“SEA CHANGE” 
See: 
DIALECTICAL LEAPS — Popular Terms For 
 
SEATTLE — General Strike of 1919
“On a grey winter morning in Seattle, in February 1919, 110 local unions shut down the entire city. Shut it down and took it over, rendering the authorities helpless. For five days, workers from all trades and sectors—streetcar drivers, telephone operators, musicians, miners, loggers, shipyard workers—fed the people, ensured that babies had milk, that the sick were cared for. They did this without police—and they kept the peace themselves. This had never happened before in the United States and has not happened since. Those five days became known as the General Strike of Seattle.... Winslow describes how Seattle’s General Strike was actually the high point in a long process of early twentieth-century socialist and working-class organization, when everyday people built a viable political infrastructure that seemed, to governments and corporate bosses, radical—even ‘Bolshevik’.” —Advertising blurb for Cal Winslow’s book, Radical Seattle: The General Strike of 1919 (Monthly Review Press, 2020).
SEATO 
See:  SOUTHEAST ASIA TREATY ORGANIZATION  
SECOND INTERNATIONAL 
An international association of socialist working-class parties, also known as the Socialist 
International. It was formed in Paris in 1889 after the collapse of the First International 
in 1876. Though it had a strong revolutionary Marxist flavor at first, in later years (and 
especially after the death of Engels in 1895), it became an association of revisionist
parties. During World War I most of its parties supported their own capitalist ruling class
in the inter-imperialist war.
“The Second International was formed at an international congress of of socialists in Paris on July 14, 1889, some six years after the death of Karl Marx. Under Frederick Engels’ leadership, the Second International implemented by and large the Marxist line, rallying the ranks of the working class, fighting against anarchism, disseminating Marxism on a broad scale and promoting the growth of the workers’ organizations and movements in various countries. After Engels’ death in 1895, the revisionists headed by Eduard Bernstein and Karl Kautsky seized the leadership of the Second International, and this accounted for its degeneration. In subsequent years, united with the Leftists of various countries and holding high the revolutionary banner of Marxism and proletarian internationalism, the Russian Bolshevik Party led by Lenin waged uncompromising struggles against the revisionists. The outbreak of World War I in 1914 saw the open betrayal of the proletariat’s revolutionary cause by the Second International’s Social-Democratic Right-wing chieftains in various countries who by supporting the bourgeoisie in their own countries in the imperialist war degenerated into social-chauvinists. This eventually brought about the collapse of the Second International.” —Reference note, Peking Review, #47, Nov. 1977, pp. 25-26.
SECOND INTERNATIONAL — Stuttgart Congress (1907)
“The Stuttgart Congress of the Second International, August
     18-24, 1907. The R.S.D.L.P. was represented at this Congress by 37 delegates. From the
     Bolsheviks were Lenin, Lunacharsky, Litvinov, Meshkovsky (I.P. Goldenberg), Ruben (B.M.
     Knunyants), M.G. Tskhakaya, Y.B. Bosch and others. The Congress dealt with the following:
     (1) militarism and international conflicts; (2) relations between political parties and
     trade unions; (3) the colonial question; (4) the immigration and emigration of workers; 
     (5) women’s franchise.
                   “The main work of the Congress was
     done in commissions that drew up resolutions for the plenary sessions. Lenin participated
     in drawing up the resolution on ‘Militarism and International Conflicts’. Together with
     Rosa Luxemburg, Lenin introduced into Bebel’s draft resolution the historic amendment of
     the duty of socialists to use the crisis created by a war to revolutionize the masses
     and overthrow capitalism; the amendment was accepted by the Congress. [See: 
     LCW 13:75-93]” —Note 310, Lenin, SW I (1967).
SECOND INTERNATIONAL — Copenhagen Congress (1910)
“The Copenhagen Congress of the Second International, August
     28-September 3, 1910. At this Congress the R.S.D.L.P. was represented by Lenin,
     Plekhanov, Lunacharsky, Kollontai, Pokrovsky and others. The Congress split into a
     number of commissions for a preliminary discussion and to draw up resolutions on
     individual questions. Lenin worked in the co-operative commission.
                   “The resolution on ‘The Struggle
     Against Militarism and War’, adopted by the Congress, confirmed the Stuttgart 
     resolution on ‘Militarism and International Conflicts’. The resolution contained a
     number of demands to be put forward by socialist deputies to parliaments in the 
     struggle against war: (a) the obligatory relegation of all conflicts between states to
     a court of arbitration for decision; (b) general disarmament; (c) the abolition of
     secret diplomacy and (d) the autonomy of all peoples and their defense against military
     attack and oppression.” —Note 311, Lenin, SW I (1967).
SECOND INTERNATIONAL — Basel [Basle] Congress (1912) 
             See also: 
BASEL MANIFESTO  
“The Basle Congress of the Second International (November 24-25, 1912) was convened as an extraordinary congress in connection with the Balkan War and the menace of a European war. Its manifesto emphasized the imperialist nature of the impending world war and urged socialists everywhere to ‘take advantage of the economic and political crises’ the war would create to ‘accelerate the downfall of capitalism’. Kautsky, Vandervelde and other Second International leaders voted for this manifesto, but were deliberately oblivious to it when war broke out in 1914 and sided with their imperialist governments. [See: Lenin, LCW 21:208-17, 307-08.]” —Note 312, Lenin, SW I (1967).
SECRET POLICE 
A government organization charged with spying on and eliminating or neutralizing dissent. 
Secret police are typical features of fascist regimes, but are also found in bourgeois 
democracies. The FBI, for example, acted as a secret police force 
during the 1960-1970s when it undertook a program known as  
COINTELPRO  that was designed to infiltrate, disrupt 
and neutralize activist and militant groups (mostly left-wing and Black groups fighting 
for social justice and equality). As long as they still rule society, the bourgeoisie will
continue to act in this way, at whatever level of spying and political suppression of the
working class and masses that they deem “necessary”.
