Introduction

If I may speak on a personal level, I have either witnessed an increase in the number of ultra-leftists, left-communists, communizers, nihilists, and humanists (for short, I’ll just say ‘ultras’) or have simply been harassed (and I use ‘harassed’ lightly) more and more by them on social media. Here and there, I’ll make bait posts, attempting to get ultras to bite, and they always do. Now, they’ve completely infested the comment sections of my account. One nihilist communist (here on out, nihilist-com) even snuck into my DMs to send me an article titled “Critique of the Consciousness-Raising Model of Revolution.” I was elated to have a target-article, as I’ve only been previously browsing r/leftcommunism and r/Marxism_101 on Reddit for the past few days and had read around half of Gilles Dauve’s Communization (stopping out of impatience with how poor in substance the work was). This article presented to me an opportunity to articulate my concerns with nihilist communism (and, in general, some starting points of all other ‘ultra’ tendencies), which is what this review is.

The Question of Dogmatism and Marxism as a Science

The first paragraph introduces the article with a sarcastic detailing of the so-called “ideological model” or “consciousness-raising model” of “all Leninists.” Listed as jabs, the author believes ‘Leninists’ are: 1) really just “progressive members of the petty-bourgeoisie and middle classes;” 2) “organize together to preserve the exact text of the holy precepts of revolutionary theory” (can anyone else feel the irony!); 3) “inject socialist consciousness into the masses of the working class;” and 4) “lead the proletariat to begin struggling against and then vanquish capital.” Such organization among the working-class, the article reads, is “an idealist perspective on how revolutions happen (because it says that revolutions are made by spreading ideas until a critical mass of ideas emerges).”

If we want to critically engage with the author of this article, we must find where their criterion of validity lies, to what their opinion is subject to, and then go from there. Ultimately, this can only be one of two criteria: the dogma of Marx and Engels or material reality. Which does our author choose? Throughout their arguments presented in the article, the common thread follows back to their self-proclaimed “materialist perspective (as I believe Marx and Engels would).” Only two arguments are offered that go beyond quotes, but are, nevertheless, incorrect—these being an attempt to elaborate as to why the proletariat is supposedly able to develop communist consciousness during a crisis (see their second note) and an observation that “every single revolution with proletarian content has been preceded by a generalized economic crisis.” We will discuss these later.

As such, when our author only offers up quotes for substantiation of an argument, I will only retort with quotes. When our author provides a theoretical elaboration of an argument and cites an empirical trend, then I will oblige to do the same in my reply. I intend to have this diversity in response for the sole purpose of exposing both their misunderstanding of Marx and Engels and their misunderstanding of the reality of revolution.

As Marxist-Leninist-Maoists, we grasp Marxism as the science of the class struggle, a struggle that is being waged every day without presuming, first, our conscious acknowledgement of it. What we mean by this, is the barricades were being put up in the streets long before Marx spoke of them. This science of class struggle (formally called historical materialism) cannot be utilized by any class, however. Marxism was the first socialist system to have the proletariat as the agent of revolutionary change and to explain why any other socialisms among any other classes were doomed to fail.

To speak of Marxism as a science means to uphold the method Marx and Engels developed over whatever strategy or conclusions they had come to. Ergo, we reject any form of dogmatism. Marx and Engels weren’t right by virtue of being Marx and Engels, but by providing the proletariat a “guide to action” (Engels). With this, we can analyze the class struggle we are engaged in and derive truths. Upon these truths, we formulate strategies and tactics, and proceed into practice. From this practice, we have now qualitatively developed the class struggle—it is now taking on different forms, the reactionary forces are depleted, demands have been met, and so on. This forms the new base, from which we analyze once again, and develop newer tactics. This is dialectical materialism: each moment in this process of practice developing into the other, from analysis to practice back and forth, each time developing the proletariat’s understanding of the class struggle. We toss what was rotten and follow where it leads that which was correct.

