Originally published in Historia de las Ideas nº 5 in January 2026s nº 4 en diciembre de 2025

RESUME

This article argues that the so called “communist movement” in Spain and in much of the world has ceased to be a revolutionary force due to its abandonment of the dialectical method of Marxism.

It reasserts the scientific and critical character of authors such as Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin, who revised and updated their own positions according to changing material conditions.

On this basis, the text analyzes three contemporary phenomena in which anti-Marxists fall into metaphysical positions: religion, immigration, and the national question. In each case, it examines the consequences of ignoring fundamental laws of dialectics such as the unity and struggle of opposites, the transformation of quantity into quality, and the negation of the negation.

Drawing from these examples, the article outlines what a correct and creative dialectical Marxist analysis should be: starting from concrete material conditions, applying dialectics rigorously, distinguishing between a phenomenon and its social function, and placing the class struggle at the center.

INTRODUCTION

The so-called communist movement in Spain and the rest of the world is dead. Only the putrid remains of what was once a movement that shook the exploiters and imperialists to their core are left.

Much of the blame for this lies with the "communists" themselves, who have either integrated into the liberalism of May 68, [1]as Michael Clouscard already pointed out, [2]or have fallen into the most metaphysical dogmatism possible, abandoning all real workers' struggles and focusing on problems unrelated to the working class. [3].

And indeed, remaining passive and repeating the same mistakes over and over is precisely what many small groups have chosen as their political strategy. They oscillate between inaction and following the more reformist left, in the shadow of the PSOE or Podemos.

In fact, several self-proclaimed communist groups—because it is clear they are not—have called for votes for the left [4] or even celebrated the "victory" of the Maduro regime in the Venezuelan elections, [5]a regime that has actively persecuted communist groups. [6].

These positions, obviously opposed to any kind of revolutionary vision, stem, on the one hand, from pure opportunism and blind obedience, and on the other, from an anti-dialectical and dogmatic view of Marxism.

In this way, all these small groups fall into a dogmatic, "ideological package" mentality, unable to challenge anything written by authors they elevate to the status of evangelists.

Marx and Engels themselves fought against this dogmatic conception of their thought. Both authors demonstrated this dialectical vision of the development of positions according to material conditions in the very prefaces to their works, changing their stance on various topics several times. [7].

Indeed, the greatness of Marx and Engels' work lies precisely in having provided the movement with a tool for analysis, not a closed dogma.

Later authors, such as Lenin himself, contradicted, corrected, and updated the contributions Marx and Engels made during their lifetimes. However, even in his own time, Lenin was accused of being an anti-Marxist revisionist by authors like Kautsky [8] and Plejanov. [9].

The fact that Marx didn't address what the Bolsheviks should do 34 years after his death, or that he held erroneous opinions about how things would develop in the future, does not diminish their importance in the slightest.

In the words of Stalin himself:

It is unreasonable to expect the classics of Marxism, separated from our time by a period of 45 to 55 years, to have foreseen every single twist and turn in the history of each individual country. It would be ludicrous to demand that the classics of Marxism had formulated ready-made solutions for us, for each and every theoretical problem that might arise in any given country 50 or 100 years later, so that we, the successors of the classics of Marxism, could simply sit idly by, pondering these pre-packaged solutions. [10].

On the one hand, Marxism's own scientific vision implies precisely this development and overcoming of theories that, in light of reality, are considered erroneous.

Just as the development of physics has led to old theories like Newton's theory of gravitation being superseded by Einstein's theory of relativity—without implying that Newton's contributions are not worthy of study—the theories put forward by Marx could be corrected by Lenin or later Stalin, for example, through the development and subsequent rectification in the case of the Communist International. [11].

On the other hand, "rehashing ready-made solutions" is what all these so-called Marxists are doing these days.

It is, obviously, the duty of genuine contemporary Marxists to continue overcoming and correcting the theories put forward by classical Marxists whenever they contradict experience. This is the critical spirit of the Marxist dialectical method that all the self-proclaimed communist groups have abandoned today.

