From Ideological struggle to ideological warfare ; historical evolution (Draft)
The dialectic connection of the nature of ideological struggle – both internally (ideological struggle) within socialist movements, and externally (ideological warfare) with capitalist powers is central to understanding the phenomenon in its historical context. The dialectical interplay is not confined to certain period of history but continues today and will continue till one defeats and eliminates the other. Marxist-Leninist theory acknowledges that such ideological cognitive and political struggles against established systems persist.
It is important to see the implementation
of socialist theory to the concrete conditions of a specific in direct
connection with the concrete given situation in the world, not through repetition
and implementation of learned by rote vague general “theories” and “ideas” floating in abstract space but its
historical dialectical context. Dialectics of Marxism requires the study of a
given phenomenon not only in itself as particular, but in direct
connection with the general. Part-particular is not isolated from the
whole-general but dialectically connected to and complement each other. In this
context I will try to give my opinion on the historical evolution of the
“ideological” struggle between capitalist and socialist ideology in order to
shed light to the current “ideological warfare” in which so many
communists, communist parties and
communist organizations are
unintentionally (most intentionally) acting on the side of capitalists in
this warfare. The practice, in fact, is no different than the era of
Stalin’s Soviets and the cold war era but is being carried out in a skillfully
concealed manner with years of experience and through the available means of
mental production controlled by the capitalists. Studying and comparing the narratives used during
Stalin era and the current era, we can easily see that the same tactics are
being used against the socialist countries, countries with socialist
tendencies, anti-imperialist and
anti-fascist struggles within countries. As once M.J. Olgin presented, the
narratives of the “ultra-left” are not
so much different in context from those of capitalists, fascists and
anticommunists other than the “terms” used in order to conceal their true
nature.
Lets try to unpack the reasons “why the Marxist Leninist left fails in ideological warfare, alienate and forces the labouring masses to the ranks of social-democrats.” And, if it is an unavoidable consequence due to the unequal balance of power as far as the means are concerned, what precautions should Marxist Leninists take in order to counter balance.
Introduction
The answer to that question lies in the historical development of ideological
struggle between socialist and capitalist thought based on the balance of powers at any stage
of the history. Differing from Marx, Engels,
and Lenin’s time where the “ideological struggle” was heavily “internal”, Stalin’s
time coined the period of “ideological warfare”, an external ideological
struggle with the direct involvement of capitalist states and state
institutions. The capitalists who
own the means of production also own the
means of mental production which have been being used extensively for this
purpose. So, the “balance of power” in ideological warfare tilted on their side inevitably which gave
them the upper hand in defeating its enemies.
However, the subject here is not purely the “ideological warfare itself” but one of its means and methods
that brings about the “failure” of Marxist Leninist left in this warfare.
Specifically, the confusion on the ranks of left between the internal “ideological
struggle” and external “ideological
warfare” skillfully which is used by the capitalists in their ideological
warfare against socialism. Some voluntarily, due to their reformist tendencies,
others unconsciously due to their petty bourgeois condescending ultra-left character become a tool of the
capitalists in their ideological warfare. This, of course is in addition to (co-opted-formed-funded-
recruited; whatever the case may be) fake
communist internationals, fake communist parties and organizations and fake
Marxist academicians who already have taken part in the “ideological warfare”
on the side of capitalists influencing
and poisoning the sincere young socialists and immature communist organizations.
Knowing something for sure and explaining it in a comprehensible way, first of all, requires a well structured article. I will try my best to explain starting with what an ideology is, the core purpose, character and meaning of “ideological struggles” in different periods. To understand the differences between these periods is crucial to grasp the tactics of capitalists and their lackeys under leftist mask in their “ideological warfare” against socialism, socialist thought and socialist struggles. Bear in mind that I am purposely using two different terms (struggle-warfare) that is believed and accepted to be the same but in Marxism Leninism, neither historically nor in context are the same despite being dialectically connected.
Ideology
Stalin , in his synopsis; “ancient,
feudal, bourgeois and proletarian — such are the forms of ideology” (1), was stating that
ideologies exist in various historical forms, each tied to a specific stage or
mode of social production. Stalin was pointing out that each form is
fundamentally determined by its corresponding economic base (mode of
production) and class relations. Thus, ideologies are reflections
of the material conditions of their time, specifically those related to
social classes controlling and affected
by production. Ideologies serve a specific
purpose, namely, to justify the rule of one class over another. Proletarian
ideology justifies workers' control; bourgeois ideology justifies capitalist
ownership. This process of “justification” brought about the ideological
struggle between them.
Ideological Struggle
In Marxist theory, ideological
struggle within the working class is absolutely fundamental.
Stalin stated that “the hub of modern social life is
the class struggle. In the course of this struggle each class is guided by
its own ideology. The bourgeoisie has its own ideology — so-called
liberalism. The proletariat also has its own ideology —this, as is well known,
is socialism” was asserting that even
within modern capitalist societies, the underlying driver is still class
struggle. The driving, central force of life in advanced industrial nations
is not individual freedom, culture, or religion per se but rather the conflict between
different social classes. Within this struggle, each major class (bourgeoisie
and proletariat) develops and promotes its own ideology to understand their
interests, justify their actions, mobilize support, and criticize opponents.
“ (1)
For Marxist Leninists, ideological
struggle refers to the fight against "false consciousness" and
bourgeois ideology within the working class itself. It's the process of
educating and persuading workers to move from trade-union consciousness to
revolutionary class consciousness that aims
to overthrow the capitalist system itself. In its early historical stages,
it largely encompassed debates between different socialist or communist
tendencies—struggles between anarchists, Marxists, reformist social democrats,
and Leninists over the correct strategy and tactics for revolution and
building socialism. These demarcation lines have been cleared during
Lenin’s, Stalin’s and thus, in our era.