             While a secret police (of sorts!) may also
be necessary to protect the revolutionary gains of the proletariat after they win power, 
it is absolutely essential that such an organization not be used to control or intimidate 
the proletariat itself, or to replace mass vigilance. As Mao insisted, the primary means 
of controlling any attempts by the old or new bourgeoisies to recapture state power must 
be through the enlightened vigilance and efforts of the masses themselves. The security 
agencies of the socialist state should be at most a supplement to the basic Marxist method 
of educating the masses in their own interests, and of organizing them to act to advance 
those interests through the democratic method of the mass 
line. —L.C.
             See also: 
KGB,  
OKHRANA,  
SOVIET UNION—Security Agencies 
 
SECT   [In politics] 
In the non-pejorative sense, a sect is simply “a group adhering to a distinctive
doctrine or leader”. [Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 10th ed.]
However, the word ‘sect’ also carries with it the connotation of small size, and being
outside of the mainstream. Thus a revolutionary sect is a small group which is outside 
the mainstream of the revolutionary movement. All new political parties either start off
as sects, or else form out of other parties or mass movements which themselves started out 
as sects. There is nothing necessarily wrong about starting out small and different from 
the mainstream; but it is foolish and self-defeating for any political group to 
permanently remain just a sect, i.e. a small group unconnected to the masses and the mass 
movement.
             See also SECTARIAN 
(below), and:  CULT  
“The International was founded in order to replace the
     socialist or semi-socialist sects by a real organization of the working class for
     struggle. The original Rules and the Inaugural Address show this at a glance. On the
     other hand, the International could not have asserted itself if the course of history
     had not already smashed sectarianism. The development of socialist sectarianism
     and that of the real labor movement always stand in indirect proportion to each 
     other. So long as the sects are justified (historically), the working class is not
     yet ripe for an independent historical movement. As soon as it has attained this
     maturity all sects are essentially reactionary....
                   “And the history of the
     International was a continual struggle of the General Council against the
     sects and attempts by amateurs to assert themselves within the International itself
     against the real movement of the working class.” —Marx, Letter to Adolphe Hubert, 
     Aug. 10, 1871, MECW 44:252.
SECTARIAN [Adj.] 
             1. [Primary sense in Marxist politics:] 
Having and promoting ideas which prevent or obstruct a political group or party from 
connecting up with the masses and the mass movement, and from transforming existing reformist
mass struggle into revolutionary mass struggle. (See also: 
mass perspective.)
             2. [Secondary sense in Marxist politics:] 
Being unwilling to work with individuals or groups (other than your own) for some common 
purpose, or obstructing such cooperation and “united 
fronts” through hostility and disrespect towards those with ideas differing from your 
own.
SECTORAL BARGAINING 
The legal right or ability in practice of trade unions to force companies in some entire sector
of the economy to jointly bargain with the union(s) and come to some overall agreement, rather 
than to try to organize each company separately and come to a separate bargaining agreement in
each case. Generally sectoral bargaining is extremely rare or even completely non-existent in 
countries where the trade union movement is very weak (such as the U.S.).
             In 2019, during the early stages of the 2020 
U.S. presidential campaign, some politicians contending for the nomination of the Democratic 
Party claimed that they support giving the labor movement the legal right to engage in 
sectoral bargaining, but whether or not one of these politicians is elected there is little 
or no prospect of such a pro-labor reform actually being implemented in the U.S. 
[See: “Democrats Grow Bolder with Pro-Labor Policies”, New York Times, Oct 12, 2019.]
 This nominal “pro-labor stance” is once again more a matter of politicians trying to
fool the working class.
SECULAR   [Adj.] 
[As commonly used in economics, esp. bourgeois economics:] Of or relating to a long
term trend. Example: A “secular decline in profits” means “a long trend of indefinite 
duration in the decline of profits.” The term usually implies that there is some
unspecified (and perhaps unknown) force or cause which is behind the trend being 
mentioned.
SECULAR STAGNATION 
Long-term economic stagnation, i.e., the extremely slow expansion of a capitalist economy 
(or in other words, the very slow rate of growth of GDP). For the 
most part, bourgeois economists and commentators try to claim that “from a theoretical 
perspective this should be impossible” (see “Say’s Law”). 
But in the capitalist-imperialist era these periods of prolonged secular stagnation have 
become so prominent that they can no longer simply be dismissed as impossible. The 
problem for bourgeois economists is then to try to explain why this “impossible thing” 
is nevertheless happening. And they have no good explanations.
             From the point of view of Marxist 
political economy the explanation for secular stagnation is simple: it is merely a long
stage in the development of an overproduction 
crisis, a stage which will eventually get even worse—in the form of an outright 
depression.
             See also: 
STAGNATION  
“Secular stagnation [is] the chronically weak growth that comes from
     having too few investment opportunities to absorb available savings.” —Free Exchange
     column: “Aging is a drag”, The Economist, March 30, 2019, p. 78.
                   [This statement is somewhat
     remarkable for a bourgeois commentator in that it spells out a little further than
     usual that secular stagnation is due to a shortage of good investment opportunities.
     But the question then is obviously why is there at that point a shortage of
     good investment opportunities? The real answer is that in a period of worsening
     overproduction it makes no sense to invest in building new factories and buying new
     machinery to expand production when the capitalist enterprises already cannot sell 
     all that they can produce! But this answer is unacceptable to the bourgeoisie; they
     can’t admit that there is a flaw in capitalism that inevitably leads to this result. 
     And this article, too, makes the erroneous claim that “slower growth is more a choice 
     than an inevitability”. It attributes the slowing growth to the demographic aging of 
     the population, which supposedly leads to falling rates of growth in productivity. 
     And why is this the case? The article speculates that companies with older workers 
     may be less inclined to adopt new technologies. On and on the excuses go! And never 
     facing up to the blatant fact of growing overproduction. —S.H.]
SECULARIZATION   [Religion] 
The current relatively fast and continuing decline of religious observance, belief, or relevance to 
the lives of modern peoples.
             See also: 
RELIGION—Decline Of In The West,  
RELIGION — Decline Of In The U.S.  
