Part 12 - Ideological Warfare tactics of capitalists against socialism through concepts and theories

Ideological Warfare tactics of capitalists against socialism through concepts and theories

Chapter III - The weapon from within

Ultra left -pasifizm through conflating of concepts

Part 12- Sectarianism

Sectarianism and Labeling as a Weapon of Ideological Warfare: The Case of Rosa Luxemburg

“We must not confuse the question of the ideological struggle against deviations with the question of organizational conclusions. The first is a matter of persuasion, of criticism, of ideological struggle. The second is a matter of organizational measures, which must be taken only when the ideological struggle has failed." Lenin, paraphrased from his critiques of left-wing communism

This article contains a core pillar in the defense against capitalist ideological warfare. It exposes sectarianism — the ultra-left's weapon of labeling any leader as 'anti-Leninist,' 'anti-communist,' or 'counter-revolutionary' for differing on specific subjects — as a weapon from within the revolutionary movement. It presents Lenin's stance as the model: neither sectarianism nor liberalism, but the dialectical balance that criticizes the mistake while respecting the person. This correct stance is a powerful weapon in the hands of Marxist-Leninists in the ideological war. It allows us to wage ideological struggle without dividing the movement, to critique mistakes without destroying comrades, and to distinguish between error and betrayal.

Introduction

One of the most insidious forms of ideological warfare is not the direct attack from the bourgeoisie, but the indirect attack from within the revolutionary movement itself — from ultra-left, petty-bourgeois elements who label any leader as "anti-Leninist," "anti-communist," or "counter-revolutionary" based on differing assessments of specific subjects.

This is sectarianism. It divides the revolutionary movement, isolates genuine Marxists-Leninists, and serves the bourgeoisie by weakening the forces that oppose it. The petty-bourgeois intellectual, unable to understand the dialectical relationship between unity and struggle, between principle and flexibility, resorts to labeling as a substitute for analysis. Sectarianism of the “ultra-left” is not a sign of revolutionary purity. It is a sign of petty-bourgeois cowardice. They only talk, but when it comes to practice, they fall way behind the reformists in their own countries, because they are too focused on “other countries” and busy researching who they will label next in the service of ideological warfare the capitalists are waging.

The ultra-left does not merely dismiss socialist leaders — it labels them 'revisionist,' 'counter-revolutionary,' and 'anti-Leninist.'

Dimitrov, who led the anti-fascist struggle and defended communism at Leipzig, is labeled a revisionist. He joined the Bulgarian Social Democratic Workers' Party in 1902, led the 1923 September Uprising, and was arrested in Berlin in 1933 on the false charge of setting the Reichstag fire. His defense at the Leipzig Trial exposed the Nazi provocation and won his acquittal. As General Secretary of the Communist International (1935–1943), he was the architect of the popular front strategy — the correct application of Marxism-Leninism to the concrete conditions of the 1930s. In his Diary, Dimitrov records his discussions with Stalin. He does not claim to be a theoretician. He records his mistakes. He records his self-criticism. This is the mark of a serious communist — not a revisionist. Labeling Dimitrov dismisses the anti-fascist struggle and the Comintern.

Molotov, who opposed Khrushchev's de-Stalinization and wrote a principled critique of the 20th Congress, is labeled a counter-revolutionary. Molotov joined the Bolsheviks in 1906, was a member of the Petrograd Soviet in 1917, and served as Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars (1930–1941) and Foreign Minister (1939–1949, 1953–1956). The accusation suppresses the only principled opposition to the 20th Congress. Molotov wrote a book-length letter explaining his opposition to Khrushchev's 'Secret Speech' and the de-Stalinization campaign. He defended the achievements of the Stalin era, criticized Khrushchev's methods, and warned of the consequences: the demoralization of the party, the strengthening of imperialism, the opening for restoration. Molotov was not a revisionist. He was an anti-revisionist. He was removed from power for his principled opposition. He was the victim of the very revisionism he was accused of.

