Notes on Foundations of Leninism
See our podcast episode about this
Foundations of Leninism
Understanding Leninism
Joseph Stalin begins Foundations of Leninism by refuting the idea that Leninism is merely Marxism applied to Russia. As Stalin states, "We know, however, that Leninism is not merely a Russian, but an international phenomenon rooted in the whole of international development." Leninism, as Stalin proposes, made Marxism not only a revolutionary ideology once again—as Marxism had, by World War I, become a reformist, hollow shell of itself within mainstream European circles—but "also took a step forward, developing Marxism further under the new conditions of capitalism and of the class struggle of the proletariat."
Definition: Leninism, according to Stalin, is "Marxism of the era of imperialism and the proletarian revolution. To be more exact, Leninism is the theory and tactics of the proletarian revolution in general, the theory and tactics of the dictatorship of the proletariat in particular. Marx and Engels pursued their activities in the pre-revolutionary period (we have the proletarian revolution in mind), when developed imperialism did not yet exist, in the period of the proletarians’ preparation for revolution, in the period when the proletarian revolution was not yet an immediate practical inevitability. But Lenin, the disciple of Marx and Engels, pursued his activities in the period of developed imperialism, in the period of the unfolding proletarian revolution, when the proletarian revolution had already triumphed in one country, had smashed bourgeois democracy and had ushered in the era of proletarian democracy, the era of the Soviets."
Born from Imperialism: Leninism was ultimately born out of the age of imperialism, a stage of capitalism that Lenin considered its final, dying phase.
Three Contradictions of Imperialism
This dying stage of capitalism was characterized by three major contradictions:
Monopoly Finance Capitalism vs. Working Class: As opposed to earlier stages of capitalism where there was some free competition, monopoly finance capitalism completely dominates countries, leading to intense clashes between capital and the working class. The working class, unable to fight this new monopoly finance stage of capitalism through traditional trade unions, then has only two options: overthrow capitalism or suffer.
Inter-Imperialist Conflict: Finance monopoly capitalists fight each other! Ultimately, all imperialist countries wish to invest capital (money that helps them exploit workers) and divide up markets. This leads to inter-imperialist wars over redividing the world. These inter-imperialist wars, however, also have the effect of weakening the global position of capitalism itself, as world wars break the chains and engines of capitalism to a point of heightened class struggle, allowing room for revolutions.
Colonial Oppression: "The third contradiction is the contradiction between the handful of ruling, 'civilised' nations and the hundreds of millions of the colonial and dependent peoples of the world. Imperialism is the most barefaced exploitation and the most inhumane oppression of hundreds of millions of people inhabiting vast colonies and dependent countries." This division of the world between colonizer and colonized for super-profits also ends up being the gravedigger of capitalism itself, as it both proletarianizes the world and, in doing business to exploit, gives the colonized tools like railroads, industries, and education.
During World War I, these contradictions broke most profoundly in Russia; during World War II and subsequently, they manifested in China, Korea, and Vietnam. The Russian Revolution was ultimately a world revolution, not a nationalist one, because it carried with it solutions to all the issues of the imperialist stage of capitalism.
It's also because, as Stalin asserts, just as Germany, on the eve of a great revolutionary process out of feudalism during Marx's time, allowed him to analyze universal truths about capitalism through the contradictions of this process (Germany was one of the last countries to have a capitalist revolution), Russia became the same thing under the imperialist stage of capitalism. Therefore, revolutionary Russia and Lenin himself, by analyzing and bringing movement to a center of world capitalist contradictions, became leaders of the international proletariat.
The Necessity of Leninism and Revolutionary Theory
Leninism was needed because, by the eve of World War I, the majority of Marxist organizations within Europe had become revisionist and reformist. Bourgeois ideas are always threatening to infiltrate workers' spaces and Marxist circles, and that's exactly what happened with the Second International, which chose to support their respective countries in World War I.
Distortion of Marxism: This distortion of Marxism even led the Marxist movements of Europe to think that they could simply vote Marxism in peacefully. "Instead of an integral revolutionary theory, there were contradictory theoretical postulates and fragments of theory, which were divorced from the actual revolutionary struggle of the masses and had been turned into threadbare dogmas. For the sake of appearances, Marx's theory was mentioned, of course, but only to rob it of its living, revolutionary spirit." These methods worked fine before World War I as they ultimately went unnoticed, but World War I really threw the sad state of European Marxism under figures like Karl Kautsky and Eduard Bernstein into the open.
