 So, picture the scene. The year is 1920, and 21 foreign imperialist armies have invaded the Soviet Union, the first workers' state in history. At the same time, a revolutionary wave is spreading through Europe. In Germany, the workers have almost seized power. In Hungary, they held it shortly. Italy, wave of factory occupations taking place. And in 1920, the one-year-old communist international meets for its second Congress. Now, the second Congress is quite an intense affair. It is 19 days long, with 220 delegates attending from all across the world. Just to give a few countries a sense of the scale of this event. You've got delegates in Europe, from France, from Britain, from Germany. In Asia, you've got countries, delegates as far away as India, Indonesia, Korea. You even have delegates in Persia. And you even have delegates from Mexico and the USA and many, many others. There's 54 different parties represented in one way or another. And comrades had risked their lives to attend, whilst people have had to bring their own campsites to this event. In the second Congress, they were committed to bring their own food and supplies because of the blockades that Russia faced at this time. In fact, three French delegates would drown in transit, trying to make a revolutionary sacrifice to attend this Congress. Now, any of you who have attended trade union works, you'll know, but when you go to a Congress, it's greeted by four star hotels, three meals, 35 pound expenditure per day on food, which is wonderful. These comrades, however, they were of a different and harder sort. And instead, they got two 100 page books to read left wing communism and terrorism and the communism. Now, we're going to look at the first of those ones, left wing communism infantile discord by Lenin, which is of course in classics volume two. And I highly recommend that comrades read it if you haven't already. So the first thing that comrades often hear when they hear about this idea of left wing communism is they think, isn't that good? I don't you want to be a left wing communist? Why wouldn't you? Why would you want to be a right wing communist? That sounds terrible. But no, instead, left wing communism is this idea of basically making tactical questions into principled questions. It is, you know, rather than trying to find a way to the masses, is instead kind of seeing everything in this fixed and static form. And so whilst Lenin's method was unwaveringly firm in principle, never even giving an inch in principle, he was infinitely flexible in tactics. Now, these ultra left ideas or left wing communist ideas were very, very widespread throughout the communist international. For example, you had the question of the German Communist Party, who had basically made this question of if we boycott parliament, which for Marxist is a tactical question, into a principled one, they said, you must never work within bourgeois parliaments. And in doing so, refuse to get involved in a national assembly, which 85% of German workers were participating in. You also had the same party took a similar position in trade unions. They said it is a principle question for Marxists to never sully themselves in the reactionary trade unions with their right wing leadership. Despite the fact that again, the masses of workers were involved in the right wing trade unions. In fact, it wasn't just Germany, however, that took this ultra left approach. You saw the same thing throughout the international. Most famously, you had the comrades coming from the old IWW, the international works of the world based in the United States, who took the position that no good worker would ever be found in the American trade union trade unions, the AFL, CIO, and instead, but the comrades should again remain apart from it. And you even had the same similar idea in Britain, where the young British Communist Party said it is impermissible for Marxist to ever work within the Labour Party. Again, treating this as a fixed principle rather than a flexible tactical question. Now, these were the moves that therefore were across the communist international. And these groups positioned themselves as less left communists in comparison with Lenin. And Lenin was keen, therefore, to really tackle these ideas. Now, these ideas, however, didn't just exist back then. They actually exist widespread throughout the communism left wing movements today. We see this when people say that right wing trade union leaders always portray the working class, therefore never participate in trade unions, a left communist position. All the masses in the working class are in the trade unions, and therefore, revolutionaries must always prioritize the trade union struggle, a film or things they're called Economism that Lenin would deal with in 1903. What is to be done? We see that people who say that the Labour Party is a reformist party or a bourgeois party, and therefore, we should never support it or work with it, regardless of conditions, or people who demand that a nuclear family is a product of bourgeois society, which is correct. Therefore, the call of revolutionaries should be for its immediate abolition, which obviously gets you nowhere. And similarly, you see it on things as widespread as well, all the question of the need for national independence. When people say we need to protect the rights of nations to self-determination, therefore, we must support all nationalist movements. In fact, you can see that ultra left ideas, they aren't just confined to trade unions or political parties, but instead can express themselves in any and all tactical questions, because ultimately, it isn't about this or that position, but it is about the method of how you arrive there. Do you again have this fixed and inflexible position? Whilst Lenin's method was again this unflinching on principle, infinitely flexible in tactics. So ultra lefts mistake this tactical question for principle ones. And in doing so, the irony is they actually end up diluting principle questions. Again, think of all the sectarian groups that