume 4, Progress Publishers, Moscow, p. 220
[9] Mao Tse-tung. 2021. ‘On Practice’, Selected Works, Volume 1, Foreign Languages Press, Paris, p. 272
[10] Mao Tse-tung. op.cit., p. 276-77
[11] Mao Tse-tung. op.cit., p. 281
[12] Mao Tse-tung. op.cit., p. 281-282
[13] Stalin, J. 2020. The Foundations of Leninism, Foreign Languages Press, Paris, p. 19
“Of course, theory becomes purposeless if it is not connected with revolutionary practice, just as practice gropes in the dark if its path is not illumined by revolutionary theory. But theory can become a tremendous force in the working-class movement if it is built up in indissoluble connection with revolutionary practice; for theory, and theory alone, can give the movement confidence, the power of orientation, and an understanding of the inner relation of surrounding events; for it, and it alone, can help practice to realise not only how and in which direction classes are moving at the present time, but also how and in which direction they will move in the near future.”
– Joseph Stalin (The Foundations of Leninism)
