Nasser Paydar
Communism Abolition of Wage Labor and Leninist Militant Reformism
The history of human life is not the result of the miracle of ideas and ideologies or the light of the mission of thinkers and theorists. Ideas in themselves have no history and without the existence of human beings who think, without the existence of certain social classes that give these thoughts and opinions social objectivity, they have no real and independent existence. What distinguishes man from other animals is not the soul of thinking or his power of thinking but work and what organically links him to the great mass of other human beings or puts him in conflict with them in a decisive and fundamental way, not the extent of his power of thinking, which is his place and position in relation to the process of work and the mode of social production. It is by virtue of this role, place and status that human beings constitute a social class. The essential point is that it is not “thought that makes up the social existence of people, but quite the opposite, it is their social or class existence that determines the content of thought and the way they look at society and the world.” Class struggle is also not a struggle over the negation and affirmation of ideas. What sets the basic classes in conflict is not merely intellectual and ideological scaffolding, but the existence and non-existence of the present objectivity and the entire economic, political, civil and cultural existence of existing society. As far as the proletariat and its class struggle are concerned, the departure from the abstract consciousness is an approach contrary to Marx’s revolutionary materialism. Communism cannot be reduced to a handful of thought and ideology, explanation, analysis and anatomy. It is not a set of principles, goals and ideas codified by Marx or anyone else. Communism is not a treatise on science and consciousness and the foundations of the views of the leaders of the working class. Those who think so have not studied either proletarian communism or revolutionary materialism of Marx, or, to put it better, do not want to and perhaps cannot study it. Communism is a movement to change the existing situation. A movement with a living and dynamic organism in which the brain system, the system of thought and all its organs, tissues and cells play their real role within this organism. The class consciousness of the proletariat is a conscious class existence and a conscious movement against capitalism and for the abolition of its wage labour. Accepting any kind of separation between this movement and the class that carries it, with consciousness, or worse, referring the emergence of the former to the role of the latter is like taking the path of thought in order to discover the creation of a single, straight matter.
In order to explore the reality of the class consciousness of the proletariat and the process of developing this consciousness in the class struggle of the working masses, the only way is to refer to the social existence of this class. The class that sells labour power is the producer of surplus value. The total social capital of each country and the total world capital consist of the surplus value produced by it. Its livelihood and share of the total product of labour and social production is simply the paltry price of its labour power. Although it is the creator of all the capital and wealth of the world, it is deprived of any kind of intervention in the planning of labour and social production. The labour process of society, just as the process of exploitation and appropriation of its surplus labour by capital is the source and cause of the deprivation of all human rights and social freedoms. While capital is the product of production and the creature of his labour, it is also the godlike power of Cairo that dominates the entire destiny of his life. The root of all his exploitation, misery, injustice, injustice, and oppression lies in the existence of the relationship of buying and selling labour power, and the productive, political, civil, and social order of capital weighs down his entire human and social existence like a terrible curse. The more powerful capital becomes, the more despicable it becomes. The more powerful capital gains power, the harder it is to be overthrown.
The above components and many similar and similar data determine the position of the working class in a society based on the relationship of buying and selling labour power. These components are completely reflected in capitalist society and in the thoughts, beliefs, social values, ethics and anthropological outlook of this system. A misleading and foggy variation that forms the scaffolding and content of the thoughts, beliefs, culture, worldview and sociological criteria of the bourgeoisie. In other words, the dominant thoughts in the existing society, which are at the same time the thoughts of the dominant social class of the era, are the intellectual superstructures and evaporations of the material foundation of the capitalist system. These beliefs, thoughts and convictions constitute a distorted expression of existing social realities, including a completely inverted and distorted explanation of the position of the working class in this system. The proletariat lives in this society and is surrounded on all sides by these thoughts and under the sway of the Cairo invasion of these ontological, ideological, cultural, ethical and political criteria. In addition, the working masses are very vulnerable to these thoughts and beliefs because they endure horrific exploitation and all the injustices and forms of oppression of capitalism.
