30 SOCIAL SCIENTIST (c) the "spark that set the prairie fire" was, in fact, the vanguard militant workers who had to leave their places of work and who mobilised the peasantry in militant action; (d) it was the militant proletarian cadres spreading out into the countryside and rousing the peasant millions that formed the basis of the first Chinese Soviets and the Red Aimy; (e) even after the formation of liberated areas, Mao insisted, the proletariat has to lead the peasant militants. There is, therefore, neither the original "dogma" nor its subsequent "rejection" by the Chinese Communist Party, as alleged by Mrs Robinson. The success of the revolution in China is due precisely to the fact that its Communist Party correctly applied to the specific conditions of China the universal theory of Marxism-Leninism—the theory of the proletariat leading all the oppressed and exploited classes. Finally, it is not as if no revolution has taken place in the advanced countries. The Paris Commune of 1871; the German Revolution of 1918; the revolutionary outbreaks in several European countries at the end of the First World War; the world-wide movement of the working class with the central slogan, "Hands off Russia", when the imperialists unleashed the interventionist war—all these indicate the extent to which the proletariat of advanced capitalist countries came into militant action. That they did not succeed in overthrowing the bourgeois regime as their comrades in Russia did is due to the fact that the very revolutionary working class movement got into its ranks strong elements of the ideology of class collaboration, the ideology against which Lenin had to fight a life-long battle. Today too, as had been pointed out in my earlier article, it is "the right and left opportunist mistakes leading to disunity in the international proletarian camp" that hamper the development of the revolutionary proletarian movements in the advanced capitalist countries and the revolutionary democratic movements in the underdeveloped countries. A total underestimation of the enormous progress made by the international revolutionary movement since Marx wrote his Communist Mani-festo (the 125th year of whose publication is being celebrated this year) and of the role played by Marx's Capital—correctly called by Engels "The Bible of the Working Class"—in creating the international army of the world revolutions headed by the working class is the basic failing of the critique of Marx made by Mrs Robinson. While society has changed a lot since the days of Marx, thus making many of his conclusions inadequate for our present purpose, we are of the view that there is no substance in the criticisms made by Mrs Robinson either in her earlier lecture or in the present article. Marx's works in general, the Communist Manifesto and Capital in particular, are of immense value even today as a guide to the understanding of, and action in changing, present-day society in every country if only they are intelligently used in the concrete conditions of the country concerned-