Editor’s note: We ask that the reader pay attention to the footnotes. In them you will find direct references, elaborations, and practical definitions for the terms we are using.
Stage One: Self Study
No one is born a Marxist. For anyone aiming to inform themselves about anything, including such a rich discipline as Marxism, they should first begin by engaging with the primary sources directly1. Once you begin, you’ll come to a difficulty everyone arrives at with personal study; not knowing what you don’t know and struggling to know if you’re not overlooking any of the key ideas. The best way to rectify this is through collective study.
Of course, we recommend to those starting out who cannot engage in collective study or participate with Mount Tai Study Circle2 (MTSC) for one reason or another that they follow the basic curriculum that we have put together to ground themselves in the fundamentals. You are also welcome to write to us for supplemental readings, advice, criticisms, or questions. When first learning Marxism, it is generally most useful to begin with Marxist philosophy (dialectical materialism); this is because it is the foundation upon which the other component parts of Marxism rest. It is the worldview that encompasses the whole of phenomena and the methodology necessary to appraise it. Additionally, we recommend looking at the reading “How Lenin Studied Marx” by Nadezhda Krupskaya to get a clear idea of Lenin’s approach toward studying and how he always strove to grasp and utilize the method of Marx and Engels rather than reducing their ideas and conclusions to a ready-made dogma as so many self-proclaimed communists do.
Stage Two: Collective Study in Study Circles
Collective study and accompanying theoretical struggle are the principal methods to achieve consensus on Marxist principles3. Here, collective labor overcomes individual shortcomings and confusion and is the first place where Marxists can become more than the sum of their parts. Study circles generate a foundational organizational framework, as they require a baseline of organization in order to facilitate studies and the increasing number of circles engaged in them. This allows for free experimentation in political projects, a base for mass initiatives, and a forum to debate ideas on the contemporary situation. Lastly, it allows for discipline to be developed without overburdening participants with roles they wouldn’t be ready for. An example of one such circle is MTSC, whose structure and composition is presented clearly on our website.
Eventually, as a study circle’s leadership consolidates itself sufficiently, a need to conduct Marxist analysis of contemporary conditions arises. Thus a journal becomes necessary to begin that analysis while facilitating ideological struggle between Marxist trends and acting as a rallying point for Marxists to organize around. This is paramount for all the disparate and divided study circles to come to the unity necessary to advance both themselves as Marxist organizers and the movement as it develops into the following stages. From here, Marxists should begin distributing propaganda and agitational material for the masses, starting locally, and broadening it from there. Concretely, it would necessarily start in narrow points of struggle such as this workers strike or that student occupation coupled with publications from the journal, only later evolving into roles in broader movements as relationships with the masses deepen. This is what it means to form mass links and practice the mass line within our particular context, as the Russians and Chinese did in theirs.
It is important to emphasize that these initial organic links are subordinate to the task of ideological struggle and study at this stage. To forget this would be succumbing to economism and tailism, as the links are useless disconnected from an established political line and national organization. Further, there are two aspects to the links in question: breadth or to what extent these links reach through the land; and depth or how numerous and strong these links are within a given locale. Limiting oneself to the latter amounts to localism, and exposes you to the state concentrating its attention to that one strong locale if need be. Looking at the masses liberally (i.e superficially seeing a communist’s role to be doing ‘mass work’ and forming ‘mass links’) or as an empiricist source of ideas, amounts to seeing only one side of the process of the development of knowledge, the aspect of “from the masses”. However, in order to proceed “to the masses”, one can’t just regurgitate their own ideas back to them or supplement it with their own dogma as it neglects synthesis. By following this liberal path, the masses are left untrained and are passively seen as indicators of success in and of themselves. Therefore, in order to be able to proceed “to the masses”, we must first develop ourselves through the difficult work of theoretical study and ideological struggle. This is how we overcome the tradition of the SPA and its successors.
Once these links start becoming consolidated, pre-party formations, formed precisely for organizing the masses further, take precedence over developing the study circle(s).