The class consciousness of the proletariat is its class praxis and revolutionary critique of the content and foundation of these distortions. Issues such as in this system, he sells labour power and not his own labour, that he is exploited, that capital is nothing but his surplus and unpaid labour, or that all capital and wealth in the world is the product of his labour. That he, in the position of a class selling labour power, is a class exempt from any kind of interference in the labour process and the fate of the product of his labour, and finally that laws, contracts, and what the bourgeoisie insinuates in the name of individual and social freedom and rights, etc., are all distorted expressions of human rights and freedoms, and so on. Naturally, they constitute elements of this consciousness. The proletariat’s achievement of understanding these truths, its power to criticize the distortions and understand the distorted realities of society and the existing world, or in other words, its liberation from the captivity of the thoughts, views, beliefs, analysis, solutions, horizons, and in a word, the ideology of the ruling class, are all matters that fall within the realm of the proletariat’s consciousness. There is no doubt about the importance of the workers’ awareness of these truths, but here several very fundamental issues arise. The first issue is that simply knowing the aforementioned issues does not indicate that the workers have achieved class consciousness.
The next point is that we are talking about the working class and not about this or that worker. The third issue is the real relevance, place and role of consciousness in the scope of the social life of this class and its class struggle. And the last point, which is a complementary and inseparable part of the above points and is more decisive than all of them, is related to the process of realizing the class consciousness of the proletariat. Without a detailed explanation of these issues, no clear understanding of consciousness and its role for the working class and the labour movement can be given.
Let us begin with the first point. Assuming that a large number of workers in a society or in the world were to become aware of all the facts mentioned above and, for example, to internalize the entire content of the works of Marx and Engels, there would still be no reason for them to assert their independent, organized, strong, far-sighted, and conscious existence as a class in the class struggle against capitalism.
“The question whether human thought corresponds to objective truth or not is not a theoretical one, but a practical one. It is in practice that man proves the reality of the power and worldliness of his thought; the dispute about the reality or unreality of thought separated from practice is a purely scholastic question.” (Marx, On Feuerbach, Thesis II)
Theory has no independent value and is organic and continuous with the practice of its realization. Marx’s teachings in the class movement of the workers, and not in the archives of their brains, play the role of real class consciousness. This issue is one of the fundamental axes of our disagreement with left reformism and all bourgeois social tendencies inside, on the margins and outside the labour movement. Communism is not a handful of scientific and rational assumptions and political and social beliefs, but a working-class movement against the capitalist system and for the abolition of the relationship of buying and selling labour power. We will explain later that the existing narrative of party building in the name of the workers and above the working masses is and has been nourished precisely from the distortion and metamorphosis of communism into a set of philosophical beliefs, scientific explorations and theoretical foundations.
If we accept that the false consciousness or the inverted narration of facts by the bourgeoisie is rooted in the depths of capitalist objectivity, then the critique of this false consciousness and its replacement by a consciousness that is in accordance with the truth of the existence of the existing society by the proletariat can only be achieved in the process of changing the present objectivity or the entire existence of capitalism. The consciousness of the proletariat is a weapon of change, not a science of interpretation, and the nature of this weapon is not mere belief, thought, and political analysis, but the conscious, far-sighted, and far-sighted practice of changing the existing situation. Marx’s statement:
“We call that real movement communism which abolishes the present state of affairs” (The German Ideology, p. 43) confirms this truth.
This issue needs to be further explored, given its importance and the distortion that the “20th century left” has made of the Marxian narrative of class consciousness and, in this regard, of the socialist movement and organization of the working class. Marx’s argument, in short, is that the ruling ideas are nothing more than the intellectual expression of the dominant material relations, but the dominant class, in order to advance its goals, presents its interests as the common interests of all members of society and generalizes its thoughts, in other words, it introduces ideas, beliefs, and what is the expression of its class interests as rational ideas with general validity. These ideas, beliefs, or the way of looking at society and man were not created by the intellectuals of this class but were the intellectual expression of the dominant material relations of the era, which were developed by the intellectual representatives of the said class. Certain economic and social relations that are in their existential foundation are different, and therefore their intellectual expression in the intellect of its representatives is also fundamentally upside down. In this regard, revolutionary class consciousness, and in our specific discussion, proletarian consciousness, can be achieved not simply by criticizing and negating these beliefs and convictions or replacing them with new beliefs and ideas, but simply by applying class and anti-wage labour criticism to all prevailing inversions in changing the dominant relations, namely the capitalist system.
Marx clarifies that the origin of this consciousness is the proletariat, a class that the existing society is chained to in all respects. The existence of this society is based on the purchase and sale of its labour power and its exploitation and fall from any kind of free intervention in the labour process and the fate of the product of its labour. Its entire civil, political, social, legal superstructures, contracts and laws are based on the deprivation of its will and freedom and human rights. A class that, in its social and class objectivity, is forced to conflict with the foundation of the existence of this society and the dominance of existing material relations over its conditions of work and life. The consciousness of the proletariat is its conscious class criticism of capitalism, and this consciousness is manifested in its class and revolutionary struggle to change the ruling objectivity or the process of eliminating the capitalist system.