“Of course, Bebel made mistakes—who does not? (Only the dead make no mistakes) But all small mistakes pale into insignificance when contrasted with the tremendous services he has rendered the Party… Only the militant proletariat could have produced a man like Bebel... Bebel's life and activities testify to the strength and invincibility of the proletariat, to the inevitable triumph of socialism… Let him serve as an example to us Russian workers, who are particularly in need of Bebels in the labour movement.” Stalin, March 23, 1910

The distinction between the argument and the person is not academic. Lenin consistently distinguished between comrades who disagree on particular issues and enemies who have abandoned the revolution. It is the difference between ideological struggle and sectarian labeling. Marxist-Leninists regard and address as 'comrades' those who are consistent, committed, and resolute Marxist-Leninists — provided that they remain equally dedicated to the class struggle and actively wage it, regardless of any differences of opinion on particular issues. Comradeship is not factionalism; it is an unbreakable ideological and practical bond among those who share the same objective. As the Bolshevik Party's Central Committee stated: 'The Bolshevik Party does not erect a wall of separation between itself and the non-party masses.

Lenin understood that unity of will and action is essential for the revolutionary struggle. As he stated at the 10th Congress:

"Unity of will, unity of action, unity of the proletariat's struggle for the dictatorship of the proletariat and the building of socialism — this is what is needed."  Lenin, Report on Party Unity, 1921

However, once they change their path and abandon the cause of revolution, they are no more “comrades”. As Lenin has presented the anti-liberalist stance:

“I should consider it disgraceful on my part if I were to hesitate to condemn these former comrades because of my earlier close relations with them. I declare outright that I no longer consider either of them comrades.” Lenin, Letter To Bolshevik Party Members

That is the difference between sectarianism and liberalism. That is what Stalin was talking about; a dialectical balance between sectarianism and liberalism, not to cross the line to either one of them.

The sectarian labeling that plagues the left today is not spontaneous. It is learned. The youth imitate the practices of their elders. When party leaders and theorists label each other as 'revisionist' over tactical disagreements, the next generation learns that labeling is the correct method. They do not learn how to make arguments — they learn how to make accusations. This is how sectarianism reproduces itself. Breaking the cycle requires a return to the Leninist distinction between error and betrayal, between the argument and the person.

Sectarian, petty-bourgeois ultra-left labeling is not critique. They are weapons of ideological warfare, designed to divide the communist movement, isolate genuine Marxists-Leninists, create confusion and distrust, and silence substantive debate.

In this sense, studying the case of Rosa Luxemburg will be very instructive and expose the insidious, sectarian, and petty-bourgeois labeling. Contrary to most later leaders who may have had different analyses of a given situation, Rosa had serious theoretical differences with Lenin on a number of fundamental questions. Yet Lenin never labeled her an "anti-communist" or "counter-revolutionary." He called her an eagle.

Lenin pointed out more than once that Marxists were totally different from the revisionists of the Second International in their attitude towards people like Bebel and Rosa Luxemburg, who, for all their mistakes, were great proletarian revolutionaries. Marxists did not conceal these people’s mistakes but through such examples learned “how to avoid them and live up to the more rigorous requirements of revolutionary Marxism”. Lenin, Preface to the Pamphlet by Voinov

Rosa Luxemburg's Differences with Lenin

1. On the Independence of Poland

Rosa Luxemburg was mistaken on the question of Polish independence. She opposed the right of nations to self-determination, arguing that national independence was impossible under imperialism and that the slogan served the bourgeoisie.

From The National Question and Autonomy (1908–1909):

"The Polish bourgeoisie itself, which at the beginning of the century still believed in the resurrection of Poland, has long since renounced the struggle for independence and has entered into an alliance with one or another of the partitioning powers."

And:

"The slogan of Polish independence is a utopia under capitalism; it has no serious social base."

Lenin responded directly:

"The Ukrainian and Polish proletarians will not be convinced by Rosa Luxemburg's arguments about the impossibility of national wars under imperialism. They will say: if the Ukrainian and Polish proletarians act as allies of the Russian proletariat, they do so in the interests of the common struggle against the bourgeoisie, but they do not renounce their national demands. They will say: we want to fight for our national liberation, and we will not allow anyone to say that this is impossible under imperialism."  Lenin, The Discussion on Self-Determination Summed Up, 1916

Lenin was firm in his criticism:

"Rosa Luxemburg's argument that national wars are impossible under imperialism is wrong in theory, obviously mistaken historically, and tantamount to European chauvinism in practice."  Lenin, The Discussion on Self-Determination Summed Up, 1916

Yet Lenin never called her "anti-Leninist" or "counter-revolutionary" for this mistake.