Stage Three: Pre-Party Formation
Study circles develop the most advanced and enthusiastic Marxists who may then compose a pre-party formation (PPF). They formalize it under a democratic centralist4 structure defined by a constitution and maintained through disciplinary codes. Having established links with the working masses, the PPF now works to win over and develop the advanced sections into becoming Marxist organizers themselves; develop the intermediate through a journal along with other propagandizing material; and agitate the backward to raise their level to political consciousness. To elaborate on this point, we cite this key passage from Lenin’s “A Retrograde Trend in Social Democracy” that is still so relevant for the American left to understand. In it, we ask the reader to play close attention to the characterization of the advanced strata of the proletariat to the less advanced, and the significance of work by Marxists among these sections (all bolds being our own):
“The history of the working-class movement in all countries shows that the better-situated strata of the working class respond to the ideas of socialism, more rapidly and more easily. From among these come, in the main, the advanced workers that every working-class movement brings to the fore, those who can win the confidence of the labouring masses, who devote themselves entirely to the education and organisation of the proletariat, who accept socialism consciously, and who even elaborate independent socialist theories. Every viable working-class movement has brought to the fore such working-class leaders, its own Proudhons, Vaillants, Weitlings, and Bebels. And our Russian working-class movement promises not to lag behind the European movement in this respect. At a time when educated society is losing interest in honest, illegal literature, an impassioned desire for knowledge and for socialism is growing among the workers, real heroes are coming to the fore from amongst the workers, who… despite the stultifying penal servitude of factory labour, possess so much character and will-power that they study, study, study, and turn themselves into conscious Social-Democrats—“the working-class intelligentsia.” This “working-class intelligentsia” already exists in Russia, and we must make every effort to ensure that its ranks are regularly reinforced, that its lofty mental requirements are met and that leaders of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party come from its ranks. The newspaper that wants to become the organ of all Russian Social-Democrats must, therefore, be at the level of the advanced workers; not only must it not lower its level artificially, but, on the contrary, it must raise it constantly, it must follow up all the tactical, political, and theoretical problems of world Social-Democracy. Only then will the demands of the working-class intelligentsia be met, and it itself will take the cause of the Russian workers and, consequently, the cause of the Russian revolution, into its own hands.”
To contextualize, this was written over a year after the founding of the RSDLP and consequently there already was a certain fusion that had taken place between Marxism and the Russian labor movement. However, the 1st Congress led to nearly the entire political leadership being arrested, rendering the RSDLP to exist only in name. This left the regional ‘sub-party formations’ entirely to their own devices with their political work. In the USA, there is nothing that resembles the Bolshevik Faction of the RSDLP. All similar groups that have existed lay as dead mulch beneath our feet, or worse, persist like zombies, in rotting and bloated forms, corrupting all they touch. Above, Lenin is also referring to a working class that at that point had become the most militant and politicized in the entire world. It should be clear that at this point we are the advanced sections of the proletariat, ‘we’ referring to all workers who are not only class conscious but also are actively working towards elevating our understanding of socialism and the means to attain it5. Unfortunately, we’re also weak theoretically due to the particular effect of American Pragmatism along with the ongoing ideological crisis of Maoism, leaving us without much of a guide (as the Germans were for the Russians). This is further complicated by the lack of continuity and familiarity with past American revolutionary movements wherever they came about between the 1918 revolutionary crisis and the NCM. This makes studying socialism that much more significant for the stage of organizing as a PPF (let alone a party). In particular, we must win over the various trends among the ‘working-class intelligentsia’ to the correct proletarian line and develop it further from there.
