A different reading of several concepts
By Zaher Baher
April 2025
- Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism
This concept was introduced by Lenin, who wrote this book in 1916 during World War I (WW1) while he was in Switzerland, a year before the October Revolution. In writing this book, Lenin greatly benefited from Marx’s economic analysis.
The research that Lenin conducted and presented in this book is based on several key points and events in the stages of imperialism, which have been given different titles by economists and historians. According to their definitions, a strong nation or rather, a powerful state expands its influence over weaker countries or regions through political, economic, or military control. This often involves colonization, exploitation, the plundering of resources, and the domination of local populations.
Imperialism has existed in various forms throughout history, but the term is most commonly associated with the period from the 15th to the 20th century. Earlier examples include empires such as the Roman, Persian, and Chinese empires, which expanded by conquering territories.
For Lenin, the term was broadened to explain the economic and political causes of imperialism and its role in triggering global conflicts such as WWI. He argued that imperialism was a natural evolution of capitalism, driven by monopoly and finance capital, which sought new markets through colonial expansion. Lenin defined imperialism as the ‘Highest stage of capitalism,’ in which large corporations and banks dominate economies and seek new markets and resources abroad.
He identifies five main characteristics of imperialism:
- Capitalism leads to the concentration of production and the rise of monopoly capital, which dominates all industries.
- The merger of banking and industrial capital results in the emergence of financial oligarchies.
- The export of capital (investment in foreign markets) becomes more significant than the export of goods.
- 4. The formation of international capitalist monopolies that divide the world among
- 5. The territorial division of the world among the imperialist powers is completed, leading to conflict.
Drawing on Marx’s writings on economics, Lenin understood that capitalism was evolving toward monopoly, with small businesses being exploited by large corporations. The issue of currency and monetary institutions was an inevitable response to the phenomenon of capitalism. At its core, capitalism is characterized by the conflict between companies and wealth, which leads to exploitation and ultimately to great wars. Lenin saw WWI as a direct consequence of imperialism’s competition for colonies, raw materials, and markets.
Was Lenin’s concept right?
Before answering the question, I must emphasize that Marxists, like religious individuals, are ideologists. They continue to believe that definitions of modern capitalism, formulated in a specific historical context, remain valid even after all these years. Their biggest challenge much like that of religious individuals is their tendency to detach interpretation, discourse, and concepts from their original source, time, place, and reality.
If we examine the reality of modern capitalism, the progress and changes that it has undergone, it becomes clear that this concept is flawed and has become obsolete. Rejecting it is not difficult, as the justifications used to support it can now be objectively assessed as either true or false.
Lenin believed that capitalism would inevitably collapse and that socialism would emerge, leaving no further stage or development for capitalism beyond imperialism. However, we see that instead of collapsing, capitalism has largely sustained itself through various reforms, such as the implementation of different service policies, globalization, and the advancement of new technologies and innovations.
Another argument made by Lenin was that capitalism is inherently monopolistic. However, with the rise of neoliberalism, global trade, the digital economy, and the occurrence of various short- and long-term wars, capitalism has not only managed to modernize itself but has also expanded beyond mere monopolization. Large corporations engage in intense competition to create new markets and revitalize existing ones, ensuring their continued relevance and profitability.
Another key principle in Lenin’s concept was that foreign investment and expansion often occurred through force and occupation. However, today, we see that many of these transactions are voluntary, and states do not always act under pressure from one another. Instead, numerous trade and industrial agreements exist between countries. Additionally, states employ economic strategies such as adjusting interest rates, managing inflation, and imposing tariffs. These measures influence both the value of their currency and the dynamics of production and trade.
Another important point to consider, despite the existence of exploitation and cheap labour, is that most investments and large-scale projects today are carried out through contracts between major corporations and the states that require these projects, or between states themselves. In the modern era, no country can complete all its projects solely with its own companies or government resources; instead, they rely on large corporations or other states to execute these projects.
For example, many African countries are undertaking major projects such as roads, large bridges, dams, and various other infrastructure developments through partnerships with China and Chinese companies. Additionally, many states finance these projects through loans from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, despite the fact that the contractual conditions can be extremely challenging and stringent. While some projects or loans may be necessary and unavoidable, they are largely undertaken voluntarily rather than being imposed through occupation, exploitation, or the forced extraction of resources.