The abandonment of this spirit, as we have said, is largely due to the abandonment of the simplest laws of dialectics, often falling into a metaphysical view of the phenomena under study. In this way, one ends up with a stagnant and rigid view of workers' problems.

It is also important to note how this metaphysical view of material reality, in the worst cases, goes so far as to abandon materialism itself, becoming entirely idealistic and treating self-perception or thought as primary.

To address this abandonment of materialist positions would require a separate article, as in this one we will focus on three examples of misconceptions stemming from an anti-dialectical perspective.

Ultimately, these positions not only harm their own increasingly smaller and more insignificant organizations, but also generate a climate of rejection among workers toward genuinely Marxist ideas.

Faced with a lack of solutions proposed from revolutionary positions, workers are increasingly inclined to seek answers from reactionary forces, which, while also going through a lamentable period, can once again be financed by capital when it needs it, as has already happened in our country in the past. [12].

THREE ISSUES WHERE THEY FALL INTO METAPHYSICAL POSITIONS

- They ignore the law of unity and struggle of opposites when analyzing the religious question

Let's examine the metaphysical view of religion held by anti-Marxists. For them, all religions, everywhere and in every era, are equal.

I will not be the one to defend this idealist and therefore reactionary view of religions, but equating them all is not only an insult to Marxist analysis, but also dangerous.

Religions develop in different ways; some are no longer practiced, some have become integrated into society, and some are on the offensive. Communists have historically had different approaches to various religions; one need only look at how the issue of Islam and Orthodox Christianity were handled differently in the USSR.

There is no doubt that religious institutions can act as a restraint or as a cohesive force depending on the context. However, only those who shy away from dialectical analysis can deny the fact that religions do not develop identically nor do they play the same role in society.

Engels did so through a declaration, in which he deliberately emphasized that social democracy considers religion a private matter with respect to the state, but in no way with respect to itself, to Marxism, to the workers' party [...] We must fight against religion. This is the ABC of all materialism and, therefore, of Marxism. But Marxism is not a materialism that stops at the ABCs. Marxism goes further. It asserts: we must know how to fight against religion, and for this it is necessary to explain, from a materialist point of view, the origins of faith and religion among the masses. [13].

In this passage, Lenin points out that the relationship with religion depends on the context, as well as the historical moment and specific political tasks.

His argument rejects any metaphysical interpretation: there is no such thing as "religion" as a fixed category. There are specific "religions," with different trajectories, institutions, and degrees of integration into concrete societies. Treating all religions as equivalent means abandoning the dialectical method.

The metaphysical error arises when religious phenomena operating under different material conditions are equated. Each religion contains both internal tensions—between doctrine, practice, and institutional structure—and external tensions with the state, the social environment, and historical development.

These internal contradictions generate distinct debates and developments. Ignoring them implies denying both the law of unity and struggle of opposites and the universal connection and interdependence of phenomena. Equating Christianity and Islam as homogeneous blocs eliminates precisely the elements that allow us to understand their divergent evolution.

The Christian religion has gone through a series of internal debates and experienced different external conditions such as the development of the Renaissance, the Enlightenment and Humanism, which are different from those that Islam has been able to develop.

The history of the communist movement confirms that there is no uniform tactic toward all religions. In Central Asia, the Soviet government promoted the Hujum in 1927 as a response to practices considered oppressive within a specific Muslim context. [14]However, in 1943, an agreement was reached with the Orthodox Church, [15]which supported the Soviet state. [16].

It is clear that comparing Christianity and Islam requires examining their current contradictions and their degree of integration into society.

In much of Europe today, Christianity has transformed for many into a secularized cultural framework where even people without faith perceive many Christian traditions as their own cultural expressions, such as the celebration of Christmas or Easter.

Their organizations are adapted to civil law, and there is a long history of mediation between Church, State, and society. This trajectory demonstrates a well-established integration process that does not generate social tensions.