Leninism's Solution: It was out of this context that Leninism fixed the issues of the opportunists by firstly returning Marxism to a revolutionary instead of reformist theory, reorganizing the social democratic parties into revolutionary vanguards to prepare the masses for struggle, and promoting self-criticism.
Leninism also shattered three myths of orthodox Marxism that the Second International held:
That the working class couldn't take power if they were a minority in a peasant-majority country.
That the working class couldn't hold onto power if they happened to have a revolution in a peasant-majority country.
That the working class shouldn't do general working-class strikes, which the opportunists even denied in favor of pure parliamentary elections.
As you can see, Marxism was in a really bad place before Leninism.
Theory and Practice: Ultimately then, "revolutionary theory is not a dogma." It "assumes final shape only in close connection with the practical activity of a truly mass and truly revolutionary movement," for "theory must serve practice," and "theory must answer the questions raised by practice." This means Leninism was a revolutionary theory that also served revolutionary practice, as opposed to the revisionist, reformist theory of the Second International that served no revolutionary practice.
Leninism, therefore, as much as we wish for leftist unity, was born out of ruthless criticism of opportunist leftist trends until only a truly revolutionary line was left. Many often criticize Leninism as simply just a rejection of theory over practice; however, this isn't what Leninism is at all. Leninism contends that without revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary movement. Leninism simply just contends that "theory becomes purposeless if it is not connected with revolutionary practice," meaning that theory is important, but theory without practice and practice without theory are two erroneous errors.
The Vanguard Party and Spontaneity
One of the greatest errors that Leninism solved was the issue of spontaneity within the workers' movements. Leninism, through the conception of the disciplined vanguard party, recognized that a section of the working class would always be more class-conscious and 'advanced' than others.
This meant that in order to conduct revolutions, the disciplined vanguard party would lead the masses into revolution.
Spontaneity vs. Guided Action: Spontaneity, or "tailism," completely rejected all of this. Instead, it follows the spontaneous movements of the working class and its short-term demands, which aren't necessarily a bad thing but often lead to reformism if they're not guided by a revolutionary vanguard party that has a goal of combating capitalism itself.
Think of the Black Lives Matter movement, which saw the masses spurred into action. Without a vanguard leading it that had clear goals, it suddenly fizzled out without any real gains, with the BLM leaders becoming incorporated into the state. This is also what "MAGA communists" do with the MAGA movement.
Conditions for Proletarian Revolution
Lenin saw that proletarian revolution was possible because of three things:
That within highly developed capitalist economies, big finance monopolies took over entire countries, suffocating the workers and leading to intense class struggle.
Imperialism, through the export of capital, led to uneven development all across the world and allowed for liberation through revolt and revolutionary crisis within the colonial fronts.
Finally, the inevitability of inter-imperialist struggle to redivide the world allows the working class a revolutionary window as capitalism breaks down.
The two great fronts against capitalism in the imperialist stage are "the front of the revolutionary proletariat and the front of colonial emancipation." As Lenin would say, "imperialism is the eve of the socialist revolution."
Under the imperialist stage of capitalism, there is no such thing as an individual country or individual revolution; all countries are now tied to a world economy, and their revolutionary circumstances depend on its health or turmoil.
Weakest Link Theory: "Where will the revolution begin? Where, in what country, can the front of capital be pierced first? Where industry is more developed, where the proletarian constitutes the majority, where there is more culture, where there is more democracy—that was the reply usually given formerly. No, objects the Leninist theory of revolution, not necessarily where industry is more developed, and so forth. The front of capital will be pierced where the chain of imperialism is weakest, for the proletarian revolution is the result of the breaking of the chain of the world imperialist front at its weakest link; and it may turn out that the country which has started the revolution, which has made a breach in the front of capital, is less developed in a capitalist sense than other, more developed, countries, which have, however, remained within the framework of capitalism."
Stalin explains that within the era of imperialism, communist revolution is most likely to happen within the weakest places of global capitalism in solidarity with national liberation movements (think of what happened in Cuba or Korea).