If we separate this consciousness from this process, we have fallen into the same abyss that the ruling class does with material and social realities. The bourgeoisie separates from these relations what are the intellectual overtones of capitalist relations and in this way dresses the rule of the class in the garb of the rule of ideas. The representatives of the bourgeoisie give order to these thoughts which are related to each other in their material basis and then tie these related and coordinated thoughts which have been abstracted from their material basis to a person or, as Marx said, to a series of persons, to thinkers and philosophers and intellectuals, and in the process they replace what was really the doctrinal, intellectual and theoretical explanation of the dominant material relations in the form of the thoughts and theories of thinking individuals.
The “20th century left” has inflicted the same calamity on the narrative of the class consciousness of the proletariat. In Marx’s discussion, this consciousness is the conscious existence of the working class. Its objective grounds and material foundations exist here in the social existence of the working class. It is here, in the heart of the forced war and struggle of this class, that its initial germs are formed. It is here that it can flourish, flourish, and reach maturity. The nature of this consciousness is the conscious, anti-wage and class critique of workers on capital and on all aspects of capitalist existence. It is the horizons, strategies, ideas, solutions, approaches, and policies that are the beacon of change in the present objectivity and a revolutionary exit from the structure of existence of the system based on the purchase and sale of labour power. It is in the process of the proletariat’s struggle against capitalism that this consciousness establishes its place, validity, and real application. Any kind of abstraction of it from this process and packaging it in the form of thoughts, ideas, opinions and philosophical beliefs of this or that person – even if this person is Marx – is an anti-Marx act and is tantamount to plunging into the abyss of Hegelian idealism. A conscious worker is not a worker who only constantly collects and organizes Capital, Grundrisse, German Ideology and other works of Marx in the archives of his memory and brain, or who speaks day and night about proving the legitimacy of their content, in this and that party gathering or anywhere else!!! Quite the opposite, a conscious worker is a human being who struggles with class consciousness against capitalism, against all forms of domination of this system in various spheres of the social life of his class and against the foundation of the existence of this system, and in this path makes the most of the valuable achievements of Marx’s work. Marx’s teachings are the crystallization of the revolutionary achievements of man belonging to the international working class and present at the forefront of the battle for the abolition of wage labour. These teachings belong to the realm of proletarian consciousness on this basis and with this narrative. Otherwise, they are thoughts and opinions that can be the subject of discussion as the result of the investigations of a man named Marx, and Marx will no longer be the Marx of the working class but a scientist among the other scientists of the world. An attitude that is fundamentally reactionary and attempts to separate what belongs to the realm of consciousness and thoughts and strategies for changing existing social relations from its class structure and, by attributing and referring them to a specific person, legitimizes the theory of the originality of ideas and the creation of history by thinkers.
Marx’s teachings are the class consciousness of the proletariat when it ignites as a necessary weapon of the class struggle in the depth of the anti-capitalist movement of the working masses. Marx’s famous statement that consciousness is nothing, but conscious existence is perhaps the most eloquent and profound explanation in this field. Consciousness can only be found in the existence of a conscious person and class consciousness in the existence of a conscious class, and the conscious proletariat means a huge mass of workers who fight capitalism with tact, insight and skill and with a clear and hopeful horizon. 160 years ago, Marx stated about the consciousness of European workers that:
“I don’t need to explain here that a large part of the English and French proletariat is now aware of their historical duty and are persistently trying to bring this awareness to full clarity” (Holy Family)
When Marx wrote these words, the English and French workers he mentioned had most likely not read or even seen any of his works. It is very important that Marx considers the clearest evidence of the consciousness of this section of the European working class to be that they have understood their historical task and are persistently working to clarify it. Understanding historical task plays a central and core role here. The proletariat has class consciousness when it has made the struggle for the destruction of capitalism a real current of its life. Otherwise, it makes no difference whether, for example, the content of all of Marx’s books is archived in its brain with the greatest care and order, or whether it has never heard of such a person at all. The worker’s consciousness becomes meaningful in his class struggle. It is in the process of his efforts to organize his movement against the exploitation, oppression, crimes and injustices of capitalism and to break the chains of wage slavery that it catches fire. This awareness can manifest at different levels and in different degrees, but its nature is quite clear. It is a protest that speaks within the labour movement, it is the conscious existence of this movement, it is in conflict with the capitalist system, it challenges the consciousness of the dominant class and everything that justifies the rationality and explains the legitimacy of the ruling relations, and it demands liberation from the existence of this system. The English and French workers mentioned by Marx had a level of this consciousness and were in the process of promoting, developing and growing it. The activists formed their class movement against the capitalist system, fought against capital, denied the legitimacy and fairness of the dominant relations, believed in the possibility of replacing this system with a humane society, without exploitation, inequality and oppression, and fought to realize this belief.