In conclusion, some of Lenin’s assertions remain valid, particularly regarding the persistence of great power hegemony, war, and oppression, which continue to this day. However, while economic hegemony still exists, it has evolved into a more complex and resilient system than Lenin initially predicted.
In my opinion, imperialism is not the highest stage of capitalism. Capitalism has moved beyond that stage and has now reached the stage of globalization. Globalization and imperialism are two distinct phases with different definitions and paths of development. While imperialism was indeed a stage in capitalism’s evolution, it was not its peak. Imperialism existed in a time when globalization had not yet emerged, and with the rise of globalization, imperialism as it once existed has ceased to be relevant.
2 The Third World Theory
In my opinion, this theory is closely connected to the earlier discussion on imperialism, despite the years that separate them. According to Lenin, imperialism is not only the primary enemy of the working class but also the arch-enemy of colonized nations, as it involves occupying and plundering their natural and human resources while preventing them from achieving independence and progress. Although Lenin did not specifically use the concept of the ‘Third World’ his theory inherently applies to regions and countries that were once occupied and exploited by imperialist powers. It is essentially the basis of the theory of the third world theory.
In this context, Lenin believed that the struggle for national liberation should be initiated, with the workers of the country serving as the main force in this struggle alongside the national liberation movement. Lenin wrote several important texts on this issue, including ‘The Right of Nations to Self-Determination’ (1914–), where he argued that oppressed nations have the right to secede and form independent states. He emphasized that Marxists must support this right while simultaneously advocating for the unity of the proletariat. Lenin stressed the importance of addressing the issue of oppressed nations, particularly those in Asia, in their quest for independence from imperialist powers.
Lenin elaborates on the connection between the socialist revolution and the struggle for national liberation in his 1916 text, ‘The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination’ (1916). He emphasizes that the right to self-determination is a democratic right that fosters unity among workers across different nations. Written in February of that year, these writings extensively discuss national liberation movements, anti-imperialism, and the role of oppressed nations in the global revolutionary struggle. Lenin’s works highlight the liberation struggles of nations in Asia, Africa, and other colonized regions.
When Lenin wrote ‘Imperialism is the Highest Stage of Capitalism in1917, he once again emphasized the role of revolutionary movements in Asia. His views on national liberation and national destiny aligned closely with many anti-colonial movements across Asia.
Later, in 1920, Lenin revisited this topic in his Theses on ‘National and Colonial Questions’, presented at the Second Congress of the Communist International. There, he reaffirmed his belief that communists should support anti-colonial and national liberation movements.
Obviously, Lenin relied on the positions of Marx and Engels, who wrote on the issue of Ireland and Poland in their time and supported the independence of both countries, which they believed would benefit the labor movement in both countries.
The above writings were part of a series in which Lenin addressed the national liberation movement. However, despite these contributions, the idea of the ‘Third World Theory’ did not immediately develop into a fully universal theory. Instead, Lenin’s work laid a strong foundation for the theory, which evolved through various stages and efforts before eventually developing into the ‘Third World Theory.’
Third World Theory later emerged as a political and economic concept during the pre and post-Cold War era, initially taking shape in the 1950s and 1960s. The theory focused on countries that were neither aligned with the Western Bloc (led by the U.S. and its NATO allies) nor the Eastern Bloc (led by the former Soviet Union and its allies). Instead, these nations mostly former colonies in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East sought to establish their own independent political and economic paths.
The concept or term Third World Theory was first introduced by French demographer Alfred Sauvy. He drew a comparison between the Third World and the Third Estate in pre-revolutionary 19th-century France. The term originally referred to the common people, who were marginalized and exploited, highlighting their need for revolution.
The political and ideological development of ‘Third World Theory’ then entered a new stage, closely linked to the leaders and thinkers of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and anti-imperialist struggles. To this end, Asian and African leaders gathered in 1955 at a conference in Indonesia to promote cooperation and oppose colonialism. In 1961, the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) was officially founded in Belgrade, Yugoslavia. The ‘Third World’ thus became a symbol of resistance, anti-imperialism, and the aspiration for a new world order.
The formation of the Chinese Communist Party and the movement led by Mao Zedong, culminating in their victory in 1949, played a crucial role in linking Mao’s theories on nationalism and anti-imperialism with Lenin’s theses. This connection significantly influenced other national movements and contributed to the further development of ‘Third World Theory’. As the theory evolved, it entered a new stage and, by the 1970s, became a manifesto for various movements that sought to challenge imperialism and assert national sovereignty.