The intra-class ideological struggle has become an inter-class
ideological struggle, meaning an ideological warfare , general and
ongoing conflict of ideas between any opposing classes or systems. While the
key battlefield remained to be within the working class, the struggle
itself has become one between the
ideology of the proletariat and the ideology of the bourgeoisie internationally;
Ideological warfare.
In our modern era, dominated by capitalism, ideology
is crucially tied to which side of the class conflict people are on. The
bourgeoisie uses bourgeois ideology; the proletariat uses socialist ideology.
These ideologies don't exist separately but are weapons within
the ongoing class struggle.
Thus ideology is never neutral but always a product and tool of specific
social classes locked in material conflict. The conflict continues
internally as “ideological struggle” (as we will see below) and
externally as “ideological warfare”.
At certain stage, like the one we are in now, depending on the
countries, “ideological struggles” remain to be within the working class
movement (in some cases; Party) itself,
but not isolated and not totally independent from the “ideological
warfare “ in general- especially in an era where the technological
development makes the information flow (and thus propaganda) faster, widely spread and easily accessible world
wide.
Ideological struggle in
its general context and historically is
indeed broader which occurs both within
classes and between classes. Through the
historical evolution, let’s say starting late 1920s,and in contemporary usage intra-class
ideological struggle, with the direct involvement of capitalist states
and their institutions, has turned into ideological
warfare, specifically inter-systemic one heavily influencing the inter-class ideological struggles. That does not negate
the fact that both concepts as part of a unified ideological confrontation but
considers the historical evolution in which the inter-class struggle becomes
dominant and to some degree decisive one.
Thus, Ideological struggle and
ideological warfare should be distinguished by their scope (internal vs
external) as a precise and useful
distinction that gets to the heart of a key concept in Marxist theory and
political analysis. Without that distinction, sectarianism will dominate within a given country, and the concept of
internationalism will be turned into
an unending polemic among the petty bourgeois “know it all” individuals
and by the parties who act like “self acclaimed Comintern” interfering
the internal affairs of every country and pontificating, dictating their own
point of view to the Communist parties
of other countries.
Ideological struggle is
waged within the communist parties of each and every country as an internal
affair, ideological warfare is waged internationally between the
communists and capitalists , between
capitalist and socialist ideology.
The confusion of the difference
between ideological struggle and ideological warfare among the
communists manifests itself sharply in the practice of the petty bourgeois
pontificators and in the parties who practice as the “self acclaimed
Comintern” of the entire communist parties of the world by not
hesitating, rather pontificating even dictating to the communist parties of
Socialist Countries who have waged brutal anti imperialist and civil wars
and acquired the political power in their countries. In the name of
“internationalism” these condescending
petty bourgeois parties practically serve the interests of capitalists in their
warfare against socialism. Because, as
Lenin stated in a way that leaves no room for misunderstanding ; “there
is one, and only one, kind of real internationalism, and
that is—working whole-heartedly for the development of the revolutionary
movement and the revolutionary struggle in one’s own country, and
supporting (by propaganda, sympathy, and material aid) this struggle, this,
and only this, line, in every country without exception.” (2) This actually means
that rather than pontification, criticizing and dictating the communists of
other countries, "socialists in every country must expose their
own government and their own bourgeoisie...Lacking that,
all talk of socialism, syndicalism, internationalism is a sheer deception of
the people... He is an internationalist who in a really
internationalist way combats his own bourgeoisie, his own
social-chauvinists, his own Kautskyites". (3)
As a means and method of ideological struggle, the application
of "Marxist criticism is a science because it opposes
subjectivism… Criticism, by its nature, cannot be only negative,
aimed at exposing some vicious concept. Even in denial, the Marxist critic
pursues positive goals, offers constructive solutions. The
Marxist critic "removes" the wrong conception in
order to form one that meets the interests of the proletariat.” (4)
Marxist Leninist parties proceed
from the principle that differences and misunderstandings may arise among
various parties and states, even when they have relations of close friendship.
In case of differences, problems and conflicting situations, Communist Parties
of countries settle their differences on a
Marxist-Leninist road, through mutual consultations and comradely explanations,
and never making them public. This is a principle that
should be implemented between socialist countries and between
communist parties of different countries.
It is the
Marxist-Leninist norms that regulate relations among communist parties,
especially that of different countries.
Based on Marxist Leninist norms, as a main part of ideological struggle criticism
of mistakes in the line and the activity of this or that party should be objective,
reciprocal, principled, constructive and in a comradely
manner. Criticism is not to dictate and impose one’s views
on others, especially on the smaller parties of other countries. Criticism
should be constructive and defending the struggles of the Communists,
anti-imperialists, and
anti-fascists and the fate of the revolution
if they were successful, in their struggles. Any practice contrary to this norm
would only serve the interests of capitalists and bourgeois ideology.
Ideological struggle during Marx
Engels time
In earlier stage of Marxism ideological struggle was focused on the
clarification of Marxist ideology, that’s
why it was a struggle between different school of thoughts with no direct or in
most cases even indirect involvement of “states” and its institutions. The primary concern was the understanding
of capitalism and identifying socialism.
It was a struggle for socialist ideas among thinkers through debates within the
working class thought which manifested itself as the utopian socialists
versus scientific socialists, meaning
Marxists versus other
"isms". Engels had
explained this as “ solidifying the theory and strategy”’ in his various
writings on Historical Materialism, Class Struggle, Revolutionary
Strategy, Scientific Socialism vs.
Utopian Socialism and by editing , disseminating the Theory after Marx's death. The
"ideological struggle" was internal to the nascent
working-class consciousness.
Primarily focused on theoretical
analysis, writing polemics against existing ideologies, organizing
revolutionary circles, engaging in political action, and publishing scientific
critiques. Engels famously described Marx as "the author of *Capital*,"
highlighting his role in developing economic theory, but both were deeply
involved in applying it politically.
Ideological struggle during Lenin’s time
This period required mobilizing a
unified party structure against Tsarist autocracy and international opposition.
The struggle became more intense and necessitated strong, unified leadership.