There is no doubt that these workers, under the pressure of the deficits and deficiencies of economic and political knowledge, were extremely vulnerable to the universal bourgeois illusions, including the socialist bourgeois horizons of the likes of Proudhon and Blanqui. Just as the workers of the world today are wandering in a very disastrous way in the wilderness of the inversions and illusions of the wage slavery system and reformist strategies, and they follow every misleading bourgeois approach. They are struggling with capitalism, but they do not look at this struggle with their class eyes, but with the eyes of the bourgeoisie, and it is precisely here that the relevance, urgency and excessive importance of the process of growth, clarity and ascension of consciousness arise. The workers know, by the conditions of their work and exploitation, that they must fight the capitalists and capitalism, and they do, but this struggle must become a struggle against all aspects of the existence of capital. For this, the Marx critique of political economy and the Marx critique of the entire system of wage slavery must become the torch of their struggle, and this is a task that always and everywhere weighs heavily on the shoulders of the conscious and awake activists of the world labour movement. These are the inner activists who must be involved in the daily events of the class struggle, explaining and analysing all these events from an anti-wage labour perspective. They should penetrate the process of capital’s work with this same gaze; they should cut open the process of exploitation of workers by capital with this same knife. Everywhere and in all areas of life, in the sphere of buying and selling labour, in relation to the prevailing civil, legal, and political structure, regarding the role of the state and every act of political rule, in the realm of sexual discrimination, child labour, lack of political freedoms, hunger, poverty, environmental pollution, and wherever life flows and capital rules, they should destroy the entire inversions and illusions of capitalism. They should expose and lay bare the hideous reality of exploitation, injustice, and inhumanity of the wage slavery system. They should make everything a Marxist anatomy, and the result of all these explanations, explanations, and dissections should awaken the working masses, aware, and vigilant.
The “20th century left” narrative of the class consciousness of the proletariat is predominantly a metaphysical narrative in conflict with Marx’s revolutionary materialism. In the measuring device of this left, consciousness is not a conscious being, but a handful of beliefs, theories, and thoughts. The origin of these beliefs and thoughts is not the working class and the material process of its struggle to change the existing objectivity, but a human being with a special genius and flair who discovered them through his personal investigations in the corners of this and that library. Communism is not a living anti-capitalist movement with the horizon of the disappearance of wage labour, which is an ideological school. Marx’s teachings are not an expression of the type of view, analysis, criticism, and charter of the class struggle of the proletariat, which is a religion called “Marxism.” The science of socialism is not in its reality as a material process of change and the elimination of relations based on the complete transformation of the facts of existence, but in its own sanctity as a sociological scientific topic. Here, the class struggle is dependent on thought, and instead of actively participating in this struggle, people constantly make noise about the various necessities of adapting it to thought. Those who consider themselves the canter of the labour movement’s interactions do not need any participation in any area of this movement; on the contrary, their work is to perform the duty of jurisprudence, write exegetical texts, explain the status of the revelation of verses, defend the originality of the school, and insist on the legitimacy of the rulings. Class consciousness in this narrative is not a material weapon of struggle; on the contrary, it is a class struggle that must turn to the jurists of the school of consciousness to gain legitimacy. Here, the labour movement is not aware that it is a force that changes the system, but this movement is in the valley of “Jabalqa”, and its awareness is in the land of “Jabarsa“. To explore this account of the relationship between social class and consciousness in more detail, it is instructive to refer to Marx’s description of the Hegelian way of looking at the interactions between ideas and prevailing social relations. He says:
“… the whole trick of proving the hegemony of the spirit in history only requires doing the following three things. It is necessary to separate the thoughts of those who rule for empirical reasons, under experimental conditions and as real people from these rulers. represented in history, to thinkers, to philosophers who are understood as history makers, as guardian councils, as rulers. In this way, the entire body of materialistic elements is removed from history, and now the creation of the imagination can be completely empty” (German Ideology, abbreviated quote)
As we have said, Marx here examines the trick of proving the hegemony of the spirit by the likes of Stirner, but the bitter irony of history is that the largest part of the twentieth century left, including the vast majority of existing left groups, brought and continue to bring precisely the same disaster to Marx’s own teachings. The Hegelians separated the ideas transcending the existing ruling social relations or the ruling class from this class itself (1), elevated these ideas to “forms of autonomy of the concept” (2), and finally crystallized this “autonomous concept” in the existence of a specific personality, more specifically, a thinker or philosopher (3). The dominant tendency of the twentieth century left has also subjected the relationship between the proletariat and its class consciousness to the same kind of mystification. First, it has completely separated Marx’s educational findings, which are the crystallization of the proletariat’s class view, analysis, criticism, protest, and indictment against capitalist society, from the social existence of this class. (1) It has packaged this explanation, analysis, criticism, manifesto, and thoughtful expression of the class struggle process as autonomous concepts in the form of a religion. (2) As a result, passing through these two processes has transformed all of these into a phenomenon called “Marxism” in the breadth and depth of Marx’s knowledge and thought.