take their starting point. We must never work within the Labour Party. Okay, they take this approach. But then in the Corbyn movement, what do we see? The masses move towards the Labour Party. So what do these ultra left groups have to do in order to try and appeal to the masses is that they water down their program, adopting demands with the broadest possible appeal. You know, demands are just basically like, oh, we just need to fight racism, like, we just need to fight for a 10 pound living wage or whatever. Very widespread demands here, but don't actually raise consciousness. This watering down of ideas is effectively what we would call opportunism. And wherever then ultra leftism, this being incredibly firm on tactics, and opportunism, which is watering down your principles, being opposites, instead, they are two sides of the same coin, both going into each other and both deriving from a failure to understand the ideas and methods of genuine ultraism. Now, some ultra lefts will see this and they'll say, okay, we need to avoid opportunism. And therefore, we have to be firm on our tactics. And if our tactics cannot reach their masses, then so be it. And they say, let's just isolate themselves from the masses rather than attempting to merge and win the most advanced layers. Now, in isolating themselves, they develop interest apart from the masses, and they fall into the trap of sectarianism. Now, people often use this word sectarianism. And I think there's a bit of confusion. You know, some people think, Oh, is this just a word for small groups? Or is it just a word for people we don't like? It definitely is a word for people you don't like in the sense that don't call people a sectarian, as I found out to my dismay once, that people don't like being called that. However, I was like, I think it was three months in the organization. It was an interesting time. Sectarianism is is actually a scientific word. It is placing the interests of their small groups above the interests of the masses as a whole, i.e. above the interests of the socialist revolution. Now, there are many, many examples that people can use. And I hope maybe a few people come in with their own. But I think really a textbook one can be found in the French presidential elections last year. During this French presidential election, you had basically three main candidates going up. You had Le Pen, who's a far right demagogue, you had Macron, who is a banker. And then you had Melanchon, who was a left reformist, but had massive widespread support amongst the working class and no major illusions. Obviously, him getting into power even the second round will be a major step forward for the working class, rather than splitting them between the banker and the bigot. However, what you saw is that the French Communist Party, rather than supporting Melanchon, actually decided to run their own candidate. They were like, no, we need to have this independent position. They run their own candidate in the election, and they get 2.5% of the votes. Fair enough, this achieved very little, except it was enough to ensure that Melanchon became behind Le Pen, didn't get into the second round of elections. And instead, the French masses were forced to choose between Macron and Le Pen in the final. This is a sectarian position. Why did they run? Did they run for the broad interests of the working class? Did they run to raise class consciousness? Or did they just run for their own positions for their own prestige? And because ultimately they saw it not as a question of the interests of the working class as a whole and the seizure of power, but instead which party gets to have this or that position? A sect is not a question of size, as maybe some comrades sometimes imply when they say the word other sects, which triggers me slightly. But instead, a question of whose interests do you represent? The long term interests of the working class as a whole, or your own careers position, or your own careers position and prestige due to your isolation of the masses. Do you turn time-perary isolation into a principle and refuse to link up with the masses? So to summarize a few of these terms, ultra leftism, turning secondary questions into tack, into rigid principle questions, failing to connect with consciousness where it is, opportunism, political softness, adapting to the pressure of alien class ideas, and diluting your ideas down to reach the broader layers. And sectarianism, failing to connect the general theoretical conclusions with the living real processes of the class, starting from the world as you'd like it to be rather than how it actually is, and in doing so isolating yourself from the masses, putting your own interests above those of the class. Now, there's no Chinese wall between any of these. In fact, they are continually changing and moving into one another. You can be a sectarian, an opportunist and an ultra left all at the same time and all in quick succession. And there are many groups who try their best to demonstrate this in practice, which again, comrades can come in a more detail. Instead, it under it is all from this mistaken method, method of Bolshevism of being unflinching principle, infinitely flexible in tactics. So the question that you probably now have, well, what actually are the principles of Bolshevism? What do we have to be incredibly firming? If it isn't our position to a national question, if it isn't our position to a labor party, to the trade unions, or to any of these other things. Well, the role of the revolutionary party can be summarized in this. It is to raise the consciousness of the workers from their own experience to draw the necessary conclusions. Those conclusions are that our world is fundamentally split in two, two major classes, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie that these classes are completely irreconcilable. And there is a question of class war between them. And not only there is this question of class war, but that society is completely controlled by the bourgeoisie, that the state is