The Revolutionary Significance of What is to be Done?

'Bolshevism' as such first emerged appeared as a distinct political 
trend with the de facto political split at the second congress of the 
RSDLP in 1903, ostensibly over the differing definitions of Lenin and 
Martov on the definition of party membership, a difference, in my 
opinion, which symbolised two fundamentally different conceptions of 
how the perceived coming revolution was to unfold.  In this respect, 
therefore, Bolshevism's 'founding text' -- even though its writing 
pre-dated the congress -- can be seen to be Lenin's What is to be 
Done? [1]  Bolshevism emerged as a distinct political tendency in 
opposition to the fundamental conceptions of the already-established 
Russian Marxist tradition (itself conceived of as a conscious break 
from Russian populism), and Lenin's theory of the party elaborated in 
What is to be Done? is of fundamental significance in understanding 
the nature of both of these ruptures.  Of course, the full 
ramifications of the Bolshevik-Menshevik split were not to become 
apparent until later -- especially the case with regard to the 
outbreak of the First World War and the collapse of the Second 
International.  However, the post-1903 evolution of Bolshevism was 
predicated on the ramifications of the theory of the revolutionary 
party that Lenin elaborated in 1902 and fought for in 1903 and beyond: 
a conception that flowed logically from this 'double rupture' within 
the radical tradition -- of Marxism from populism, and Bolshevism from 
'Russian Marxism'. [2]

Marxism as such had emerged in Russia -- or, more accurately, it had 
been first propagated in exile by Russian émigrés -- in the form of a 
conscious and deliberate break with revolutionary populism.  In order 
to grasp the fundamental character of this 'Russian Marxism', 
therefore, it is first necessary to summarise the basic outlook of 
populism: a movement which, in the words of Teodor Shanin, represented 
'Russia's first indigenous socialist ideology.' [3]  Despite the fact 
that 'populism' properly designated was a complex and heterodox 
concatenation of political shades, ranging from reformists to 
revolutionaries, propagandists and terrorists, as well as the fact 
that it underwent a considerable degree of evolution in its aims and 
outlook as it ran its course, it is nevertheless possible to outline a 
number of the key elements that underlay the fundamental outlook of 
the populism movement, and which can be traced back -- in varying 
degrees -- to the ideological founders of the tradition: Herzen, 
Lavrov and Chernyshevsky.

Most importantly, populism posed the possibility of a practical 
resolution of what had been envisaged by the radical intelligentsia of 
the nineteenth century as a 'slavophile-Europeanism' dichotomy: a 
basic 'dualism' at the heart of the Russian intellectual tradition 
arising from the twin contrasting pressures of 'westernism' (or 
'Europeanism'), and 'slavophilism', with, almost without exception, 
the former painted as outward-looking, modernising and progressive, 
and the latter as reactionary, conservative and insular. [4]  Implicit 
in the populist outlook was a rejection both of the idea of an 
inherent and backward peculiarity of Russian society and the 
liberal-inspired view which postulated that Russia had to undergo a 
European-type process of capitalist development.  Rather, it was 
projected -- most clearly by Herzen -- that Russia could by-pass a 
capitalist stage of development altogether on the path to socialism; 
and fundamental in this respect was an understanding of the specific 
forms of social organisation in Russia, in particular the nature of 
the peasant commune.  As populism developed into a fully-fledged -- if 
still relatively minuscule -- political movement by the 1870s, this 
central conception of the significance of the peasantry in the 
revolution, founded on the view of the peasant commune as proof of the 
collectivist tradition of the great mass of the Russian people, and 
bolstered to a certain degree by the influence of anarchist 
conceptions of mass spontaneity, led to the celebrated 1874 'turn to 
the people'.  The manifest and dispiriting failure of this attempt at 
mass propaganda, directed at a largely bewildered peasantry, prompted 
an advance in populist ideology along two lines: first, a focus on the 
need to force a confrontation with the state (increasingly viewed in 
populist circles as the main Russian capitalist-inducing institution); 
and second, on the need to develop better and more effective forms of 
organisation.  These conceptions led directly to the formation in 1876 
of Zemlya i Volya (Land and Liberty) which embraced the necessity of 
insurrection, and, increasingly, the efficacy of the 'propaganda of 
the deed'. [5]