The final result of these enigmas and tricks is that Marx is separated from his real social existence, that is, a progressive and thoughtful human being in the heart of the workers’ class movement, his thoughts and ideas are emptied of their class content and nature. These thoughts and ideas are transferred from the realm of class consciousness to the realm of religion and school, and what remains in the meantime is a brilliant philosopher named Marx and a school under the name of Marxism. What enormous historical damage has the anti-capitalist movement of the working class suffered in this transition? This is a topic that we will discuss later and in the continuation of this discussion.
Digging into the roots of the deviations, misconceptions and harmful strategies imposed on a movement, in the theories of this or that person, is a completely wrong and metaphysical task. In relation to the specific topic of the present discussion, breaking all the bowls and jars on the head of a person like Lenin is definitely not a help to the anti-capitalist movement of the working class, but rather a participation in the accumulation of more enigmas. With all this, as a concrete manifestation of what we have said, we can refer to Lenin’s article “Three Sources and Three Components”.
This article does not start from the proletariat, but from Marxism. It explores the roots of “Marxism” and in this regard points to three basic sources. German philosophy, English political economy and French socialism are three important pillars that are emphasized as the foundation of Marx’s teachings. There is no doubt that every person, anywhere in the world and at every moment of history, is influenced by his various learnings in different realms when expressing his words and opinions. But it is also clear that in his economic, political and social analyses, he reflects the type of attitude, criticisms, expectations and horizons of his social class. This fundamental point is omitted in Lenin’s speech and, consequently, Marx the economist is judged to be a philosopher superior to the great philosophers of the past and a socialist more profound than the French socialists. Marx is separated from his class and what remains of him for the proletariat is not a man at the beating heart of the anti-capitalist movement and in an organic and internal relationship with this movement, but a man who is a leader among his peers in philosophy, economics and politics. A man who, because of his superior role in philosophy, economics and politics, should be the point of reference for the working class and his words should be obeyed by this class!!! It is precisely this inference that leads Lenin to present and emphasize the following misconception in his book What Is to Be Done about the relationship between the working class and communism, or in his version, social democracy.
“We said that social-democratic consciousness could not exist in the workers in principle. This consciousness could only be imported from abroad. The history of all countries testifies that the working class can only by its own efforts achieve trade-unionist consciousness. That is, to achieve the conviction that it must form unions, fight against the employers, and force the government to issue laws that are necessary for the workers, etc…. But the teaching of socialism has developed from those philosophical, historical, and economic theories that have been pursued by the learned representatives of the propertied classes and the intelligentsia. Marx and Engels themselves, the founders of modern scientific socialism, were also, in terms of their social position, among the bourgeois intelligentsia. In the same way, in Russia, the theoretical teaching of social democracy arose completely independently of the spontaneous development of the labour movement and as a natural and inevitable result of the intellectual development of the socialist revolutionary intelligentsia. At the beginning of the period under discussion, the early half of the 1990s, this training was not only a fully developed program of the “Freedom of Labor Group,” but also attracted the majority of the revolutionary youth of Russia.”