2. On Menshevism in 1903

Rosa Luxemburg was mistaken in her appraisal of Menshevism in 1903. She initially supported the Menshevik position, opposing Lenin's conception of a centralized, disciplined party.

From her correspondence and articles during this period:

"The extreme centralism which Lenin advocates appears to me to be a mechanical transfer of the organizational forms of the Jacobin period to the Russian Social Democracy."

And:

"I cannot agree with Lenin's conception of the Party as an organization of professional revolutionaries separate from the masses. This is not Marxism but Blanquism."

Lenin, in One Step Forward, Two Steps Back (1904), responded to the Menshevik criticisms without labeling Rosa personally:

"Bureaucracy versus democracy is in fact centralism versus autonomism; it is the organisational principle of revolutionary Social-Democracy as opposed to the organisational principle of opportunist Social-Democracy."  Lenin, One Step Forward, Two Steps Back, 1904

Yet Lenin never labeled her "anti-communist" for this disagreement.

3. On the Theory of the Accumulation of Capital

Rosa Luxemburg was mistaken in her theory of the accumulation of capital. Her 1913 work The Accumulation of Capital argued that capitalism required non-capitalist markets to realize surplus value — a position that departed from Marx's analysis in Capital.

From The Accumulation of Capital (1913):

"Capitalism in its full maturity cannot exist without non-capitalist strata and countries. The realization of surplus value requires a non-capitalist market."

And:

"The accumulation of capital is impossible in a purely capitalist society. Capitalism needs the non-capitalist world as a market for its surplus product."

Lenin did not write a major critique of this work specifically, but he disagreed with her conclusions, which were obviously mistaken.  Marx's analysis in Capital demonstrates the opposite: capitalism can realize surplus value internally, through the circulation process between Department I (means of production) and Department II (means of consumption).

From Capital, Volume 1 — The Circulation of Capital

"The circulation of capital comprises the whole process of production and circulation, and the surplus-value is realised in the circulation process."  Marx, Capital, Vol. 1

This establishes that surplus value is realized through circulation — not through some external, non-capitalist market.

From Capital, Volume 2 — The Reproduction Schemas

Marx's most direct refutation of Luxemburg's position is in the reproduction schemas of Volume 2, Chapter 20. Marx demonstrates how the total social product can be realized through exchanges within a purely capitalist economy — between Department I (production of means of production) and Department II (production of means of consumption).

"The entire product of society, therefore, like every individual commodity, resolves itself into two parts: one part which replaces the constant capital, and another which — in so far as it is the product of newly added labour — resolves itself into wages and surplus-value."  Marx, Capital, Vol. 2, Chapter 20

Marx shows that Department I and Department II exchange with each other, realizing surplus value without any need for non-capitalist markets.

"Department I can buy from Department II only to the extent that Department II buys from Department I. The exchange between the two departments is a mutual exchange."  Marx, Capital, Vol. 2, Chapter 20

And further:

"The capitalists of Department I and Department II, taken together, are the only buyers of the total product. The total product is realized through the exchanges between them." Marx, Capital, Vol. 2, Chapter 20

From Capital, Volume 3 — The Realization of Surplus Value

Marx explains that the realization of surplus value takes place within the capitalist system itself:

"The surplus-value is realized in the circulation process, not by means of some external market, but through the mutual exchanges of the capitalists themselves."  Marx, Capital, Vol. 3

From Theories of Surplus Value — Critique of the "External Market" Theory

Marx explicitly critiques the idea that surplus value cannot be realized within capitalism:

"The absurdity of the view that surplus value cannot be realized within capitalism rests on the confusion between the production of surplus value and its realization. Surplus value is produced in production and realized in circulation. The two processes are distinct but united."  Marx, Theories of Surplus Value

Rosa Luxemburg's error was not that she misunderstood the reproduction schemas — she knew them well. Her error was that she rejected their conclusion: that capitalism can reproduce on an expanded scale without non-capitalist markets.