“About six months ago, Americans’ belief in God hit an all-time low. According 
     to a 2022 Gallup survey, the percentage of people who believe in God has dropped from 98% in the 
     1950s to 81% today; among Americans under 30, it is down to an unprecedented 68%.
                   “Up close, the trend looks even more dramatic. 
     Only about half of Americans believe in ‘God as described in the Bible,’ while about a quarter 
     believe in a ‘higher power or spiritual force,’ according to a Pew poll. Just one-third of 
     Generation Z say they believe in God without a doubt.
                   “Congregational membership, too, is at an 
     all-time low. In 2021 Gallup found that, for the first time ever, fewer than half of Americans – 
     47% – were members of a church, synagogue or mosque. Yet another crucial measure of institutional 
     religion in the U.S., the percentage of people identifying as religious, is also at a low: About 
     1 in 5 adults now say they have no religious affiliation, up from 1 in 50 in 1960.
                   “In short, when it comes to three key realms 
     of religious life – belief, behavior and belonging – all are lower than they have ever been in 
     American history. What’s going on? In my view, it’s clear: secularization.
                   “However, despite these seemingly unambiguous 
     numbers, debate about whether secularization really is happening has persisted. Indeed, for several 
     decades now, many academics have continued to doubt its trajectory, especially in the United 
     States....
                   “In our 2023 book, Beyond Doubt, however, 
     religion and secularism scholars Isabella Kasselstrand, Ryan Cragun and I argue that religious 
     faith, participation and identification are unambiguously weaker than they have ever been. This 
     is not only true in the U.S, but many parts of the world, as seen in surveys of people in countries 
     such as Scotland, South Korea, Chile and Canada.
                  “Our book lays out data on declines in religion 
    in areas that have traditionally been home to many different faiths. In 2013, for example, 10% of 
    Libyans and 13% of Tunisians said that they had no religion. By 2019, those numbers had more than 
    doubled. Declines in belief in God are apparent in countries from Denmark and Singapore to Malaysia 
    and Turkey.
                   “But why? In our analysis, the transition from 
    a traditional, rural, nonindustrial society to an urban, industrial or post-industrial society is a 
    key part of the answer – along the lines of the first sociologists’ predictions. As these changes take 
    place, religion is more likely to become unyoked from other aspects of society, such as education and 
    government. Additionally, there is an increase in the amount of religious diversity in a given society, 
    and there tend to be changes in the family, with parents granting their children more freedom regarding 
    religious choices.
                   “In nearly every society that we examined that 
    has experienced these concomitant phenomena, secularization has occurred – often in spades. Of course, 
    compared to most other wealthy countries, the U.S. is quite religious. Fifty-five percent of Americans, 
    for example, say they pray daily, compared to an average of 22% of Europeans.
                   “Still, we argue that the latest numbers regarding 
    religious belief, behavior and belonging in the U.S. paint a clear portrait of secularization. Beyond 
    the more universal factors, other developments that have been detrimental to religion include a strong 
    reaction against the political power of the religious right, and anger at the Catholic Church’s child 
    sex abuse scandal.
                   “The consequences of religion’s weakening are 
    unclear. But while its meaning for America remains an open question, whether secularization is happening 
    is not.”
 
                   —Phil Zuckerman, professor of sociology and 
    secular studies, Pitzer College, “3 big numbers that tell the story of secularization in America”,
    Feb. 27, 2023, full essay online at: https://theconversation.com/ 
SECURED LOAN or SECURED DEBT   [Capitalist Finance]
A loan, or debt, in which the creditor (the person loaning the money) has the legal right
to some property or other asset of the person borrowing the money in the event that the
borrower fails to make scheduled payments on the loan. In the case of home mortgages, the
house itself is the security, and if the person with the mortgage fails to make the monthly
payments on time the bank has the legal right to kick the person and their family out of 
“their” home, seize it and sell it to somebody else.
             It was once also virtually impossible to
obtain other sorts of loans (besides mortgages) without providing security for them too. 
However, as the expansion of debt in contemporary capitalist society has mushroomed and 
become ubiquitous, and as fewer and fewer people or companies even have any adequate 
security available to provide for the loans they need to take out, those with piles of
money to lend have become ever more willing to make unsecured loans rather than to 
let their money “sit idle”. Of course they are only willing to do this much more risky 
thing because they can charge much higher rates of interest on the loans they make. Thus, 
as capitalist society moves ever nearer to its next financial crisis, not only does the 
debt bubble grow ever bigger in volume, but the quality of that mountain of debt 
(i.e., the portion of it which is unsecured) has become much worse, even if nervous
creditors are now once again starting to demand a little more security.
“We document a steady decline in the share of secured debt issued (as a fraction of total debt) in the United States over the twentieth century, with some pickup in this century.... The secular [long-term trend] decline in secured debt issuance seems to result from creditors acquiring greater confidence over time that the priority of their debt claims will be respected even if they do not obtain security up front. Instead, security is given [required!] on a contingent basis—when a firm approaches distress. Similar arguments explain why debt is more likely to be secured in the down phase of a cycle than in the up phase, thus accounting for the cyclicality of secured debt share.” —Efraim Benmelech, Nitish Kumar, Raghuram Rajan, “The Decline of Secured Debt”, NBER Working Paper No. 26637, January 2020.
SECURITIZATION 
[In contemporary financial capitalism:] The bundling together of numerous individual
mortgages, or outstanding credit card debts, or auto loans, or other forms of debt 
into packages, against which bonds are sold to investors. This allows the banks or
other financial companies which issued the loans to no longer care whether the loans
are ever paid off, and therefore to escape the risk ordinarily involved in making such 
loans. Those foolish enough to buy the bonds, however, thereby take on risks which they
have no real way of even properly evaluating. In short, securitization is a method for
the banks and big financial corporations to cheat investors.
