Introduction
This document builds on the organizational documents that are published on our website and aims to provide greater clarity to both our members and the wider public on our approach toward pedagogy and organizational structure. We hope that this can aid those who are similarly striving to learn the basics of Marxism and inspire confidence in our approach. In light of questions we’ve received from members and the public, we have chosen to approach this as a series of questions, akin to an FAQ.
Why is there a facilitation team at all?
“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 directly. Once [they] begin, [they]’ll come to a difficulty everyone arrives at with personal study; not knowing what [they] don’t know and struggling to know if [they]’re not overlooking any of the key ideas. The best way to rectify this is through collective study.”–When Americans Refuse to Read
In the course of our experience studying Marxism and learning throughout our lives, we have found that it is generally preferable to have a guide when wading through new and unfamiliar waters. The facilitation team exists first and foremost to perform this role. Having done the difficult work of arriving at an understanding of Marxism together, without a guide, or at least without such an organized process, we have resolved to make a difference so that not everyone must start blind as we did1. Each and every one of us would’ve appreciated an organization like ours as we began studying. This same principle of those with more knowledge teaching those with less has been proven in the practice of previous revolutions with the schools they set up to teach Marxism2.
Why is there an assessment to join the facilitation team?
Because it is important that guides have a general degree of competency that can be counted on. If you are following them into the wilderness and they don’t know the path any better than you do, then they are guiding in a technical sense, but not in an informed way. If you find yourself in this situation, it may be just as appropriate, if not more, for someone else to take on the role.
Our assessment tests for a general and rudimentary understanding of the basic concepts within our first (and most important) module, dialectical materialism. We believe that passing this module demonstrates that someone is an eligible candidate for the role of Jr Facilitator3. It shows us that, failing all else, you can ‘read the map.’ Unfortunately, this isn’t the case for everyone, at least not without some effort toward learning how to use the map. But if one cannot read the map, there is no purpose in appointing them as a guide when there are others who are up to the task, and when our members have entrusted us with upholding this basic standard.
Why is there a candidate period before joining the facilitation team?
Simply being able to understand the material on a basic level isn’t enough. One must be able to share that knowledge with others and perform the practical duties of a Jr facilitator. This means having or developing good communication skills, being able to work in a group, and being able to lead group discussions. It also means testing one’s understanding in practice. Sure, up to this point the candidate has demonstrated their knowledge on paper, but it’s through trial facilitating where we begin to see them apply it. This often happens when a member asks a question that requires a candidate to use their understanding or to approach the material in a unique and creative way, or when a candidate evaluates the answers that the study members provide. All of this requires more than rote memorization and serves to further test a candidate’s knowledge.
Why is the candidate period so short?
After the trial facilitation, the (2) facilitators and the candidate reflect on how the candidate did in facilitating the study, taking into account any feedback provided by the study group members. Based on the feedback and subjective evaluation of their performance, we can identify areas for improvement and areas of success. We can then determine their current ability. We discuss all of this with the candidate to determine whether they feel up to the task of facilitation, and if they would like to join the team. This is because these skills can be developed over time, provided one has the drive and commitment to do so. Learning these practical skills through doing, by reflecting on previous feedback, and by learning from peers is adequate for developing these skills. (A proper Marxist school would have a more theoretical and refined approach toward pedagogical skill, but that is honestly beyond our capabilities and needs at the moment.)
What are the weaknesses of this approach?
The assessment is fairly easy. You only need to pass 9 questions in the dialectical materialism section to be eligible for candidacy. This opens the possibility that someone could ‘copy-paste’ answers or otherwise rely on the texts or outside sources rather than their own recall. In this case, they wouldn’t actually demonstrate “what they know” in any great detail.
To this we would respond, it is true; these are real possibilities. But nonetheless, they satisfy what we are testing for. We are not evaluating for in-depth knowledge of these concepts. We are simply looking for an adequate ability to navigate the material. In other words, can they read the map? We aren’t testing how well they can read it. (Although that is much better measured by the full assessment, which isn’t required, but is encouraged.)
Aren’t these very low standards then?
In some respects, yes. We have determined through our experiences, as an organization of 4 years, that it is sufficient for Jr facilitators to only be able to articulate the basic concepts in an intelligible manner. On a knowledge level, that is all that a candidate needs to start being a Jr facilitator. We emphasize “start” because one’s education doesn’t end when they join the facilitation team. In a sense, this is where the real education begins. This is where one’s understanding is continually tested and where one continues to grow and develop their knowledge with their peers in a more challenging manner. The Jr facilitators are always paired with a senior facilitator (with some rare exceptions.) So far, we have yet to experience a practical refutation of this policy.