The essence of the Third World Theory
Since the 1970s, the theory of the Third World has gained significant meaning in both form and content. Many communist parties, as well as other groups under different names but still adhering to communist ideologies, have expressed the world in this way and shaped their tactics and goals accordingly. Their vision of the world introduced a new purpose and redefined its structure.
The First World consisted of the Great Powers (the USA and the USSR), which the theory identified as two imperialist forces. The Second World included developed industrialized countries, such as European countries and several others, positioned between the powerful nations and the industrially backward countries. The Third World comprised nations in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, which were considered underdeveloped.
According to this theory, the main conflict for these parties, including the left and the communists, is the conflict between their country and the two countries that are considered imperialists (US and Russia). In this regard, they believed that the Third World was the primary force for revolutionary change.
The expansion and damage of the theory reached the point where it became the ultimate criterion for defining the revolutionary movement. Whoever fought against imperialism was a revolutionary. Even worse than this, the theory was ignoring the oppression role of the internal national bourgeoisie because it was considered a patriotic power. So therefore the fight against the bourgeoisie and the domestic capitalists, who were considered national capitalists or patriotic capitalists rejected overruled by these parties and organisation. The theory has seen considered domestic capitalists as a step toward the socialist revolution because supporting those means developing the country’s economy in terms of industry, which means increasing the number of workers by industrializing it and taking the country towards capitalism. According to this theory it brings us closer to the socialist revolution.
The two worst aspects of this theory were that, in some countries, pro-Russian parties supported their governments due to their alignment with Russia, believing that this would lead the country towards socialism through capitalism and supporting the Russia under the so called policy of the non-capitalistic development towards socialism. In countries such as Iraq, it was different, the Communist Party convinced their members and the public that socialism could be achieved through a democratic state or a people’s democracy state by developing a non-capitalist path.
Another disadvantage drawback of this theory is that even among leftists, social democrats, and parties such as the Socialist Workers Party in the UK, their stance on international conflicts has been shaped by this framework. For example, during the Iraq-Iran war in the 1980s, they supported Iran. This position was particularly evident in the British Socialist Workers Party at the time.
In contemporary conflicts, such as the war between Russia and Ukraine, these leftists support Ukraine because they see Russia as the main imperialist force. Similarly, in conflicts involving Hezbollah, Hamas, and other groups against Israel, leftists take the side of these organizations against Israel, viewing it as a major U.S. military base. According to the ‘Third World Theory,’ they also support countries such as Venezuela, Cuba, and other Latin American nations governed by leftist parties that oppose the United States. Thus, the theory of the three worlds has become a criterion for these leftists to determine which powers align with or oppose the United States in global conflicts.
Applying this theory to any of the fields mentioned above serves the capitalist system by dividing workers, turning themselves against each other, and weakening their collective struggle. Furthermore, the misuse of the concept of imperialism is a critical mistake that could severely harm the workers’ movement and the masses.
Today, the entire world operates under capitalism, though it is divided into developed and undeveloped industrialized countries. The conflicts between these states are essentially wars of oppression and attacks on the workers’ movement, both directly and indirectly. The names of these states, the parties that govern them, and their claims are irrelevant. This serves as a justification for categorizing capitalism into two parts: imperialism, the “negative” aspect of capitalism, and the other, which is seen as the “good” part of capitalism.
Everyone’s struggle must focus on striking at the capitalists, local and national governments, and the system’s main pillar: the state. This is the only radical and comprehensive way to bring down the system itself. It is not about supporting the state in its wars but rather rebelling against it by any way possible, both individually and collectively. The core of the struggle is to address the conflict between the capitalist state and the workers, and the masses, with the goal of eliminating wage labour system and dismantling the greatest pillar of capitalism: the state.
Unfortunately, the ‘Third World Theory’ still exists today and continues to play a significant role in dividing and misleading us. It leads us to trust the national regime, the nation-state, and the idea of a legitimate war against “imperialism,” which is seen by them as the great fortress of capitalism.