             See also: 
COLLATERIALIZED DEBT OBLIGATIONS (CDOs),  
COLLATERIALIZED LOAN OBLIGATIONS (CLOs)  
SECURITY — And Free Speech
“Citizens can now carry guns into the chamber of Tennessee’s state legislature, but can’t bring home-made signs. Critics of the new policy say it’s designed to curb the free speech rights of Tennesseans, in the wake of angry protests last year over immigration, Medicaid expansion, and other issues. Legislators said they banned ‘hand-carried signs and signs on hand-sticks’ because they ‘represent a serious safety hazard.’” —“Only in America”, The Week magazine, Jan. 12, 2018, p. 5.
SECURITY CAMERAS 
Surveillance cameras watching and/or recording human activity in a specific area. These are 
generally closed-circuit (CC) television systems which record the images on data drives or 
backup systems. These security cameras are already very widespread and are rapidly becoming 
more and more ubiquitous. Two major factors are especially promoting this: 1) The technical 
improvement and declining cost of such systems; and 2) The growing 
fascist trends in capitalist society which lead 
the ruling class to be ever more concerned to monitor the every move of every person in 
society.
“The number of cameras employed for surveillance will exceed 1 billion by the end of 2021—an almost 30 percent leap from the 770 million cameras in service today. China is expected to account for more than half the total.” —Wall Street Journal report, as summarized in The Week magazine, Dec. 20, 2019, p. 16.
SEDIMENT
“Worldwide, by one estimate, the total volume of sediment that humans
	 move each year is more than 24 times the amount supplied by rivers.”   —“Human-Driven
	 Change Will Be Marked in Rocks”, New York Times, March 6, 2024.
                   [The massive and rapidly growing human 
	 influence on nature, including geology, is the reason that many people now think that the 
	 contemporary era should be named the “Anthropocene”. 
	 However, despite mounting evidence such as this item about sediment, as of March 2024 the 
	 conservative community of professional geologists has not yet become completely convinced 
	 of the need for this change. —Ed.]
SEEING 
See:  LOOKING AND SEEING  
“SEEK TRUTH FROM FACTS” 
A phrase from Mao’s writings, which was later given a perverted, revisionist 
interpretation by Deng Xiaoping. Deng distorted 
Mao’s meaning that revolutionaries must pay careful attention to objective conditions,
into something very different—the assertion of an agnostic and opportunistic empiricism
in which MLM theory is ignored and discarded. In this revisionist re-interpretation,
“seeking truth from facts” has come to mean a bourgeois anti-theoretic reliance on
pragmaticism.
“Secondly, there is the Marxist-Leninist attitude.
                   “With this attitude, a person
     applies the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism to the systematic and thorough
     investigation and study of the environment. He does not work by enthusiasm alone...
     To take such an attitude is to seek truth from facts. ‘Facts’ are all the things
     that exist objectively, ‘truth’ means their internal relations, that is, the laws
     governing them, and ‘to seek’ means to study. We should proceed from the actual
     conditions inside and outside the country, the province, county or district, and
     derive from them, as our guide to action, laws which are inherent in them and not
     imaginary, that is, we should find the internal relations of the events occurring
     around us. And in other to do that we must rely not on subjective imagination, not
     on momentary entusiasm, not on lifeless books, but on facts that exist objectively;
     we must appropriate the material in detail and, guided by the general principles
     of Marxism-Leninism, draw correct conclusions from it. Such conclusions are not
     mere lists of phenomena in A, B, C, D order or writings full of platitudes, but
     are scientific conclusions. Such an attitude is one of seeking truth from facts
     not of currying favor by claptrap. It is the manifestation of Party spirit, the
     Marxist-Leninist style of uniting theory and practice. It is the attitude every
     Communist Party member should have at the very least.” —Mao, “Reform Our Study”
     (May 1941), SW3:22-23. [Contrast this Marxist-Leninist view to the perversion of 
     the phrase “seeking truth from facts” as used by the 
     capitalist-roaders below. —Ed.]
“Pragmatism, according to the dictionary, is a philosophy holding that practical consequences are the criterion of knowledge. More specifically, Webster’s Dictionary describes it as a method in philosophy which determines the meaning and truth of all concepts by their practical results. Despite its American origin, Chinese leaders are gradually finding the concept acceptable, whether as a general philosophy, or as a method in philosophy. Indeed, the press in China has their own definition for pragmatism: To seek truth from facts. The saying is regarded as applicable to the modernization drive, and to practical as well as ideological matters.” —“From the Editor”, Monsoon, a monthly magazine in Hong Kong promoting the political line of the capitalist-roaders who usurped power in China a few years earlier, Vol. 3, #7, August 1980, p. 2.
SEGREGATION (In the U.S.)
The viciously enforced separation of the “races” (blacks and whites), especially in the
southern states of America, from the period after Reconstruction following the Civil
War, until it was mostly made illegal in the 1960s. De facto segregation still exists
in many forms, however, such as better schools reserved mostly for whites and poorer
schools in neighborhoods where African-Americans or other minorities make up a larger
proportion of the population.
“Well within living memory racial segregation was a brutal fact of
     life in the South. As well as schools, transport, businesses and hospitals were
     segregated.
                   “As Ms Wilkerson, a journalist
     recalls, colored people in Miami Beach had to be off the streets and out of the city
     limits by 8 pm. In a North Carolina courthouse there was a white Bible and a colored
     Bible. It was against the law in Birmingham, Alabama, for whites and coloreds to
     play checkers together. In Mississippi in the 1930s white teachers earned $630 a 
     year but colored teachers were paid only $215, hardly more than field hands.” 
     —The Economist, in a review of Isabel Wilkerson, The Warmth of Other Suns:
     The Epic Story of America’s Great Migration (2010), Aug. 28, 2010, p. 73.
SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS 
             1. Uncomfortably aware of oneself as
the object of observation by others; ill at ease.
