At the very best, the majority of workers in the imperialist countries are semi-proletarian. This is clear from the definition of the semi-proletariat that all the major communist leaders of the time knew so well, unlike our movement generations later so used to flattery and social-patriotism. The COMINTERN had a program for the European countries and it had a section called, "Our Attitude to the Semi-Proletarian Strata."

"In Western Europe there is no class other than the proletariat which is capable of playing the significant role in the world revolution that, as a consequence of the war and the land hunger, the peasants did in Russia. But, even so, a section of the Western-European peasantry and a considerable part of the urban petty bourgeoisie and broad layers of the so-called middle class, of office workers etc., are facing deteriorating standards of living and, under the pressure of rising prices, the housing problems and insecurity are being shaken out of their political apathy and drawn into the struggle between revolution and counter-revolution.

"It is also important to win the sympathy of technicians, white-collar workers, the middle- and lower-ranking civil servants and the intelligentsia, who can assist the proletarian dictatorship in the period of transition from capitalism to Communism by helping with the problems of state and economic administration. If such layers identify with the revolution, the enemy will be demoralized and the popular view of the proletariat as an isolated group will be discredited."(5 )

We also point out three things about the above quote from the COMINTERN which requires being read several times. First is that it is significant as a use of definitions. It is not accurate for economic conditions in Europe today. Living standards are not generally deteriorating in the imperialist countries; there is no war there anymore and there is no revolution going on as was once the case in Russia and Eastern Europe. Secondly, it is important to notice that the COMINTERN regarded the peasantry of Russia as a better ally of revolution than the semi-proletariat. We can extend that notion to oppressed nations in particular, because the bourgeois classes including the agrarian petty-bourgeoisie known as peasants have a progressive role to play while there is still an agrarian question, a question of feudalism or feudal remnants. In contrast, the COMINTERN regarded the urban semi-proletariat as less progressive than the agrarian petty-bourgeoisie.

In other mentions of "semi-proletarians," Lenin speaks of agricultural workers who receive the wage-form of payment and some who are part-time peasants and part-time industrial workers. We also have the impression that semi-proletarians could especially in peace-time, be petty-bourgeoisie. Lenin mentions all these together in explaining the class background of donors to Bolshevik newspapers and liquidationist newspapers. First he explains the donations from workers. Then he goes to the next case of "non-workers." "The contributions obviously came from lower-paid office workers, civil servants, etc., and from the petty-bourgeois elements of a semi-proletarian character."(6) So in addition to signing on to COMINTERN statements, Lenin wrote his own that did not count office workers as proletarians. We ask our readers to re-read the above passages until these points are clear, because we in the imperialist countries have spent the last 50 years incorrectly altering the very definition of proletariat.

Next book chapter