Lenin’s period too was largely internal (at least till the revolution) ,
within the working class movement. His period coined the ideological struggle
for ideological unity and solidifying the theory
into practice for revolution and protecting the revolution.
He synthesized theoretical
insights with practical strategy. His work on imperialism was an
implementation – analyzing global finance capital to prove that socialists
needed a mass revolutionary organization ("imperialism is socialism's best
friend" as he sarcastically put it) and that seizing control of the state
machinery (waged war, etc.) would be necessary in imperialist conditions. He
addressed how democratic rights could exist “within” bourgeois democracy – an
implementation. Socialists needed to fight for these forms while simultaneously
recognizing they were fundamentally flawed and ultimately aimed at suppressing
socialist revolution itself -"no genuine rights without revolutionary
struggle".
Comintern (1919) was a direct
political tool implementing the strategy of international organization and its success required theoretical justification
about the new era of global capitalism.
Ideological struggle
during Stalin’s time
Primary scope of ideological
struggle prior to Stalin’s time was local, national, and theoretical with constant,
ongoing process of education and debate. During Stalin’s period, internal
“ideological struggle” was inevitably transformed the ideological struggle into
a world wide “ideological warfare” by the external capitalist states. The
presence of socialism made "ideological warfare" campaigns
more relevant for capitalist states.
“Naturally, ” said Stalin,
“ with every turn in the development of
the class struggle, with every sharpening of the struggle and intensification
of difficulties, the differences in the views, customs and sentiments of the
various strata of the proletariat must inevitably make themselves felt in the
shape of definite disagreements within the party, and the pressure of
the bourgeoisie and its ideology must inevitably accentuate these disagreements
by providing them with an outlet in the form of a struggle within the
proletarian party.” (5) “Our social life is
impregnated with bourgeois ideas and, consequently; it is much easier to
spread bourgeois ideology than socialist ideology. It must not be forgotten
that meanwhile the bourgeois ideologists are not asleep; they, in their
own way, disguise themselves as Socialists and are tireless in their efforts to
subordinate the working class to bourgeois ideology.” (6)
Stalin's period marked the
significant escalation in "ideological struggle." It wasn't just internal
party debates, but also an explicit military struggle which was followed by
the Cold War era. Capitalists
shifted their ideological warfare from simple opposition to organized
propaganda campaigns aimed at discrediting socialism, fostering dissent within
socialist ranks, and skillfully attempting
to revise Marxism Leninism in a way that is acceptable by the capitalists , or
at least serving their interests in practical reality. Liberalism (not
criticizing-criticizing with bourgeois tendency) within, and sectarianism (destructive
critique) not only within but largely in international arena,
especially after removal and exile of
Trotsky who supplied the capitalists with immense ammunition against the
Soviets, have become the trend as
a consequence of this powerful
“ideological warfare” waged by the capitalists.
The Ideological Struggle of
the Working-Class Movement
Marx explained that "In the
social production of life, men enter into definite relations of production that
are indispensable and independent of their will, relations of production which
correspond to a definite stage of development of their productive forces. The
sum total of these relations of production constitutes the structure of
society, the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political
superstructure and, to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness.
The mode of production of material life conditions the social, political, and
intellectual process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that
determines their being, but on the contrary, their social being that determines
their consciousness. At a certain stage of their development, the material
productive forces of society come in conflict with the existing relations of
production, or --what is but a legal expression of the same thing -- with
the property relations within which they have been at work hitherto. From forms
of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their
fetters. There begins an epoch of social revolution. With the change of the
economic foundation the entire immense superstructure is more or less rapidly
transformed. In considering such transformations a distinction should always
be made between the material transformation of the economic conditions of
production, which can be determined with the precision of natural science, and
the legal, political, religious, esthetic ideological forms in which men
become conscious of this conflict and fight it out."(7)
Ideological struggle refers to
the tendencies and ideology of the
antagonistic classes within a given society. “The dialectics of history were
such that the theoretical victory of Marxism “ said Lenin, “compelled its
enemies to disguise themselves as Marxists. Liberalism, rotten within,
tried to revive itself in the form of socialist opportunism. They interpreted
the period of preparing the forces for great battles as renunciation of these
battles. Improvement of the conditions of the slaves to fight against wage
slavery they took to mean the sale by the slaves of their right to liberty for
a few pence. They cravenly preached “social peace” (i.e., peace with the
slave-owners), renunciation of the class struggle, etc.” (8)
Right and left deviations in
practice ends up as an ideological support of capitalism due to their
theoretical arrival at the
"primacy" of bourgeois ideology over Marxist ideology. “The
theory of spontaneity is the ideology of trade unionism” said Stalin, “The
theory of spontaneity is the theory of belittling the role of the conscious
element in the movement, the ideology of "khvostism," the
logical basis of all opportunism.” (9)
As Lenin had pointed out earlier;
“Clearly, whoever extols the spontaneous movement and worships it, whether he
wishes to or not, digs a chasm between socialism and the working-class
movement, belittles the importance of socialist ideology, and expels it
from life, and, whether he wishes to or not, subordinates the workers to
bourgeois ideology.. means, quite irrespective of whether the belittler wants
to or not, strengthening the influence of bourgeois ideology over the
workers."(10)
Stalin explained the dialectical
connection between the inter and intra struggle for the fact that neither
the proletariat nor the country is isolated from the external influences. “the
pressure exerted by the bourgeoisie and bourgeois ideology on the
proletariat and its party in the conditions of the class struggle—a pressure to
which the least stable strata of the proletariat, and, hence, the least stable
strata of the proletarian party, not infrequently succumb. It must not be
thought that the proletariat is completely isolated from society, that it
stands outside society. The proletariat is a part of society, connected
with its diverse strata by numerous threads. But the party is a part of the
proletariat. Hence the Party cannot be exempt from connections with, and
from the influence of, the diverse sections of bourgeois society. The
pressure of the bourgeoisie and its ideology on the proletariat and its party
finds expression in the fact that bourgeois ideas, manners, customs, and
sentiments not infrequently penetrate the proletariat and its party through
definite strata of the proletariat that are in one way or another connected
with bourgeois society.” (11)
In ideological struggle,
depending on the objective conditions some deviations within a party, as
Stalin points out, ‘could be regarded as tolerable, and that we could
confine ourselves to criticising it within the ranks of our Party.” (12)
Within a given country, between
the revolutionary forces, this could be
done publicly but within the norms of Marxist Leninist critiques, as
Hoxa stressed “for socialism”, meaning constructive not destructive, pushing
them forward not dragging them down.
