Introduction

The Importance of Theory and Ideological Work

>“Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement. This idea cannot be insisted upon too strongly at a time when the fashionable preaching of opportunism goes hand in hand with an infatuation for the narrowest forms of practical activity.”
— Lenin, What is to Be Done?, 1902[1]

Lenin’s words written over 100 years ago ring true now — in our own time. Opportunism is fashionable, and the majority of Communists today sideline their theoretical development in favor of what is popular, jumping into the spontaneous pot of “leftist” organizations and debasing themselves with what Lenin called the “narrowest forms of practical activity.” What are some of these forms today? Mutual aid organizations are some of the most common and also the narrowest, usually doing the same work of churches,  “grassroots” charity groups, or non-profits with little ability or desire to develop into professional political operators for the proletarian class. Outside of these and other types of “local orgs,” there are the big “socialist” parties, some even claiming Marxism, but their activity is also narrow and opportunistic. They are mostly election-machines, and act as stages for non-profits and petty bourgeois to garner an audience (and customer base). Beyond organizing  per se, within the sphere of agitation, this narrowness takes the shape of numerous individual Marxist “influencers” all creating “content” in an individual way.

In their disorganized state, none of the Marxists involved in the narrow activities mentioned above will ever be able to spread Marxism efficiently or achieve any real political goals. This is a lesson they need to understand, and quickly: the longer they muck around in their own disjointed, narrow efforts (with disjointed and narrow theory to match), the more the unified front of capital acts against our movement.

Large sections of the socialist movement are infatuated with “getting involved,” but by “getting involved” they bow to the spontaneous, narrow activities in the current bourgeois “community” —before any real “community” of conscious proletarians is capable of forming. The failure of these comrades is that they have not broadened their understandings, and they exhaust themselves on what sounds good instead of what is correct — meaning, what will build the power of the proletarian class and lead to its liberation. They are unaware that their current understandings are lacking, and that their activities and outlook have already been put to rest in the literary tradition of the Communist movement. It is the comrades’ failure to engage with theory that is at least partly responsible for our movement’s current losing streak, trapping today’s revolution in an endless cycle of spontaneous disunity and amateurishness within organizations of opportunism, wasting the potential of talented political operators on mundane Sisyphean tasks that go nowhere, when they should be organized for the high-level tasks that must be completed to seize political power and turn the tides of the class struggle in a real and complete way. The only way these kinds of tasks can be communicated to our movement and to the people is through the use of sound theory, which, when it is applied correctly, always leads to tangible results.

As it stands now though, the results we need seem far from tangible. The mutual-aiders, “Democratic Socialites,” “Maoists,” and “join your local org” sloganeers are all very loud, and all display a profound ignorance of organizing, mired as they are in the narrow duties of purely local work. In defending their ignorance, many are hostile to revolutionary theoreticians, and even to the basic foundational tenets of Marxism-Leninism that at least some of them state allegiance to. Butthurt, they repeat the same old anti-intellectual sentiment against theory that the revisionist newspaper of Lenin’s time, Rabocheye Dyelo, threw at the Bolsheviks more than 100 years ago. They misused Marx’s quote from his Critique of the Gotha Program to justify their own ignorance of theory, saying, “Every step of real movement is more important than a dozen programmes.”[2]

What did Lenin say to these “Marxists” who hold their nose up at theory? He wrote:

>To repeat these words in a period of theoretical disorder is like wishing mourners at a funeral many happy returns of the day. Moreover, these words of Marx are taken from his letter on the Gotha Programme, in which he sharply condemns eclecticism in the formulation of principles. If you must unite, Marx wrote to the party leaders, then enter into agreements to satisfy the practical aims of the movement, but do not allow any bargaining over principles, do not make theoretical “concessions”. This was Marx’s idea, and yet there are people among us who seek—in his name— to belittle the significance of theory

We agree with Lenin (and with Engels, who wrote that the theoretical struggle was one of three “sides” of revolutionary development[4]) that our movement must be guided by strong theory, and that all comrades must take their theoretical development seriously. In What is to Be Done? Lenin says:

>...what at first sight appears to be an “unimportant” error may lead to most deplorable consequences, and only short-sighted people can consider factional disputes and a strict differentiation between shades of opinion inopportune or superfluous.[5]

We cannot afford to be short-sighted. There is too much at stake, and the lives of the people are wasted day by day. We must raise the consciousness of comrades out of narrow local matters and into a level that coincides with the high-level political organizing that must be completed to carry out the revolution. The only way this can be done is through principled ideological and theoretical work. The tasks of organizing that lead to the empowered Communist Party and dictatorship of the proletariat must be conveyed, and the ideas of how they are completed, or even that they must be completed, propagated among the class of proletarians and the masses as a whole. Ideas like the dictatorship of the proletariat, the class struggle, Marxist economics, imperial parasitism, dialectical materialism and much more must be understood by the masses in the course of the revolution if it is to be successful and lasting. The comrades engaged in producing material that conveys these ideas — talented Communist propagandists, agitators, and theoretical strategists —must be supported and allowed to develop.