In my opinion, the concept of imperialism, as used by some anarchists, is incorrect. It divides capitalism and capitalist states into “good” and “bad,” which in turn divides the working class, the masses, and their movements. This is a clear distortion of the idea that capitalism is a global system, and its opposing movement must also be global. This approach represents a return to the Third World theory, and it’s use serves to defend the war between capitalist states by justifying one side and demonizing the other. Whether done consciously or unconsciously, this approach is rooted in the Third World Theory, which has caused significant harm to our movement in the past.
3 The Nation-state
The common definition of a nation-state is a country where most of the population shares a common language, culture, ethnicity, or historical background. It has a defined territory with recognized borders and a government that holds sovereignty (control) over both the land and its people. A central authority enforces laws and is said to maintain order and security. Additionally, a nation-state is recognized as an independent entity by other states and international organizations, often maintaining diplomatic relations through envoys and diplomats.
In addition to the above, the nation-state is believed to have full control over its internal and external affairs, maintaining independence in this regard. It is also commonly described as a national achievement and a political entity defined by a shared cultural, linguistic, or national identity.
The nation-state is often described as having citizens who are relatively homogeneous in factors such as language, race, or ancestry. The idea is that the political boundaries of the state align with the cultural boundaries of the nation. It is believed that this sense of shared identity fosters a feeling of ownership over the country and its governance, allowing the nation-state to maintain stability, national unity, and social cohesion.
But is that true?
Today, when we examine any nation-state in the world, we must question whether this concept promoted by authorities, national parties, nationalists, social democrats, and even some leftists is right? Does a state truly exist under the name of a nation-state? How much longer will this idea continue to dominate our thinking simply because it is favoured by academics, economists, and intellectuals who serve the system?
In my opinion, there is substantial evidence to prove that the term is incorrect. However, I will focus on three key points that clearly demonstrate the flaws in this concept.
First, no state or country is truly independent, especially in terms of economic self-sufficiency, which is essential for political independence. Even major powers like the United States, Japan, Germany, and Britain rely on others to a varying degree, both economically and, at times, politically.
In this case, there is no need to rely on statistics, as it is evident that international trade, participation in trade institutions, economic agreements, and industrial treaties all demonstrate this dependence. Anyone who shops in a market or searches online will find that many versions of the same product come from different countries. Therefore, neither states nor countries are truly independent, nor can they remain so. This is a defining feature of capitalist progress and globalization. If any modern state or country attempts to withdraw from this system, it will gradually weaken and may even collapse.
Second, the nation-state, whose core institution is the government, primarily serves a particular class typically a small minority of elites and the upper class. In most of these states and countries, the general population and citizens do not necessarily belong to the dominant national identity as defined by the state. Furthermore, the nation-state prioritizes the interests of large corporations, capitalists, and the wealthy—regardless of race or gender rather than those of the majority, including mainly workers and the exploited. Therefore, it is misleading to label a state as a “nation-state” simply because its official language aligns with that of the dominant nation. Moreover, due to globalization, the indigenous cultures of many nations have weakened or even partially disappeared.
Third, the idea that nation-states are defined by a common language and culture is inaccurate. Nearly all states, aside from their dominant national group, include ethnic minorities, some of whom have lived there for generations. These minorities have their own distinct cultures, traditions, and religions, which are not shared with the dominant nation or other minority groups. While they may coexist and respect one another, their cultural identities remain separate.
That being said, there is no denying that English is the official language in Britain, French in France and German in Germany, just as other countries have their own official languages used by everyone. However, these official languages are not necessarily learned or adopted voluntarily by non-English or non-French or non-German communities. In fact, the living conditions in these countries often compel people to learn the official language English in the UK, French in France and German in Germany. Education, writing, public speaking, work, theatre, and market transactions are all conducted in the official language, rather than in the native languages of minority communities.
This is despite the fact that in many nation-states, such as Iran, Iraq, India, Sri Lanka, Turkey, China, Rwanda, Congo, and many others, the ruling class of the dominant nation often implements discriminatory policies. These include the repression of minority groups through violence, arrests, expulsions, and the banning of their languages, cultures, and religions.
It is clear that the nation-state does not embody the basic principles outlined above, and the concepts associated with it do not truly apply. The term “nation-state” turns out to be a misleading or meaningless label, rather than a reflection of reality. Capitalism has intentionally used this concept to its advantage, benefiting from it in numerous ways while also using it as an excuse for both leftist and nationalist movements to fight whether peacefully or with arms. In the context of armed movements, the system itself has been the primary winner and beneficiary. Therefore, through the use of this term, capitalism has benefited in every possible way.