The goal of Leninist communists within colonized nations, then, was to ally with the peasants to crush the old feudal and colonial orders, which would temporarily put the bourgeoisie into power, and then retaining power and revolutionary momentum to crush the bourgeoisie in a socialist revolution. This is why Lenin ridiculed the theory of "permanentists," calling it "original" and "fine," and accusing them of refusing to "think why, for ten whole years, life has passed by this fine theory."
The Dictatorship of the Proletariat and National Question
Next, Stalin discusses the dictatorship of the proletariat, which has two principal jobs: to get the proletariat into power and to crush the reactionaries to proletarian power.
This is because revolutions can happen without the dictatorship of the proletariat, but "to maintain its victory and to push forward to the final victory of socialism unless, at a certain stage in its development, it creates a special organ in the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat as its principle mainstay." This implies that anarchists will always get crushed if they don't themselves create a dictatorship of the proletariat, which many experiments have done in practice whether they recognize it or not.
The dictatorship of the proletariat, as a tool to retain class rule under socialism, is vital because the bourgeoisie exist as a class long after revolution and continue to try to get back into power long after revolution too. In fact, after a revolution, the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie attack socialist revolution "with energy grown tenfold, with furious passion and hatred grown a hundredfold, into the battle." In addition to that, you don’t only have to worry about the bourgeois of your own nation attempting to restore capitalism, but also the bourgeoisie of the entire world capitalist system.
The dictatorship of the proletariat does not have an easy job in its resistance, re-education, and crushing of the reactionary elements of society, but it's one that must inevitably be done.
A New Form of Democracy: The dictatorship of the proletariat is the inevitable tool of using the state against the bourgeois order; it is the masses (workers) for the first time using the state to oppress a minority (the old ruling classes), whereas all throughout history the state has always been utilized by a minority against the majority. It follows then that the dictatorship of the proletariat is a new form of democracy never seen before, as:
"The dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be 'complete' democracy, democracy for all, for the rich as well as for the poor; the dictatorship of the proletariat 'must be a state that is democratic in a new way (for the proletarians and the non-propertied in general) and dictatorial in a new way (against the bourgeoisie)."
"The talk of Kautsky and Co. about universal equality, about 'pure' democracy, about 'perfect' democracy, and the like, is a bourgeois disguise of the indubitable fact that equality between exploited and exploiters is impossible."
"The theory of 'pure' democracy is the theory of the upper stratum of the working class, which has been broken in and is being fed by the imperialist robbers. It was brought into being for the purpose of concealing the ulcers of capitalism, of embellishing imperialism and lending it moral strength in the struggle against the exploited masses."
"Under capitalism there are no real 'liberties' for the exploited, nor can there be, if for no reason than that the premises, printing plants, paper supplies, etc, indispensable for the enjoyment of 'liberties' are the privilege of the exploiters."
"Under capitalism the exploited masses do not, nor can they ever, really participate in governing the country, if for no other reason than that, even under the most democratic regime, under conditions of capitalism, governments are not set up by the people but by the Rothschilds and Stinneses, the Rockefellers and Morgans."
"Democracy under capitalism is capitalist democracy, the democracy of the exploiting minority, based on the restriction of the rights of exploited majority and directed against this majority. Only under the proletarian dictatorship are real liberties for the exploited and real participation of the proletarians and peasants in governing the country possible. Under the dictatorship of the proletariat, democracy is proletarian democracy, the democracy of the exploited majority, based on the restriction of the rights of the exploiting minority and directed against this minority."
Smashing the Old State: Does the dictatorship of the proletariat simply take over the old state machine? No, it completely smashes the old police, military, and government and builds a new state in their place.
Stalin mentions that even though Marx had conceded that socialism could be established peacefully and voted in the 1870s, this observation by Marx became completely outdated as soon as finance monopoly capitalism and imperialism burst onto the stage. Finance monopoly capitalism is a whole other beast that did not exist in the weaker capitalism of Marx.
The dictatorship of the proletariat within the USSR was practiced through soviets; these were local and international bodies of workers' councils with mass participation from all sectors of society, including the various nationalities of the USSR.
The National Question: Another important thing that Leninism did was take the national question and expanded it to the colonized peoples of the world, something that Marxists before it refused to do for 'uncivilized people.' "The national question was thereby transformed from a particular and internal state problem into a general and international problem, into a world problem of emancipating the oppressed peoples in the dependent countries and colonies from the yoke of imperialism."
