The Creation of New Theory
It may seem confined to discussion groups or theoretical texts right now.
It is not. Revolution is totalising. And anyone who dreams this beautiful dream, in contrast to the mass today who cannot comprehend that which lies beyond the perishing of hitherto existing society, is liable to wish for the communist revolution. To wish that it comes to us prefabricated, pure with factory-furnished quality. And despite history being ours to make, there is a realism to this hope. Revolution is not exactly “political”; revolution is politics in its most direct, concentrated form — raw class conflict. It is thus the abolition of politics, that is, the abolition of hitherto existing political institutions and practices. This excess dies, expelled by natural forces as waste. Sectarianism, opportunism — it dies a bloody death. Covert operations, backdoor handshakes — forget it. Revolution is totalising. It abolishes everything which is not the revolution. It shakes all aspects of social life to its skeleton.
Arising from this skeleton must come the new conditions and form of theoretical work. Let us then see the basis for this new theory first in the revolutionary theory which allowed it to exist. Let us define the shape of this new theory by understanding how it must come to be.
Understanding Revolution
The Necessity of the Revolutionary Press
A revolutionary movement cannot exist unless there is revolutionary theory. We see that theory, however, must not only be produced but reproduced. As an outside force, new events emerge which demand the application of theory. Therefore we could say that revolutionaries need to produce new material, articles, books, slogans, based on the Marxist “formula”. But this is rather not the case. Consciousness, as is the case for all things, exists in its constant motion and change. The motor force for this change is rightly identified by the masses and the material world and social relations — the common mistake is in seeing these as being outside impressions on consciousness rather than being the substance of consciousness. This means that the impetus for the maintenance of the revolutionary press is the result of an internal contradiction rather than an external force. It is such that the correspondents for the revolutionary press can maintain a Marxist class analysis of the material world. That class analysis is a relationship with the material world, not a set of ideas about the material world, which is what can be explained to be what we call class consciousness. This is why revolutionary leadership must strive to excel theoretically, to be an active contributor and participant in the defence of Marxism. Such revolutionary leadership becomes part of an internal contradiction of consciousness. This consciousness isn’t contained solely within the relationship between a single individual and the material world, however, as that is merely experience and cannot theoretically explain understanding, nor constitute knowledge, given that the isolated experience of one person is categorically not reproducible. This is for the same reason scientific findings must be reproducible, only with the maxim revealed to be underpinned dialectically and not mechanically. Thus, another important way to explain class consciousness is as a set of social relations underpinned by the shared knowledge of shared social needs. The revolutionary press aims in creating such social relations, thereby establishing living, breathing Marxist theory. Only when such social relations exist, then, can there be class organisation and revolutionary organisation. It is on those terms that we can confidently declare the revolutionary press to be the backbone of revolutionary organisation.
I explain the contradictions of consciousness under a different context and with greater detail in Knowledge in the Materialist Dialectic.
The Necessity of Democratic Centralism
Both agreement and disgreement is a feature of all organisation. Let us examine the necessity of democratic centralism in terms of a disagreement with a particular decision which is raised by a minority faction within an organisation. The minority’s first preferance is to convince the majority to their position and carrying out that position. Their second preferance is to carry out the position of the majority, because this would lead to worse consequences than carrying out the position of the minority. Their last preference is to exit the organisation, because this would lead to worse consequences than carrying out the position of the majority. The basis for democratic centralism is the existence of this second preferance, where after a period of debate, the majority position can be established as that which the majoirty and minority must carry out together. The minority participates, because carrying out the majority position is still preferable to the minority than carrying out neither. The participation in all communist organisation is voluntary in this sense, too, and as I explained in Practical Lessons on Dialectics, revolutionary organisations should understand this to recruit.
Debate and consensus are not opposed. If an organisation suppresses debate, its members will never reach consensus. If an organisation doesn’t strive to reach consensus, there will be no reason for debate. As such, we see in the necessity for democratic centralism the necessity of heavy internal communication within the party.
The Theory of Revolution Isn’t Complete
Theory and practice are not two separate activities. They are unified as one. To overcome the deficiencies of mechanical materialism, the impasse between the material world and consciousness, we must realise that experiencing the world is a practical activity, wherein the physical world changes. As such, given that the communist revolution is not complete, neither is the theory of the communist revolution complete. We must then learn to integrate practice into theory and theory into practice. This is done well by studying the ideas of Marxism and then taking them to a paper sale, or attending an event and writing about it in a newspaper. The revolutionary press, a publication such as a newspaper, is again the backbone of communist organisation.