To adhere strictly and dogmatically to Marx and Engels’ words is to undermine Marx and Engels by reducing them to a static dogma. But if these nihilist-coms—shown to commence their views on an axiom that apparently (and we will how embarrassing of a claim this is) “Marx and Engels would” have—wish to uphold dogmatism over science, then see how they awkwardly attempt to ‘adhere’ to this. Engels replied, in a letter, on the ‘path’ of revolution for the American proletariat:

“There is no better road to theoretical clearness of comprehension than ‘durch Schaden klug werden’ [to learn by one’s own mistakes]. … The great thing is to get the working class to move as a class; that once obtained, they will soon find the right direction, and all who resist, H.G. or Powderly [or university nihilist-com clubs—SN], will be left out in the cold with small sects of their own… Our theory is not a dogma, but the exposition of a process of evolution, and that process involves successive phases. To expect that the Americans will start with the full consciousness of the theory worked out in older industrial countries is to expect the impossible. What the Germans ought to do is… go in for any real general working-class movement, accept its faktische [‘factual’—SN] starting points as such, and work it gradually up to the theoretical level by pointing out how every mistake made, every reverse suffered, was a necessary consequence of mistaken theoretical views in the original programme.” (Engels, Letter to Florence Kelley Wischnewetsky, 1886; my emphasis)

Earlier that year, let us see another letter, in which Engels summarily criticized the German communists for the error of dogmatism:

“The Germans have not understood how to use their theory as a lever which could set the American masses in motion; they do not understand the theory themselves for the most part and treat it in a doctrinaire and dogmatic way, as something which has got to be learnt off by heart, but which will then supply all needs without more ado. To them it is a credo [creed] and not a guide to action.” (Engels, Letter to Friedrich Adolph Sorge, 1886; my emphases)

Here we have that same Engels, from whom our author develops their “materialist claim,” conceptualizing Marxism as a “lever which could set the… masses in motion!” This sounds like idealist nonsense—doesn’t Engels know that revolutions presume absolutely no organization of the masses on the communists’ part? Please, ultras in general, consult with Marx and Engels before speaking on their behalf or as “[they] would.”

Keeping, already, this schism between our nihilist-com and Marx and Engels in mind, let us now go into the article.

The Alleged “Materialist Perspective” of Nihilist Communism

Our nihilist-com writes, “I claim a materialist perspective (as I believe Marx and Engels would),” this perspective being: “revolutions are not made by ideologies, but by material circumstances forcing a class into action.” This is the axiom from which the rest of this essay branches out. Because of that, it would be enough to merely respond to this claim and consequentially be done with the rest, but given our author’s insistence that they are acting as “Marx and Engels would,” it is worthwhile to show how ridiculous that claim is by exposing this lie throughout the whole article.

Our author, besides quoting Marx and Engels three times, adds two more legs to this claim of ‘material conditions, not ideologies create revolution’: 1) “the mere self-defense of proletarian interests under a system of capital accumulation inevitably brings the proletariat in direct conflict with the bourgeoisie and with capitalist relations of production;” and 2) “every single revolution with proletarian content has been preceded by a generalized economic crisis, and this isn’t merely coincidental but shows us that crises lay down the foundations for revolution.” To respond, we will tackle, first, the quotes provided, second, the theoretical elaboration, and third, the empirical trend of crises.

On the Alleged Rejection of Organized Leadership by Engels

Before we read, we must ask exactly how is quoting “evidence”? Our author says, “Here’s some Engels (Principles of Communism) refuting both the vanguard party and the consciousness-raising model, as well as giving more evidence for the materialist model of revolution” (my emphasis)—but absolutely no empirical support is offered by Engels in that quote. Is the mere quoting of Engels “evidence”? Unfortunately, for dogmatists, it is.

Let us read. Our author quotes Engels saying:

“Communists know only too well that all conspiracies are not only useless, but even harmful. They know all too well that revolutions are not made intentionally and arbitrarily, but that, everywhere and always, they have been the necessary consequence of conditions which were wholly independent of the will and direction of individual parties and entire classes. But they also see that the development of the proletariat in nearly all civilized countries has been violently suppressed, and that in this way the opponents of communism have been working toward a revolution with all their strength. If the oppressed proletariat is finally driven to revolution, then we communists will defend the interests of the proletarians with deeds as we now defend them with words.” (as quoted in the article; their emphases)

It would help, of course, to situate this quote in the original context of that numbered question in The Principles of Communism, which is “Will the peaceful abolition of private property be possible?”. Moreover, in addition to leaving out this context—which is wholly dishonest, since The Principles of Communism is structed in a Q&A fashion (how could you leave out the question to which the answer is responding to!)—our author also omits the first sentence: “It would be desirable if this [“the peaceful abolition of private property”—SN] could happen, and the communists would certainly be the last to oppose it.” However, “Communists know only too well that all conspiracies are not only useless, but even harmful.”