The right to self-determination of nations before Leninism had meant simply cultural expression under an empire. Leninism expanded this to the right to self-determination, the right to create your own nation, and the right to secession if need be. This is something that "Left-communists" confuse with Lenin seeing his fight against the cultural expression line in the Second International as Lenin opposing self-determination in general. "In this way the question of the oppressed nations become one of supporting the oppressed nations, of rendering real and continuous assistance to them in their struggle against imperialism for real equality of nations, for their independent existence as states."
Inherently, the proletarian revolution under imperialism cannot happen without the liberation of the colonies, and anyone that denies that falls into the reformism and chauvinism of the Second International. Leninism sees in every national liberation movement the ability to overthrow imperialism and capitalism and to ally with a revolutionary proletariat to do so. Thus it is the goal of all workers in imperial core countries to support the liberation of those in the colonized countries that weaken imperialism.
This is not blanket support for all liberation movements no matter what, as there are certainly reactionary ones (e.g., the Ukrainian nationalist movement during certain historical periods), but instead those that "tend to weaken, to overthrow imperialism, and not to strengthen and preserve it." As Stalin writes: "Marx supported the national movement of the Poles and Hungarians and was opposed to the national movement of the Czechs and the South Slavs. Why? Because the Czechs and the South Slavs were then 'reactionary peoples,' 'Russian outposts' in Europe, outposts of absolutism; whereas the Poles and the Hungarians were 'revolutionary peoples,' fighting against absolutism. Because support of the national movement of the Czechs and the South Slavs was at that time equivalent to indirect support for tsarism, the most dangerous enemy of the revolutionary movement in Europe."
Therefore, just because someone calls themselves socialist, if their positions strengthen imperialism, they are reactionary (e.g., Bernie Sanders). And even if they’re not socialist, if their movements weaken imperialism, they are progressive (e.g., Hamas, in terms of its anti-imperialist struggle). A liberation movement is judged on the content of how it affects the world system as a whole; therefore, whether or not Hamas is jihadist doesn't matter because Hamas strikes a critical blow to American and European capital, and enough of these blows will lead to a crisis in world capitalism. As Stalin posits, "the victory of the working class in the developed countries and the liberation of the oppressed peoples from the yoke of imperialism are impossible without the formation and the consolidation of a common revolutionary front."
The Leninist Party: Tactics and Discipline
Leninism's great contribution was developing a scientific way to lead the workers to victory and to socialism, something that other Marxist branches were never able to do and still haven't been able to.
The Vanguard party, as formulated by Lenin, uses all forces (peasants, workers in other countries, revolutionary national independence movements, contradictions between classes, conflicts, wars) for a decisive blow against capitalism and its overthrow through a workers' revolution during a revolutionary crisis. A revolution under a vanguard then has to be timed right at the climax of a revolutionary crisis, not too early or too soon. The vanguard always has to be in touch with the people, as "Failure to observe this condition leads to a dangerous error called 'loss of tempo,' when the Party lags behind the movement or runs far ahead of it, courting the danger of failure."
As much as the offensive is needed, Vanguard Parties also need to know when to retreat and rally their forces during times of great reactionary pushback. For example, Mao's Long March saw the communists temporarily move to remote regions as they were crushed by the Kuomintang (KMT). "The object of this strategy is to gain time to disrupt the enemy, and to accumulate forces in order to later assume the offensive." The Vanguard brings millions into politics and prepares them both for the overthrow of the old regime and trains them to do so. Revolutionary crises that occur before the climax therefore prepare the masses and train them for that final overthrow. Therefore, the party needs to be connected with the masses and lead them during these small hiccups. As Lenin said, "propaganda and agitation alone are not enough. For this the masses must have their own political experience."
Tactical Flexibility vs. Reformism: Tactical leadership requires the switching of strategies as the revolution enters different phases. This can be entering or exiting parliament, fostering alliances between middle and some rich peasants or breaking it for poor peasants, making an alliance/breaking an alliance. The party's strategies will always be flexible as conditions change. How do you tell the difference between reformism and needing to be tactical? "With reformist tactics under the conditions of bourgeois rule, reforms are inevitably transformed into an instrument for strengthening that rule, an instrument for disintegrating the revolution. To a revolutionary, on the contrary, the main thing is revolutionary work and not reforms; to him reforms (changing tactics) are a by-product of the revolution." Therefore, a reformist changes tactics for the strengthening of capitalism and begins to stop advocating for violent overthrow in general, instead getting lost in forms. A revolutionary changes tactics based on the need for that violent overthrow. To a revolutionary then, according to Lenin, "reforms are a by-product of the revolutionary class struggle of the proletariat."