Producing Theory with the Revolutionary Press
To advance theory within the vanguard party among its members, then, is to encourage the collaborative production of theoretical work — discussions, speeches, articles, videos, etc. To do this, it should be expected that any cadre of a revolutionary party is able to produce theoretical work, and then have it reviewed for feedback by a more experienced or knowledgable cadre of that party. The effect of this is the sharpening of positions and clarity for everyone involved and the resolution of contradictions within the party. Such communication is the content of consolidation. To do this well, we should advocate for the correspondency between the level of political organisation and publication.
Let us take the most common example of an established vanguard party with news articles. Consider four levels of organisation: member, branch, national and international. A member of a branch is free to publish whatever they wish by themselves, unless they break democratic centralism by publishing, as a representative of the party, that which contradicts democratically decided positions. To raise an article to the local branch level, a member should be able to submit an article to their branch. Every member of the branch can then voluntarily read and discuss the contents of the article. They will then decide if it should pass to the branch level, using either a majoritarian vote, or with the decision of a branch member with the select position to do this, depending on the structure of the party. The branch is then free to publish this, unless it breaks democratic centralism by reporting at the national or international level, physically publishing outside of the geographic region of the branch or otherwise circumventing the establishment of perspectives at higher levels of organisation. This isn’t necessarily to “contain” the branch — the correct perspective for a vanguard party is that it wants its branches to flourish! It is actually such that the democratic rights of the political work of other branches are preserved — and this is the militancy with which a vanguard party should do that. When an article moves to the branch level, it should be available to be read and discussed by the leadership of every other branch under the national leadership. This was previously very difficult to do without the internet, but much easier with the creation of a private, internal forum with a pool of articles that can then be moved up for publication at the national level. The exact details for this process would depend on the political organisation of the party. Since there is typically far more branches under the national leadership than members in a branch, there cannot be the expectation that generally, every branch or branch representative can read every article, so a majoritarian vote is a far less productive solution. The best way to implement this, in my opinion, is for a national editorial board to also have access to the branch level forum, but allowing everyone with access to “push” an article and comment under it. The number of pushes are tallied, encouraging the editorial board to pay attention to the most “pushed” ones for publication. The adoption, then, of articles from the national level to the international level for various communist internationals is already well practised and known. These articles published at the national level are already highly visible, and the international leadership is free to republish them internationally at will.
At each level, there should not only be the options of approval or outright rejection. There should also be the opportunity to offer corrections or to collaborate on an article and develop it further. There should be professional channels to move these articles from layer to layer, for this process of education and development to be a well-oiled machine that doesn’t rely solely on contact-to-contact relations.
The implementation of such a system solves many issues facing communist vanguard parties. It gives decisive questions and good articles a lot of vertical mobility. It resolves previously unknown disputes and increases theoretical clarity between layers of organisation. It means that members can publish articles and actively engage in deeper, more articulate, purposeful and longer-lasting theoretical pursuits without overburdening the editorial board. It is a system which follows from the organisation of communist parties into branches. It is a force of consolidation, making the revolutionary press an even stronger force of organisation. However, I don’t only think that this would improve upon the typical configuration of the revolutionary press, I think this level of communication is necessary under revolutionary conditions — when members see the need to be pioneers and have to rely on such tight openness within the organisation of the party.
Other Forms of Theoretical Production
Of course, written documents aren’t the only ways to produce theory. Cadres may use the Transitional Programme, which introduces progressive, popular, often economic demands to demonstrate the necessity of revolution. There is also the indispensable place of art and artistic work, which I will expand upon on a later date. The use of poster and stickers is also another form of theoretical production, which is released if the following is understood: Posters and stickers cannot change the conditions under which decisions are made, they can only provide information, and any pressure felt that is not a result of the effect of a poster or sticker on a person’s conditions. Therefore, any call to action on a poster and sticker is not to instruct directly. The use of calls to action is rather, to provide subtextual information. As such, when designing such material, it must be understood that the only purpose of a poster or sticker is to be informative. It must also be noted that there is nothing mistaken about using stickers and posters to decorate the local environment with its aesthetic value. This extends to graffiti and murals, which, as art, create experiences with the ability to communicate. I have also developed the idea of the Theory Session. My idea of the Theory Session is quite simple. It is the use of Gazebos, voice amplification and a screen or whiteboard in popular places to teach Marxist theory. The speakers stand, whilst audience members, who come and leave at will, sit on chairs. This might be called “guerrilla education”.
I am advocating for the vanguard parties to adopt these features because of my understanding of consciousness. It is based on the maxim of unity between theory and practice, that the theory of communist revolution is incomplete because the practice of communist revolution is incomplete. This method of organisation is based on the understanding that labour in service of communist organisation is necessary and voluntary, just as labour in the communist mode of production is necessary and voluntary. I advocate that democratic centralism is founded on this understanding of consciousness which explains how organisation consolidates using shared knowledge, gathered from conditions and communication.