Well, this changes everything about this quote—now we know exactly what conspiracies Engels is talking about, conspiracies between the proletariat and bourgeoisie! When talking about revolutions not being “made intentionally and arbitrarily,” in the context of democratic-socialism, this reads as violent revolution being inevitable, not something that can be prevented by such conspiracies that wish for the “peaceful abolition of private property.”

Engels remind us that the class struggle and the necessity of revolution is not an invention of the communist party—and this is true. We communists will not tail the masses and criticize them for struggling against the capitalist-class, but will “defend” them. Do us Maoists agree? Of course; and if our author wishes to find comfort in words, they can find comfort in the continuity of Mao’s words about the peasant movement:

“Every revolutionary party and every revolutionary comrade will be put to the test, to be accepted or rejected as they decide. There are three alternatives. To march at their head and lead them? To trail behind them, gesticulating and criticizing? Or to stand in their way and oppose them? Every Chinese is free to choose, but events will force you to make the choice quickly. … “It is the peasants who made the idols, and when the time comes they will cast the idols aside with their own hands; there is no need for anyone else to do it for them prematurely. The Communist Party’s propaganda policy in such matters should be, ‘Draw the bow without shooting, just indicate the motions.’ It is for the peasants themselves to cast aside the idols, pull down the temples to the martyred virgins and the arches to the chaste and faithful widows; it is wrong for anybody else to do it for them.” (Mao, Report on an Investigation of the Peasant Movement in Hunan, 1927)

Our author is not naïve enough to let such true context steal away their ‘argument.’ When they copy/pasted from The Principles of Communism, they intentionally clicked on the second sentence, omitting the very question which the answer is built off and the first sentence which reminds the reader of this context. Completely dishonest.

The Meat of the Matter: Crises and Communist Consciousness

The author quotes Marx and Engels from The German Ideology as follows:

“Both for the production on a mass scale of this communist consciousness, and for the success of the cause itself, the alteration of men on a mass scale is, necessary, an alteration which can only take place in a practical movement, a revolution; this revolution is necessary, therefore, not only because the ruling class cannot be overthrown in any other way, but also because the class overthrowing it can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew.” (as quoted in the article)

Then, our author elaborates:

“Marx and Engels say here that communist consciousness on a mass scale is forged inside the revolution; it does not exist before the revolution because ‘the ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas’. Only in a period of dissolution of the ruling class will the ideas of ruling class lose their power and alternative ideas have a chance of ascending to mass public consciousness.”

This quote is exceptionally interesting, because it is not at all a point of rupture for Maoism nor Leninism, no matter how much our author wants it to be. This is why they feel the need for an elaboration, which summarily says, “communist consciousness… does not exist before the revolution because ‘the ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas’.” But what does this have to do with Maoism or Leninism? It is provided by our author to supposedly refute “both the vanguard party and the consciousness-raising model,” but it is never stated why. On the contrary, something is implied by our author: that, because it is impossible for the masses to undertake a socialist or communist consciousness prior to a revolution, the job of raising the masses’ consciousness to a communist consciousness is futile. For our nihilist-com, this consciousness spontaneously appears proceeding a crisis.

However, given capitalism does not produce the conditions to allow all workers or even most to develop a science of their liberation, the best that can ‘organically’ present itself within the working-class is economism and trade-unionism. For all the wrong, Kautsky at least got this right:

“Many of our revisionist critics believe that Marx asserted that economic development and the class struggle create, not only the conditions for socialist production, but also, and directly, the consciousness of its necessity.” (quoted from Lenin’s What is to be Done?)

This ‘spontaneous consciousness’ is not the case, as we will see.

So, let us turn to reality—something our dogmatist doesn’t want to do—and ask: what is the track record of crises and an unprepared left? The historical answer has always been slaughter at the hands of the bourgeoisie and fascism—an economic crisis that has no communist alternative established beforehand is the perfect breeding-ground for fascism. This is how fascism historically arose.