In 1879 the movement split, bequeathing Narodnaya Volya (People's 
Will), an increasingly centralised organisation focused on acts of 
terrorism against state officials (which was ultimately successful in 
1881 in its attempts to assassinate the Tsar himself); and the 
minority Chernyi Peredel (Black Repartition) group, which opposed the 
growing stress on armed action in favour of propaganda.  This latter 
organisation was something of a dead letter with regard to the 
development of populism; it is however of significance for our 
purposes since in 1883, as a wave of state reaction threatened to 
crush the indigenous populist movement, an exiled group of Chernyi 
Peredel leaders, Plekhanov, Axelrod and Zasulich prominent among them, 
established themselves as the 'Emancipation of Labour' group and 
declared for Marxism.

Thus Marxism in Russia was at birth founded on the basis of a 
conscious and deliberate break with populist orthodoxies; what can be 
seen as its founding texts -- Plekhanov's Socialism and Political 
Struggle (1883) and Our Political Controversies (1885) [6] -- 
attempted to develop a scientific account of the development of 
Russian capitalism designed to refute the perceived errors of 
populism.  Central to the conceptions advanced by Plekhanov was the 
view that Russia was a backward and barbarous country: before any idea 
of an advance to socialism could be even considered, a long 
supervening process of capitalist industrialisation and westernisation 
was necessary.  The precondition for this was to be a 
bourgeois-democratic -- not socialist -- revolution: the working class 
in Russia, therefore, would be forced to play the role of supporting 
the liberal bourgeoisie in over-turning absolutism and establishing a 
constitutional, parliamentary state.  Finally, the peasantry, communal 
or not, was seen not as a revolutionary asset in the struggle against 
Tsardom but as a backward and reactionary force.  Thus the Marxism 
advanced by Plekhanov and his co-thinkers contradicted populism on 
practically every vital point; and the prospect of the necessity of 
capitalist development, the consequent  class character of the 
revolution and the leading forces within it, and their view of the 
nature and role of the peasantry were to be the founding orthodoxies 
of Marxism in Russia.

Thus it is intriguing to note that on these questions Plekhanov was 
something more of an 'orthodox Marxist' than Marx had ever been.  In a 
polemic directed at the populist theorist Mikhailovsky in 1877, Marx 
had objected to the accusation that he wanted to transpose onto Russia 
the process of 'primitive accumulation' described in Capital: 'It is 
absolutely necessary for [...] [Mikhailovsky] to metamorphose my 
historical sketch of the genesis of capitalism in Western Europe into 
a historico-pilosophical theory of general development, imposed by 
fate on all peoples, whatever the historical circumstances in which 
they are placed [...].' [7]  Even more suggestively, in his 1881 
letter to Vera Zasulich, Marx was to argue that:

'In analysing the genesis of capitalist production [in Capital] I say:

"At the core of the capitalist system, therefore, lies the complete 
separation of the producer from the means of production ... the basis 
of this whole development is the expropriation of the agricultural 
producer. To date this has not been accomplished in a radical fashion 
anywhere except in England... But all the other countries of Western 
Europe  are undergoing the same process" [...].

'Hence the historical inevitability of this process is expressly 
limited to the countries of Western Europe.  [...]

'Hence the analysis provided in Capital does not adduce reasons either 
for or against the viability of the rural commune, but the special 
study I have made of it, and the material for which I drew from 
original sources, has convinced me that this commune is the fulcrum of 
social regeneration in Russia, but in order that it may function as 
such, it is necessary to eliminate deleterious influences which are 
assailing it from all sides, and then ensure for it the normal 
conditions of spontaneous development. [8]

Thus Marx expressed a far greater degree of flexibility with regard to 
the possibilities for Russian development in the light of its concrete 
and specific historical circumstances than did Plekhanov's rather more 
abstract schemas.  In fact, the rather mechanical 'evolutionism' being 
advanced by Plekhanov seemed to have more in common with the brand of 
Marxism that was beginning to emerge in the Second International, and 
which was to be, at least at first, associated with the 'revisionism' 
of Bernstein: a Marxism that was to develop the structural weaknesses 
that were to result in the practical disintegration of the 
International in 1914 and which the more mature Lenin was to be in the 
forefront of opposing on the international plane.  Nevertheless, 
Plekhanov's conceptions predominated in the nascent Russian movement, 
and it was out of this movement that the historic split of 1903 
produced both Bolshevik and Menshevik factions.