4 White man
The concept of the white man regarding race, culture, and social relationships has, like many other concepts and phenomena, evolved to some extent over time and throughout the different stages of human history.
Ancient civilizations, such as the Greeks and Romans, did not classify people by ‘race’ in the modern sense. Instead, they differentiated individuals based on culture, language, and geography. While they did recognize physical differences, such as skin colour, these distinctions did not imply a social (categories) or systemic hierarchy as they would in later periods.
It is generally understood that the term ‘white man’ refers to an individual classified as belonging to the white racial group, typically associated with people of European descent. From a historical perspective, this concept is not solely biological, as its meaning is also shaped by historical developments and the individual’s position within a social context.
Like the concept of race itself, the idea of the ‘white man’ has been modernized and adapted over time to reflect social status. For instance, during the colonization of nations and the transatlantic slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries, the concept of race began to take shape and was developed to justify the enslavement of Africans and the displacement of indigenous peoples. However, in the 19th and early 20th centuries, Irish, Italian, and Eastern European immigrants were not considered fully ‘white’ in the United States. The colony of Virginia (in what is now the United States) is often cited as one of the earliest places, in the late 1600s, where ‘whiteness’ was legally defined and used to create a social divide between poor Europeans and enslaved Africans.
Undoubtedly, the law has long served as an effective tool for ruling class and classes to enforce their interests. Throughout history, repression, slavery, and even discrimination against women have been legalized in many countries to benefit those in power. In the past, laws and policies in places like in the United States and European colonies granted legal privileges to ‘white’ people, often at the expense of excluding others. These laws and policies promoted racial hierarchies as a means of maintaining power and justifying inequality.
In short, the term ‘white man,’ when associated with racial issues, was primarily coined during the periods of colonialism and slavery. It served to establish a system of privilege and power for Europeans and their descendants. Race, as it is used in society, is a social construct rather than a concept grounded in biology.
Considering the above, can we still use the idea of whiteness or white skin, or the concept of the white person, in today’s context?
Although in societies where the term has been used it is associated with social, political, and economic privileges, I find the use of the term ‘white man’ problematic for at least two reasons:
First, there are millions of ‘white’ women and men in predominantly ‘white’ societies whose living conditions and social status are no better than those of Black people and others of different skin colours. Like many others in these societies, they face oppression and marginalization, regardless of race, nationality, or citizenship. Their political and economic interests are suppressed by the same economic and political system that oppresses both white and non-white individuals. Their struggle unites them against the exploiters, the state, and the state’s laws.
Second, some Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic, (BAME) individuals have held high social and political positions, such as Rishi Sunak (The Prime Minister of the UK from 25/10/22 to 05/07/2024), Humza Yousaf (First Minister of Scotland and Leader of the Scottish National Party from March 2023 to May 2024), and Kemi Badenoch, the current leader of the Conservative Party in the UK and Nadhim Zahawi the former Chancellor of the Exchequer. In addition, there are dozens of non-white Members of Parliament in Westminster, Scotland, and Wales, who hold political power and play a role in shaping the policies of their parties and countries.
Of course, this is true not only for Britain but also for the entire region of Europe, the United States, and the Scandinavian countries.
Therefore, the issue of race should not be viewed as a biological phenomenon, but rather as a matter of superiority, domination, and political and economic status. We could even argue that they have no distinct race, nation, or country; their passports represent their wealth, which grants them that social status. This concept is completely rejected, especially when it carries historical weight or is used in the context of power dynamics or stereotypes.
That being said, it cannot be denied that racism remains a significant issue in these countries, driven by political, legal, and economic factors that the state both directly and indirectly fosters to divide its citizens for its own interests.
5 All wars are wars for power
The term “class war” was not commonly used before the 19th century, but the concept of conflict between social classes had existed for centuries. For example, in medieval Europe, peasant uprisings such as the English Peasants’ Revolt of 1381 and the German Peasants’ War of 1524–1525 were essentially struggles between social classes, even though the specific term “class war” was not explicitly used at the time.
In France, during the Revolution (1789–1799), veterans, intellectuals, and revolutionaries of the time used terminology that closely resembled the concept of “class war.”
