Language

s. 23-25:
(Uddrag) "...talrige henvisninger fra Marx og Engels til den britiske arbejderbevægelses eksempel, der viser, hvorledes industriel "velstand" fører til forsøg på at "købe proletariatet", for at aflede dem fra kampen; hvorledes denne velstand i almindelighed "demoraliserer arbejderne"; hvorledes det britiske proletariat bliver "borgerliggjort" – "denne den mest borgerlige af alle nationer tilsyneladende sigter mod til slut at have et borgerligt aristokrati og et borgerligt proletariat ved siden af bourgeoisiet"

s. 21-22:
Det britiske Arbejderparti, der må skelnes fra de to socialistiske partier i Storbritannien, det Britiske Socialistiske Parti og det Uafhængige Arbejderparti, er den arbejdsorganisation, der er mest opportunistisk og gennemsyret af den liberale arbejderpolitiks ånd.

s. 20-21:
(Uddrag) "Som i den britiske arbejderbevægelse viser situationen i den amerikanske bevægelse os den særdeles skarpe splittelse mellem ren fagforeningspræget og socialistisk stræben, en splittelse mellem borgerlig arbejderpolitik og socialistisk arbejderpolitik."

s. 18-20:
(Uddrag) Om det koloniale spørgsmål og opportunisterne, der støttede en socialistisk kolonipolitik, som de mente kunne have en civiliserende rolle.

s. 17:
(Uddrag) Om den svækkede modsigelse mellem de engelske arbejdsgivere og arbejdere.

s. 9-16:
Der går en lige linje fra Marx og Engels gennem Lenin til KAKs analyse af arbejderaristokratiet i den vesteuropæiske arbejderklasse i dag.

Uddrag om imperialisme og opportunisme i artikler og taler 1899-1923 [Forlaget Futura København, 1973, 91 s.]

p. 57:
"... One is indeed driven to despair by these English workers with their sense of imaginary national superiority, with their essentially bourgeois ideas and viewpoints, with their "practical" narrow-mindedness, with the parliamentary corruption which has seriously infected the leaders."

p. 56:
"This Socialism of theirs [The Fabians] is then represented as an extreme but inevitable consequence of bourgeois Liberalism; hence their tactics of not resolutely fighting the Liberals as adversaries but of pushing them on towards Socialist conclusions and therefore of intriguing with them, of permeating Liberalism with Socialism, of not putting up Socialist candidates against the Liberals but of fastening them on to the Liberals, of forcing them upon them, or deceiving them into taking them."

p. 54-55:
"You see something unfinished in the Fabian Society. On the contrary, this crowd is only too finished: a clique of bourgeois "Socialists" of diverse calibres, from careerists to sentimental Socialists and philanthropists, united only by their fear of the threatening rule of the workers and doing all in their power to spike this danger by making their own leadership secure, the leadership exercised by the "eddicated." If afterwards they admit a few workers into their central board in order that they may play there the role of the worker Albert of 1848, the role of a constantly outvoted minority, this should not deceive anyone."

p. 53-54:
"But under the surface the movement is going on, is embracing ever wider sections and mostly just among the hitherto stagnant lowest strata. The day is no longer far off when this mass will suddenly find itself, when it will dawn upon it that it itself is this colossal mass in motion, and when that day comes short work will be made of all the rascality and wrangling."

p. 52-53
"The most repulsive thing here is the bourgeois "respectability" bred into the bones of the workers."

p. 51-52:
"But since then the colossal growth of industry has produced a class of workers of whom there are as many or more as there are "skilled" workers in the trade unions and whose performance is as good as that of the "skilled" workers or better, but who can never become members. These people have been virtually brought up on the craft rules of the trade unions. But do you suppose the unions ever dreamt of doing away with this silly bunk? Not in the least. I cannot recall having read of a single proposal of the kind at a Trade Union Congress. The fools want to reform society to suit themselves but not to reform themselves to suit the development of society."

p. 45-50:
"The truth is this: during the period of England's industrial monopoly the English working-class have, to a certain extent, shared in the benefits of the monopoly. These benefits were very unequally parcelled out amongst them; the privileged minority pocketed most, but even the great mass had, at least, a temporary share now and then. And that is the reason why, since the dying-out of Owenism, there has been no Socialism in England. With the breakdown of that monopoly, the English working-class will lose that privileged position; it will find itself generally – the privileged and leading minority not excepted – on a level with its fellow-workers abroad. And that is the reason why there will be Socialism again in England."

p. 44-45:
"Participation in the domination of the world market was and is the economic basis of the political nullity of the English workers. The tail of the bourgeoisie in the economic exploitation of this monopoly but nevertheless sharing in its advantages, they are, of course, politically the tail-of the "Great Liberal Party," which for its part pays them small attentions, recognises Trade Unions and strikes as legitimate factors, has abandoned the fight for an unlimited working-day and has given the mass of better-off workers the vote."

p. 43:
"... You ask me what the English workers think about colonial policy. Well, exactly the same as they think about politics in general: the same as the bourgeois think. There is no workers' party here, you see, there are only Conservatives and Liberal-Radicals, and the workers gaily share the feast of England's monopoly of the world market and the colonies."

p. 42:
"... In India serious complications, if not a general outbreak, is in store for the British government. What the English take from them annually in the form of rent, dividends for railways useless to the Hindus; pensions for military and civil servicemen, for Afghanistan and other wars, etc., etc. – what they take from them without any equivalent and quite apart from what they appropriate to themselves annually within India – speaking only of the value of the commodities the Indians have gratuitously and annually to send over to England – it amounts to more than the total sum of income of the sixty millions of agricultural and industrial labourers of India!"

p. 41:
"... For a number of years past (and at the present time) the English working-class movement has been hopelessly describing a narrow circle of strikes for higher wages and shorter hours, not, however, as an expedient or means of propaganda and organisation but as the ultimate aim. The Trade Unions even bar all political action on principle and in their charters, and thereby also ban participation in any general activity of the working-class as a class."

p. 40:
"... The English working-class had been gradually becoming more and more deeply demoralised by the period of corruption since 1848 and had at last got to the point when it was nothing more than the tail of the Great Liberal Party, i.e., of its oppressors, the capitalists."

p. 38-39:
"... As regards the workers it must be stated, to begin with, that no separate political working-class party has existed in England since the downfall of the Chartist Party in the fifties. This is understandable in a country in which the working-class has shared more than anywhere else in the advantages of the immense expansion of its large-scale industry. Nor could it have been otherwise in an England that ruled the world market; and certainly not in a country where the ruling classes have set themselves the task of carrying out, parallel with other concessions, one point of the Chartists' programme, the People's Charter, after another."