As Lenin pointed out; “We must
chastise the Rights in order to make them fight nationalism, to teach them to
do so in order to forge real communist cadres from among local people. But we
must also chastise the "Lefts" in order to teach them to be
flexible and to manoeuvre skillfully, so as to win over the broad masses of
the population. All this must be done because.. the truth lies
"in between" the Rights and the "Lefts”. " (12)
Under the conditions of Soviet’s
in where capitalism had already been overthrown, but its roots have not yet
been torn out, the Right and Left deviations have been the tendency, yet
it had not taken a clear shape but was departing from the general line of Leninism in the direction of bourgeois ideology.
Combining & refinement via cognition
and refined implementation involved absorbing lessons from practical
implementation and historical events to refine theoretical understanding.
Thus, internal debates (Marxism-Leninism) engaged in debates with both external
opponents ("bourgeois ideology") and internal dissenters or
revisionists. For example, Kautsky's initial criticism of Luxemburg about
Bolsheviki highlighted a contradiction between revolutionary theory and
practical implementation by other Marxists. Lenin addressed the gap caused by
World War I and developed his concept of "socialism in one country,"
arguing for concrete adaptation based on specific conditions. Stalin refined strategy (alliance with Western powers
during WWII) while upholding core principles.
Cognition through events had reflected
itself with the failure of the Paris Commune which forced Marx to refine political tactics
and organizational structure. Marx became more focused on building mass parties
outside parliamentary structures that could then use their influence
strategically as in the example of his later involvement with the General
Association. Lenin's analysis during WWI showed existing Marxist institutions
needed radical reformation.
Combining theory and practice
has become a continuous feedback loop:
1. formalizing the ideas based on material conditions and
historical science.
2.
implementation of these ideas by
the activists and organizers (e.g., building parties, uprisings).
3. Debates and observations of both
success and failure provided new data for cognitive refinement.
4.
Refined understanding was then re-formalized into updated theory or
practical strategy adjustments.
History has shown that ideological
struggle must not interfere with positive work which is an Impermissible
forms of struggle. Differences and divergencies should not be exaggerated
yet not to be overlooked or ignored.
Through the “feedback” loop, Bolsheviks drew
a clear line between the necessary and inevitable ideological struggle, on
the one hand, and the “mean brawling”, disorganisation, petty rivalry, etc., on the other. They stressed
that the Party Council to call on all Party members to “sink their petty
differences as quickly as possible and keep the ideological struggle
once and for all within such limits. Because, the ideological
struggle is not a private affair, but the affair of the whole Party, of the
whole proletariat. From this affair which the party of the proletariat is expected to
derive ideological guidance!
However, such petty bourgeois ideological
considerations have nevertheless always played a secondary role initially , turned in to unending polemics between
the communist factions. Polemics have been nothing but torrents of abuse, often
exposing the cadres of rival sects to the state. The petty bickering, heated
but empty polemics, intrigue and hegemonism split group after group, routing
every drive to unite Marxist-Leninists.
All through its history, the “ultra-left”
answered the most burning of
international and domestic questions on the basis of practically with learned
by rote and sloganized general theories not based on the analysis of existing
conditions. That is why the empty
boasts of petty bourgeois ultra left and its Anti-Leninist tendency in practice
has been far from consolidating itself into a trend with the support of the
laboring masses. They have, however, attracted a wide range of followers, some
of whom attack dogmatism to cover their own intellectual laziness, as a way
of hiding their pasifizm behind ultra-left slogans
hindering the active struggle while the others were making honest, invaluable
efforts to move the struggle forward.
There are conscious (bourgeois
agents) and unintended followers of ultra leftists most of whom
are fundamentally lacking in their
understanding of dialectical materialism and therefore do not consistently
apply its laws and principles to the concrete conditions and situations. This has been the case during the “ideological
struggle” period and this is the case during the “ideological warfare”
period. The difference is in the former
it was an ideological trend between the bourgeois and socialist trends within,
in the latter it is the ideological
warfare between the capitalist states and socialist, socialist oriented,
anti-fascist, anti-imperialist states.
The ideological warfare of working-class movement
Anti-communist “ideological
warfare” activities, largely driven by organized Western capitalist state
institutions, although its foundation goes back to 1930s, started from 1947, and intensified
significantly throughout the early 1950s, systematically influenced cultural,
media, academic circles, anti-Soviet party organizations, and individuals
across the globe.
During this period funding like that
of CIA's dedicated for groups actively
opposing communism. Propaganda campaigns to demonize communist ideologies and
leaders (including targeting anti-communist forces within Western societies)
initiated and coordinated. Anti-communist
movements in various countries often linked closely with intelligence agencies financed,
militarized, and supported.
Trotsky's association with Marxism
provided a convenient target. After he, especially after 1928, became more
explicitly critical of Stalinism, groups like the CIA actively cultivated and
funded individuals, organizations, and movements that already held
anti-communist views but needed direction, funding, and credibility to operate
effectively in this new context.