Contemporary Islam, however, shows a very low degree of integration in many European countries. There are significant tensions between its community and European norms. Many of its religious practices are contrary to secular legal frameworks, and its patriarchal view of women is incompatible with the vision of equality that has been achieved in Europe, where patriarchy has largely disappeared.

Analyzing both phenomena as equivalent erases these differences and treats distinct phenomena as if they were identical.

Dialectics shows us that we must study each phenomenon within its specific historical context. Therefore, the current differences between Christianity and Islam must be recognized as products of both their material conditions and their specific internal trajectories and contradictions.

Ignoring these differences means abandoning the dialectical method and considering the various religions as immutable and identical entities.

Thus, we can affirm that only those who fall into metaphysics can deny the fact that Islam plays a reactionary role in relation to European societies.

- They ignore the law of the transformation of quantity into quality when analyzing the migration issue.

Lenin points out the progressive character that a specific type of immigration possessed in a specific historical context. This assessment is anchored in a specific stage of capitalist development and cannot be mechanically extrapolated to other situations.

Lenin himself avoids considering immigration as an invariable phenomenon by specifying that he is speaking of "this specific modern migration" and not of another type or of immigration in general in his texts:

"There is no doubt that only extreme poverty forces people to leave their homeland and that capitalists shamelessly exploit immigrant workers. However, only reactionaries can close their eyes to the progressive significance of this modern migration of peoples." [17].

Furthermore, his own stance would change over the years. This can be seen, for example, in the creation of a border guard or his opinion on illegal immigration in 1922:

'I have data on the current, intense and illegal immigration (of Russians and Americans) through various border crossings, especially the Black Sea ports.

According to the industrial immigration section of the Higher Council of National Economy, the monthly number of immigrants fluctuates between 200 and 300. (And those entering are speculators, counter-revolutionaries, and other such types.)

I urge you to take the strongest possible measures to stop this immigration.' [18].

It is curious to see this opinion from Lenin himself when receiving some 200-300 illegal immigrants monthly in 1922, and although the supposed "communists" of today may not like it, we can easily guess what he would think of the arrival today of an average of 5300 monthly (64 019 annually in 2024) illegal immigrants to a country much smaller in relation to the USSR such as Spain. [19].

He also warns that this is a phenomenon that benefited capitalists, just as it does today, who constantly call for bringing in more immigrants to fill jobs they themselves have depleted. [20].

Analyzing migratory phenomena in the abstract, without reference to specific material conditions or type, leads to a metaphysical reading into which the entire left and supposed communists fall.

Thus, it is essential to recognize that a social phenomenon does not maintain the same meaning in historically different contexts. If conditions change significantly, the evaluation of the phenomenon must also change.

Maintaining identical categories in the face of qualitatively different situations implies ignoring the dialectical method that Lenin himself defended.

The dialectical law of the transformation of quantity into quality allows us to analyze the difference between immigration in Lenin's time and contemporary immigration.

Significant quantitative variations can be identified, such as the fact that the cultural backgrounds of immigrants today are much more diverse and, above all, more distant from those of the receiving societies.

Lenin spoke of the immigration to the United States of European workers, from two very similar societies, whereas now we have lumpenized immigration from antagonistic societies. And, above all, the number of immigrants has increased remarkably in recent decades. [21].

The problem with the sheer number of immigrants (the massive scale of this migratory model) is that it creates problems.

This quantitative change, therefore, entails a qualitative change that is overlooked in all modern analyses. These changes are not simply numerical increases. Sustained quantitative accumulation alters the nature of the phenomenon. From this analytical framework, the current magnitude and composition of migratory flows represent a qualitative shift compared to the immigration Lenin described over 100 years ago.

This shift in scale and origin means that contemporary immigration can no longer be understood in the same terms Lenin used.

His analysis was developed within a context characterized by primarily intra-European migratory movements, with cultural proximity and specific effects on the formation and organization of the working class in industrialized countries. Current conditions, broader and more heterogeneous, produce different effects and require different categories for their interpretation.

Dialectics teaches us to study phenomena within their concrete development and that changes in the quantity and countries of origin of contemporary immigration must be recognized as generating a qualitative shift from the phenomenon analyzed by Lenin.