             2. [In the philosophy of mind:] Conscious
of one’s own actions or internal states of mind as belonging to oneself; aware of
oneself as an individual. Having the capacity to introspect, or to contemplate an internal 
model of the world which includes yourself in it. See: 
CONSCIOUSNESS  
SELF-CRITICISM 
             See also: 
CRITICISM AND SELF-CRITICISM,  
CONFESSIONS—False or Insincere,  
CONFABULATION  
“Conscientious practice of self-criticism is still another hallmark distinguishing our Party from all other political parties. As we say, dust will accumulate if a room is not cleaned regularly, our faces will get dirty if they are not washed regularly. Our comrades’ minds and our Party’s work may also collect dust, and also need sweeping and washing. The proverb ‘Running water is never stale and a door-hinge is never worm-eaten’ means that constant motion prevents the inroads of germs and other organisms. To check up regularly on our work and in the process develop a democratic style of work, to fear neither criticism nor self-criticism, and to apply such good popular Chinese maxims as ‘Say all you know and say it without reserve’, ‘Blame not the speaker but be warned by his words’ and ‘Correct mistakes if you have committed them and guard against them if you have not’—this is the only effective way to prevent all kinds of political dust and germs from contaminating the minds of our comrades and the body of our Party.” —Mao, “On Coalition Government” (April 24, 1945), SW 3:316-317.
SELF-CULTIVATION 
See:  MASLOW, Abraham  
SELF-DETERMINATION OF NATIONS 
See:  NATIONAL SELF-DETERMINATION
 
SELF-EXPANSION OF CAPITAL 
See:  VALORIZATION  
SELF-INTEREST 
             See also: 
	 INDIVIDUALISM  
“Alas! At this point I have a very strong feeling that there are many who use the excuse of altruism to seek their own egoistic gain. Truth is good; falsehood is bad. To act in self-interest may be small-minded, but is at least true. To pretend to be benefiting others when really acting in self-interest is a great falsehood. To extend self-interest to the greater self of benefiting all mankind, to the greater self of benefiting all living things, and to the greater self of benefiting the universe, this is to go from a small truth to a great truth.” —Mao, as a young man in 1917-1918 and before becoming a Communist, “Marginal Notes to: Friedrich Paulsen, A System of Ethics” (which Mao read in Chinese translation), Mao’s Road to Power, Vol. I: The Pre-Marxist Period, 1912-1920, ed. by Stuart Schram, pp. 201-2.
SELF-RELIANCE 
Self-reliance is a virtue to be strongly encouraged in individuals, in social 
organizations, in government units and, indeed, pretty much everywhere. On the other hand, 
it can sometimes be made a fetish of, or even become an excuse for not helping others (on 
the grounds that they should be “more self-reliant”). In that case what is fundamentally 
a “good thing has been turned into a bad thing”.
             Self-reliance is an especially important
principle to stress in a socialist economy. Although there is an overall production plan,
and local production plans within each enterprise or production group, these plans will
often prove very difficult to successfully fulfill unless each unit really has a spirit
of self-reliance. This is, in part, why a successful socialist economy must be based on 
the genuine enthusiasm of the workers, who will bring that spirit of self-reliance with 
them as part of their enthusiasm for socialism. It also explains, in part, why the the 
phony “socialism” (actually state capitalism) in the 
Soviet Union during its last 35 years was such an economic disaster. Why, indeed, should 
the workers under any form of capitalism be enthusiastic or promote self-reliance at the 
work place?! They only work there.
“On self-reliance. Self-reliance is very important. It should be practiced not only by a state, but also by a factory, a people’s commune, and a production team. In managing people’s communes, those which practiced self-reliance showed real achievements whereas those communes and production teams which were supported by loans did not fare so well. At present, we have three truly self-reliant communes in the whole country: one is the Ch’en Yung-k’ang commune in Kiangsu Province; another is the Ch’en Yung-kuei commune in Shansi Province; and still another is the Ch’en X X commune in Ch’u-fou, Shantung Province. These three communes have never asked for a penny from the state as they were built up completely on the strength of their own effort.” —Mao, “Interjection at a Briefing by Four Vice-Premiers” (May 1964), SW 9:86-87.
SELF-REPRESENTATION 
How a person represents themself to others. (How a person privately represents themself 
to themself is called self-image.) Organizations, including political 
parties, also have self-representations which they promote publicly, or public images 
which they try to control. Honest individuals and organizations try to be honest in 
representing themselves—including both their positive and negative aspects—while 
dishonest individuals and organizations (and especially corporations and bourgeois or 
opportunist political parties) must, of necessity, lie 
to the public and do their best to cover up their actual nature and nefarious activities. 
This is why press agents and public relations are 
such a huge business in contemporary American society.
             Of course, we should always be a little
cautious about fully believing what individuals and organizations say about themselves,
even in cases where they actually are trying to be honest. (See also in this connection 
the entry on CONFABULATION.)
But in the case of bourgeois or opportunist individuals, organizations and parties, we
should go way beyond mere caution and approach what they say about themselves with very
serious skepticism. We should never forget that they are indeed a bunch of liars who 
are determined to put at least a “positive spin” on everything they really believe or 
do.
“This determined defense of the most pronounced Bernsteinians [revisionists] is not supported by any argument or reasoning whatsoever. Apparently, the author believes that if he repeats what the most pronounced Bernsteinians say about themselves his assertion requires no proof. But can anything more ‘shallow’ be imagined than this judgment of an entire trend based on nothing more than what the representatives of that trend say about themselves?” —Lenin, What Is To Be Done? (Feb. 1902), LCW 5:357.
SELF-VALORIZING VALUE 
See:  VALORIZATION  
SEMANTICS 
The branch of linguistics concerned with the meaning of words and sentences. The
sub-branch concerned with the meaning of words, specifically, is known as 
lexical semantics. Scientific semantics should 
not be confused with the bourgeois pseudo-scientific academic sect which goes by the 
name of General Semantics. 
SEMI-COLONIAL   [Adj.]
Characterizing a state where the ruling classes (especially big business, big bureaucrats, 
and major politicians who together run the country) are still tied to imperialist interests, 
and are still subservient to them at least to some degree.
SEMI-FEUDAL   [Adj.]