their state, the police are their police, the courts are their courts, the factory, the factories out there are the factories of the ruling class. The entire society operates for the logic of the ruling class and therefore the role of the workers to achieve their own liberation is to unite as one and to overthrow the ruling class and establish a socialist society based on the democratic running of society by the working class and the institution of a planned economy. Those are our principles. Everything that is done to raise workers to this conclusion is progressive. Everything that fails to do this is therefore fundamentally reactionary. And this idea is fundamentally the key aspect of our organization and others. You know a lot of people like you see hear them kind of talking like contact will come up and they'll say what's the difference between your organization and this one or that one or this one? And some people will say we really focus on education. Now that's obviously true but it's very much a one-sided thing and it doesn't grasp the full idea. Instead the goal of our organization is to raise the consciousness of the class at all times. That is the fundamental thing which of course and we're going to many reasons you need a very strong political level to do. Now in this respect capitalism does a lot of the heavy lifting for us and we should thank the capitalists for how they create class struggle in the workplace leading people to conclude that there can be no peace with the bourgeoisie. How their entire system is fermented with political crises and economic crises one after the other ensuring that anyone who wants to build a peaceful life or any worker who aims to be able to peaceful life will see that life coming down like a house of cards and will be forced to draw the conclusion that something must be done. Revolutionaries then seek to assist the workers to bring out all of these innate conclusions against the reformists and the bourgeoisie. Now we understand that consciousness is not a straight line whilst opportunists attempt to meet consciousness where it is and go no further and ultra-lefts fly straight over heads and find themselves in the clouds we understand that you need to be tactical that consciousness doesn't raise linearly but instead all nor all at once there were workers today who've reached very extreme conclusions which are are you a communist campaign is very much aimed at getting a bit more detail there but other workers you know who are outright supporting the Tory party well maybe not at the moment seems like no one's supporting the Tory party but there are workers who you know consciousness is very complicated thing there are others who are completely burnt out. We need to be able to flexible and to meet people where they are and raise them regardless of of their level and it's for this reason that we employ these ideas of transitional demands. Now I want to look into this example so as we all know there is a pay struggle going on today across huge numbers of different workers due to inflation. Now many different demands are raised about this whilst the opportunists are going to demand they will just say we demand a pay rise. Now this isn't wrong but how does that raise consciousness? Only the most reactionary work is going to say ah no I think we need a pay cut. Everyone agrees with this as there's another example is on the NEU strikes the other day and some groups were saying the demand strike for education at the NEU strikes I was like I think everyone agrees with this but yeah it doesn't move this question closer to the conclusions of socialism at all. Alternatively this more ultra left soak and could be saying well we need to abolish the wage system and instead completely you know have a communist society. Now that is completely correct in the sense of communism would solve all of the current wage disputes but apart from those who are convinced of communism already this demand is completely abstract and removed from the slidings from the struggle of the day. So instead as Marxist we no need to link these minimum demands here to the maximum program and we put forward this idea of the sliding scale of wages i.e. that wages should rise with inflation automatically. And the goal is to link up that's seen many workers would accept this they think okay yeah that's a great idea but then in trying to carry it out they will go further within the bourgeois system allows they will come into the contradictions of bourgeois property relations they will come into the realities of the nature of the state and they will need to forge class unity in order to achieve this. It's about seeing not a demand as a fixed thing but as a process of how that raises the living struggle of the masses. We might also depending on the situation add to this saying that well how is this going to be paid for by massively nationalizing the major monopolies and all of this. Well again in and of itself is that revolutionary you know we see nationalizations take place throughout the history of capitalism but if that was attempted to be carried out that would bring the workers into effectively civil war with the capitalist who would do everything in their power to maintain their profits and therefore raise the consciousness of the class. Similarly we might add the demand to open the books i.e. that we could see exactly where the money is being spent. Now is that again a particularly you know communist demand in that respect? Not uh not entirely in fact it could be achieved under capitalism but its achievement would massively heighten the class's contradictions as people would see that their wages and the profits are completely in verse proportion and one far bigger than the other. Now this is the idea of transitional demands outlined in transitional program which is to meet the movement where it is and then if implemented to go beyond those conclusions the conclusion of social revolution. However a common mistake is to then think that transitional demands are for the same for all times. That to