T HE relatively inert state of in this country is underscored by the fact that there are only a handful of Marxist post-mortems on the American New Left (a phenomenon that spanned the better part of a decade), while volumes have been devoted to analyses of the events of one month (May of 1968) in France. Thus, one can only welcome Edward Malecki's study as an entry into a field that has relatively few serious participants.1 Moreover, those studies we do have often dissolve into interminable debate over the respective capacities of twentieth-century strategies (Leninist, Maoist, social-democratic, etc.) to effect radical political change in the United States. By seeking to evaluate the New Left in terms of what he understands as classical Marxism Malecki presents us with a unique opportunity to assess the strengths and weaknesses of Marx's original theory within the context of a recently shared political experience. However, while I strongly endorse Malecki's conviction that the best source of Marxist theory is in the thought of Marx himself and the corollary belief that this thought can still enlighten our political understanding -I want to indicate in this commentary that there are grounds in Marx's writings for a less deterministic reading than Malecki's and, consequently, a somewhat different perspective on the New Left.2 Malecki's interpretation of Marx's theory of revolution appears to be derived mainly from Marx's repeated emphasis upon the international character of the proletariat. Since the is that class which emerges as the historical negation of capital, Malecki concludes that until capitalism has become an international system the will remain fragmented and underdeveloped. While monopoly capitalism is beginning to break through those economic barriers that are peculiar to the nation-state, the process of internationalizing capitalism is still in its infancy and will not be completed until roughly 2500 A.D. Only then will the world have achieved the universal state of industrialization which is prerequisite for the liberation of humanity from scarcity, toil and the disproportionate allocation of material resources, and only then will Marxian socialism become a realistic political alternative to capitalism. Malecki's interpretation is by no means as simplistic as this brief outline might indicate. On the contrary he recognizes many of the questions his arguments might evoke and makes a consistent effort to address them. As I read it his response speaks to two related concerns: what are we to make of those contemporary societies that are at least nominally recognized as and to what extent is the designation proletariat an adequate description of the working class in modern industrialized societies? In Malecki's analysis the differences between capitalist, socialist, and Third World nations are overshadowed by the extent to which each occupies a stage within the epoch of capitalism. Socialist (or neo-capitalist Communist) and Third World nations all display the ethos of efficiency in production and delayed