What Lenin proposes here was expressed many years ago by Kautsky and the leaders of the Second International in different forms. Equating the role of Marx’s revolutionary materialism in understanding history with the role of Darwin’s theory to understand the laws of human evolution in natural sciences and biology was what the leaders of the Second International had done. In spite of some obvious political differences between Bolshevism and Western Social Democracy, this shows a common intellectual foundation between them. The important issue in this passage is that Lenin’s emphasis on the point that: “socialist consciousness cannot exist in workers and the working class”!!! Basically, it reflects Marx’s way of looking at the subject. The latter acknowledges the proletariat as the source of this consciousness, and without leaving any room for interpretation, he states that other classes can achieve such awareness only through meditation on the condition of this class, while the first, namely Lenin, denies the possibility of the birth of this consciousness within the proletariat and identifies its source as the intellectuals of the rich classes!!! Lenin insists that the working class is only capable of achieving a trade-unionist consciousness as far as it is within its power and capacity. This inevitably implies the delusional belief that the liberation of the working class is also fundamentally outside the realm of its class power and capacity and depends on the emergence and presence of saviours from among other classes. Let us leave this aside, Lenin’s narrative also conflicts with the theme of Marx’s revolutionary materialism. In this narrative, it is not the living conditions of humans or social classes that shape their thinking; quite the opposite, it is the thoughts of scholars from other classes that must become the class consciousness of the proletariat!!! At a simple glance, it can be imagined that Lenin only means the pitiful, degraded, and poverty-stricken conditions of the working class, which eliminate its chances of gaining awareness of the extent of class exploitation or of its own fall from any kind of social rights and entitlements under the domination of the capitalist system. But even in this case, the knot of his analysis regarding the relationship between class and consciousness is not unravelled. The discussion is not fundamentally about the ease or difficulty of the process of class awareness by workers. The discussion is that this awareness is, at its core, nothing other than the attitude, criticism, protest, and manifesto of the proletariat’s struggle against capitalism. The origin of this attitude, explanation, criticism, manifesto, and in a word, awareness, is the conditions of work, life, and social existence of the working class. This awareness is manifested in the process of struggle of the masses who sell labour power, and the person who carries this awareness and struggle, regardless of whose blood flows in his veins and regardless of which family and social class his ancestors belonged to, is a person who belongs to the anti-wage labour movement of the working masses. Not all members of the same class understand the same issues, and they do not have the same ability to recognize the interests and benefits of the entire class. Marx belonged to the workers of the world, Lenin was a radical activist of the global labour movement, and all the masses who sell labour power throughout the world are members of this social class. Class belonging is not a hereditary and familial category. Moreover, in a society based on class exploitation and brutality, even individuals belonging to a class or a broad social movement do not have equal conditions for education and growth. The distinction between people in terms of the degree of knowledge and capacity to understand issues within each class in a class society is very common. Class consciousness is not the consciousness of this or that particular individual, it is the evaporation of the view and perception and the interests and benefits of the social life and historical situation of the entire class. Searching for the origin of socialist consciousness outside the realm of the social life and existence of the working class and denying any capacity and competence of this class in igniting the flames of a conscious anti-wage labour movement is a discussion that belongs to the metaphorical realm and is in conflict with Marx’s revolutionary materialism. If it is not ideas and consciousness that make history and if it is the class struggle that constitutes the locomotive of history, then consciousness must be sought solely in the conscious class movement and only here can its existence be felt. To delve into the roots of Marx’s teachings in British political economy, German classical philosophy and French socialism is to write a history of ideas, thoughts and consciousness, while, as Marx very rightly said, consciousness and thoughts have no history. Their history is the history of men, or rather the history of the classes that carry them. Marx’s philosophy, economics and politics are precisely the philosophy, economics and politics of the proletariat and cannot in any way be defined as a phase of the historical process of the aforementioned knowledge. Lenin himself, in the same article “Three Sources and Three Components”, correctly points out all the fundamental and essential differences between Marx’s teachings and the political economy of Smith, the philosophy of Hegel and the socialism of the likes of Proudhon, but at the same time introduces them as the pillars and sources of these teachings. Meanwhile, what is true is that the proletariat does not exist in the Palaeolithic era. History has continued before it, and other classes have existed. The labour process has gone through many centuries. Humans have produced and changed the world with their products. In this regard, a great deal of knowledge, experience, and scientific approaches have been accumulated. The proletariat, in the place of a certain social class in a phase of history and a stage in the dynamics of the class struggle, benefits from what has already occurred in the process of historical developments in the form of its outlook, analysis, criticism, protest charter, and manifesto of its struggle against the existing objectivity. Emphasizing these exploitations without clearly stating and declaring which class is exploiting them is a kind of mystification of the facts. This mystification becomes even more and more complex when the beneficiary is separated from his class existence, is linked to another class, and his real class is considered to be fundamentally devoid of any capacity to recognize the horizons, strategies, and pressing issues of his radical class movement.