Leading the Masses: The Leninist party is one that is made up of the most advanced organs of the working class, as in every society there are people that are more class conscious than others, and the Leninist party's job is to lead the less advanced sections of the masses to final revolution. Without this leadership, working class movements are doomed to be spontaneous, with movements that come in and fizzle out with no real gains or reformist resolutions. Without leadership, the working class can never strike that final blow to overthrow capitalism. Therefore, the party cannot just simply follow working class movements, especially their reactionary tendencies known as tailism; it has to lead them. "The Party must stand at the head of the working class; it must see farther than the working class; it must lead the proletariat, and not drag at the tail of the spontaneous movement."
Connection to the Class: Leading the working class does not mean the vanguard party is separated from it, however, as the Leninist party at the same time must be "a detachment of the class, part of the class, closely bound up with it by all the fibres of its being." Because if the Vanguard party isn’t connected to the working class, it has no one left to lead. The party therefore has to be connected in the proletariat's struggles and has to lead them through crisis. This means that not everyone can become a party member, that there has to be a standard that upcoming members have to pass.
Democratic Centralism: All Leninist parties also have to follow the principles of acting as one. Debates can happen during party congresses on which lines to follow, but once party lines are decided by a vote, the minority factions have to follow the majority. The entire party has to act as one and follow discipline, otherwise with factionalism, the Leninist party risks becoming a debate club.
The party is also the ultimate advanced form of class struggle that leads other branches of struggle such as "trade unions, co-operatives, factory organisations, parliamentary groups, non-Party women's associations, the press, cultural and educational organisations, youth leagues, revolutionary fighting organisations," all of which each do their own jobs.
Maintaining the Dictatorship of the Proletariat: The party is also the tool for creating and maintaining the dictatorship of the proletariat, of putting the working class into power at the helm of the state and using that tool to keep them in power. As Stalin explains, "Now, what does to 'maintain' and 'expand' the dictatorship mean? It means imbuing the millions of proletarians with the spirit of discipline and organisation; it means creating among the proletarian masses a cementing force and a bulwark against the corrosive influence of the petty-bourgeois elemental forces and petty-bourgeois habits; it means enhancing the organising work of the proletarians in re-educating and remoulding the petty-bourgeois strata; it means helping the masses of the proletarians to educate themselves as a force capable of abolishing classes and of preparing the conditions for the organisation of socialist production."
Finally, within a Leninist party, regular party purges of opportunist elements and those seeking factionalism are needed to hold to the revolutionary line.
Revolution and its Aftermath
Russian Revolution's Significance: The Russian Revolution was a historic moment in which, for the first time in human history, the working class won in putting an end to capitalism. It was all done against the common knowledge of traditional Marxism, which contended that socialist revolution would not happen in the least developed areas of Europe but the most. However, towards the end of his life, even Marx had recognized the possibility of "revolution beginning…in the East."
Russia was a society in the late 1800s and early 1900s that was caught between new technology and old relations. As it slowly but surely adopted capitalist modes of production, Russia still held onto its old feudal class relations. This overall led to some of the most disgusting exploitation and underdevelopment of any working classes within Europe. It was out of this perilous situation and contradiction that Leninism would be born, which would guide the working class of Russia and eventually the many working classes of the world to victory.
Leninism's Breakthrough: One of Leninism's great recognitions was that Russia was ready for socialism, that socialism could win in Russia and all underdeveloped countries without waiting for the other European, more advanced countries to have their socialist revolutions, and that the orthodox Marxist thinking that socialists should allow the capitalists to win in Russia and underdeveloped countries first was antiquated. And in 1917, Russia was ready, as Lenin would proclaim, Russia was "either perishing or entrusting her fate to the most revolutionary class for the swiftest and most radical transition to a superior mode of production."
The Russian Revolution proved that the workers didn’t need capitalism, that socialist revolution could happen in the most underdeveloped countries, and that no country had to wait for a level of development under capitalism to do a socialist revolution. As Lenin would say, "If a definite level of culture is required for the building of socialism, why cannot we begin by first achieving the prerequisites for that definite level of culture in a revolutionary way, and then, with the aid of the workers’ and peasants’ government and the Soviet system, proceed to overtake the other nations?"