What if the study members have questions that go beyond the text or require a greater understanding of the concepts to answer?
As long as people are asking questions and learning is happening, even if people are sometimes asking questions that are too challenging for the facilitator(s), that is okay. This doesn’t necessarily demonstrate a lack of understanding of the text or the concepts presented in it, but rather it indicates a limitation of one’s scope of knowledge outside the curriculum. This provides an opportunity to grow one’s knowledge and to explore these ideas more deeply. If the Jr facilitator can participate in the discussion, try their best to answer the questions participants ask, and act humbly (as in honestly about their understanding), then that is enough. We also offer supplemental and more advanced materials that build on the ‘basic understanding’ we’re teaching for both facilitators and members alike.
One might object that the further testing is ultimately reliant on the study members asking questions and the like. What if they don’t ask questions or don’t ask anything revealing?
If that is the case then, the candidate or Jr facilitator hasn’t failed anything. In practice, their understanding has proved adequate to the task, which they completed. Whether they have more to say or not is immaterial; if they did know more, it wouldn’t have been shared anyway.
They only “fail” if there is a real situation that they cannot respond to. But even then, that “failure” is relative. It may be addressed by another study member or facilitator (we work in pairs after all!) or, in the case that it isn’t, you can simply say “I’m not sure. That’s a good/interesting question, and I can ask the other facilitators about it and get back to you. Thanks for bringing it up.” These are all opportunities for growing their knowledge and testing others. In all of this, we maintain the principle that knowledge is a collective affair.
What if a facilitator doesn’t believe in what they’re saying?
This could very well be the case, whether it be through malice, as in a bad actor, or just simply a lack of developed understanding. Here we again hammer home the test of practice; how does this lack of belief affect their ability to perform their tasks as a facilitator? To the degree that it does, it is a problem. For example, if someone were to ask a question and the facilitator replies, “I don’t know, I don’t believe in this stuff,” then that is an example of shirking their responsibilities and would discourage the study members. The situation would then be confronted on that basis. But, if despite the lack of belief, the facilitator earnestly tried to answer and apply what they know, then there is no issue with this.
A lack of belief is ultimately a consequence of a lack of understanding, to some degree, but this is something that we must accept as aspiring Marxists. As Mao explained in “A Dialectical Approach to Inner Party Unity,”
“There are Marxists of all degrees, those who are l00 per cent, 90, 80, 70, 60 or 50 per cent Marxist, and some who are only l0 or 20 per cent Marxist. Can’t two or more of us have talks together in a small room? Can’t we proceed from the desire for unity and hold talks in the spirit of helping each other?”
When we understand this, we can appreciate the practical significance of different levels of understanding. The point isn’t that we all must be perfect Marxists, but that we are able to talk with each other, to work together toward a common goal. In this case, the goal is to facilitate learning the basics of Marxism. Sad to say it, but at a rudimentary level, even a state agent can perform this task, as Roman Malinovsky demonstrated4.
Doesn’t this run the risk of having parrots rather than teachers?
Perhaps, but this is a short term problem. To a limited extent, we can settle for competent parrots and work on developing them into good teachers. We are first and foremost like teachers on a basic level because we perform many of the same functions, but we are not teachers in the sense that we are not running a Marxist school. As a study circle (or study organization if you prefer), our job is to facilitate learning, but we are not required to be teachers in the full sense.
It is important to remember that the point of the studies isn’t to answer every student’s questions, nor would it be reasonable to do so. We are there to clarify matters and to guide study members toward a unified understanding of what the texts say about the core ideas of Marxism. Whether they believe it or not, or whether they have all of their gripes and questions answered is a secondary matter, as far as the study sessions are concerned. There is only so much that can be covered in a 2 hour window, 2-4 times a month. Even if we were able to take the time to answer and address every question or point of contention, that would not be sufficient to fully develop the understanding of the study members. Most of that larger development takes time, as we go through the curriculum and develop members’ holistic understanding, drawing links between past readings and present ones, and increasing their ability to look at the world through a Marxist lens. That is what we are trying to accomplish at this phase; “for those taking part in the circle to undergo a process in which they’ll understand Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (MLM) sufficiently to effectively utilize it in both mass and higher organizations” (from MTSC’s ‘Goals’ on the about page). This basic starting point won’t result in 100% Marxists.