“After the numerically small stratum of advanced workers comes the broad stratum of average workers. These workers, too, strive ardently for socialism, participate in workers’ study circles, read socialist newspapers and books, participate in agitation, and differ from the preceding stratum only in that they cannot become fully independent leaders of the Social-Democratic working-class movement. The average worker will not understand some of the articles in a newspaper that aims to be the organ of the Party, he will not be able to get a full grasp of an intricate theoretical or practical problem. This does not at all mean that the newspaper must lower itself to the level of the mass of its readers. The newspaper, on the contrary, must raise their level and help promote advanced workers from the middle stratum of workers. Such workers, absorbed by local practical work and interested mainly in the events of the working-class movement and the immediate problems of agitation, should connect their every act with thoughts of the entire Russian working-class movement, its historical task, and the ultimate goal of socialism, so that the newspaper, the mass of whose readers are average workers, must connect socialism and the political struggle with every local and narrow question.”
While the advanced stratum includes the politically conscious socialists who are independently capable of leading sections of the working class at various points of struggle within the mass movement, the average stratum consists of the sympathizers and supporters. Sympathizers are a key component for us to establish and deepen our links with as, once primed, they actively agitate and promote our material where possible. We must not vulgarize our material to cater to their level, but provide every means to develop them further so that they can eventually become independent organizers.
“Lastly, behind the stratum of average workers comes the mass that constitutes the lower strata of the proletariat. It is quite possible that a socialist newspaper will be completely or well-nigh incomprehensible to them…, but it would be absurd to conclude from this that the newspaper of the Social-Democrats should adapt itself to the lowest possible level of the workers. The only thing that follows from this is that different forms of agitation and propaganda must be brought to bear on these strata—pamphlets written in more popular language, oral agitation, and chiefly—leaflets on local events. The Social-Democrats should not confine themselves even to this; it is quite possible that the first steps towards arousing the consciousness of the lower strata of the workers will have to take the form of legal educational activities [most political work being illegal in Russia at the time]. It is very important for the Party to make use of this activity, guide it in the direction in which it is most needed, send out legal workers to plough up virgin fields that can later be planted by Social-Democratic agitators. Agitation among the lower strata of the workers should, of course, provide the widest field for the personal qualities of the agitator and the peculiarities of the locality, the trade concerned, etc. “Tactics and agitation must not be confused,” says Kautsky in his book against Bernstein. “Agitational methods must be adapted to individual and local conditions. Every agitator must be allowed to select those methods of agitation that he has at his disposal. One agitator may create the greatest impression by his enthusiasm, another by his biting sarcasm, a third by his ability to adduce a large number of instances, etc. While being adapted to the agitator, agitation must also be adapted to the public. The agitator must speak so that he will be understood; he must take as a starting-point something well known to his listeners. All this is self-evident and is not merely applicable to agitation conducted among the peasantry. One has to talk to cabmen differently than to sailors, and to sailors differently than to printers. Agitation must be individualised, but our tactics, our political activity must be uniform” (S. 2-3). These words from a leading representative of Social-Democratic theory contain a superb assessment of agitation as part of the general activity of the party. These words show how unfounded are the fears of those who think that the formation of a revolutionary party conducting a political struggle will interfere with agitation, will push it into the background and curtail the freedom of the agitators. On the contrary, only an organised party can carry out widespread agitation, provide the necessary guidance (and material) for agitators on all economic and political questions, make use of every local agitational success for the instruction of all Russian workers, and send agitators to those places and into that milieu where they can work with the greatest success… From this it can be seen that whoever forgets political agitation and propaganda on account of the economic struggle, whoever forgets the necessity of organising the working-class movement into the struggle of a political party, will, aside from everything else, deprive himself of even an opportunity of successfully and steadily attracting the lower strata of the proletariat to the working-class cause.”