Global Impact: The October Revolution would also be a "Pandora’s box" that would show the colonized peoples of the world that they could overthrow their oppressors, and showed the workers of the world a model for how to live without capitalism! As Mao Zedong would say, "The October Revolution helped the progressive elements in China and the rest of the world to apply the proletarian world outlook in determining the fate of the country and re-examining their own problems. The conclusion was to follow in the footsteps of the Russians." The October Revolution would inspire the May Fourth Movement in China, anti-Japanese movements in Korea, Indian liberation fighters, Indonesians, etc. As Sukarno, the president of Indonesia, would say, "after the victory of the October Revolution in Russia the struggle of the peoples of Asia for their national independence and against the oppression of the usurpers flared up anew. This struggle became more organised and its aim clear and irreconcilable, namely, immediate independence." It was the first major blow to imperialist monopoly finance capitalism.
State Monopoly Capitalism and Neo-Colonialism
After World War II, American monopoly finance capital became the biggest world hegemon of imperialism, quickly taking over European states and their sovereignty in alliance with their bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie of Europe allied with America to stop the spread of socialism and national liberation in return for helping America with its imperialism and interests. This has seen the creation of blocs like NATO, the World Bank, etc.
America managed to invest itself within Europe and therefore within Europe's neo-colonies and spheres of influence. American dominance over the world has also been done through the building of military bases within countries within its hegemonic bloc all over the world, with the goal of both keeping these countries from rebelling and protecting its monopoly finance capital and its interests, as it’s a lot harder to liberate yourself when America's got a base in your country. As Otto would write, observing prophetically in 1960, "A system of satellites dependent in some degree or another on the leading imperialist power—the United States of America—is coming into being."
State monopoly capitalism has reached a stage where it cannot be confined to the borders of a singular country now, and so it tends towards big international economic agencies such as the EU, ECOWAS, etc. But all these effectively do is lead to the domination of the strongest economies over the weakest ones. "The imperialists advertise in every possible way the 'supranational' nature of these organisations, but in reality their 'supranational' nature is expressed in the fact that their member-countries have lost their independence in determining important aspects of their economic policy." This stage of capitalism after World War II that we currently are in has seen the breaking down of all tariffs, borders, and economies to become integrated into one world economy with large monopoly finance interests without borders; however, as of this recording, this free neoliberal order seems to be breaking down for more ugly imperialist interfighting once again.
Nationalism in the Global South: The nationalism of oppressed nations remains a progressive force in terms of fighting capitalism and pushing forward socialism. As Lenin would say, "'The fatherland, i.e., the given political, cultural and social environment, is the most powerful factor in the class struggle of the proletariat.... The proletariat cannot be indifferent to and unconcerned about the political, social and cultural conditions of its struggle and, consequently, cannot remain indifferent to the fate of its country…but the destinies of the country interest it only to the extent that they affect its class struggle, and not in virtue of some bourgeois 'patriotism,' quite indecent on the lips of a Social-Democrat.'" This contrasts with "MAGA communists" who might misinterpret nationalism.
Liberal bourgeois democracy always remains a fake democracy which under state monopoly is beholden to the monopoly finance interests of the big capitalists. In addition, whatever democratic gains are given to people under liberalism are always being eroded away; liberalism always tends towards fascism as "The aggravation of the class struggle, the further weakening of the positions of capitalism and the fear of socialism, whose forces are continuously increasing, drive the monopolies to extremes both in internal and foreign policy." The struggle for Marxist-Leninism therefore is not a struggle against democracy but a struggle for true democracy, a proletarian democracy that represents the majority of humanity and not the tiny minority.
Neocolonialism: Countries that freed themselves from direct colonialism after World War II often had a very hard job. If they were not socialist and their National Bourgeoisie won, then these countries had two options. One was, since they had so little capital or ability to develop, to become subservient to European and Western Capital again, because African, Asian, and Latin American states did not possess the capital required to do imperialism themselves or invest in their economies vigorously. This led to them essentially being colonized again in everything but name in the system known as neocolonialism. In neocolonialism, the imperialists grab a section of the bourgeoisie from a country and use them to dominate the country, turning the country into an export-based economy with very little development. "In words the inspirers of 'neo-colonialism' support industrialisation, but by this they mean only the development of the light and mining industries and means of transport and communication, something that cannot essentially endanger the economic positions of the foreign monopolies." A modern-day example of this would be President William Ruto of Kenya, who is backed by America, exports tons of resources from Kenya against the will of the people, keeps them impoverished, allows American capital to penetrate the country as much as it wants, and keeps the profits for a small class of himself and comprador bourgeoisie while most Kenyans suffer.