Did the study members understand the main ideas of the text? Are they able to integrate and connect that understanding to what they’ve read previously? Can they demonstrate or explain their understanding to a basic degree? These are the fundamental benchmarks we test for with each study member. If we have done our job well, then it can be said that the study members understood what they read at a basic level. Do they truly know the whys and wherefores? Maybe, maybe not. Do they have a strong basis for application? Maybe, maybe not. Honestly, probably not and that is perfectly fine because they have a basis. Subsequently, they will be able to integrate their experiences or new (more complicated) ideas with that established basis. This is why we have modules on the curriculum; the second module of each subject builds on the information and understanding established in the first.
To further explain this point through a common experience, we’ll make a comparison to primary education. When one first learns that 1+1=2 in school, does the teacher ever go through an extensive mathematical proof of this? Is it standard that any of the teachers know it? If one were to ask any given elementary teacher to write and explain such a proof, is it assumed that they could? Or most importantly, is it critical for students to understand this when learning the concept? Evidently history says, “no,” the first rigorous formal mathematical proof that 1+1=2 was written in 1910 in the “Principia Mathematica”, yet this was intuitively understood and applied for thousands of years all the same. It is clearly unnecessary for the students to understand the whole logical proof to begin applying the concept.
When we ask the students “what’s 1+1” and they reply “2,” do we have in our minds that they understand the complicated logical proof? No, but they don’t need to. It is just a basic concept; one that will have to be committed to memory and developed over time. The real and tangible proof comes from experience, which is demonstrable in a thousand different ways. The same is true of the basics of dialectics. When we read Mao’s “On Contradiction” together and discuss the basic concepts, we should be under no illusion that we have exhausted the concept. It is a rudimentary text for popular understanding, based on quite literally thousands of years of philosophical development that led to the discovery of dialectical materialism.
Let’s return to the school children. When we further explain that 1+1+1+1=4 and 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=9, we are enriching their understanding of addition and their grasp of these numbers. Do we then believe that they can add 285+7,469? No, that would be unreasonable. But we have laid the foundations for that understanding in the future. If instead we ask what 2+2 is, it is reasonable that they may be able to apply the understanding to recognize that it is 4.
The same is true when we ask our members, and prospective Jr facilitators, questions about dialectics. Much like the school teacher, we believe that this level of understanding is sufficient, and it would be reasonable to expect that some capable students would be able to help teach others what they have learned. Thus, whether the teacher could improve their understanding and that of the students further, beyond the basics, is a secondary consideration.
What if a facilitator introduces misunderstandings to the study members?
This is a possibility, but we believe this is mitigated through the group learning process and the participation of more than one facilitator. It may be the case that someone passively accepts an incorrect idea that a Jr or even Sr facilitator shares. It could also be the case that these errors remain unnoticed for a period of time. If they are of significance to the core ideas of Marxism that we teach, then they will express themselves down the line, and this offers an opportunity for correction at that point. This is not much different than members developing misconceptions on their own and having various biases, despite what is covered in the core curriculum. These can all be struggled out and addressed outside of study sessions, if need be. We have begun developing a healthier spirit of debate and engagement among our members (though this is ultimately not our focus and remains a tertiary consideration).
The antidote to these weaknesses comes down to a fundamental affirmation of the Marxist theory of knowledge; we are applying our theory in practice and further learning by doing. Ultimately, for both members and facilitators alike, the ‘real’ test of practice happens when we apply these concepts in the class struggle, whether in theoretical struggle (of which facilitating a study group is a very primitive form), economic struggle, or political struggle. As we grow and develop, we will increase our capacity to participate, and we will test ourselves in class struggle.
What else should facilitators strive toward beyond clarity of content? What makes someone a good teacher in MTSC?
- They work to ignite that internal spark in the study members, the obsessive fire to learn and devour as much information as possible, to really understand the world for what it is. A good teacher is effective in generating the right environment for this spark to ignite easily. The movement needs people with great curiosity and intellectual hunger in order to be successful. As Stalin explained in his 1950 “Conversation on Political Economy with Leontiev”, “the first, older generation of Bolsheviks was well grounded. We memorized Capital, summarized, argued, and tested one another. This was our strength. This helped us a lot.”