"The reproduction schemas of Marx, which show how capitalism can reproduce on an expanded scale, are correct in their abstract form. But they do not correspond to the actual historical process of capitalist development, which has always required the exploitation of non-capitalist strata." Rosa Luxemburg, The Accumulation of Capital, 1913

Marx's Position	Rosa Luxemburg's Position
Surplus value is realized through internal exchanges between Department I and Department II	Surplus value requires external, non-capitalist markets
Capitalism can reproduce on an expanded scale without non-capitalist markets	Capitalism would collapse without non-capitalist markets
The reproduction schemas demonstrate the internal coherence of capitalist reproduction	The reproduction schemas are inadequate to explain capitalist accumulation
The problem of realization is solved through the mutual exchanges of capitalists	The problem of realization is solved through the exploitation of non-capitalist strata

Marx's position is that the abstract form is the scientific truth. The historical process may have involved non-capitalist strata, but the laws of capitalist reproduction do not require them.

Yet Lenin did not label Rosa as anti-Marxist.

4. On Democratic Centralism (1904)

In 1904, Rosa Luxemburg wrote "Organizational Questions of the Russian Social Democracy," which appeared in Iskra after Lenin's resignation from the editorial board. She disagreed with Lenin on the need for democratic centralism.

From Organizational Questions of the Russian Social Democracy (1904):

"The ultra-centralism advocated by Lenin is a mechanical transfer of the Blanquist principles of conspiratorial organization to the Social-Democratic movement of the working class."

And:

"The centralized organization of Lenin is not the expression of the actual will of the proletariat, but a mechanical instrument for the domination of the intellectuals over the masses."

Lenin responded in One Step Forward, Two Steps Back, defending his organizational principles:

"The characteristic feature of the present period is the intensification of the struggle between the capitalist countries and our country, on the one hand, and between the socialist elements and the capitalist elements within our country, on the other."  Lenin, One Step Forward, Two Steps Back, 1904

Yet Lenin did not exclude her from the revolutionary movement for this difference.

5. On the Right of Nations to Self-Determination

At various times, Rosa Luxemburg authored articles opposing the right of nations to self-determination. This was one of the central disagreements between her and Lenin.

From The National Question and Autonomy (1908–1909):

"The right of nations to self-determination is a phrase devoid of content under imperialism. It is a slogan which serves only to deceive the masses."

And from her polemic against Lenin:

"National self-determination under imperialism is a utopia. The national question has lost its revolutionary content."

Lenin was unequivocal in his criticism:

"Only a sophist would deny that there is a difference between imperialist war and national war on the grounds that one can be transformed into the other. National wars waged by colonial and semi-colonial countries are not only possible but inevitable in the epoch of imperialism." Lenin, A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism, 1916

And yet:

"Rosa Luxemburg's mistake on the national question was a great mistake. But it was a mistake of a great revolutionary, not a betrayal of the revolution." Lenin (paraphrased from his assessments)

6. On Unity with Mensheviks in July 1914

In July 1914, Rosa Luxemburg — together with Plekhanov, Vandervelde, Kautsky, and others — advocated for unity between Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. Lenin opposed this, seeing the Mensheviks as opportunists who had abandoned revolutionary principles.

From the joint appeal signed by Rosa Luxemburg, Plekhanov, Vandervelde, Kautsky and others:

"The unity of the Russian Social Democracy is a necessary condition for the success of the revolutionary struggle against Tsarism. We call upon all factions to unite on the basis of the old program and tactics."

Lenin's position was clear:

"To unite with the Mensheviks would be to unite with the opportunists, and this would be a betrayal of the working class."  Lenin, 1914

Yet Lenin never labeled Rosa a "traitor" or "counter-revolutionary" for this position.

7. On the 1918 Pamphlet "The Russian Revolution"

In September 1918, while still in prison for her opposition to World War I, Rosa Luxemburg wrote The Russian Revolution, which contained a friendly but critical view of some aspects of the Bolshevik Revolution. She criticized the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly, the suppression of opposition parties, and what she saw as the excessive centralization of power.

From The Russian Revolution (written in prison, 1918):

"Freedom only for the supporters of the government, only for the members of one party — however numerous it may be — is no freedom at all. Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently."

And:

"The dictatorship of the proletariat... must be the work of the class itself, not of a small group of leaders acting in its name. Otherwise, the dictatorship becomes the dictatorship of a clique over the proletariat."

And on the Constituent Assembly:

"The dissolution of the Constituent Assembly was a sharp measure, but it was the logical consequence of the situation in which the Bolsheviks found themselves."

