Can people obviously incapable of taking serious problems seriously, themselves be taken seriously? It is difficult to do so, comrades, very difficult!

Such simple-mindedness on the part of the bourgeois economists is not surprising; moreover, it is in their interest to pretend to be so naive and to talk “seriously” about peace under imperialism.

The worn-out trick of the bourgeois hack-writer—not everybody reads a newspaper through to the end, but everybody sees the first striking words of an article....

Without an alliance with non-Communists in the most diverse spheres of activity there can be no question of any successful communist construction.

Though there were no few honest and conscientious Social-Democrats in these groups, they proved adventurist in the sense that they had no stable or serious principles, programme, tactics, organisation, and no roots among the masses.

If that is so, it means that the people at the top are beginning to anticipate something: and if that is so, it means that after the beginning will come the continuation, after the fussing of the intellectuals will come the proletarian struggle.

[Marxism] says: We must know how to combat religion, and in order to do so we must explain the source of faith and religion among the masses in a materialist way. The combating of religion cannot be confined to abstract ideological preaching, and it must not be reduced to such preaching.

Discussing the problem, expressing and hearing different opinions, ascertaining the views of the majority of the organised Marxists, expressing these views in the form of decisions adopted by delegates and carrying them out conscientiously—this is what reasonable people all over the world call unity

A bourgeoisie armed against the proletariat is one of the biggest fundamental and cardinal facts of modern capitalist society. And in face of this fact, revolutionary Social-Democrats are urged to “demand” “disarmament”! That is tantamount…to renunciation of all thought of revolution.

Those with the slightest revolutionary flair… who judge parties by their class character will not be surprised to find that the party of bourgeois intellectuals is fit only to perform flunkey services for the party of the big bourgeois.

Unity without organisation is impossible.

The workers want unity in their actions. The workers are right. Without unity of action there is no salvation for the workers. When you think of it—how can there be unity without the submission of the minority to the majority? Everyone realises that without it unity is impossible.

I don’t understand you. Whoever heard of a struggle anywhere that did not become grave if it was over something really serious? It is because the struggle is over a serious problem that it cannot stop at “a slight quarrel”.

The elaboration of a common programme for the Party should not… put an end to all polemics; it will firmly establish those basic views on the character, aims, and tasks of our movement… as the banner of a fighting party, consolidated and united despite partial differences of opinion.

Since monopoly prices are established, even temporarily, the motive cause of technical and, consequently, of all other progress disappears to a certain extent and, further, the economic possibility arises of deliberately [slowing] technical progress.

We are therefore certain that the reader will not complain if we set about a detailed examination of this very striking project

The socialist activities… consist in spreading among the workers an understanding of the present social and economic system… of the role of the working class in this struggle.

“History will,” of course, “show how the padlocks will be opened”; that is an incontestable and fruitless truism. It is an excuse deriving from senile decay. A politician must be able to say which class owns the padlocks and which classes must open them and by what means

The peasant serfs worked for landlords, and the landlords punished them. The workers work for capitalists, and the capitalists punish them. The only difference is that formerly it was a man’s back that suffered, whereas now it is his purse.

But owing to the capitalist social system we see in most of the big cities of America—and in the rural districts too for that matter—…a wanton waste of human labour side by side with the unprecedented luxury of the multimillionaires, of the rich, whose fortunes run into thousands of millions.

General” enthusiasm over the prospects of imperialism, furious defence of it and painting it in the brightest colours—such are the signs of the times.

There can be no doubt that dire poverty alone compels people to abandon their native land, and that the capitalists exploit the immigrant workers in the most shameless manner. But only reactionaries can shut their eyes to the progressive significance of this modern migration of nations.

What’s that? You don’t remember, my dear Radical? But we remember it very well.

This is a sad spectacle, but one that is inevitable in a petty-bourgeois country in the epoch of bourgeois-democratic transformations.

Of course, this is all by way of example, only to illustrate the fact that at the present moment it is impossible to remain loyal to Marxism, to remain loyal to the revolution unless insurrection is treated as an art.

The British bourgeoisie, for example, derives more profit from the many millions of the population of India and other colonies than from the British workers. In certain countries this provides the material and economic basis for infecting the proletariat with colonial chauvinism.

One lady from Canada waxed enthusiastic over the police and the supervision of “fallen” women by policewomen, but as far as raising wages was concerned, she said that women workers did not deserve better pay.

A fool’s haste is no speed.

[Capitalism] has solved the most complicated technical problems—and has blocked the application of technical improvements because of the poverty and ignorance of millions of the population, because of the stupid avarice of a handful of millionaires.

The clash between the bourgeoisie and the government is not an accident, it is an indication of the profound crisis that is maturing on all sides. It is, therefore, imperative to keep a close watch on these clashes.