Characterizing a state where the feudal relations of production and society have not
been completely smashed and eliminated by the completion of the bourgeois revolution,
but where instead they remain to a considerable degree (especially in the countryside) 
while capitalism, and capitalist relations of production, are developed on top of this 
(especially in the cities). The countries of south Asia for example, including India, 
fit this description.
SEMI-PROLETARIAN 
             1. A peasant
who spends part of each year working as a wage worker in a town.
             2. A poor peasant who owns no land, and
who must therefore work as an agricultural laborer for other (richer) peasants. Also
often called a rural proletarian.
SENECA, Lucius Annaeus   (c. 4 BCE-65 CE) 
Roman philosopher; one of the great representatives of 
Stoicism. He was the tutor of the young Nero and later his advisor when he became
Emperor. Seneca was implicated (probably falsely) in a plot against the Emperor and was 
ordered by Nero to commit suicide—which he did.
SENIOR, Nassau William   (1790-1864) 
[“Senior” is his family name, and not a generational title.] English vulgar economist and 
apologist for capitalism. Marx called him one of the “economic spokesmen of the bourgeoisie”. 
He was strongly opposed to the shortening of the work day which at that time was often 12 
hours/day, or more!
SENIORS 
See:  OLD PEOPLE  
SENSA 
An ambiguous term in contemporary bourgeois philosophy which may refer either to those real 
objects in the world which are sensed (i.e., sensibilia  
def. 1), or else just the sensations themselves (i.e., sense 
data).
SENSATIONALISM or SENSATIONISM 
The extreme empiricist theory associated with 
Ernst Mach that only sensations 
(or sense data) actually exists, or at least that this is all 
that human beings are capable of comprehending. According to this 
idealist theory, sensations are not only the source of all 
human knowledge, but may actually be all that really exists.
             This is similar to the idealist 
philosophical theory known as phenomenalism.
             See also:  
SENSUALISM,  
SUBJECTIVE IDEALISM  
SENSATIONS   [Philosophy]
The mental processes (such as seeing, hearing, or smelling) which are the result of the
immediate stimulation of one of the bodily senses. In everyday usage, we often refer to 
somewhat unusual, unexpected, or unexplained things, such as tickles, itches or pains, or
sudden feelings of warmth or coldness, as “sensations”. However, the more abstract usage
of the term (which is that found in philosophy) also covers the ordinary and routine
seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling or tasting of things in the world around us.
             In philosophy there are various doctrines
about the nature of sensations and how they fit in with our overall conception of the 
world. The materialist conception is that sensations 
are (typically at least) caused by the real physical world around us. (In exceptional
cases sensations may be due to the malfunctioning of our bodies.) We understand that our 
perceptions inform us about the nature of the objective world, and that these sensations 
reflect the nature of the real physical things in the world. (See 
REFLECTION THEORY.)
             However, philosophical 
idealists often hold that our sensations are entirely mental 
phenomena which do not reflect the nature of the material world or inform us about 
the true nature of objective reality. In some cases they go so far as to claim that 
only mental sensations exist, and that there is no material world at all that lies 
behind these sensations! (This extreme viewpoint is known as “radical empiricism” or
subjective idealism.)
             See also: 
SENSUALISM,  
SENSE DATA,  
SENSATIONALISM  
SENSE DATA 
Raw sensations, or the private “data” (or what we immediately 
perceive) from our senses. Thus, the sensory qualities of things (colors, shapes, smells, etc.) 
which we supposedly experience directly, without any rational interpretation, and without any 
consideration of the physical objects which may be causing them. Thus the concept of sense 
data, as it is most often used in philosophy, is one of a strongly 
empiricist and idealist character.
Empiricists usually make “sense data” the foundation of their theory of knowledge.
             The traditional empiricist claim goes something 
along these lines: “We never see or otherwise perceive or sense, or at least directly
perceive or sense, the real material objects of the world, but instead, only sense data,
or our own ideas, impressions, sense-perceptions, or the like.” This notion is related 
to the silly Kantian theory that human beings are incapable of 
knowing anything about the true nature of any real world object, the so-called 
“ding-an-sich”. But by this strange logic, what would it even
mean to “directly” perceive the world?! This could only be some sort of religious
comprehension based not at all on any bodily senses.
 
             Modern science has demonstrated quite 
well that seeing is not like an automatic image forming in the brain (as in a camera), and 
that similarly all the other senses also involve complex computational processing in light of
previous knowledge. We have evolved to survive in the world, and thus our senses must help us 
comprehend the objective world. Therefore no epistemological theory whose foundation is raw, 
unprocessed, subjective “sense data” can possibly be correct.
             See also: 
SENSIBILIA,  
QUALIA  
SENSIBILIA 
1. Those things which are sensed; the immediate objects of sense perception. The things in, 
or aspects of, objective reality that we sense. (This is a materialist conception.)
2. [In the philosophy of Bertrand Russell and some other 
extreme empiricists:] Those subjective entities (tastes, 
smells, images, etc.) which no one at the moment is directly sensing, but which are otherwise 
like the “sense data” that people have when they are sensing 
things. (This is an idealist conception.) This idealist concept of sensibilia, i.e., 
the notion of “unsensed sense data”, is obviously incoherent.
SENSUALISM   [Philosophy]
Another name which has been used for the basic doctrine that holds that sensations are 
the source of knowledge. Of course there is some truth to this idea if it is properly
interpreted.
             If sensations are understood to be a reflection
of the objective world, which are processed by the brain in light of previous knowledge and
experience, then we have a materialist theory. This was more or less the path taken by the
materialists of the Enlightenment (Holbach, 
Helvétius, and later by Feuerbach), 
and certainly by the most recent physiological science.
             On the other hand, if sensations are regarded
as subjective impressions with no relationship to any objective world, we are on the path of
subjective idealism, and idealist philosophers such
as Berkeley, Hume, Kant, 
Mach, Avenarius and 
Bogdanov.
             Consequently, the recognition that knowledge
of the world comes through sensation is by itself neither a materialist nor an idealist 
theory. It depends on what sensation is understood to be, and how it fits in with a broader
understanding of reality.