Who is Being Condescending?

This principled demand riles up the liberal character of many of our narrow locals. They hurl the accusation that we are being condescending to the workers by not accepting their current political understandings, or that we are trying to lead them along some intellectual path of our own design when we say that they must develop into class revolutionaries, and that this entails a proper Marxist-Leninist education.

As far back as 1905 however, Stalin explained who is actually condescending to the workers when they keep them from true theory. Listen to his diagnosis:

>If the working-class movement is not combined with scientific socialism it inevitably becomes petty, assumes a “narrow trade-unionist” character and, consequently, submits to trade-unionist ideology.

>“But that means belittling the workers and extolling the intelligentsia!”— howl our “critic” and his Social-Democrat. . . . Poor “critic”! Miserable Social-Democrat! They take the proletariat for a capricious young lady who must not be told the truth, who must always be paid compliments so that she will not run away! No, most highly esteemed gentlemen! We believe that the proletariat will display more staunchness than you think. We believe that it will not fear the truth

Despite employing a misogynistic stereotype to make his point, Stalin does succeed here in highlighting the paternalistic attitude some “Marxists” actually hold towards the proletariat when they keep it from the most advanced theory. How can we claim to act in the proletariat’s interest when we fail to take seriously the need for the proletarians, as a whole international class, to adopt the best theories and tactics towards their liberation? If we accept incorrect theories simply because they are prevalent, we aren’t acting in the masses’ best interest at all.

The Class Feature of Science and the Science of Marxism

Despite what the revisionist and spontaneity-worshipping “local work” “Marxists” would have us believe, Communism is a scientific worldview that, for the most part, must be inserted into the class of the proletariat from without it, and does not manifest from the class itself. The following quote by pre-renegade Karl Kautsky, which is included in Lenin’s What is to Be Done?, explains this fact further. It also highlights the difference between conscious Marxism and the spontaneous class struggle of the workers.

>Socialist consciousness appears to be a necessary and direct result of the proletarian class struggle. But this is absolutely untrue. Of course, socialism, as a doctrine, has its roots in modern economic relationships just as the class struggle of the proletariat has, and, like the latter, emerges from the struggle against the capitalist-created poverty and misery of the masses. But socialism and the class struggle arise side by side and not one out of the other; each arises under different conditions. Modern socialist consciousness can arise only on the basis of profound scientific knowledge. Indeed, modern economic science is as much a condition for socialist production as, say, modern technology, and the proletariat can create neither the one nor the other, no matter how much it may desire to do so; both arise out of the modern social process. The vehicle of science is not the proletariat, but the bourgeois intelligentsia [K. K.’s italics]: it was in the minds of individual members of this stratum that modern socialism originated, and it was they who communicated it to the more intellectually developed proletarians who, in their turn, introduce it into the proletarian class.[7]  

Because of this fact, it is the more privileged strata who take on the ideological work of the revolution in the pre-revolutionary or early revolutionary period. The fact that non-workers must work for the workers is a necessary contradiction that must be accommodated, brought into our movement due to the uneven relations of the forces of production. The science of socialism cannot excuse itself from the historical materialist fact that all science, as we know it, has its birthplace in the halls of the higher classes. Marx was not a proletarian, and neither was Engels. From an individual class standpoint, they were both clearly social-parasites benefitting from the collective labor of the working class, and were very much aware of this. But it was partly this parasitism which allowed them the ability to carry out their vital work for the proletariat, work that culminated in scientific socialism and the ideology of the working class, Marxist Communism.

Under the domination of the capitalists and their society, Marxism remains an intellectual artifact, and a proletarian may be the best Marxist that they can be in their oppressed capacity, but, in their oppressed capacity, they generally lack the time, social connections, and material ability to learn Marxism on their own, not to mention perform professional revolutionary Marxist work at any real capacity. Stalin remarks on precisely this fact in the same pamphlet of his we quoted previously:

>It is said that in some countries the working class itself worked out the socialist ideology (scientific socialism) and will itself work it out in other countries too, and that, therefore, it is unnecessary to introduce socialist consciousness into the working-class movement from without. But this is a profound mistake. To be able to work out the theory of scientific socialism one must stand at the head of science, one must be armed with scientific knowledge and be able deeply to investigate the laws of historical development. But the working class, while it remains a working class, is unable to stand in the van of science, to advance it and investigate scientifically the laws of history; it lacks both the time and the means for that.[8]

The proletarians’ round-the-clock position as desperate wage-slaves to the capitalists requires the theoretical and organizational work of the more privileged strata in order that a foundational “stage” may be set for them to enter into political life as a class with their own revolutionary program and demands, and not as an appendage of bourgeois parties. We Communists carry out our work in the name of and for the mass of the proletariat, building political organizations in their name and creating real and firm ties with the proletariat and their organizations, so as to raise them up to the level of Communist leaders, no matter what class we come from as individuals.