avoid ultra leftism all you need to do is just memorize the demands in the back of the communist manifesto transitional program and occasionally save bread, peace and land. All that will work as well. No the demands instead actually we need to think very flexibly in fact that would actually be an ultra left attitude in many respects because it would see these demands as fixed and rigid and eternal for all times. Actually if you look at the demands in the uh you know communist manifesto or some of the demands that Marx raises he talks about a heavy income tax and free comprehensive education. You could possibly even maybe just able to get this past star map um alternatively the demands of the Chartists included free and democratic elections uh you know in 1839. Actually again even the Green Party would probably support this but the question about when they were implemented in that context these actually required a major revolutionary struggle and the Chartists with demands whilst today you know would seem effectively left liberal in those conditions led to an insurrection by the working class in Newport in 1839. Conversely consider the demands of the Labour government in 1945 where Clement Attlee you know actually instituted the NHS a national health service free at the point of views funded by all of us. You know today to actually fight for a free fully funded uh uh NHS itself could even be a transitional demand given the immense crisis of British capitalism. Instead the key is to uh to determine correct transitional demands. You need to speak to workers to listen to them and to test out different strategies and use the experience of a Marxist movement. You both need to understand the subjective consciousness of the workers in front of you but the and also the objective conditions and how one interacting with the other will lead to certain conclusions and see that as the development of a movement as a whole. In this respect there is no recipe book um and instead you need comrades who can think for themselves. Lenin is saying left-wing communism that communists must have the ability to link up and maintain the closest contact and if you wish merge in certain measures with the uh broadest masses of the working people I need to be able to listen to people to talk to people in a normal and conversational manner uh whether that being a picket line in your workplace in your universities um and to be able to draw out consciousness from there that is the skill of the uh of the transitional program common sense uh you know you should be able to talk to people and listen to people um it's not particularly profound and yeah again I would argue that failure to understand left-wing uh communism is one of the uh you know major failures of the uh different left-wing movements across the uh well today but the other question is well where does these uh other ideas come from then and what we would actually say is that you know many people who draw these ultra-left conclusions are not doing it uh you know out of malice or ignorance but doing it instead from a very healthy place because of the betrayal uh and the scandals of the reformist leaders let's take a look again historically the ultra-lefts that Lenin was arguing against uh you know he looked at like people like the KPD the communist party of Germany um which had drawn very ultra-left conclusions but why had they done this it was because the reformists of the past of the social reformist leaders of the social democratic party uh had led in 1914 for world into the complete horrors of world war one in 1919 had executed Carl uh Leibniz and Rosa Luxembourg their former comrades um and had effectively completely destroyed the second international is it really coming from a negative place uh that you know people are saying we cannot work with these people is it coming from a negative place that when they're saying you know we can't be involved in any way and we need true party uh true independence in the most uh clear form possible no um instead this coming from very healthy place and Lenin you know tries to sympathize with the ultra-lefts instead you can look at the same thing today you know think of let's say all the people who uh let's say look at the uh Stammer and the Labour Party you know anyone who's coming uh from that and says you know we need a uh you know a revolutionary party which is completely removed from these uh you know charlatans in the trade unions as charlatans in the uh Labour Party that is a very healthy perspective to have but the key for Lenin therefore wasn't to cascade these individuals but instead to win them around and turn them out to the movement to steal them in uh Marxist ideas and then to give them the ability to go and convince others again socialism for us isn't just a nice idea we talk about amongst ourselves it is a tool to go and reach the masses and to you know actually change society and so therefore when someone comes up to us today and says Stammer is a bourgeois reactionary it would be a massive mistake for anyone to turn around and say oh well actually Labour Party is the mass party of a working class uh you know and uh we've got to take this position no you'd say yes he is he is completely in the hands of big business he is leading you know the trade you well it's not even leading the trade unions up around dally at this point it's very open about what he's going to do uh you know he's going to massively attack the attack the working class we need to try and win the workers away from this person who is in the hand of the puppeteer or no the puppet of the of the big bourgeoisie um similarly if someone came up to us and said uh oh what's the word do you know uh a cab like uh all cops are bastards um we're not going to then turn around say oh well actually some of them you know workers in uniform and in a revolutionary situation could split across class lines you know and Trotsky said a third will go to the revolution a third uh this way etc no you'd say yeah we completely agree the police are a racist institution