Thus, the ideological struggle of
working class has become the overarching process of contesting and overcoming
the dominant ideology of the ruling class, both within one's own ranks and in
society at large. The ideological struggle and “ideological warfare” as the
common contemporary use mutually reinforce each other through the
control and use of information flow. In
this sense the contemporary ideological
warfare is “information warfare” which is systemic that implies a macro-level, organized, and
often state-sponsored conflict between two complete and opposing systems:
socialism and capitalism. When the
states and state institutions are involved, its intensity heightens, becomes more
acute, active, and a total conflict than a "struggle." As it
has been experienced during the Cold war era, ideological warfare that gained
international dimensions involving the use of propaganda, media, education,
culture, and diplomacy to actively attack the opposing ideology while
defending and promoting one's own. In other words, ideological warfare is
the active, hostile, and state-level waging of the ideological struggle on
a global scale between competing socio-economic systems. While the ideological
struggle is a long-term debate or a campaign of political education,
ideological warfare is a war fought with ideas and information on
international scale. While Ideological struggle is the broader,
encompassing concept that happens in every country where there is class
conflict, including within the working class to achieve ideological clarity, ideological
warfare is a specific, intense form of same struggle, representing the open
and total clash between the consolidated ideologies of socialism and
capitalism on the world stage.
The practical aim and effect of ideological
warfare conducted through information warfare is to disarm and discredit the
primary contemporary alternative to Western capitalist hegemony. The control
over information flow, media narratives, education, and academic discourse have
become a decisive factor in ideological warfare between socialism and
capitalism.
Means and methods
Demonization
External demonization ,
propaganda, false narratives and blatant “big lies” affects and fuels internal conflicts.
Capitalist states creating narratives like "personality cult,"
"bureaucracy," etc. used by internal opponents to discredit
leadership and sow division, framing these critiques as proof that
socialism was failing due to its leaders. This external narrative provides
material for internal criticism.
Influencing the internal ideological struggles
Internal conflicts provides specific
aims for the external Warfare. Capitalist states need clear, specific targets
to attack. Socialism itself offers a different social system model, and attacking
socialist parties provides an easy way to demonize the perceived threat,
namely; communism. Ideological struggle within the working class, transformed
through using cognitive warfare and manipulation first benefiting from the
narratives of Trotskyist parties since
1929 and later making them totally serving to their interests in their
“ideological warfare”. These manifested itself in the form of infiltration,
subverting, or dividing socialist parties and
movements globally and domestically. The struggle against socialism and socialist
ideology gradually have become an organized project by external capitalist
forces with their internal agents aiming at its destruction and/or revision in a
way that is acceptable by the capitalists. ideological struggle within the
working class movements domestically transformed into an ideological warfare against
capitalist ideology internationally, a warfare between the progressive and
reactionary world. The core idea in this warfare is the control of
Information as a weapon to defeat the enemy.
Control of Mental Production ; Media & Education
Controlling and influencing the “means
of mental production”, as Marx put it, encompassing media, education, culture,
etc., is a key strategy for any dominant ideology seeking to propagate itself
and suppress alternatives. Capitalists
have long understood that controlling the information flow is crucial
for controlling how people receive information through which they form and shape narratives,
define acceptable discourse, promote certain values like free markets,
liberal democracy as opposed to socialism. For this purpose they use official state media & news agencies, global
networks like AP, Reuters, and Agence France-Presse originate from and are
heavily influenced by Western perspectives. While efforts exist to counter this
bias, the sheer power of these outlets shapes global discourse significantly.
Control of the means of mental
production worldwide by the capitalists – encompassing information flow via
media outlets, curriculum development and research in education systems,
influence within academic establishments, and leveraging international
organizations and cultural channels plays a decisive role in ideological
warfare between socialism and global capitalism. This is achieved through:
1. Direct funding (USAID/NED).
2. Indirect funding under neutral or
"progressive" banners ("NGOs," think tanks, university
departments).
3. Shaping narratives within official state
media.
4. Subverting open discourse via influential
private Western-funded entities and platforms like social media.
So called “Free Press" Outlets like
Voice of America, Radio Free Asia, BBC World Service have historically been
used for propaganda purposes in this ideological warfare. However, beyond these
overt state channels, this influence extends massively to privately owned media
with significant capitalist backing (like major newspapers or broadcasters
whose parent companies receive substantial indirect support).
Think Tanks are often
considered "front" groups operating under the guise of pure
research and objectivity but funded by and disseminating views favorable to
Western capitalist interests. Examples include the Heritage Foundation, Cato
Institute in the US (disguised as libertarianism), Chatham House in the UK
(historically influential on foreign policy debates), or academic centers more
often funded with strings attached.
Media guilds and journalism
associations often receive funding and guidance from Western sources
to uphold certain standards that favour liberal democracy (e.g., the Council of
Europe's partial funding for media freedom projects).
Academic institutions and
research are dominant and powerful tools for shaping intellectual thought. US government agencies like USAID, NED, but
also foundations such as the John D. Rockefeller Foundation (historically
active), Ford Foundation (still influential), and others have long funded
academic conferences, chairs, departments, think tanks, and publications in
countries across the Global South where socialist or nationalist regimes once held
sway.
Influencing university
curricula can subtly shift perspectives over generations. This isn't always
direct control but often involves partnerships, funding specific programs
(e.g., economics focused on free markets), guest lectureships, and
publishing biases favouring certain theories or authors. Marxist theory
itself is taught in many universities worldwide, due to pressure from Western
scholarship trying to understand it and revise it in a way that is
acceptable by the capitalists.
In addition, there are Academic
Centres and Institutes like Liberal
Arts Departments/Faculties especially in elite universities globally who act as
hubs for disseminating capitalist values through education like “liberal
humanism”.
Specific Research Centers
within Universities funded and directed to focus on particular issues often
framed negatively against "socialist" or national development models.
Academic journals –
particularly those in social sciences and humanities funded by university
presses or private foundations.
International Conferences
& Seminars used not just by "free press radio," but broadly to
shape academic discussion, bring together like-minded scholars and activists
from different countries, and disseminate specific ideological frameworks
– often funded by entities with known political interests (including
USAID-NED).