So as we know, the split between the Bolshevik and Menshevik factions 
was precipitated by the debate over the two different conceptions of 
party membership advanced by Martov and Lenin.  Respectively: 'A 
member of the [...] Party is one who accepts its programme and 
supports it both materially and by regular co-operation under the 
leadership of one of its organisations'; and: 'A member of the party 
is one who accepts its programme, and supports it both materially and 
by personal participation in one of its organisations.' [9]

The differences between these two formulations appear to be small. Yet 
I argue that behind them lay fundamentally different, if as yet 
incipient, conceptions of the nature of the coming revolution and the 
role to be played by the party within it.  The content of Lenin's 
views as a codification of party practice were both fundamental and 
new, and represented the beginnings of a decisive break with not only 
the organisational but the political conceptions of Russian 
social-democracy up to this point (a political process which for Lenin 
himself was to culminate at the Finland Station in 1917). [10]  The 
content of Lenin's views as a codification of party practice were both 
fundamental and new, and represented the beginnings of a decisive 
break with not only the organisational but the political conceptions 
of Russian social-democracy.

Central to Lenin's argument were his views on spontaneity and 
consciousness.  The ostensible ideological target of What is to be 
Done? was the trend known as 'economism', which stressed the 
importance of the day to day, economic and trade union aspects of 
working class struggle, and thus made something of a virtue of the 
spontaneous development of working class consciousness.  Against this 
conception, Lenin offered a number of critical arguments.  Most 
importantly, he stressed that the working class, left to its own 
devices, was unable to develop social-democratic -- meaning 
revolutionary socialist -- consciousness, only what he termed 'trade 
union consciousness'.  That is, simply by virtue of its conditions of 
life under capitalism, there was no automatic mechanism which prompted 
the working class to revolutionary conclusions.  Thus: 'The working 
class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade 
union consciousness', or, more strongly: 'The spontaneous 
working-class movement is by itself able to create (and inevitably 
does create) only trade-unionism, and working-class trade-union 
politics is precisely working-class bourgeois politics.' [11]  
Socialist consciousness had to be introduced into the working class 
struggle from 'without'.  This is what was most fundamental and new 
about Lenin's theory, and what lay at the core of his -- soon to be 
literally 'Bolshevik' -- politics.

However, it is instructive that Lenin used two different arguments in 
What is to be Done? to justify his position; that is to say, he used 
more than one definition of 'within' and 'without' in this sense. [12] 
 First, he approvingly quoted Kautsky (as he was wont to do in this 
period) to this effect: 'Modern socialist consciousness can arise only 
on the basis of profound scientific knowledge. [...]  The vehicle of 
science is not the proletariat, but the bourgeois intelligentsia: it 
was in the minds of individual members of this stratum that modern 
socialism originated, and it was they who communicated to the more 
intellectually developed proletarians who, in their turn, introduced 
it into the proletarian class struggle [...]'

In this conception, 'within' and 'without' are conceived of in terms 
of social class, and it is the bourgeois intelligentsia alone -- not 
the working class -- that is able to develop socialist consciousness.

There is, of course, more than one way to read this argument.  As a 
description of what had happened historically, there is a good deal of 
truth to it: Marxism, as a body of thought, was indeed developed by 
bourgeois or petty bourgeois intellectuals, albeit in concrete 
conditions of developing capitalism and class struggle.  But it is 
also possible to read this argument in a prescriptive way, as a 
template for, quite literally, 'what is to be done'.  In this sense it 
is absolutely clear that it is not the case that Lenin's intention was 
to argue for a party of the bourgeois intelligentsia, the better to 
bring to the masses socialist consciousness: far from it, his 
prescription was for a party of 'professional revolutionaries'.  In 
fact, the whole history of both Bolshevism and Lenin's own activity 
would appear to rule out such a prescriptive reading of this 
conception.

But this is not the only argument that Lenin used. Later in the text 
he argued that:

'The basic error that all the Economists commit [...] [is] their 
conviction that it is possible to develop the class political 
consciousness of the workers from within, [...] from their economic 
struggle [...].