Ignoring this transformation means abandoning the dialectical method itself and treating current immigration as if it retained the same character it possessed in Lenin's historical context. It means considering migrations as fixed and immutable phenomena.

Therefore, we can assert that only those who fall into metaphysical positions can deny the reactionary significance of this modern mass migration model, which only benefits big capital.

- They ignore the law of the negation of the negation when analyzing the national question.

There is no doubt that capitalism has used national sentiment to unite the masses around its own interests, and that this has benefited the bourgeoisie on numerous occasions.

However, only those who reject the dialectical method can ignore the progressive nature of patriotism at various points in the historical development of the labor movement.

'Furthermore, communists are accused of wanting to abolish the homeland, nationality. Workers have no homeland. You cannot take from them what they do not possess. Since the proletariat of each country must first conquer political power, establish itself as the nationally leading class, constitute itself as a nation, it is still national, although by no means in the bourgeois sense.' [22].

Marx and Engels assert that the proletariat must rise to the status of a "national class" as a necessary step in its political struggle. This formulation is not a literary device, but a dialectical definition: the oppressed class assumes, transforms, and transcends the existing national form.

To deny this process and treat patriotism merely as a reactionary remnant is to abandon dialectical analysis.

The left falls into a metaphysical interpretation when it considers all patriotism to be identical in any era, class, or context. The dialectical method demands recognizing that bourgeois patriotism is not the same as revolutionary patriotism.

The former defends an existing order in the service of the bourgeoisie, while the latter negates that order and recovers a sentiment among the workers, directing them toward a national revolutionary project of social transformation.

This transition is a clear example of the negation of the negation: the nation in the service of the bourgeoisie is negated by proletarian mobilization, which in turn creates a superior national form by integrating the masses into a political project that transcends the old content.

The historical experience of the communist movement confirms this logic. In the American Civil War, Marx supported the Union as a progressive national form against slavery. [23]In the Soviet defense of 1941, Stalin mobilized patriotic elements to sustain popular resistance, integrating national symbols and narratives into a process that reconfigured the identity of the socialist state. [24].

In both cases, patriotism does not appear as a remnant of the reactionary regime, but as a negation of a previous form that propels a new and superior one.

Anti-Marxists reject patriotism altogether by denying this dialectical process. They equate bourgeois patriotism, which maintains current social relations and the existing regime, with revolutionary patriotism, which serves to mobilize the masses and advance social transformation.

Dialectics demands the study of the continuity and overcoming of social forms, so patriotism must be understood as a phenomenon capable of qualitative transformation.

The indiscriminate rejection of the nation, by always considering it reactionary, ignores the fact that workers possess a national identity. We must negate its bourgeois form in order to produce a new form oriented toward class interests. That is to say, they ignore the reality of the principle of the negation of the negation.

Therefore, only anti-Marxists can close their eyes to the progressive significance that patriotism has had in different historical processes and to the possibility that national affirmation is precisely the negation of the reactionary form that the bourgeoisie intends to maintain.

SO WHAT SHOULD A CORRECT MARXIST ANALYSIS LOOK LIKE?

Having reached this point, after presenting several concrete examples in which current Marxist theories fall into rigidly metaphysical views completely alien to the dialectical method, we must remember what the alternative to their method is. This method is none other than the Marxist dialectical method.

The Marxist dialectical method is not about producing yet another catechism. That would be precisely falling back into the very conceptions we are criticizing. We must remember the fundamental principles governing the Marxist scientific method, where the adjective "scientific" indicates that it is a method subject to confrontation with reality; it is not a scientistic method that considers itself a proven and immutable truth.

We must point out how this method should be applied to the concrete phenomena of current reality and not elaborate eternal and immutable formulas.

Marxism is, above all, an instrument for analysis and a guide for action, so it is essential to re-establish the principles that allow us to use this method correctly and not distort it into a set of dogmas.