- They promote social cohesion and a sense of familiarity and solidarity among the members, and they thus strengthen the organization. Throughout our four years, it’s been observed that a lack of familiarity with each other is a barrier to participation between members and facilitators. Many members and facilitators don’t interact throughout the week(s) between studies. This can contribute to people feeling apprehensive about sharing their ideas and interpretations. As we face an increasing climate of repression, forging stronger links between our members will be critical to weathering the storm.
- They consider the best ways to agitate and propagandize the membership to take part in the revolution and deepen their initiative in the organization, which we believe is one of the best ways to take part in struggle at this stage. What we strive for, is for members to go beyond simply apprehending the Marxist viewpoint, but to actually seek to apply it. As Marx famously remarked, “the philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.“
Of course there is more to the facilitation team than just facilitating studies. The other responsibilities also provide opportunities to refine and apply one’s knowledge.
First, we hold continued learning as a value and standard for facilitators. This can take place in a variety of ways: with other facilitators, as assigned readings, with other organizations, individual studies, in one of the non-curriculum groups (like Capital), or (for Jr’s only) through participation as a member in a study group that is further along then one’s own knowledge base.
Second, we have opportunities for theoretical struggle and refinement. These come in the form of spontaneous discussion, office hours, debates, and most significantly, our blog.
Third, we have the refinement of the curriculum itself. We are constantly looking to renew and improve our studies and methodology. This occurs through editing and updating the study guides, creating new ones, and changing the curriculum itself.
Lastly, there are the other tasks of managing the organization. These build one’s capacity, ability to work with others, and represents the application of dialectical materialism to organizational development. Activities such as democratically deciding what tasks should be focused on based on a concrete analysis, setting objectives, making hypotheses, testing those hypotheses, and overall problem solving, which are all essential for success.
Conclusion
Through this whole process, new information will further enrich members’ knowledge and we’ll be able to go into things more deeply and further our collective understanding. There is much we ourselves don’t know; there is a Chinese idiom that explains our situation well, “when there is no tiger on the mountain, the monkey is king.” We are not giants of Marxism, either theoretically or practically. What we have is only a beginning.
Soberly looking to the future, there is much to learn and analyze. The new generation of Marxists must understand the fundamentals, begin to apply them, and in doing so, must learn to think. Marxist historian Paul Saba observed that in past eras like the New Communist Movement (NCM), people intentionally restricted themselves to an uncritical or superficial reading of the fundamentals or their own organization’s positions, drafted under one set of conditions. When conditions changed, or a new event happened, those people were unprepared to understand and make sense of it5. This caused demoralization, uncertainty, and a whole host of problems, eventually leading to a complete defeat. If there is to be a genuine communist movement, a genuine revolutionary theory for revolution in this country must be developed by first analyzing reality and then creatively applying Marxism to change it!
- For our part, going in blind meant spontaneously discovering Marxist theory through the internet, friends, activists at demonstrations, exposure in school, etc. From there most people are put in a disorientating position of only having limited exposure, but some interest. Often it is overwhelming to see the wealth of writings and statements and not knowing where to begin. (Lenin’s collected works is 45 volumes and Marx and Engels’ is 50 volumes). This often leads to one of three places; one, just picking a reading to start and going from there; two, following recommendations either online or from contacts (if you have them); three, not starting indefinitely. In contrast, having an organized and transparent process enables people to not only go through fundamental primary sources from the classics, but also to ask questions and explore works together outside of the curriculum. It is far superior for arriving at a common and deeper understanding. It is a constant problem among the left that those of us that read, often read individually and bring all of our subjective interpretations and prejudices to the material; this results in a one-sided understanding that often serves to reinforce rather than challenge our preconceived notions. ↩︎
- The Chinese Communist Party’s Central Party School is an example of this. ↩︎
- See our document “Participant/Facilitator Structure” found here: https://mtai-study.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/participant_facilitator-structure.pdf ↩︎
- See Lenin’s “Left Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder,” Chapter 5 for more on this, https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ ↩︎
- This statement was paraphrased from a conversation with Paul Saba. More on this history is discussed in part 1 of our series “When Americans Refuse to Read.” The main expression of intentional restriction is as a functional restriction; this happens when people are consistently being buried in too much practical work or swept-up in petty disputes such that whilst not necessarily consciously or administratively restricting themselves, they functionally do so. This seems to be the most common form in communist circles today. ↩︎
Mount Tai Study Circle 