'Class political consciousness can be brought to the workers only from 
without, that is, only from outside the economic struggle, from 
outside the sphere of relations between workers and employers.  The 
sphere from which it alone is possible to obtain this knowledge is the 
sphere of relationships of all classes and strata to the state and the 
government, the sphere of the interrelations between all classes.' 
[13]

Here, 'within' and 'without', 'inside' and 'outside' are defined not 
in terms of social class but as a function of the distinction between 
the partial and the global.  Sectional struggles, trade union 
struggles for example, 'organically' only lead to sectional, partial 
consciousness: what the working class needs, therefore, is a 
centralising, totalising instrument -- effectively a revolutionary 
party -- to unify the experiences of its multifarious, partial 
struggles.  Since the revolution will require at some point a 
confrontation with the centralised state, the working class, as a 
consequence, needs its own instrument of political centralisation.  
This was Lenin's fundamental innovation, a re-assertion of the 
political element of socialist strategy, founded on the conception of 
the revolutionary party as a pro-active, subjective political 
instrument.  It was this conception which marked such a sharp break 
with the evolutionist, objectivist conceptions developed by Russian 
social-democracy in its own break from populism; although it was not 
at this stage explicitly formulated as such: the fundamental content 
of the break was only to become apparent over the course of the next 
decade and a half.

Now, for Lenin, the guiding principle of the party was to be Marxism; 
and for Lenin Marxism was a science: 'Without revolutionary theory 
there can be no revolutionary movement.'  And: 'The role of vanguard 
fighter can be fulfilled only by a party that is guided by the most 
advanced theory.' [14]  Yet these assertions, taken on their own, 
appear one-sided (a matter I shall return to shortly).  Where does 
this revolutionary theory, so to speak, come from?  Following the 
conception of the party as a centralising instrument of sectional 
struggles, it is reasonable to deduce that the theoretical 
understanding of the party is itself a product of this political 
centralisation.  Thus, after the revolution, summarising the 
experiences of Bolshevism in a text directed at socialists in the new 
Communist Parties outside Russia, Lenin asserted that 'Correct 
revolutionary theory [...] assumes final shape only in close 
connection with the practical activity of a truly mass and truly 
revolutionary movement'. [15]  That the development of theory was an 
ongoing and a practical question is intimated by Lenin's assertion in 
his own account of the proceedings of the second congress: 'A struggle 
of shades is inevitable and essential as long as it does not lead to 
anarchy and splits, as long as it is confined within bounds approved 
by common consent of all party members.' [16]  That the party had to 
be centralised flowed from the understanding that it needed to develop 
a global understanding of political struggle; in order to achieve this 
it also had to allow for open and public discussion and disagreement 
-- indeed, inevitably and essentially so. 
However, as I indicated earlier, many of Lenin's formulations appear 
one-sided.  It is necessary to be cautious here, for we are 
approaching the well-travelled terrain of 'stick-bending'.  At the 
second congress itself, Lenin admitted to a degree of polemical 
exaggeration: 'We all know that the "economists" have gone to one 
extreme. To straighten matters out somebody had to pull in the other 
direction -- and that is what I have done.' [17]  While we need to be 
sensitive to the fact that much of Lenin's writings were not the 
result of detached academic pondering but arose in the context of 
often over-heated polemical debate, we also need to maintain a degree 
of scrupulousness as to what Lenin did in fact say.  It is, as a 
consequence, necessary to read Lenin 'carefully' and in context: to be 
aware of who he is arguing with, and why, in order to be able to 
extract what is fundamental in his views.  On the other hand, we must 
not allow ourselves too much 'leniency' in this sense, for that would 
lead to an under-estimation of what are real dilemmas in Lenin's 
thought.

To illustrate the point: in Lenin's conception of the party, as we 
have seen, there had to be room for open debate and discussion.  Yet 
in Tsarist Russia this was clearly a problem.  As Lenin points out, 
complete democracy requires at the minimum two conditions: full 
publicity, and elections to all offices.  Yet in the concrete 
conditions of the time this would have been impossible -- it would 
simply have made the police's work easier for them.  Then Lenin 
offered a supporting argument: with strict selection of members, 
confidence among comrades, dedication, 'Something more than 
"democratism" would be guaranteed to us, namely complete, comradely, 
mutual confidence among revolutionaries.' [18]  While the first 
argument -- the practical one -- did not cast doubt on the principle 
of inner-party democracy; the second one clearly does, and was a 
dangerous portent for the future.  Lenin may well have been bending 
the stick here, in order to straighten it, but allowing for that must 
not allow us to dismiss the evident contradiction in his exposition.