Which revolutions (not to speak of the many crises that, again gave way either to fascism or social-democracy, the ‘left side’ of fascism) do we have in mind that were unprepared? The Paris Commune was unprepared, and its lack of organization and discipline of tactics are two of the reasons Marx criticized it. The Russian Revolution of 1905 ended with slaughter of the workers and succeeded only in establishing a constitution. The German Revolution of 1919 and similar ones were largely spontaneous and suffered a bloody defeat. The only revolutions to have actually seized state power by the proletariat were the Marxist-Leninist ones—those revolutions that demanded military preparation and training, following the advice of Engels.

Leaving the revolution to spontaneity doesn’t work. It needs to be planned, and that’s what Marx and Engels always stressed when talking about the party and the military strategy. From 1850, where Marx stated, “[The] workers’ party must go into battle with the maximum degree of organization, unity, and independence, so that it is not exploited and taken in tow by the bourgeoisie as in 1848,” (Marx, Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League, 1850; my emphasis) to the 1895 Introduction to The Class Struggles in France, in which Engels said that the spontaneous street-fighting and barricade warfare wasn’t enough, would be destroyed by the capitalist military, and that the communist party needed to train the proletariat in military.

Engels makes very clear the need for a people’s army, in place of aimless rioting, street fights, and ‘theatrical’ protests as means of revolution:

“For here, too, the conditions of the struggle had essentially changed. Rebellion in the old style, the street fight with barricades… was to a considerable extent obsolete. … “Let us have no illusions about it: a real victory of an insurrection over the military in street fighting, a victory as between two armies, is one of the rarest exceptions… The most that the insurrection can achieve in actual tactical practice is the correct construction and defense of a single barricade… Hence the passive defense is the prevailing form of fight: the attack will rise here and there, but only by way of exception, to occasional advances and flank assaults… In addition, the military have, on their side, the disposal of artillery and fully equipped corps of skilled engineers, resources of war which, in nearly every case, the insurgents entirely lack…” (Engels, Introduction to The Class Struggles in France, 1895)

Engels continues to talk about the ineffectiveness of barricades and unorganized street-fighting. It was mostly ‘theatrical’ and moral than it was tactical; and the unorganized nature of the riots would spell doom for the workers against the organization of the military or police. Then, he goes to talk what we communists must do, considering these developments:

“But in order that the masses may understand what is to be done, long, persistent work is required, and it is just this work which we are now pursuing, and with a success which drives the enemy to despair.” (Ibid.)

All this isn’t to say that capitalism doesn’t immiserate people, but that dismissing preparation for revolution is a sure-fire way to be defeated. This is what the practice has revealed, and this is also what Marx and Engels understood—something our nihilist-com doesn’t! Let us continue to hammer-in this fact, so nihilist-coms may finally stop masquerading as the ‘heirs’ of Marx and Engels, acting how “[they] believe Marx and Engels would.”

On the Alleged Difference Between the “Party” and the “Vanguard Party”

Our nihilist-com awkwardly stumbles around near the end of their article, saying, “I am not anti-party but anti-‘vanguard party’.” If you are looking for an elaboration of the difference between these two, then stop, since our author doesn’t bother. We are, again, forced to find an implication. Earlier, our author writes, “communists [nihilist-coms and ultras—SN] should also aim to combat all organizations [read: Marxist-Leninist(-Maoists)—SN] that aim to lead the proletariat and thus co-opt the energy of the workers’ movement.” This is as close we are going to get to the difference between our nihilist-com’s conception of the party and the ‘vanguard party.’

While our author has been constantly embarrassed throughout this response—from us showing their utter dishonesty, failure to read more of Marx and Engels, and so on—it really isn’t enough. Marx and Engels never spoke of the communist party not leading the proletariat through the class struggle.

In the 1850 Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League, Marx spoke of—ready?—leading spontaneity. He writes:

“Far from opposing the so-called excesses—instances of popular vengeance against hated individuals or against public buildings with which hateful memories are associated—the workers’ party must not only tolerate these actions, but must even give them direction [sounds like assuming a vanguard role!—SN].” (Marx, Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League, 1850; my emphasis)

But our nihilist-com may not have known of this work. Instead, let us bring up arguably the most famous work of Marx and Engels, so our nihilist-com does not feel left out: The Communist Manifesto. They write:

“The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others [once again, sounds like assuming a vanguard role!—SN]; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.” (The Communist Manifesto, Ch. 2; my emphasis)

Again, I repeat to our nihilist-com, do not act how “[you] believe Marx and Engels would,” when you have constantly shown your incompetence in grasping Marx and Engels!