“However, such an exaggeration of one side of our activities to the detriment of the others, even the urge to throw overboard the other aspects, is fraught with still graver consequences for the Russian working-class movement. The lower strata of the proletariat may even become demoralised by such calumnies as that the founders of Russian Social-Democracy only want to use the workers to overthrow the autocracy, by invitations to confine themselves to the restoration of holidays and to craft unions, with no concern for the final aims of socialism and the immediate tasks of the political struggle. Such workers may (and will) always be ensnared by the bait of any sops offered by the government or the bourgeoisie. The lower strata of the proletariat, the very undeveloped workers, might, under the influence of the preaching of Rabochaya Mysl, fall victim to the bourgeois and profoundly reactionary idea that the worker cannot and should not interest himself in anything but increased wages and the restoration of holidays (“the interests of the moment”); that the working people can and should conduct the workers’ struggle by their own efforts alone, by their own “private initiative,” and not attempt to combine it with socialism; that they should not strive to turn the working-class movement into the essential, advanced cause of all mankind. We repeat, the most undeveloped workers might be demoralised by such an idea, but we are confident that the advanced Russian workers, those who guide the workers’ study circles and all Social-Democratic activity, those who today fill our prisons and places of exile—from Archangel Gubernia to Eastern Siberia—that those workers will reject such a theory with indignation. To reduce the entire movement to the interests of the moment means to speculate on the backward condition of the workers, means to cater to their worst inclinations. It means artificially to break the link between the working-class movement and socialism, between the fully defined political strivings of the advanced workers and the spontaneous manifestations of protest on the part of the masses. Hence, the attempt of Rabochaya Mysl to introduce a special trend merits particular attention and calls for a vigorous protest. As long as Rabochaya Mysl, adapting itself, apparently, to the lower strata of the proletariat, assiduously avoided the question of the ultimate goal of socialism and the political struggle, with no declaration of its special trend, many Social-Democrats only shook their heads, hoping that with the development and extension of their work the members of the Rabochaya Mysl group would come to rid themselves of their narrowness. However, when people who, until now, have performed the useful work of a preparatory class clutch at fashionable opportunist theories and begin to deafen the ears of Europe with announcements about intending to put the whole of Russian Social-Democracy into the preparatory class for many years (if not for ever), when, in other words, people who have, until now, been labouring usefully over a barrel of honey begin “in full view of the public” to pour ladles of tar into it, then it is time for us to set ourselves decisively against this retrograde trend!”
These two paragraphs are especially significant in our context. It provides a clear definition of the backward strata to be at best ignorant of its class role and at worst completely subordinate to the leadership of one or another bourgeois trend against its own interests. Further, it demands the complete opposite of what nearly every Marxist trend in the United States has stumbled into. That is, the opportunist tendency to lower our ideological level and political work to that of the backwards or intermediate strata, with the added flare of waving red flags occasionally. Indeed, rather than ‘catering to their worst inclinations’, we must agitate them towards socialism with redoubled enthusiasm. What we instead cater to is their particular circumstances, what we colloquially call ‘meeting the masses where they’re at’, as we agitate them towards becoming sympathizers. To reiterate, we must agitate the backward strata toward socialism, raising them above their narrow self-interests while simultaneously addressing their individual needs for effective and understandable agitation.
Now that the tasks for PPFs are clear in the realm of organizing the proletariat, we can proceed. PPFs must reorganize the former study circle apparatus into a specialized formal Marxist school to handle incoming sympathizers of all political literacy levels, thereby facilitating ideological consolidation among the new generation of revolutionaries. As the Marxist movement continues to grow by winning over larger sections of the proletariat to its cause, the need for a draft program also becomes necessary. Research committees responsible for the class analysis key to laying the basis for such a program should already be at work. Once a PPF completes and approves a draft program, the struggle to found the Communist Party begins. Particularly, this struggle involves winning over as many other PPFs and study circles as possible as well as completing the preparatory work for a founding congress (coordinated through an organizing committee).
Stage Four: A Communist Party
A party congress formalizes a party by adopting the national program and party rules, waging line struggles over the most pressing tasks, and electing all the party leadership to the central committee (which is to represent the congress when it isn’t in session). Such an event expresses the fusion of the working class movement with Marxism. Any ‘party’ that hasn’t in fact fulfilled this prerequisite wouldn’t qualify as a vanguard party in the Leninist sense, and therefore its founding would be premature. By this point a party school would need to be set up with the Marxist school, to prepare the new generation of professional revolutionaries6. The news organ would also diversify into various specializations, an official publication for the party (i.e the party organ), and publications aimed at various mass struggles such as student or national movements. Once formed, the purpose of the party, the vanguard of the proletariat, is to lead the working class to its liberation through revolution. It will be, of course, by any means necessary, but that doesn’t mean all means at all times, only that it is the Party’s responsibility to direct the workers where we are certain to win. One cannot prescribe ahead of time what a communist party should do and in what exact form it should look like, staying true to Lenin’s expression of a “concrete analysis of concrete conditions”7 prior to determining the necessary strategy and tactics.