The term “class war” was largely popularized by the French anarchist and socialist thinker Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in the mid-nineteenth century. He was among the first to explicitly refer to “class war,” rather than merely “class struggle.” In his writings, Proudhon described the economic and social conflict between workers and capitalists as a form of war.
However, the concept of “class war” as an explicit notion of violent or revolutionary class struggle was later developed further by Marxists and other socialists, particularly in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The idea was more thoroughly explored and debated, and over time, class warfare came to be increasingly associated with authoritarianism.
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels primarily used the term “class struggle”, Klassenkampf in German—rather than “class war,” although they did refer to class warfare when discussing revolutionary confrontation. This language first appeared in ‘The Communist Manifesto’ (1848), where they famously wrote that “the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle.” They argued that this struggle would ultimately lead to the overthrow of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat. Engels, in particular, referred more explicitly to “class war” in some of his letters and speeches when discussing revolution.
Mikhail Bakunin, the Russian anarchist, frequently invoked the idea of class war to describe violent revolutionary action against the state and capitalists. During and after the Paris Commune of 1871, the use of the term “class war” became firmly established among revolutionaries, especially following the brutal suppression of the uprising by French authorities.
Marx and Engels, along with later Marxist thinkers, viewed class struggle as a real and driving force behind material conditions. They agreed that the bourgeoisie (the capitalist class) and the proletariat had fundamentally opposing interests, which formed the foundation of their social conflict. All of them connected the proletarian goal to the seizure of state power as a means to eliminate class differences and ultimately abolish classes altogether.
In many cases, the theory of class struggle was used as a tool to mobilize the masses and popularize revolutionary movements. However, the result was often the creation of a new ruling power rather than the actual dissolution of class divisions. Revolutionary leaders, in their pursuit of popular support, frequently invoked the idea of class war to inspire and rally workers and peasants.
In my opinion, many of the wars throughout history that have been labelled as class wars were not truly about class struggle, but rather about power and the seizure of power. These conflicts were often framed in terms of economic inequality and oppression, which served as means to rally support and legitimize the cause. While it is true that many individuals participated in these wars suffering, becoming disabled, or even sacrificing their lives and families—the core of these conflicts was ultimately about the struggle for power. Uprisings, revolutions, and struggles often resulted in the rise of new elites, rather than the creation of a truly classless society. Once in power, these leaders tended to prioritize maintaining their own authority over attaining genuine classless society and social equality.
Disguised wars have often been labelled as class wars, such as the French Revolution (1789–1799), in which the Jacobins overthrew the aristocracy, only to establish a new elite, followed by Napoleon’s eventual rise to power.
The Russian Revolution of 1917, led by the Bolsheviks, is another example of a power struggle that was initially framed as a class struggle but, in reality, was a struggle for power. Over time, the scope of this power struggle became so concentrated that authority shifted from the broader revolutionary movement to the central committee of the Bolshevik Party. Similarly, the Chinese Communist Party’s revolution, led by Mao Zedong, which culminated in victory in 1949, was also fundamentally a struggle for power.
Other examples include the wars between the Safavid and Ottoman Empires, the wars between some Arab countries and Israel in 1967 and 1973, the wars in Southeast Asia, the Falklands War, the Iran-Iraq War, the two Gulf Wars, and the ongoing conflict between Hamas, Hezbollah, and Israel, as well as the war between Russia and Ukraine. It is evident that all these conflicts whether class-based, religious, or ethnic are essentially struggles for power, including self-defence wars to prevent foreign powers from replacing domestic authority.
None of these wars can be considered class wars; rather, they are struggles to regain or seize power. Whether one side attacked and the other defended is irrelevant to the core issue these are wars driven by the desire for control and authority.
As I mentioned earlier, both Proudhon and Bakunin spoke of class war, class struggle, or class violence, but they never framed these as authoritarian wars or wars fought to seize power. Similarly, although anarchists acknowledge the existence of class struggle, it is not for the purpose of gaining political power. For them, political struggle is not a means or a bridge to achieve political power or the supremacy of one class over another. Instead, it is a means to destroy the supremacy of all classes and eradicate all forms of political power. Therefore, it can be said that, both theoretically and practically, anarchists were the only ones who did not use class struggle or class war as a tool to gain power.
I will conclude with a question: If all these wars were truly class wars and not struggles for power, why have none of them eliminated the distinctions between class and power? Why, instead, have they deepened the class divide and strengthened power as a form of state authority?