Especially in periods of low class-consciousness, the revolutionary work of only a few dedicated organizers outside the proletarian class is responsible for bringing coherence and unity out of the spontaneity of mass revolt, bringing the demands of the working class to the forefront and unifying them under a program that will lead to their ultimate liberation. It is the duty of the Communists now, even though they widely reflect the labor aristocracy, the petty bourgeois, and the intelligentsia, to raise the working class out of spontaneity and into a political consciousness capable of taking command of society, at which point our movement is capable of being led by the workers themselves, and not their representatives in the over-classes.

We should not fall into idealism and get disgruntled and disheartened when we hear that Marxism is, in fact, somewhat foreign to the workers in the general sense. We should not despair and act as if some “proletarian purity” has been tainted when we learn that scientific socialism (Marxism) was born from the minds of members of the intelligentsia and bourgeois classes — members of the ruling stratum —like all science in class society. The science of Marxism and dialectical materialism is the ideology of not just the proletariat, but the whole world, as it is the only consistent worldview that is capable of taking in humans and their society in their totality. That said, it is a science that empowers and educates the proletariat for its historical tasks as the leaders of society, and as such, is very much the ideology of the whole working class specifically. We clarify this point so that we may fully leave spontaneity behind and think clear-headedly about the organizational task of raising the proletariat into a proper Marxist understanding, free from revisionism.

Overview 

We invite the reader to keep all of this in mind as they engage with the following text,  Where to Begin When We Already Started?: Revisionism and Organizational Strategy, a pamphlet which attempts to bring unity out of the division of the current socialist movement by centering the comrades on clear Marxist science and the contributions of Marxism-Leninism, as well as provide a practical plan for organizing the immense ideological and theoretical work that must be performed in service to the socialist revolution.

To aid the reader’s comprehension, and so as not to “bury the lead,” we wanted to provide a brief overview of the pamphlet here, emphasizing its main proposition: that the comrades take seriously the anti-revisionist struggle and begin the construction of a country-wide media group, organized under Marxist-Leninist principles. In addition to being a source of strong Marxist agitation across numerous social media and traditional media channels, the group would prioritize the creation of study circles, engage in diplomatic work within the labor movement, delineate revisionist trends, as well as unite the anti-revisionist comrades for practical work in opposition to the current revisionist parties and formations, building a strong base for our movement.

Leading up to this proposition, Where to Begin When We Already Started? explains the current situation of the Communist movement from the perspective of both the working class as a whole, and the socialist revolutionaries, showing that both have not risen above their own sections’ spontaneity. We show how the workers are generally disorganized and unconscious of themselves as a class, in need of ideological instruction. They see themselves not as a global class of oppressed laborers but, adopting the eyes of their capitalist oppressors, as individual employees within their respective liberal societies. The socialists and even a good portion of “Communists” have only exacerbated this shameful situation. Because they are not capable or not willing to excise bourgeois liberalism completely, they bow to revisionism and the many so-called “Marxist” parties of revisionism, turning themselves into agents of counterrevolution and ensuring a disdainful level of ignorance among the proletariat generally. The explorations and critiques of three of the most prominent revisionist trends today — reformism, eclecticism, and social-chauvinism — are included as an appendix.

When weighing the dual problem of widespread Marxist revisionism and the supreme lack of class education among the proletarians, we arrive at the conclusion that we must build strong groups of ideological workers and organizers. A media group of the kind we propose is best capable of meeting the goals of today and of transforming into the future organization capable of meeting tomorrow’s goals. In other words, a Communist media group for the whole country is the best organizational form in the here and now to bring about the dictatorship of the proletariat and guide society towards the elimination of all classes under communism. We hope that this pamphlet receives as wide dissemination as possible, and that the comrades who are open and ready to engage in real revolutionary work will unite with Sparkyl, with the political line put forward in this pamphlet and our other publications, and with other principled formations like our own the world over as we begin the task of building organizations that we desperately need.

>Yet what we need is not a solution of the question in principle, but its practical solution; we must immediately advance a definite constructive plan through which all may immediately set to work to build from every side. Now we are again being dragged away from the practical solution towards something which in principle is correct, indisputable, and great, but which is entirely inadequate and incomprehensible to the broad masses of workers, namely, “to rear strong political organisations”! This is not the point at issue. The point is how to go about the rearing and how to accomplish it. — Lenin, What is to Be Done?, 1902[9]

..

Read the whole pamphlet on our Patreon or Substack!