they defend the upholding of private property um but they are simply one element of the entire capitalist state uh which is uh you know and simply one tool which is completely rotten from top to bottom our position has to be to therefore seal a revolutionary party against this and then to reach out and win the masses even if they have illusions in Stalmer even if they have illusions in the police but to be able to connect with them and turn them against the entire system this has to be the uh the methods um and then to steal these people into a united disciplined revolutionary organization not an organization which just puts up any ideas at any points or an organization which again just sits in talking amongst itself but instead one involved in the living class struggle unless you fail to do this you will be torn apart by the um torrent of bourgeois and petty bourgeois ideas uh you know revolutionary ideas are not just something uh that's nice to have they are essential for unifying our party and turning it into the you know military style organization it needs to be in order to lead the working class uh to victory now unfortunately we've seen what happens if you don't have this with the last hundred years of experience um and uh Lenin try to win the common term to this uh viewpoint cool um that uh yeah Lenin tried to win the communist international to this viewpoint but unless they took up these perspectives ideas and methods they would be completely torn apart and in this respect he sees the revolutionary enthusiasm uh of these groups and he refers to it you know using these words an infantile disorder i.e. childish um now does he mean childish because of the uh youth um and the age no uh both all the communist parties were extremely young and the communist international was extremely young but in the sense of the lack of experience of uh their organizations the Bolsheviks had 15 years uh to clarify their ideas their methods before taking power the communist party of Germany had uh one month or less effectively um and therefore these mistakes that took place before 1917 uh were very much understandable the experience of the movement was lacking um you know in the same way that uh you know someone just uh trying to ride a bike for the first time is probably going to fall over and hurt themselves in 1920 it was forgivable as it only been a few years to digest these methods but today in uh 2023 is absolutely criminal to uh fail to understand the methods and ideas of Bolshevism and Marxism and in that respect whilst our organization is very young um we are actually very uh very old because we base ourselves not of our own individual experience and ideas but the experience and traditions of the past 100 or 200 years of workers uh movements and uh you know in the lessons of revolutionaries we met we stand very much on the shoulders of giants now if you fail to take in um yeah do i have enough time for this probably uh yeah if you fail to take in the uh dangers of ultra leftism they can express themselves in very different ways you can get on the one hand learning talks about this idea that uh from ultra leftism you can get this small circle mentality that people are search uh eternally searching for the perfect program position um and people to fill the revolutionary party and ultimately this comes from a petty bourgeois idea of trying to achieve socialism in one room arriving um i that's a genuine position it's not even a joke i've been how many groups who put that forward um and this comes from you know uh people who maybe are overly steeled in abstract discussion circles uh who can end up uh you know not unable to apply the ideas of history with the struggle of today um who are only able to talk about socialism and mark some as things that only applicable in the future mark some is not a dogma uh is not something removed from the working class being said it is a weapon orientated to the removal of the bourgeoisie and a tool in the hands of revolutionaries it is essential in fact the second congress would wage war on this in his opening speech xenobia who at this time was still okay um is uh would declare that is now is uh no longer a matter of propaganda for communist ideas now the epoch dawns uh of the organization of the uh communist proletariat and the immediate struggle for communist revolution um and therefore it's not the job of the revolutionary is not to sit on the sides but to get involved in the struggle to work with the masses hand by hand and to always have the eye on the future and how we move from our current position to the overthrow of power um in this respect um we uh our method is yes and and yes but we never fall into the uh sectarian trap of uh cheerleading the uh reformist leaders uh like Corbyn, Zara Sultana, Mick Lynch and the rest uh we don't just go yeah they're amazing they're great and leave it this instead we say yes this is very progressive but or and uh yes a great strike has been called this is wonderful now let's link up with other unions to try and uh spread this struggle yes it's great so many are people involved but we are simply involved on the basis of my conditions are terrible your conditions terrible let's instead have a joint political program in order to solve this question and this uh problem yes we need to nationalize the energy companies making billions of pounds of problem uh of profits but do we have faith in uh uh bureaucrat government bureaucrats more than billionaires no we need to put this under democratic workers control um and uh this is how we always bring forward our program in a positive way expanding on the left reformist and allowing to work uh the workers to draw their own conclusions about who is serious for fighting for reforms in practice to then go back to these people and say well why aren't you in favor of democratic workers control do you not trust us you know Zara Sultana do you not trust us to run our own uh our own workplaces and in doing so either force the reformist to a revolutionary position which we're happy with or expose