All along the way, the extent to which revolutionaries must prepare for state repression varies. There’s no way to figure out the level of skill it needs until at the very least a PPF introduces a standard of collective discipline. Even then, it won’t be until a national party can enforce discipline widely that any counter-repressionary activity would be effective and proactive (in contrast to the common amateurish and reactive efforts of today). Therefore, education on security would play a large role in the party school.
The Task of Study Today
Reviewing the process of the development of the communist movement, what begins as self-study soon progresses to collective study in study circles. Once collective study establishes a standard of theoretical training, the circles struggle to win over the advanced sections of the working class and develop the others. Individual Marxists then not only study theory but also train in the skills of agitation, propaganda, and rudimentary organizational discipline. Of course, in order to realize the goal of winning over the masses and developing communists, it is necessary to simultaneously struggle theoretically with other circles and revisionist trends. The agitation, propaganda, and organizing required necessitates a higher level of organization capable of coordinating both this and launching the grand task of formal party construction. PPFs then form to satisfy that aim, and the training of new communists now includes organizational methods to address the concrete problems facing a growing communist movement. This includes a likely response from the state (assuming the PPF has now won over the support of a section of the working class, and is successfully moving to party foundation). The theoretical tasks then only continue to get deeper and more difficult, including a national class analysis and laying out the key principles and demands to be listed in the party program. Once complete, there is then a basis to form a communist party aimed at realizing that program and securing workers’ power.
At the current political juncture, we are in the stage of study circles. Forming new PPFs at this point would be premature and lead to organizers lacking the preparation necessary to operate effectively. At best, a group will stagnate until it resolves its theoretical shortcomings, but in all likelihood it will collapse in a few years. A key reason for this is because forming a PPF requires at least some link with the labor/mass movement (as referenced in [Stage Two: Collective Study]), whereas lacking it amounts to adventurism8. That said, the circumstances for existing PPFs are more nuanced. Where the PPFs have gone through the ‘trial by fire’ and have established a practice that has been effective, throwing out years of work despite national conditions would be counter-productive. For those PPFs, we ask only for them to reflect on the forces they have at their disposal, and assess whether they could spare any for developing study circles. That way, a broader mass of Marxists from among the large sections of fresh blood sympathetic to the cause of socialism can be developed sufficiently for the next stage of our work. However, for the various PPFs continuing the cycle of useless at best and harmful at worst organizing, we call for their dissolution and reorganization into study circles, in line with their current level of ideological development.
For Marxist study circles, the task is straightforward: win over as many sympathizers and Marxists to study as is possible. Develop a curriculum with enough rigor to teach the fundamentals, while also encouraging Marxist students to engage in their community’s political life to develop mass links. Keep your priorities straight. Don’t emphasize practice at a stage where we don’t even know how to evaluate practice9. Avoid unnecessary work by using existing resources. There’s over 200 years of proletarian tradition to familiarize oneself and your comrades with. Struggle theoretically with other trends, leaving no vulgarized principle of Marxism unchecked. If applied correctly, the rewards are exponential. Finally, for those still uninvolved in Marxist organizations, get involved! Of course, we believe the Mount Tai Study Circle is the organization best equipped to address the needs of those interested in learning Marxist theory and preparing them for our future role as communist organizers. However, as long as you’re dedicating serious time to study Marxism in a group setting (and alone if that’s not possible), we will always be happy to engage with you in the future. This is our responsibility as the new generation of American Reds.