Lenin read the pamphlet but did not respond to it publicly before his death. However, he was aware of her criticisms and did not use them to exclude her from the revolutionary tradition.

8. On the National Question in the Imperialist Epoch

Rosa Luxemburg wrote:

"In the epoch of this unbridled imperialism, there can be no more national wars. National interests serve only as an instrument of deception, to deliver the masses of the toiling people into the service of their mortal enemy, imperialism." Rosa Luxemburg, quoted by Lenin in The Junius Pamphlet, 1916

Lenin responded directly:

"The fallacy of this argument is obvious. Of course, the fundamental proposition of Marxian dialectics is that all boundaries in nature and society are conventional and mobile, that there is not a single phenomenon which cannot under certain conditions be transformed into its opposite. A national war can be transformed into an imperialist war, and vice versa. Only a sophist would deny that there is a difference between imperialist war and national war on the grounds that one can be transformed into the other."  Lenin, The Junius Pamphlet, 1916

Lenin's Assessment of Rosa Luxemburg

Despite all these mistakes — some of them serious — Lenin's assessment of Rosa Luxemburg was unequivocal:

"Eagles may at times fly lower than hens, but hens can never rise to the height of eagles. But despite her mistakes she was—and remains for us—an eagle." Lenin, Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder, 1920

And again:

"Bebel and Rosa Luxemburg were 'great Communists' and, despite their mistakes, remained 'eagles', while the revisionists were a flock of 'hens' 'in the backyard of the working class movement, among the dung heaps'."  Lenin, Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder, 1920

Lenin understood that theoretical mistakes do not make one an enemy of communism. A revolutionary can be wrong on specific questions and still be a revolutionary. The distinction is between those who make mistakes in the service of the revolution and those who abandon the revolution for the bourgeoisie.

The Ultra-Left's Sectarianism — A Bourgeois Weapon

The ultra-left, petty-bourgeois writers of today have abandoned this dialectical approach. They label anyone who differs with them on any subject as:

• "Anti-Leninist"
• "Anti-communist"
• "Counter-revolutionary"

This is not a principled position — it is a weapon of ideological warfare.

The Function of Sectarianism

What Sectarianism Does	Why It Serves the Bourgeoisie
Divides the revolutionary movement	A divided movement cannot challenge capitalism
Isolates genuine Marxists-Leninists	Anyone who dares to think independently is labeled and excluded
Creates paralysis	Fear of being labeled prevents honest theoretical work
Serves the bourgeoisie	A fragmented left is no threat to the ruling class

 

 

 

The Bourgeois Roots of Sectarianism

The ultra-left's approach has its roots in petty-bourgeois ideology — the inability to understand the dialectical relationship between unity and struggle, between principle and flexibility. As Lenin noted:

"The petty-bourgeois elements surround the proletariat on all sides... they saturate it... they demoralize it, they continually make it relapse into petty-bourgeois spinelessness, disruption, individualism, transition from enthusiasm to dismay."
— Lenin, quoted by M.J. Olgin

The petty-bourgeois intellectual, unable to make a genuine class analysis, resorts to labeling. It is easier to call someone a "counter-revolutionary" than to engage with their arguments. It is easier to exclude than to debate. It is easier to be pure than to be effective.

The lesson is clear:

Lenin's Approach	The Ultra-Left's Approach
Critique the mistake	Label the person
Engage with the argument	Exclude from the movement
Distinguish between error and betrayal	Conflate error with betrayal
Call the mistaken revolutionary an "eagle"	Call them an "anti-communist"
Build unity through struggle	Destroy unity through sectarianism

Marxist-Leninists must reject both the right deviation (which abandons principle for unity) and the left deviation (which abandons unity for purity).

As Stalin noted:

"Groups arise, and will continue to arise, because we have in our country the most diverse forms of economy—from embryonic forms of socialism down to medievalism... if we approach the question in a Marxist way, these are the causes why certain elements are drawn from the Party for the formation of groups, which in some cases we must remove by surgical action, and in others dissolve by ideological means, through discussion."  Stalin, Thirteenth Conference of the R.C.P.(B)

The correct approach is ideological struggle through discussion — not exclusion through labeling.

