As another friend, Rick Atkinison, writes in his background to the work:
The over-arching point of Mr. Clark’s critique was that the petty bourgeois intelligentsia, whether advocating for imperialism or socialism and regardless of the social structure within which they live, could only continue to exist as part of a parasitical strata. It is “parasitical” because in order to be “free” to pursue interesting ideas, conduct “principled” debate, research, write, etc. the intelligentsia must be supplied with the means of subsistence without “having to actually work for a living” (Ibid.). The essence of petty bourgeois ideological work, whether capitalist or socialist, then, is simply to define and proselytize “how the privileged status of their kind is to be secured.”
Tom writes in Chapter Four presented below:
The contradictory formulations on the state that were developed during the twenty-four year existence of the Communist International (1919-1943) are in all essentials consistent with the variations previously introduced by Marx, Engels and Lenin.
This theoretical fidelity was not due to dogmatism nor to simple lack of originality, but to the fact that the Marxist-Leninist theory of the state already provided theses suited to either drably reformist or, if need be, intense “class struggle” situations. The second-generation theoreticians of the Communist International—Zinoviev, Bukharin, Stalin, Radek, Manuilsky, Kuusenin, Dimitrov, and others—therefore only needed to draw on particular passages from the classic works in order to rationalize their current positions, even if those positions directly contradicted previous Comintern lines.