Party Intelligence
It is important for a vanguard party, especially at the highest levels, to maintain its own intelligence on world and historic events, including the production or reproduction of reports, as well as their own verification, by understanding the nature of sources. This includes the material reality of how the information was gathered, cross-referenced with the historic credibility of publications and journalists, and more importantly, the processes they employed to verify them. The reports we care most about, however, usually rely on a pair of eyes and ears somewhere observing it. The highest levels of leadership should understand these reports not as being some abstract truth, but as being embodied profoundly with a raw, physical existence. Was the journalist reporting from the street or a hotel suite? Take to understanding details like that, and the party will develop the skills to understand where the partial truths lie and what is a total fabrication.
As class struggle intensifies, however, the vanguard party will find itself increasingly relying on its own sources, both from the operation of the revolutionary press and internal communications from the cadreship. There must be the means to do this regardless of the objective situation. If there is not, we risk being unable to create well-informed perspectives and unable to plan operations in the future based on events. This reduces the use of our understanding of the particular historical materialist conditions exclusively to participation in culture war battles or agitation. We would find ourselves unable to focus influence on the base as we would be able to on the superstructure. We would, however, still be able to advocate for ideological beliefs. Whilst that can be important, it is superseded by practical class warfare and organisational planning. The use of dialectical and historical materialism, by the way, is primarily found in the latter camp.
Introducing Revolutionary Pedagogy
All this talk about the continual production of theory may leave a false impression. It is not the place of the vanguard party to educate the mass of society. It is to educate oneself, to adopt the position of a flexible and optimistic student with great capacity to grow. That is what the cadreship must cultivate in itself if it wishes to recruit.
The Fully-Expanded Place of Authority
I explained in Knowledge in the Materialist Dialectic that authority has a basis in shared knowledge of actions and consequences. I will explain in an article about rules, that rules can come about as a generalisation of action and consequence. This is what we see in bourgeois law today. It was through the inversion of the popular idea that the laws of a country created its respective classes, where Marx began to create Marxism and explain that it was in fact its history of class struggle which created a country’s laws. But the paradigm of mechanics is coming to an end and will be replaced by dialectics for its closer observation of change. As such, law must lose its form and cannot be carried through into the socialist mode of production. Following the open, materialist organisation of society, disagreements or violence with the superstructure can no longer be appreciated as infractions upon a list of rules, but only as contradictions between the economic needs of members of society. Those contradictions must then be resolved by that society, which can only be solved by looking at the particulars of that contradiction.
The Future of Education
I anticipate the governance of a socialist society to, at first, adopt forms found in academia today. We see now, in the existing communist internationals, a nucleus of this, where debates are made first with the production of documents explaining the positions of each respective side. We see it in the routine production of perspective documents, which are made to establish a consolidated position, where each paragraph is numbered, and amendments are submitted for internal debate from all corners of the organisation. Thus, we can anticipate the mass participation of governance in the form of research and argument with the aim of reaching consensus in society. And since it is our position that theory and practice are inseparable, why not make all education the voluntary engagement of people in economic decisions, the most important of which being the allocation of labour-time? We find then that all education shall be oriented to intentional practical ends rather than obscured private interests and becomes the makeup of governance. Such is a scientific society, where people are engaged in a struggle, united in theory and practice under all fields of knowledge, to improve the conditions of the world. I anticipate such a system needing to pass into fruition as an international communist revolution develops.
"The minority’s first preferance is to convince the majority to their position and carrying out that position. Their second preferance is to carry out the position of the majority, because this would lead to worse consequences than carrying out the position of the minority. Their last preference is to exit the organisation, because this would lead to worse consequences than carrying out the position of the majority. The basis for democratic centralism is the existence of this second preferance, where after a period of debate, the majority position can be established as that which the majoirty and minority must carry out together. The minority participates, because carrying out the majority position is still preferable to the minority than carrying out neither. The participation in all communist organisation is voluntary in this sense"
Why is there not the option of simply the minority carrying out the will of the minority using their own time, energy, and property? Would this be allowed to exist under such a system? If not, how can you remotely consider participation voluntary? If someone can't withdraw from or attempt to withdraw from something without threat of coercion, it cannot be considered voluntary.
"As such, law must lose its form and cannot be carried through into the socialist mode of production. Following the open, materialist organisation of society, disagreements or violence with the superstructure can no longer be appreciated as infractions upon a list of rules, but only as contradictions between the economic needs of members of society. Those contradictions must then be resolved by that society. This is an area which lacks theoretical development."
If those contradictions were resolved, would it not effectively create some legal code by which judgements are made on "contradictions" (I suppose you mean conflict over scarce means). As law is always a subset of morality, what moral system do you suppose to contain the legal ethic you use?
Also, why is it presupposed that it is right for people to vote on what others can or cannot do with their own property? Or is there some argument why nobody should be allowed to own their own property in the first place? If so why?