Ideological warfare
via Tech Companies
Social Media Platforms like
Facebook, Twitter/X are Dominated by US-based companies who control algorithms
and shape information consumption patterns globally. The design often favours
engagement loops that align with liberal-capitalist norms or
entertainment.
Non-Governmental Organizations
While NGOs are diverse, many Western-funded
ones have specific political mandates related to human rights -often
defined narrowly, democracy promotion, anti-corruption campaigns-often applied
selectively, and the empowerment of civil society often with a
capitalist-globalization framework all of which operate under plausible deniability for any
involvement in the ideological warfare.
Most International
Organizations beyond explicit intelligence agency fronts, manipulated, forced,
and subjugated for ideological purposes.
United Nations & Subsidiaries while ostensibly neutral or pro-development,
funding streams, reporting requirements, and agenda-setting by powerful member
states (especially US) heavily influence outcomes. The World Bank's structural
adjustment programs have ideological implications favouring free market
capitalism. International Monetary Fund’s economic prescriptions often
benefit dominant capitalist nations' interests.
Anti-Left capitalist parties
and organizations - Concealed as leftist
Lenin had pointed out that the enemies
disguise themselves as Marxists within his historical context highlighted that
open confrontation might be difficult for powerful capitalist interests, thus,
while they carry out direct infiltration by overt intelligence agencies (CIA,
MI6, USAID-NED programs explicitly targeting "anti-left" positions)
the more subtle and pervasive control they use is indirect methods like
funding and infiltrating existing leftist groups or mimicking socialist ideas,
a strategy which remains valid today. Marxist
intellectuals recruited by CIA-MI6 and other local “intelligence agencies” have
played important role in the “ideological warfare” from its
inception.
Gabriel Rockhill, Ph.D., in his
research article stated “ It is often presumed that intellectuals have little
or no political power. Perched in a privileged ivory tower, disconnected from
the real world, embroiled in meaningless academic debates over specialized
minutia, or floating in the abstruse clouds of high-minded theory,
intellectuals are frequently portrayed as not only cut off from political
reality but as incapable of having any meaningful impact on it. The Central
Intelligence Agency thinks otherwise. .. For in an intriguing research paper
written in 1985, and recently released with minor redactions through the
Freedom of Information Act, the CIA reveals that its operatives have been
studying the complex, international trend-setting French theory affiliated with
the names of Michel Foucault, Jacques Lacan, and Roland Barthes.
The image of American spies
gathering in Parisian cafés to assiduously study and compare notes on the
high priests of the French intelligentsia might shock those who presume this
group of intellectuals to be luminaries whose otherworldly sophistication could
never be caught in such a vulgar dragnet, or who assume them to be, on the
contrary, charlatan peddlers of incomprehensible rhetoric with little or no
impact on the real world. However, it should come as no surprise to those
familiar with the CIA’s longstanding and ongoing investment in a global
cultural war, including support for its most avant-garde forms, which has been
well documented by researchers like Frances Stonor Saunders, Giles Scott-Smith,
Hugh Wilford (and I have made my own contribution in Radical History & the
Politics of Art).
The intelligence agency
understands culture and theory to be crucial weapons in the overall arsenal
it deploys to perpetuate US interests around the world. The recently released
research paper from 1985, entitled “France: Defection of the Leftist
Intellectuals,” examines—undoubtedly in order to manipulate—the French
intelligentsia and its fundamental role in shaping the trends that generate
political policy. Suggesting that there has been a relative ideological balance
between the left and the right in the history of the French intellectual world,
the report highlights the monopoly of the left in the immediate postwar era—to
which, we know, the Agency was rabidly opposed—due to the Communists’ key role
in resisting fascism and ultimately winning the war against it.
… a new generation of
anti-Marxist thinkers like Bernard-Henri Levy, André Glucksmann and
Jean-François Revel unleashed on “the last clique of Communist savants”
(composed, according to the anonymous agents, of Sartre, Barthes, Lacan, and
Louis Althusser). Given the leftwing leanings of these anti-Marxists in
their youth, they provide the perfect model for constructing deceptive
narratives that amalgamate purported personal political growth with the
progressive march of time, as if both individual life and history were simply a
matter of “growing up” and recognizing that profound egalitarian social
transformation is a thing of the—personal and historical—past… “Even more
effective in undermining Marxism,” the moles write, “were those intellectuals
who set out as true believers to apply Marxist theory in the social sciences
but ended by rethinking and rejecting the entire tradition.”
The Central Intelligence
Agency, as its name ironically suggests, believes in the power of
intelligence and theory, and we should take this very seriously. In falsely
presuming that intellectual work has little or no traction in the “real world,”
we not only misrepresent the practical implications of theoretical labor, but
we also run the risk of dangerously turning a blind eye to the political
projects for which we can easily become the unwitting cultural ambassadors.
The Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF), which was headquartered in Paris
and later discovered to be a CIA front organization during the cultural Cold
War, was among the most important patrons in world history, supporting an
incredible range of artistic and intellectual activities. It had offices in
35 countries, published dozens of prestige magazines, was involved in the
book industry, organized high-profile international conferences and art
exhibits, coordinated performances and concerts, and contributed ample
funding to various cultural awards and fellowships, as well as to front
organizations like the Farfield Foundation.” (13)
The spy agency’s cultural
strategy of fragment, polarize and pacify Marxist Leninist left has become
wide spread and powerful with fake “communist” parties, organizations, and
“internationals” they formed and or financed. They are very affective in their
strategies by which they actually seek
to sever and isolate the communist, anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist left
from the “left”, more like, with left names and narratives.
Another research article by Ryan
Perkins states; “ In 1950, the CIA formally launched the Congress for
Cultural Freedom, a sprawling initiative designed to cultivate a liberal,
democratic, anti-Communist cultural elite across the West.
Spearheaded by agents such as
Michael Josselson and then head of CIA counter-intelligence and a lover of
modernist verse James Jesus Angleton, the CCF became a cultural superpower.