Having allowed for this, however, it is essential to recognise the 
fundamental nature of Lenin's innovations.  In Perry Anderson's 
judgement, with which I agree, Lenin's outlook, 'often seen as simply 
"practical" measures, in fact also represented decisive intellectual 
advances into hitherto uncharted terrain.'  Lenin 'inaugurated a 
Marxist science of politics, henceforward capable of dealing with a 
vast range of problems, which had previously lain outside any rigorous 
theoretical jurisdiction.' [19]

There is, I would argue, in this respect a direct and linear 
connection between the Lenin of 1902-3 and the Marx of 1844, when the 
latter, in the first of his Theses on Feuerbach, put forward the 
proposition that 'The chief defect of all hitherto existing 
materialism[...] is that [...] reality[...] is conceived only in the 
form of the object or of contemplation, but not as sensuous human 
activity, practice, not subjectively.' Marx went on: 'The question 
whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a 
question of theory but is a practical question. Man must prove the 
truth -- i.e. the reality and power, the this-sidedness of his 
thinking in practice. The dispute over the reality or non-reality of 
thinking that is isolated from practice is a purely scholastic 
question.' 'All social life is essentially practical. All mysteries 
which lead theory to mysticism find their rational solution in human 
practice and in the comprehension of this practice,' Marx continued, 
ending with the famous exhortation: 'The philosophers have only 
interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.' 
[20]

This conception is impossible to overestimate in its fundamental 
importance for historical materialism.  Marxism, claimed its founders 
(with whom I find myself in agreement) is a science.  What does this 
mean?  Marx and Engels were always at great pains to differentiate 
their theoretical viewpoint from what they, in the nineteenth century, 
called 'ideology'.  For the founders of Marxism, 'ideology' was false 
sets of ideas.  For Marx and Engels, what was specific to their theory 
was that it could paint a sufficiently accurate picture of the inner 
workings of human society that it could be used by humanity to change, 
consciously, the course of human history.  It was this very accuracy 
of Marxism that made it scientific, and it was its scientific nature 
that consequently made it revolutionary, for the transition from what 
Marx called the realm of necessity to the realm of freedom -- 
impossible without international, social, socialist revolution -- 
demands a degree of accurate theoretical knowledge and consciousness 
historically speaking hitherto uncalled for.

But the obvious question is: where does this Marxist theory come from, 
and how do we know that it is true?  Marx is precisely addressing this 
matter in 1844: he argues that a 'correct' theoretical understanding 
comes not from abstract contemplation of society from without but from 
the active engagement with it from within; and that its correctness is 
to be measured in terms of its efficacy in changing the world, in the 
way that theory serves as an effective weapon to this end. [21]  When 
Marxists speak of 'the unity of theory and practice' it is this that 
they should be referring to, yet it is a conception generally poorly 
understood.

Marx devoted the greater part of his efforts following his theoretical 
breakthroughs of the 1840s to a sustained analysis of existing social 
phenomena: trapped as he and Engels were within the given conditions 
of the time, they did not develop sustained reflection on the central 
ideas of the Theses on Feuerbach: they did not elaborate substantially 
on the relation between theory and practice: they did not, in short 
develop a theory of politics.  For classical Marxism, that was to come 
later.  And it came in the form of the revolutionary current within 
the socialist movement of the Russian Empire, of Bolshevism.  Lenin's 
profile within the received wisdom of Marxism -- itself echoing 
bourgeois commentary -- is very much that of the 'practical 
politician' rather than the theoretical innovator.  Yet to deny the 
fundamental role of Lenin's work in the development of Marxist theory 
is to seriously debase the latter.  If the Marxism of Marx and Engels 
lacks a theory of politics (understood in the terms that they would 
themselves understand it, within the parameters of the final Thesis on 
Feuerbach), this was to be supplied by Bolshevism, and by Lenin. And 
the foundation of this theory is What is to be Done?


NOTES

[1]  'What is to be Done?', Collected Works, vol. 5, 347-529.  
[Available on the web at 
<http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/what-itd/index.htm>]

[2]  I am therefore not in agreement with the view, most clearly 
expressed by Neil Harding (Leninism (London, 1996), 7-10), that the 
origins of 'Leninism' are to be located solely by reference to Lenin's 
response to the outbreak of the First World War, significant though 
this was.

