The Party and the Dangers of Online Intellectualism

The arduous task of reviving the revolutionary movement and rebuilding the party that leads it is hindered by many problems, problems that previous generations of communists had already encountered in different forms. One of these problems, which appears in a slightly different though still familiar guise, is that of intellectualism. While the Internet represents a major advantage as a means of communication for party organization, it is nonetheless, like any technology, an instrument of the bourgeoisie. And like all previous media, online media serve, first and foremost, bourgeois ideology. The present state of affairs weighs heavily on the thoughts of every individual, even those who declare themselves communists, or indeed those who follow our tradition of Left Communism. We have already written about the relationship (or lack thereof) between the Party and the Internet in “The Party and Social Media”:

“The Party has its own specific organs for information and propaganda, and comrades must dedicate themselves exclusively to these. Collaborating with the press or media outside the Party, as well as conducting propaganda through personal channels such as social media profiles or blogs, is alien to the Party’s methods and must be avoided. In reality, communist propaganda is not based on ephemeral or individualistic means, but on collective and centralized action aimed at building a solid and enduring collective intelligence.”

Nevertheless, the specter of individualistic intellectualism continues to plague those who gravitate around us; we must therefore reaffirm the Party’s position regarding how our tradition views the “enlightened few” who claim to subscribe to our positions, perhaps only in words. That notorious thinker, who boasts of the “truth” of his convictions on some bourgeois online platform and engages in polemics against other equally feeble figures, mired in the depths of intellectual debate rather than concerning himself with matters of party organization and working-class agitation (realms deemed too insignificant for such great minds), prefers to spend his days writing replies to replies that will inevitably be lost to history forever. In this regard, we must recall the voice of Lenin, who, in his work “Party Organization and Party Literature”, writes on the question of the structure of theoretical work within the party:

“…In opposition to bourgeois conventions, to the profit-oriented and commercialized bourgeois press, to careerism and bourgeois literary individualism, to ‘aristocratic anarchism’ and the lust for profit, the socialist proletariat must put forward the principle of Party literature; it must develop this principle and implement it as fully and comprehensively as possible.”

“What is this principle of party literature? It is not simply that, for the socialist proletariat, literature cannot be a means of enriching individuals or groups; indeed, it cannot be an individual enterprise independent of the common cause of the proletariat. Down with non-partisan writers! Down with literary supermen! Literature must become part of the common cause of the proletariat, a ‘cog and a screw’ in the single great Social-Democratic mechanism set in motion by the entire politically conscious vanguard of the whole working class. Literature must become a component of the organized, planned, and integrated work of the Social-Democratic Party.”

Sharp and precise observations! And indeed, little has changed since his time, with one exception, of course. The Internet has offered everyone a taste of bourgeois existence: now, instead of needing one’s own publishing house or newspaper, one simply feeds one’s information into the capitalist machine and receives a “literary column” as a gift, chasing social capital rather than theoretical and historical enrichment, in pursuit of fame and egoistic gratification. Anyone can be a “literary superman.” Thus, these days, we see eclectic crusaders who fly the banner of “Left communism”, while acting as lone individuals, embodying the modern Don Quixote; they ride their blog columns toward victory, striking at the ever-present opportunist with their lance of thought and reason, their windmill to be destroyed. We Communists, however, must remain faithful to Lenin and our teachers: our Party literature, while an important part of our overall work, is not our sole undertaking, for we are not intellectual knights but fighters for the revolution, and we understand the importance of class-based work. As we have stated on other occasions:

“At all times, in all places, and without exception, the Party must unceasingly strive to integrate itself into the life of the masses and participate in their protests, even when these are influenced by directives that run counter to our own.”

The party does not originate in intellectual circles, but in the historic struggle of the vanguard of the proletariat. In rejecting the democratic principle, we also reject the notion of polemic, open debate, and the “marketplace of ideas” (indeed, it would be hard to find a more bourgeois concept). Indeed, our party, following in Lenin’s footsteps, maintains that individual consciousness cannot exist; our text “The Communist Party in the Tradition of the Left” states:

“Our thesis is that not only are rational understanding and action inseparable, but, as far as the individual is concerned, action always precedes understanding and consciousness. The same holds true for individuals who join the party… Consciousness resides neither in the individual person before or after joining the party, nor after a long period of militancy, but rather in the collective body, composed of old and young, educated and uneducated alike, that carries out complex, continuous action in line with an immutable doctrine and tradition. It is the ‘party’ body that possesses class consciousness, for such possession is denied to the individual; this consciousness can exist only within an organization capable of aligning every act, behavior, and internal or external dynamic with pre-existing lines of doctrine, program, and tactics, and capable of growing and developing upon that foundation, a foundation accepted in its entirety, even without having been understood beforehand. The notion that joining the party involves a ‘mystical’ aspect frightens only the petty bourgeois influenced by the Enlightenment, convinced as he is that everything can be learned from books.”

As the final quote aptly states, these “intellectual giants”, even when posing as left-wing communists, harbor a mortal fear of losing their individual image; consequently, they cling to online intellectual circles, living forever in a world of ideas and petty insults. Those who decide to approach the Party and join its ranks should not delude themselves with online circles, nor should they become trapped in bourgeois intellectualism, prioritizing their own „important persona“ over the party collective, or internalize the petty-bourgeois left-wing tactics and *modus operandi*, which are rooted in idolatry and populism.

However, if petty-bourgeois intellectualism infiltrates the Communist Organization, it risks disrupting the flow of Party operations, fostering a sense of “ownership” over one’s “intellectual work”, and, echoing Stalinist careerism, generating expectations of “rewards” and “gratitude”, rather than reflecting the “premise of communist society” embodied by the Party: a society where work is intrinsically rewarding and no one claims ownership of their contribution to the Party, as it is part of the collective effort to reconstruct revolutionary doctrine. So, once again, let us repeat with Lenin: “Down with the supermen of literature!” We must resist the tendency of certain intellectual circles, of those very philosophers who lived in the world of ideas and polemics, against whom Marx wrote at the beginning of his journey.

In conclusion, we reiterate Marx’s fundamental quote from the “Theses on Feuerbach”: “Philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it.”