In abstract:

On the one hand, all Marxist analysis must always begin with a concrete analysis of the concrete situation. [25]This, which seems obvious, is precisely what many self-proclaimed Marxists today have forgotten, more concerned with repeating decontextualized quotes than with confronting the real problems of workers and their own country in their own time.

They must remember that there is no Marxism without materialism. No phenomenon, whether natural or social, can be understood without analyzing the material conditions in which it occurs.

In the case of social phenomena, the study of the relations of production that generate them, the contradictions that permeate them, and their place in the class struggle is crucial.

The analysis should never begin by treating phenomena as universal abstractions ("religion," "immigration," "the nation," etc.), but always as concrete, specific, and changing historical forms.

To attempt to analyze 21st-century realities using 19th-century interpretations without any intermediate updating is not Marxism but scholasticism.

On the other hand, correct Marxist analysis must rigorously apply the laws of dialectics, [26]which are precisely what allow us to understand the internal movement of material reality.

In this article, we have seen three examples of dialectical principles that anti-Marxists deny.

In the first example, the unity and struggle of opposites compels us to study each phenomenon from the perspective of its internal tensions, its essential contradictions, and its direction of development. Nothing exists as a homogeneous whole.

In the second example, the transformation of quantitative changes into qualitative ones forces us to recognize that social phenomena change in nature when their dimension, scale, or composition changes.

In the third example, the negation of the negation shows that social forms are not immediately eliminated or magically dissolved, but rather transcended by incorporating and transforming their elements.

In the third example, the negation of the negation shows that social forms are not immediately eliminated or magically dissolved, but rather transcended by incorporating and transforming their elements.

The classics did not leave us eternal recipes, but rather a scientific method for studying reality and transforming it. Therefore, correct Marxist analysis does not consist of repeating quotations, but rather in employing the method to examine new phenomena, update categories, correct errors, and rectify positions when experience demands it.

The Marxist method is materialist [27] and scientific, not theological. [28]Those who refuse to rectify, who cling to outdated frameworks for fear of "betraying" a text, are precisely those who betray the essence of Marxism.

Finally, correct Marxist analysis must always distinguish between a phenomenon and its specific social function. A religion can play a progressive role in one context and a reactionary one in another. Immigration can strengthen the working class under certain historical circumstances and weaken it under entirely different ones. A nation can be an instrument of the bourgeoisie in one period and become the basis for a revolutionary movement in another.

Marxism demands identifying the real social function that each phenomenon fulfills at a specific historical moment, not assigning it eternal and unchanging qualities.

Furthermore, it is important to remember that class struggle must be central to Marxist analysis. [29]This requires determining, for each phenomenon individually, which class it benefits, which class it harms, how it alters the balance of power, and which tendency it strengthens and which it weakens.

This, in short—since we could write oceans of ink on the subject—is the scientific method of Marxism.

When this criterion is abandoned and an organization allows itself to be guided by sentimentality, imported moralism, or foreign ideological fads, it becomes an appendage of the bourgeoisie.

Correct Marxist analysis always demands examining every phenomenon from the perspective of the historical interests of the proletariat and its struggle for political power.

CONCLUSIONS

The examples presented throughout this article lead to an unequivocal conclusion: the so-called "communist movement" in Spain and much of the world has ceased to be a revolutionary force because it has abandoned the Marxist dialectical method, replacing it with a vision replete with dogmas, empty slogans, and liberal moralism

The problem is, above all, a theoretical and methodological one. Where there should be a critical and up-to-date materialist analysis, there is only the mechanical repetition of errors already overcome, blind adherence to the reformist left, and complete submission to the ideological frameworks of the bourgeoisie.

We have seen how this abandonment of the dialectical method is expressed in a particularly serious way in three crucial issues: religion, immigration, and the nation. In all three cases, self-proclaimed Marxists have substituted concrete analysis with metaphysical prejudices that equate distinct phenomena, deny the historicity of processes, and refuse to acknowledge the qualitative changes brought about by new material conditions.

Faced with this situation, the task of true communists cannot be to lament or take refuge in nostalgia for a glorious past. The only way forward is to recover the dialectical and creative method of Marxism. Only in this way will it be possible to rebuild a revolutionary organization capable of intervening in reality.