“SENTINEL AREA” 
A geographic area which, by showing early signs of a development or problem, should give advance 
warning that the development or problem will likely soon become more widespread. Thus the early 
outbreaks of AIDS/HIV in the “sentinel areas” of San Francisco and New York City should have 
alerted the medical profession and the U.S. government that a much more general spread of the 
disease was imminent. Similarly, the early local areas where the current U.S. opioid epidemic 
first appeared, such as the small town of St. Charles, Virginia, in 1997-98, should have alerted 
(but also didn’t) the medical profession and government as to the potential eventual seriousness 
of that now nationwide and still worsening social crisis (as of 2018).
             In the sphere of the world capitalist economy a
similar thing has occurred at times. For example, the very serious era of intensified stagnation 
in Japan—which began circa 1991 and which as of 2018 has continued now for more than a quarter 
century—should have alerted (but didn’t) the economics profession to more globally widespread 
stagnation (“in-and-out-of-recession”) in the near 
future. As usual, what was happening in what should have been recognized as a sentinel 
area was ignored or misconstrued by bourgeois economists. It seems that sentinel areas are
very commonly unrecognized in a great many cases until after the fact because incorrect 
dominant theories (medical, economic, social, political and otherwise) do not prepare people 
to keep an eye out and be alert to them. This is another aspect of the social stupidity of the 
current bourgeois system.
“SEPTEMBER 13 INCIDENT” (1971)   [Chinese: jiǔyīsān shìjiàn   九一三事变 ]
The attempted escape of Lin Biao and his son by air, heading towards 
the Soviet Union, after the failure of his attempt to kill Mao and stage a coup d’état, 
and the resulting crash of the airplane in Mongolia, killing all aboard it.
             From the Second Plenary Session of the Ninth CCP
Central Committee (August 23-September 6, 1970) onward, it seems that Lin Biao, with the support 
of Chen Boda and others, was attempting to enhance his personal 
political power, while—if possible—weakening that of Mao. Mao took growing exception to these 
moves, and seems to have decided to remove Lin himself from power. Fearing this result, in March 
1971 Lin directed his son to draw up a plan entitled “Outline of the 571 Project”, a plan for an 
armed coup d’état, and have it ready to implement. (“571” was a pun for “armed uprising” 
in Chinese.)
             In August 1971 Mao was on an inspection tour of
southern China. Word reached Lin and his cohorts that Mao had criticized Lin on this trip, and so
Lin decided to put their coup plan into action and to assassinate Mao while on his tour. Lin gave
the order to his agents on September 8. But on September 11th, Mao unexpectedly left Shanghai
early, so the scheme fell apart. In desperation, Lin requested special airplanes be sent to him.
His initial plan then was apparently to fly to Guangzhou and set up a rival government there. But 
Zhou Enlai and other government officials got wind of this plan and stopped it. Lin Biao then had 
no other choice but to give up or try to flee the country. It was that attempted flight to the
Soviet Union which proved to be the end of him. The rest of Lin’s clique either died in that
plane crash, committed suicide, or else were arrested and brought to trial.
“SEPTEMBER 18 INCIDENT”   [Japan, 1931]
[To be added...]
SERF 
An alternate name for peasant, especially in Europe.
SERFS — Emancipation of in Russia in 1861
“Peasant Reform—the emancipation of the serfs carried out by
     the tsarist government in 1861. The Reform was made necessary by the entire course of
     Russia’s economic development and by the growth of the mass movement among the peasantry
     against feudal exploitation. The Peasant Reform was a bourgeois reform carried out by
     serf-owners. Its bourgeois essence was the more obvious ‘the less the amount of
     land cut off from the peasants’ holdings, the more fully peasant lands were
     separated from the landed estates, the lower the tribute paid to the feudal
     landowners by the peasant (i.e., the lower the “redemption” payments)’ [Lenin, LCW 
     17:121] The Peasant Reform marked a step in Russia’s transformation into a bourgeois
     monarchy. In all, 22,500,000 serfs, formerly belonging to landlords, were ‘emancipated’.
     Landed proprietorship, however, remained. The peasants’ lands were declared the 
     property of the landlords. The peasant could only get an allotment of land of the size
     established by law (and even then only with the landlord’s consent), and he had to
     redeem it, that is, pay for it.
                   “The Peasant Reform merely 
     undermined but did not abolish the old corvée
     system of farming. The landlords secured possession of the best parts of the peasants’
     allotments (the ‘cut-off lands’—woods, meadows, watering places, grazing lands, and 
     so on), without which the peasants could not engage in independent farming. Until the
     redemption arrangements were completed the peasants were considered ‘temporarily
     bound’ and either rendered corvée service to the landlord or paid quit-rent.
     The redemption of their own allotments was a direct plunder of the peasants by the
     tsarist government and the landowners. The peasants were compelled to pay hundreds of
     millions of rubles for their land and this led to the ruin of the farms and to mass
     impoverishment.
                   “The Russian revolutionary
     democrats, headed by Nikolai Cheryshevsky, criticized the Peasant Reform for its 
     feudal character. Lenin called the Peasant Reform of 1861 the first act of mass violence
     against the peasantry in the interests of the nascent capitalism in agriculture—the
     landowners were ‘clearing the land’ for capitalism.” —Note 56, Lenin SW I (1967).
SERVE THE PEOPLE 
[To be added... ]
             See also: 
PATERNALISM  
“The motive of serving the masses is inseparably linked with the effect of winning their approval; the two must be united. The motive of serving the individual or a small clique is not good, nor is it good to have the motive of serving the masses without the effect of winning their approval and benefiting them.” —Mao, “Talks at the Yenan Forum on Literature and Art” (May 1942), SW 3:88.