Neocolonialism is a very dangerous form of imperialism because a country seems independent in every sense except economically; it gets its own flag, it seemingly gets to pick its own president, but it remains a puppet and cookie jar of imperialist powers in every economic sense. This can be seen in the modern day through taking IMF loans and debt entrapment, which many African states are under.
The other path is self-development through heavy involvement of the state in the economy. This is not socialism by any means, but states like Gaddafi's Libya utilized the state in order to develop their own economy in a way that the free market couldn't, which allowed them to have independence from imperial states. The Sahel region of Africa, which has recently freed itself from French imperialism, seems to be doing just that, though they might later on turn to full socialism, it's too early to tell at the time of this recording.
Ultimately then, under our current stage of capitalism in non-socialist countries, "state capitalism [such as Gaddafi's Libya] plays a progressive role. The very spread of such forms is very significant and provides a new symptom of the bankruptcy of capitalism." However, this is not the end-all-be-all of revolution, and state capitalists can become reactionary very quickly themselves. Since they are capitalist and have rulers with interests in capitalism, they can be won over by American capital, they can suppress their own workers and their rights, they can crush their communist and workers' movements, and they can be goaded into infighting by imperialism powers, and so we should approach state capitalist countries always with a critical eye and not follow them blindly.
The Proletariat's Role and Internationalism
Why did Marx and Engels see the working class as the inevitable revolutionary class? Part of it was that "As a matter of fact, the working class is the only class that has no part in the ownership of the means of production and therefore does not need to attach any value to it. Moreover, since private ownership of the means of production forms the basis for exploitation of the worker by the capitalist, its abolition and replacement by social ownership, i.e., by socialism, is the only way to liberate the working class. Lastly, in concluding that it was the working class that was destined to destroy capitalism and build socialism, Marx and Engels also based themselves on the fact that it was the only class possessing the fighting qualities needed to accomplish so great an historical objective."
In addition, the working class, unlike other classes like peasants, is much more involved in politics, as capitalism has had to allow some political participation that peasants never had, have a bigger political consciousness, and are educated to be able to make the profits of the capitalist, which allows parts of the intelligentsia to guide the rest of the working class (e.g., Lenin and Fidel Castro were both highly educated lawyers).
Finally, the working class has been one of the fastest growing classes in all of history. Almost every single human being, save for slaves and peasants, are now workers, and every year capitalism penetrates and grows bigger and bigger, creating more and more workers than ever before. In addition, these workers are all united in being from the same class with the same enemy, which, combined with the ability to become politically organized and form working-class parties, has allowed sections of the proletariat to shed national, racial, and mystical divisions and become class-conscious, seeing all of their fellow workers across the globe as their brothers and sisters under the scientific ideology of Marxist-Leninism.
Internationalism and National Liberation: The internationalism of the working class in the imperialist stage of capitalism also means that the correct line for workers' movements is to support national liberation struggles. This is something that is absolutely hated by Trotskyists and other "left-communists" that want purely a proletarian workers' resistance in our current stage of capitalism. However, "The grim lessons of history show them that colonial wars, for example, even if waged by imperialists in remote parts of the world, inevitably bring the working people increased economic difficulties and political reaction, and, most important of all, increase the threat of a new world carnage. Similarly, a defeat of the working class of any country at the hands of the imperialist bourgeoisie may, as the lesson of fascism in Germany has shown, worsen the conditions for the working-class movement in the other capitalist countries and make it easier for the imperialists to unleash a world war."
The working class has one of history's greatest burdens put on it, and that's not only the defeat of capitalism but building a new equitable world after capitalism's ultimate defeat. In doing so, it will have to be one of the most creative classes in history, in that it ultimately seeks to destroy all classes themselves.
Source
Stalin, Joseph. Foundations of Leninism. Marxists Internet Archive. 1924. https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/foundations-leninism/.