It organised conferences, funded
writers and artists, and subsidized over 20 prestigious journals
including Encounter (UK), Der Monat (Germany), and Preuves (France). It
financed book translations, art exhibitions, and academic events. By the late
1950s, it had become what Frances Stonor Saunders, in her seminal 1999 book Who
Paid the Piper?, called “the most significant patron of intellectual life in
Western Europe.”
The mission was
straightforward: winning hearts and minds by backing a left that
rejected communism, class consciousness, and class conflict; a left which
did not question the material structure of capitalism but retained the aura
intellectual radicalism. Unlike the American right, which saw socialism as a
monolith, the CIA distinguished between different shades of red.
Disillusioned communists, Trotskyists, social democrats, and ex-Marxists were
seen as useful counterweights to Marxist class analysis.
A bourgeois, respectable left
that drank espresso in Paris cafés, not vodka in Kremlin halls.
Many of the thinkers the CIA
supported through intermediaries were formerly aligned with Marxism or
Trotskyism. Irving Kristol, co-editor of Encounter and later a founding
figure of neoconservatism, was once a youthful Trotskyist. Arthur Koestler,
author of Darkness at Noon, was a former Comintern member turned anti-Soviet
polemicist. They, and many like them, became ideological mercenaries in the
Cold War battlefield of ideas—compensated not just with salaries but with
prestige and platforms.
But it was not just ideas that
were funded—aesthetics was, too. In one of the most surreal chapters of the
Cold War, the CIA covertly championed Abstract Expressionism, an art
movement then seen as radical, nonconformist, and defiantly individualistic.
Jackson Pollock, Mark Rothko, and Willem de Kooning—all seen today as
quintessentially American artists—were promoted internationally as evidence
that liberal societies could produce avant-garde creativity, unshackled by
censorship or socialist realism.
Music, too, was weaponized.
Atonal and twelve-tone compositions by Arnold Schoenberg and Pierre Boulez were
promoted across Europe as a discordant metaphor for freedom and complexity. The
Soviets preferred Tchaikovsky and symphonic socialist anthems; the CIA offered
dissonance and spontaneity.
Though the artists and composers
often had no idea their careers were being advanced by Langley, the
institutional support shaped cultural prestige—and the intellectual terrain
that followed.” (14)
In his review of the book “Who
Paid the Piper: The CIA and the Cultural Cold War” By Saunders, James
Petras states; “The CIA, under the prodding of Sidney Hook
and Melvin Lasky, was instrumental in funding the Congress for Cultural
Freedom, a kind of cultural NATO that grouped together all sorts of
"anti-Stalinist" leftists and rightists. They were completely free to
defend Western cultural and political values, attack "Stalinist
totalitarianism" and to tiptoe gently around U.S. racism and imperialism.
Occasionally, a piece marginally critical of U.S. mass society was printed in
the CIA-subsidized journals.
What was particularly bizarre
about this collection of CIA-funded intellectuals was not only their
political partisanship, but their pretense that they were disinterested seekers
of truth, iconoclastic humanists, free-spirited intellectuals, or artists for
art’s sake, who counterposed themselves to the corrupted "committed"
house "hacks" of the Stalinist apparatus.
It is impossible to believe their
claims of ignorance of CIA ties. How could they ignore the absence in the
journals of any basic criticism of the numerous lynchings throughout the
southern United States during the whole period? How could they ignore the
absence, during their cultural congresses, of criticism of U.S. imperialist
intervention in Guatemala, Iran, Greece, and Korea that led to millions of
deaths? How could they ignore the gross apologies of every imperialist crime
of their day in the journals in which they wrote? They were all soldiers:
some glib, vitriolic, crude, and polemical, like Hook and Lasky; others elegant
essayists like Stephen Spender or self-righteous informers like George
Orwell. Saunders portrays the WASP Ivy League elite at the CIA holding the
strings, and the vitriolic Jewish ex-leftists snarling at leftist dissidents.
When the truth came out in the late 1960s and New York, Paris, and London
"intellectuals" feigned indignation at having been used, the CIA
retaliated. Tom Braden, who directed the International Organizations Branch of
the CIA, blew their cover by detailing how they all had to have known who
paid their salaries and stipends.
According to Braden, the CIA
financed their "literary froth," as CIA hardliner Cord Meyer
called the anti-Stalinist intellectual exercises of Hook, Kristol, and
Lasky. Regarding the most prestigious and best-known publications of the
self-styled "Democratic Left", Braden wrote that the money for them
came from the CIA and that "an agent became the editor of Encounter".
By 1953, Braden wrote, "we were operating or influencing international
organizations in every field".” (15)
It is clear that the capitalist states and institutions
penetrated in every decisive field in the “ideological warfare” from arts
to culture, from intellectuals to the fake communist parties. I can’t help to
pass the fact that even some of the leading “theoreticians” I know are in to
“bourgeois art” , especially the “abstract” ones, without even considering the fact that every
form of culture has its ideological background and represents and ideological
framework.
Now, those outlined above are capitalist state and state institutions’
practices carried out in the ideological warfare waged between socialism and
capitalism. It is unavoidable and
undeniable fact that those practices will reflect in the approach
and practices of the “sincere” left individuals, parties, and organizations. We
can clearly see their standing on the
wrong side from their assessments and stands taken on any given issues which puts
them into the enemy camp.
Supremacist, know it all ultra-left
sectarian tendency
The sin of the "ultra-left"
is that they are infected with sectarianism and fail to understand the
paramount importance of dialectical
balancing between opportunism-liberalism and sectarianism. Ultra-left while
revolutionary in words and slogans falls in most cases behind the reformists in
practice. They like to criticize every “action every other party and
organizations world wide, yet they literally does not show any action within
their own countries. They hide behind the slogan of “uncompromising attitude” yet they compromise the democratic struggles
and leave the leadership of every mass movements to the bourgeois liberals.