“SERVE THE PEOPLE”   [Speech by Mao] 
A famous speech delivered by Mao Zedong on September 8, 1944, at a memorial meeting for
Comrade Chang Szu-teh, which was held by the departments working directly under the Central
Committee of the Communist Party of China. (Chang Szu-teh was born in a poor peasant family
and joined the Red Army in 1933 at the age of 17. He took part in the Long March, and 
became a selfless Communist soldier in Yenan. He died in a kiln accident.) This work by
Mao, along with two others (“In Memory of Norman Bethune” and “The Foolish Old Man Who
Removed the Mountains”) were collectively known as the 
“three constantly read articles”.
They promote the proletarian world outlook and firm devotion to the masses and the public 
interest.
             “Serve the People” is included in volume 3
of Mao’s Selected Works, and is available online at: 
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-3/mswv3_19.htm 
 
SERVICE (Political Economy)
“A service is nothing more than the useful effect of a use-value, be it of a commodity, or be it of labor.” —Marx, Capital, vol. I, ch. VII, sect. 2: (International, p. 192; Penguin, pp. 299-300.)
“In general, we may say that service is merely an expression for the particular use-value of labor where the latter is useful not as an article, but as an activity.” —Marx, Capital, vol. I: (Penguin, appendix, p. 1047. [Not included in the International edition])
“Where the direct exchange of money for labor takes place without the latter producing capital, where it is therefore not productive labor, it is bought as service, which in general is nothing but a term for the particular use-value which the labor provides, like any other commodity; it is however a specific term for the particular use-value of labor in so far as it does not render service in the form of a thing, but in the form of an activity, which however in no way distinguishes it for example from a machine, for instance a clock.” —Marx, TSV 1:403-4.
SERVICE INDUSTRY 
That part of the economy which provides services rather than producing articles for sale.
As capitalism has developed, and (among other factors) productivity has tremendously increased 
in manufacturing, the proportion of the economy devoted to producing services rather than 
material commodities has greatly increased. (See: PETTY’S 
LAW.) As of 2010, about 83% of the workers in the private (non-governmental) sector
in the U.S. were service workers. Of course, another reason for this change, which is very
negative for the U.S., is that its manufacturing base is being rapidly moved overseas for the
purpose of increasing profits through the extra exploitation of lower-wage foreign labor.
             See also: 
SUBSCRIPTION SERVICES  
SETI 
Acronym for the “Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence”; or for the existence of other 
creatures of high intelligence somewhere else in the universe. So far the search has been very
limited and intermittent and no such creatures have been found. [Added: 2025]
“It it’s true that our species is alone in the universe, then I’d have to say the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.” —George Carlin, an American comedian, quoted in The Week, March 18, 2011, p. 25.
“SEX WORKER” 
A person who makes a living selling their personal sexual favors to others; a prostitute.
             However, there are reasons to oppose or avoid the 
use of the more euphemistic term “sex worker” rather than “prostitute”. (See the quote below.)
“Most prostitutes are of course women, and in modern capitalist society most of 
     them are technically (i.e., by the definition of technical terms) either workers (working 
     for employers such as pimps or in houses of prostitution) or else are 
     petty bourgeois (self-employed). However, outright slavery 
     or something damned close to it for prostitutes is also still quite common even in advanced 
     capitalist countries such as the U.S. And some prostitutes who are now employed workers, or 
     self-employed, originally became prostitutes because they were forced into it (or, in essence, 
     because they were originally enslaved). But even prostitutes who have never been enslaved, 
     strictly speaking, are still wage slaves or something close to that, and in no other ‘line 
     of work’ is that term more apt! For those who were not outright enslaved, it was the force of 
     capitalist economics that pushed them into wage slavery in this form.
 
                   “Prostitution is an inherently degrading and 
     very dangerous occupation. Moreover, it is an occupation which should not exist, and which will 
     eventually no longer exist. (It will be economically impossible in a future communist society, 
     where even money no longer exists.)
                   “My reluctance to use the term ‘sex workers’ 
     is in no way based on any denial that (most) prostitutes are either hired or self-employed workers. 
     It is instead a matter of the connotations of that phrase which imply that prostitution should be 
     viewed as respectable and non-degrading work, like any other labor. Our goal is to overthrow the 
     capitalist system, in part so that we can get rid of things like prostitution, not to somehow make 
     it respectable and a fine occupation. In other words, I agree that prostitutes (in large part) 
     technically are ‘sex workers’, but I oppose the despicable motives of many of those who want to 
     call them that in present capitalist exploitative society.” —S.H., adapted from a letter to 
     a friend, September 2011.
SEXISM 
The view that one sex is superior to, or should be given social primacy over, the other.
Since during all human history (at least of class society) men have dominated and oppressed
women, in practice sexism almost always means views which support this domination
and oppression of women. Sexists believe that there are “natural” intellectual and 
psychological differences between men and women which supposedly justify this domination
and oppression, and special privileges for men. Revolutionary Marxism is of course totally 
opposed to any form of sexism. And we believe that whatever significant differences there 
are in average “intelligence” or psychology between men and women in the present society 
are due virtually entirely to the differences in the ways men and women are brought up and
educated (or mis-educated).
             See also: 
WOMEN — Oppression Of  
SEXUAL CRIMES 
See: 
WOMEN—Sexual Crimes Against Under Capitalism,  
RAPE—Tacit Acceptance of in Bourgeois Society
 
SEXUAL PARTNERS 
Most people have more than one sexual partner in their lifetimes. As marriages become less stable
in modern capitalist society, more people get divorced and remarried. And formal legal marriage as 
an institution may in fact be in the process of dying out in late capitalist society. (See:
MARRIAGE—Trends in Contemporary Capitalist Society) Young
people now more frequently live together without marrying, often because of economic necessity.
And they even “date” for longer periods without actually living together, also often for reasons of
economics and the instability of many personal lives today. Ideally this would all be in part for 
the purpose of determining whether they were compatible as long term mates, though even really 
discovering that may be less possible these days. As capitalism collapses, so do the social and
family lives of the people.
“Average number of sexual partners a person in a wealthy country has in his or her lifetime: 10. Average number in a poor country: 6.” —“Harper’s Index”, Harper’s Magazine, December 2007, p. 17.
SEZ 
See:  SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE  
Dictionary Home Page and Letter Index