If the historical experience of the communist movement demonstrates anything, it is that without revolutionary theory there is no revolutionary practice, and that without scientific method Marxism dissolves into cheap rhetoric. Either Marxism is recovered as a living tool for analysis and struggle in the service of the workers, or we will continue to drag along a political corpse that only serves to embellish the discourse of those who, in practice, have renounced the revolutionary transformation of society.

REFERENCES

[1] Roberto Vaquero Arribas, «Mayo del 68. Crítica y perspectivas», La Razón Histórica: Revista Hispanoamericana de Historia de las Ideas Políticas y Sociales, n.º 54, 2022, pp. 85-100.

[2] Martín Álvarez Rodríguez, «Entendiendo a Michel Clouscard: contexto, transgresión y el hippie», Historia de las Ideas, n.º 3, 2 de agosto de 2025, pp. 56-69. Disponible en: https://historiadelasideas.es/revista/article/view/30.

[3] Roberto Vaquero Arribas, Por qué el obrero vota a la derecha: La deriva suicida de la izquierda. Madrid: La Esfera de los Libros, 2024.

[4] Comité Regional de Madrid del PCE (m-l), «Sobre las elecciones madrileñas del 4 de mayo», PCEm-l.info, 21 de abril de 2021. Disponible en: https://pceml.info/comunicado-del-pce-m-l-sobre-las-elecciones-madrilenas-del-4-de-mayo/.

[5] «El fascismo vuelve a perder las elecciones en Venezuela», PCOE.net, s/f. Disponible en: https://pcoe.net/actualidad/actualidad-internacional/el-fascismo-vuelve-a-perder-las-elecciones-en-venezuela/.

[6] Daniel Lozano, «El chavismo interviene el Partido Comunista y se lo entrega a los militantes de la revolución», El Mundo, 12 de agosto de 2023. Disponible en: https://www.elmundo.es/internacional/2023/08/12/64d7b49ae85ece15298b45db.html.

[7] Denís Paredes Roibás, «Los prefacios del Manifiesto Comunista: Un ejemplo de marxismo creativo», Historia de las Ideas, n.º 3, 17 de agosto de 2025, pp. 70-79. Disponible en: https://historiadelasideas.es/revista/article/view/32.

[8] Karl Kautsky, La dictadura del proletariado. Valencia: Alejandría Proletaria, 2018. Disponible en: https://grupgerminal.org/?q=system/files/1918-dictaduraprole-kautsky.pdf.

[9] Georgui V. Plejánov, «Sobre las tesis de Lenin y por qué el delirio a veces resulta interesante», Edinstvo Journal, abril de 1917, pp. 9-12. Extracto traducido del ruso por el autor de este artículo desde la web de la Casa Plejánov, Biblioteca Nacional de Rusia. Disponible en: https://nlr.ru/domplekhanova.

[10] Iósif V. Stalin, «Informe ante el XVIII Congreso del partido sobre la labor del C. C. del P.C.(b.) de la U.R.S.S.», en Iósif V. Stalin, Obras, tomo XV (1934-1952). Moscú: Editorial Lenguas Extranjeras, 1953, p. 54.

[11] Roberto Vaquero Arribas, «La Internacional Comunista», Historia de las Ideas, n.º 2, 26 de febrero de 2025, pp. 7-18. Disponible en: https://historiadelasideas.es/revista/article/view/20.

[12] Diego Gallardo de la Fuente, «La financiación del fascismo español durante la Segunda República», Historia de las Ideas, n.º 3, 29 de junio de 2025, pp. 38-47. Disponible en: https://historiadelasideas.es/revista/article/view/26/45.

[13] Vladimir I. Lenin, «Actitud del partido obrero hacia la religión», en V. I. Lenin, Marx Engels Marxismo. Pekín: Ediciones en Lenguas Extranjeras, 1980, pp. 298-312.