[3]  Teodor Shanin, Russia as a 'Developing Society' (London, 1985), 
213.

[4]  See, for a classic exposition of this view, which passed on 
almost directly into bourgeois historiography, Bertram D. Wolfe, Three 
Who made a Revolution: A Biographical History (London: Thames and 
Hudson, 1956), 23-24.

[5]  See the account in Teodor Shanin (ed.), Late Marx and the Russian 
Road (London, 1983), 8-13.

[6]  Georgi Plekhanov, 'Socialism  and the Political Struggle', 
Selected Philosophical Works, 5 volumes (Moscow, 1974-1980), vol. 1 
(1974), 49-106; 'Our Political Controversies', ibid., 107-352.  [The 
first of these texts is available on the web at 
<http://www.marxists.org/archive/plekhanov/works/1880s/struggle.htm>]

[7]  'Letter to Otechestvenniye Zapiski', MECW,  vol. 24 (1989), 200.

[8]  'Marx to Vera Zasulich', MECW, vol. 46  (1992), 71. Earlier 
drafts of this letter are to be found in Karl Marx, 'Drafts of the 
Letter to Vera Zasulich', MECW, vol. 24 (1989), 346-371.

[9]  Cited in E. H. Carr, The Bolshevik Revolution 1917-1923, vol. 1 
(Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1973), 41.

[10]  And, as Carr insists, the relationship between Lenin's 
formulation and his theories on party organisation was both understood 
and acknowledged at the congress (The Bolshevik Revolution, 41)

[11]  'What is to be Done?', 375, 437.

[12]  For an excellent discussion of Lenin's arguments in What is to 
be Done?, see Norman Geras, Literature of Revolution: Essays on 
Marxism (London, 1986), 177-193.

[13]  'What is to be Done?', 421-422.

[14]  Ibid., 369, 370.

[15]  '"Left-Wing" Communism: An Infantile Disorder', LCW, vol. 31 
(1966), 17-118 (25).  
[<http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/apr/lwc/index.htm>] 
 Perry Anderson draws out the full significance of the formulation: 
'Every clause [...] counts.  Revolutionary theory can be undertaken in 
relative isolation -- Marx in the British Museum, Lenin in war-bound 
Zurich: but it can only acquire a correct and final form when bound to 
the collective struggles of the working class itself.  Mere formal 
membership of a party organisation [...] does not suffice to provide 
such a bond: a close connection with the practical activity of the 
proletariat is necessary.  Nor is militancy in a small revolutionary 
group enough: there must be a linkage with the actual masses.  
Conversely, linkage with a mass movement is not enough either, for the 
latter may be reformist: it is only when the masses are themselves 
revolutionary, that theory can complete its eminent vocation.'  
(Considerations on Western Marxism (London, 1976), 105-6.)

[16]  One Step Forward, Two Steps Back (Moscow, 1978), 144.  
[<http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1904/onestep/index.htm]

[17]  'Speech on the Party Programme', LCW, vol. 6 (1961)  491.

[18]  'What is to be Done?', 476-480, quotation on 480.

[19]  Anderson, Considerations, 11-12.

[20]  Karl Marx, Early Writings (Harmondsworth, 1975), 421-23. 
[<http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm >]

[21]  As Marx wrote a year earlier: 'Clearly the weapon of criticism 
cannot replace criticism of weapons, and material force must be 
overthrown by material force. But theory also becomes a material force 
once it has gripped the masses.  Theory is capable of gripping the 
masses when it demonstrates ad hominem, and it demonstrates ad hominem 
as soon as it becomes radical. To be radical is to grasp things by the 
root.'  'Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's 
Philosophy of Right', Early Writings, 251. 
[<http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.h
tm >]




------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Stock for $4.
No Minimums.
FREE Money 2002.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/BgmYkB/VovDAA/ySSFAA/B140lB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

"[C]apital comes dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and 
dirt."
--Marx, Capital, Vol. 1, Chapter 31

Community email addresses:
  Post message: marxist@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  Subscribe:    marxist-subscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  Unsubscribe:  marxist-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  List owner:   jplst15+@xxxxxxxx

Shortcut URL to this page:
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/marxist

Also take our one-question survey at
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/marxist/polls 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/