We expect this article to receive criticism; indeed, we encourage it! There’s no better issue to struggle over than the question of how we’re to reclaim Marxism as a tool wielded by the working class. Doing so, especially from scratch, necessitates that we begin from the beginning, guided by Liebknecht’s timeless slogan of “study, propagandize, organize”10. It is according to this thesis that MTSC sees a path towards a party, and with it, the beginning of the end for American imperialism.
- However, secondary sources can be useful supplements, and possibly give direction for further study. Texts such as “Why Communism?” by MJ Olgin or the “Marxism vs Liberalism” interview between Joseph Stalin and H.G. Wells are ‘popular’ introductions to Marxism that are intended for an audience with little familiarity. Although, it is our opinion that many contemporary popularizations and analyses often vulgarize key Marxist principles, smuggle in revisionism, and leave readers more confused than when they began. Therefore, our recommendation for contemporary works summarizing Marxist fundamentals is that they should be considered with caution. It is difficult enough to clarify misconceptions caused by anti-communism taught from bourgeois education and media, let alone the inventions of those who repeat their own misconceptions far and wide. As another defect, in many contemporary articles published by various leftist groups, they often fail to cite sources or provide bibliographies that give readers the resources they’d need to evaluate the material themselves and come to their own conclusions. ↩︎
- For those unfamiliar and curious about our organization can check our website where you will also find our contact information. We aim to be as transparent as possible with regards to our methodology and outlook. ↩︎
- One thing to note is that self-study should continue even once collective study is underway (and this remains true at each successive stage). This is so that our theoretical development keeps with the pace of organizational and political development. ↩︎
- As Lenin describes in “Freedom to Criticize and Unity in Action”: “The principle of democratic centralism and autonomy for local Party organisations implies universal and full freedom to criticise, so long as this does not disturb the unity of a definite action; it rules out all criticism which disrupts or makes difficult the unity of an action decided on by the Party.” ↩︎
- As this is often confused among the contemporary American left, we clarify that class stand and class position are two different things. You can be a member of the proletariat, or any other class for that matter, but work towards the interests of classes opposite to your own. Of course, your class position ‘brands’ you with the outlook of that class, but this isn’t a metaphysical indictment of your identity for all time. With that said, by ‘all workers’ we’re inclusive of those who may not have had exclusively proletarian upbringings, but nonetheless work towards the liberation of the proletariat and politically embody a proletarian class consciousness. ↩︎
- As Lenin puts it in “What is to be Done?”, this refers to revolutionaries who’s sole occupation is political work in the party. ↩︎
- Mao reiterated this as well in “Our Study and the Current Situation” saying “Concrete analysis of concrete conditions, Lenin said, is ‘the most essential thing in Marxism, the living soul of Marxism’.” ↩︎
- By adventurism we mean the term defined by Lenin as “…adventurist in the sense that they had no stable or serious principles, programme, tactics, organisation, and no roots among the masses.” From “Adventurism”. This is inclusive of both right and left opportunist trends though colloquially leftists often restrict its use to the latter. ↩︎
- On that note, properly evaluating practice includes being able to distinguish between correct and incorrect ideas even if they may fail due to the balance of forces or factors that couldn’t have been taken into account. To quote Mao “Generally speaking, those that succeed are correct and those that fail are incorrect, and this is especially true of man’s struggle with nature. In social struggle, the forces representing the advanced class sometimes suffer defeat not because their ideas are incorrect [!] but because, in the balance of forces engaged in struggle, they are not as powerful for the time being as the forces of reaction; they are therefore temporarily defeated, but they are bound to triumph sooner or later ”- “Where do Correct Ideas Come From?”. This is in direct opposition to the pragmatist idea that as long as something is successful it doesn’t matter if it’s correct or not. ↩︎
- We source this from Lenin’s “What the ‘Friends of the People’ Are and How They Fight the Social-Democrats”, one of his earliest writings where he cites Liebknecht’s slogan calling for the tasks of the early German Marxist party. ↩︎
Mount Tai Study Circle 