Writing for the masses

Those who write from a communist perspective need to do so in order to be read and understood by the masses. A comrade pointed out that one of my own pieces, “On the necessity of combating social chauvinism/conservatism within progressive and revolutionary movements”, sounds too much like an undergraduate paper. This is an extremely important critique because unless our material is written for and read by the masses, then it amounts to nothing but hot air. Refusing to be understood by the masses – indeed, refusing to understand that this is the only reason that communists should write as communists – is a form of petty-bourgeois impetuosity and a form of liberalism. Or, to put in terms that the masses might be more familiar with at this historic juncture: a dog-wank.

Now, having said all that, and recognizing the need to avoid pompous, academic-sounding and/or impenetrable language, we should not dumb down our message. We must have faith in the ability of the masses to understand complex social phenomena, to be able to grasp the material relations that define class exploitation and oppression, and to see through reactionary garbage. To come to a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist perspective on these things, we must of course help them, but we should not ever talk down to them. The masses are not stupid children, and we should not condescend to them, trick them or engage in opportunist shenanigans for cheap short-term gains. If we are serious communists, then we must always remember that we are part of the masses; we serve the masses wholeheartedly. We are the best friend and weapon they yield in their historic mission to emancipate humanity. All of this absolutely necessitates that we view our task as a deadly serious one rather than as an adventure, and that everything we do strengthens the revolutionary consciousness of the masses and is done in their interests. This, obviously, extends to our agitation and propaganda, to our literature and to the words we use. All must be chosen with care, and for maximum effect in the class struggle against capitalist-imperialism. Sloppy language means handing the bourgeoisie a gift.

But having said that, we also need to understand that the masses are struggling to survive everyday, and that by virtue of that, they cannot all be expected to be geniuses in the science of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, and that there are certain messages that we can focus on above others to gain the support of the people. That must start with us being among the masses, listening to their problems, understanding how they view things, and learning from them. It means tailoring our message to the concrete conditions that face the working class.

Communists who fail to heed these lessons will invariably fail in their tasks. They will wonder why the masses are not listening to them, but in fact the fault lies not with the masses but with these comrades, who through impetuosity and impatience, through being too focused on books and too isolated from the masses, will churn out pamphlets that will find no traction among them.


On the relation between revolutionary theory and practice, and the necessity of revolutionary science

“Theory is the experience of the working-class movement in all countries taken in its general aspect. Of course, theory becomes purposeless if it is not connected with revolutionary practice, just as practice gropes in the dark if its path is not illuminated by revolutionary theory.”

— J. Stalin, “The Foundations of Leninism”, Chapter 3 – Theory

This quote by Stalin encapsulates an extremely profound truth already developed by Lenin and other revolutionary communists: that revolutionary practice cannot be a blind rummaging around in the dark, but must be guided by a theoretical underpinning that is itself grounded in practice. While communists cannot anticipate every event given the extreme complexity of society, they can at least avoid ignominious defeats for the working class by steering clear of blind alleys and dead ends. Revolution is not an adventure or a game; it is a deadly serious application of politics, and class politics at that (which is itself the most serious politics).

Some leftists, such as Noam Chomsky and other radical left-liberal reformers, don’t (and can’t, given their reformism) quite grasp this. While recognizing the need for proper tactics in struggle, they are extremely soggy on the issue of the relation between tactics and strategy (roughly, they have no strategy), are weirdly enamored of “non-violent struggle” and “leaderless struggles” (Chris Hedges quipped that the “genius” of movements like Occupy Wall Street “lies in its lack of leadership”), and are given to the mantra of “working within the system to see what it can deliver” (one might have hoped that by now, after many decades of being personally involved in popular struggles and critiquing US imperialism, Chomsky would have gotten the message that the capitalist-imperialist system has run up against its limits in terms of what it can deliver to the working class, and that this system is a danger to all life on this planet and must be thoroughly destroyed, not debated away.┬áIf people like Chomsky want to continue fumbling around with perpetually “seeing what the system can deliver”, that is their business, but serious revolutionaries should not take their line as anything other than the semi-pacifist petty-bourgeois deviation that it is).

Revolutionary theory provides us with certain generally applicable lessons based on the bitter and hard-won experience of centuries of class struggle. Of course, these lessons must be tailored to the particular concrete conditions that prevail in any one country in a particular historic epoch, and no revolutionary movement can be exactly the same as any other. Each country has its own particular configurations of class power, levels of class consciousness among its oppressed and exploited classes, and different contradictions among the exploiting classes. In formulating proper tactics and strategy as they relate to a particular country, one must have a good (that is, realistic) idea of these conditions and how they in turn relate to the world situation, the avenues available to the revolutionary classes, how these classes can take advantage of contradictions among the exploiters, etc. If we take revolution seriously, we must be serious about developing it as a science – a science put into the hands of the masses for the purpose of making revolution – and to view society as the proper laboratory in which it is tested and refined. Revolutionary science, the evolving, integrated whole of practice and theory, aims to link the universal to the particular, and through social struggle, the building and organization of the organs of struggle, and the development of correct political line, to further develop itself so that it may contribute to and link up with the concrete struggles of the masses elsewhere (who will in their turn, in the particular conditions facing them, distill that which is useful, discard that which is not useful, and arrive at a new revolutionary summation).

Those who ignore these truths do as at the peril of the proletariat and peasantry in its historic mission to overthrow class exploitation; at the peril of overthrowing and smashing the capitalist-imperialist system that dominates humanity.

Petty-bourgeois, pacifist, liberal and revisionist lines will only succeed in making the masses perpetually chase their own tails, leading them straight back into the jaws of the enemy. This is because they lack a clear understanding of the need for strategy, of the need for science, of the need for deadly serious class politics with a clear, uncompromising end goal. Faced with this task, they often retreat back into the camp of the enemy, imagining that capitalism can be reformed out of existence, that the task ahead can be done using Twitter and co-ops, that an accommodation can be reached with imperialism, that Leninism is itself a deviation while their own petty-bourgeois impetuosity on the one hand, and opportunism and vacillation on the other, will hold the key. They will, in other words, continue to mislead the masses into doing the equivalent of throwing water balloons at the brick wall of the dictatorship of capital. Revolutionary science, on the other hand, equips the masses to build a giant hammer to smash through the wall , to suffer no more excuses.

Let’s build and wield the hammer; let’s stop throwing water balloons.