the limitations of reformists and raise the need for revolutionary uh uh platform and in this respect this careful criticism um is always very different from the uh the sectarians who will always begin by attacking the left reformist first always saying ah betrayal enemy uh you know charlatan chauvinist etc and then understanding why after attacking their leaders no workers seem to be interested in getting involved instead we always first and foremost attack the Tories attack the capitalists and the bosses then we move on to the right reformists who are the agents of the bosses in the workers movements and then finally we would attack the left reformists but not from a place of anger not uh but from a place of sorrow of if only these people had had a strong ideas if only these people have been more willing to fight but only they had a clear political program think what could have been achieved this is the help uh clear political program our organization has now uh how much time do i have how much i want to go through okay i think i can summarize start going too much over so one point that's some thinking comrades maybe thinking at the moment is is if this is our methods does going up and down the country posting are you communist posters left right and center seem a little bit ultra left um because and i think uh you know comrades may be aware but the broad masses at the moment are not looking towards a communist revolution yet but the key with tactics is always to take a dialectical viewpoint it's always to understand things concretely and in their process uh not in this timeless abstract way are we at the moment trying to win millions of workers the answer is clearly no instead we are trying to win the ones and twos to a communist organization um and therefore uh yeah our tactics not fixed by term by our aims we need to build the first thousand five thousand ten thousand and in this respect the are you a communist campaign is very useful to go and find the best layers at universities or colleges or all of this it is an incredibly sharp tool to find people on the streets uh alienated and passionate against the uh fight against capitalism it is incredible but to try and win over a union uh an entire union to a marxist position it will completely uh completely collapse and therefore we need comrades who can think for themselves who can act on their own but whilst also acting as part of a disciplined revolutionary organization building a revolutionary organization it's it's not an equation um it is not simply getting 10 000 people to set up a sub and read what is marxism and classics volume one instead it is a battle uh a living battle an evolving organism uh as a revolutionary party adapts uh itself to changing conditions and seeks to raise the conscious of a masses as it understands the clear differences we're under uh just to give one example think of Lenin in 1914 he comes out with a position of revolutionary defeatism i.e it is better for the working class to be defeated uh by via an enemy country than it is for them to give any support to their own bourgeois why does he put that is because he's aiming at a very small layer of hardened revolutionaries fighting against all of the chauvinistic nonsense and they've been put out by world war uh by the collapse of a second international but three years later he's completely changed his tune he's not saying ah yes germany needs to invade russia that will be great instead he's saying um what's the word but the ruling class i'm capable of fighting this war if you want to defend um your homeland you need to you know first remove the uh the bourgeoisie and only the workers are going to be capable of you know uh defending themselves um and these are two ultimately quite contradictory positions but the reason Lenin puts them forward is not because he was uh psychotic it is because uh he understood the uh the living uh the living method and this is why we need comrades who can think for themselves this is why iri is so important um and we need comrades who can do this not just when uh times are easy but when they are hard uh Lenin he says the following nothing colleagues and he says it is far more difficult and far more precious to be a revolutionary when the conditions for direct open really mass and really revolutionary struggle do not yet exist to be able to champion the interests of a revolution by propaganda agitation and organization in non revolutionary bodies and quite often in downright reactionary bodies in a non revolutionary situation among the masses who are incapable of immediately appreciating the need for revolutionary methods of action this is if trying to fight for socialist revolution was easy it would have already been achieved so instead we have a very difficult task we need to ensure we do not fall between opportunism and ultra leftism and all of these other things and instead realize that ultimately the root is from a lack of confidence in one's own ideas from a lack of ability to connect with the struggle from a lack of practice in the struggle and you know weakness on all of these points we then for needs a you know organization of cadres or people who are sealed in theory and sealed in theory who have practiced within the movement who know how to connect and who can build and train others up who can repel all bourgeois and petty bourgeois ideas and who can yeah look at the conditions of the consciousness of today and harness the lessons of the past 200 years of struggle of the first second third fourth international and boil it down into just a few clear and concise sentences in order to win the masses to our banner whether it is the smallest workplace grievance or the systematic issue of the racism of the police and not just a handful of people who can do this not just three or four but thousands that is the goal of every single person in your in this room turn yourself into a cader who can achieve this and then go out and turn five others into cadres as well if this can be done then victory will be ours thank you very much