[14] Comité Central del Partido Comunista de la Unión Soviética (Bolchevique), «Sobre las tareas de los clubes de mujeres en el Este soviético», 14 de enero de 1927. Disponible en: https://docs.historyrussia.org/ru/nodes/445786-postanovlenie-tsk-vkp-b-o-zadachah-zhenskih-klubov-na-sovetskom-vostoke-14-yanvarya-1927-g.

[15] «Culpa y condena de los traidores a la fe y a la patria», Diario del Patriarcado de Moscú, n.º 1, septiembre de 1943. Disponible en: https://www.biblioteka-arhivarius.ru/documenty:osuzhdenie_izmennikov_vere_i_otechestvu.

[16] «Llamamiento del Consejo de Obispos de la Iglesia ortodoxa rusa al Gobierno soviético», Diario del Patriarcado de Moscú, n.º 1, septiembre de 1943. Disponible en: https://www.biblioteka-arhivarius.ru/documenty:obrashchenie_k_sovetskomu_pravitelstvu_arkh_sobor_1943.

[17] Vladimir I. Lenin, «El capitalismo y la inmigración de los obreros», en Vladimir I. Lenin, Obras completas, tomo XXIV. Moscú: Editorial Progreso, 1984, p. 99.

[18] Vladimir I. Lenin, «A la DPE. Copia al CP de Negocios Extranjeros al camarada Eiduk», en Vladimir I. Lenin, Obras completas, tomo LIV. Moscú: Editorial Progreso, 1988, p. 350.

[19] «Récord de llegadas irregulares en 2024: 64.019 personas llegaron por vía marítima a España», Agenda Pública, 26 de junio de 2025. Disponible en: https://agendapublica.es/noticia/19962/migracion-espana-seguridad-fronteras.

[20] Vladimir I. Lenin, «Entrevista con Lincoln Eire, corresponsal del periódico norteamericano “The World”», en Vladimir I. Lenin, Obras completas, tomo XL. Moscú: Editorial Progreso, 1976, pp. 157-163.

[21] Roberto Vaquero Arribas, Inmigración: ¿Realidad, fenómeno o problema? Elche: Grupo Editorial Círculo Rojo SL, 2023.

[22] Karl Marx y Friedrich Engels, «El Manifiesto del Partido Comunista», en Karl Marx y Friedrich Engels, Obras escogidas, tomo I. Moscú: Editorial Progreso, 1980, p. 63.

[23] Karl Marx, A Abraham Lincoln, presidente de los Estados Unidos de América, 1864. Disponible en: https://www.marxists.org/espanol/m-e/1860s/1864lincoln.htm.

[24] Iósif V. Stalin, Discurso por radio, 3 de julio de 1941. Disponible en: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1941/07/03.htm.

[25] Vladimir I. Lenin, Obras completas, tomo XLI. Moscú: Editorial Progreso, 1986. Disponible en: https://www.abertzalekomunista.net/images/Liburu_PDF/Internacionales/Lenin/Obras_Completas_LENIN_TOMO_41-K.pdf.

[26] Iósif V. Stalin, Sobre el materialismo dialéctico y el materialismo histórico. Biblioteca Virtual Omegalfa. Disponible en: https://share.google/gwKLPJuyn06n4UrJE.

[27] Mark Rosental, El método dialéctico marxista. Montevideo: Ediciones Pueblos Unidos. Disponible en: https://www.abertzalekomunista.net/images/Liburu_PDF/Internacionales/Rosental_Mark/El_metodo_dialectico_marxista-K.pdf.

[28] Vladimir I. Lenin, El significado del materialismo militante. Moscú: Editorial Progreso, 1973. Disponible en: http://www.abertzalekomunista.net/images/Liburu_PDF/Internacionales/Lenin/1922_El_significado_del_Materialismo_militante-K.pdf.

[29] Vladimir I. Lenin, El Estado y la revolución. Madrid: Fundación Federico Engels, 1997. Disponible en: https://fundacionfedericoengels.net/images/PDF/lenin_estado_revolucion_2ed_interior_alta.pdf.