Conclusion: The Eagle and the Hens

An argument can be revisionist. A person is not automatically a revisionist because they make a revisionist argument.

A thought, an analysis of a given subject, may be different — even wrong, even revisionist — without making the person who holds it a revisionist. It makes the argument revisionist. The person becomes a revisionist only through a pattern of practice: through consistent departure from the revolutionary line, through objective service to the class enemy, through the abandonment of the revolution as a strategic goal.

This distinction is not academic. It is the difference between ideological struggle and sectarian labeling.

Category	What It Means	How to Respond
An argument	A position on a specific question	Critique with counter-arguments
An analysis	A method of interpreting a situation	Engage with the method; show where it fails
A person	A revolutionary whose practice is defined by their overall trajectory	Judge by their practice — their class position, their consistency, their service to the revolution

The ultra-left collapses these categories. They treat every difference as if it constitutes a class position. Sectarians — whether conscious, insidious, or not — treat every argument as if it defines the person. They treat every mistake as if it constitutes betrayal.

This is not Leninism. Lenin himself distinguished sharply between error and betrayal. He criticized Rosa Luxemburg's mistakes — on the national question, on the accumulation of capital, on organizational questions — but he called her an eagle. He criticized Bebel's mistakes — but he called him a great Communist. He criticized the left Communists in Germany — but he called them comrades who were making mistakes, not enemies.

The distinction is rooted in the revolutionary tradition. Paraphrasing Lenin’s various comments on the subject

"We call them comrades, not because they are from our party, but because they are fighting for the same end. We stop calling them comrades when they stop fighting for that end or choose a different path to another end."

The ultra-left does not make this distinction. They label first, and ask questions later. It is easier to call someone a "counter-revolutionary" than to engage with their arguments. It is easier to exclude than to debate. It is easier to be pure than to be effective.

This laziness is not a sign of revolutionary purity. It is a sign of petty-bourgeois cowardice. And it serves the bourgeoisie by dividing and weakening the forces that oppose it.

This is the dialectical approach. It distinguishes between the mistake and the person, between error and betrayal, between a revolutionary who has lost their way on a specific question and one who has abandoned the revolution entirely.

Rosa Luxemburg made serious mistakes. She was wrong on the national question, wrong on the accumulation of capital, wrong on organizational questions, wrong on Menshevism in 1903, and wrong on unity with the Mensheviks in 1914. Yet Lenin said: 'Eagles may at times fly lower than hens, but hens can never rise to the height of eagles.' The ultra-left may call themselves revolutionaries — but their sectarianism reveals them as hens, pecking at the feet of the eagles, serving the interests of the very system they claim to oppose.

However, Lenin said:

"Eagles may at times fly lower than hens, but hens can never rise to the height of eagles.".. Bebel and Rosa Luxemburg were 'great Communists' and, despite their mistakes, remained 'eagles', while the revisionists were a flock of 'hens' 'in the backyard of the working class movement, among the dung heaps'”

The ultra-left may call themselves revolutionaries — but their sectarianism reveals them as hens, pecking at the feet of the eagles, serving the interests of the very system they claim to oppose. 

The Harm to the Movement

What Sectarianism Does	Why It Serves the Bourgeoisie
Divides the revolutionary movement	A divided movement cannot challenge capitalism
Isolates genuine Marxists-Leninists	Independent thought is punished with exclusion
Creates paralysis	Fear of being labeled prevents honest theoretical work
Replaces argument with accusation	Theoretical development is replaced by ideological policing
Teaches the youth to imitate the worst practices	The next generation learns sectarianism, not Marxism

 Lenin's stance against sectarianism and liberalism is not a secondary question. It is the method that allows us to wage ideological warfare without becoming what we oppose. It is the weapon that preserves the movement while purging its errors. It is the pillar that holds the defense together.

Sectarianism is the method — the labeling of any comrade who differs on a tactical question as an enemy. But the method takes concrete forms. In the chapters that follow, we examine these forms: the boycott (abstention from elections), compromise (refusal to ally with temporary allies), democratic struggle (rejection of democratic tasks), parliamentarism (refusal to use the parliamentary rostrum), and the confusion of reform with reformism. Each is a weapon the ultra-left uses to isolate the revolutionaries from the masses — and each, objectively, serves reaction.

 Part 13