They are “compromisers” hiding behind the slogans of “un-compromisers.” They have
become the “useful tool” for the capitalists in their ideological warfare
against socialism in almost every aspect.
They hide behind the slogan of “internationalism”
yet they ignore and even insolent to the struggle within their own countries.
As noted in the article, their approach and practice is fundamentally against Lenin’s definition and warnings on the
subject.
Different objective perspectives in each different countries
vs subjective perspective of self acclaimed “Comintern” parties
It is an indisputable fact that
each nation will have different cultural, social, political backgrounds and
ideological outlooks. attitudes towards the questions they face whether it be an
anti-feudal, national liberation, anti
imperialist or socialist. Learned by
rote theories and ready made schemes do not determine the conditions and
situations; the conditions and situations determine the way in which the
theories are applied. Because “Marxist dialectical method forbids the
employment of “ready-made schemes” and abstract formulas, but demands the
thorough, detailed analysis of a process in all its concreteness, basing its
conclusions only on such an analysis. “ (16) Marxists do not proceed from
the generalized theories to assessment of a given situation
which renders subjectivity and arbitrariness but proceed from the
assessment of concrete situation to the application of theories. Distinguishing
the Bolsheviks from the rest, ” Marx”, says Lenin, "... speaks
only of the concrete situation; Plekhanov draws a general
conclusion without at all considering the question in its
concreteness.” (17)
This concreteness rather than applying schemes based on learned by rote and
memorized theories without any analysis distinguishes the Bolsheviks from the
rest. Lenin said that "If a Communist took it into his
head to boast about his communism because of the ready-made conclusions he
had acquired, without putting in a great deal of serious and hard work, without
understanding the facts which he must examine critically, he would be a very
deplorable Communist." (18)
Unfortunately, what we witness in
our days is few so called “communist” Parties have taken upon themselves the role of
“Comintern” and criticizing the
communist parties, anti-fascist, anti- imperialist struggles of every other countries, arrogantly and in a condescending way
pontificating them and trying to dictate their own perspectives on to “others”.
Is this coincidence? No, it is not. Petty bourgeois competitiveness drives them
in to a competition with the capitalist formed and shaped fake “communist party”
and organizations and thus lands them in
to the same ranks with them in the “ideological
warfare” serving the capitalist interests.
Compared to Lenin’s time, the
movements in the world relatively more
united in thinking and action and stronger ideologically, politically, and
organizationally- which was an underlying reason for the dissolution of
Comintern”. Playing “Comintern” role and pontification and dictating the communist
parties, criticizing, and belittling the anti-imperialist of other countries can
only be in the service of capitalists in the ideological warfare. Lenin had rightly
said that ‘the revolutionary movement in the advanced countries would
actually be a sheer fraud if, in their struggle against capital, the
workers of Europe and America were not closely and completely united with the
hundreds upon hundreds of millions of "colonial'' slaves who are
oppressed by capital.' (19)
These so called “international” communist parties by taking a passive or
scornful or negative attitude towards the struggles of the oppressed
nations for liberation are in fact protecting the interests of monopoly
capital, betraying those of the proletariat, and degenerating into social
democrats.
This type of criticism is indeed as
taking a stand on the side of the capitalist camp, regardless of the subjective
intentions of the individuals making the claim. The practical effect of their
argument is to disarm and discredit the primary contemporary alternative to
Western capitalist hegemony. We are not living in Lenin’s time and the “ideological
struggle” has long been transferred in to a “ideological warfare” in where the
capitalists have the upper hand due to their control over the means and methods
of mental production.
Conclusion
Marxist theory is a method for
understanding objective reality at a given time based on material conditions
and historical development. Meaning that it is not dogma but must be continuously
tested against new experience. Marxism-Leninism, the evolution from Marxism,
is the doctrine of the political,
economic, juridical, social, and cultural theories and practices in applying
Marxist theory to the concrete conditions. Leninism is an
application of Marxism specifically designed to address modern phenomena like
colonialism and finance capital which provided necessary tools for revolution
in conditions not anticipated by Marx or Engels. It remains a living method but
not rigid dogma. Stalinism refers to the concrete implementation of
Marxism-Leninism's strategy to industrialize and collectivize under specific
historical conditions.
As the conditions and objective
realities change, the application of theories change in any given situation or
era. Marxism wasn't developed in a vacuum but it required constant interaction
with the real world and went through the process of formalizing, experimentation,
implementation, and combining-refinement in order to be a solidified theory. Fundamentally,
Marxist principles operate objectively and concretely. This is the process which distinguishes
"true" Marxism from dogma, making it a dynamic method for
understanding reality and guiding revolutionary action, rather than an
inflexible set of prescriptions. The key is grounding theory in materialist
analysis of class struggle at any given time and place, and solidifying Marxist
theory through cognition of objective reality.
Our current objective reality is
that we are in the era of “ideological warfare”
which should be considered in all our “ideological struggle” in order
not to fall into the wrong side with our critiques of fellow socialists of
other countries.
Internal critique is
related to identifying weaknesses and deviations from the perceived
"true" socialist path within a given country with its own specific
conditions and objective realities. These critiques may be credible because
they target specific aspects of a functioning system within a country, making
them seem reasonable to some segments of society who feel alienated or confused
by rapid changes.
External critique at the
age of “ideological warfare” in most cases becomes or turned in to discreditation
by the capitalist. It is used as propaganda campaign painting socialism as
inherently flawed, aiming not just at internal dissent but ultimately at
global acceptance of these flaws and turning workers against their own
interests and their own movements.
Stalin's emphasis on
applying dialectics is particularly relevant here. That refers to the necessity
of continuously analyzing the enemy's methods, understanding that “internal”
ideological conflict which is often a
consequence or an extension of external attempts to undermine socialism.
The "brainwashing" concept from Marxist-Leninist theory must be
understood not just as internal manipulation but as part of a broader ideological
war waged by capitalism. An ideological war
waged where the goal is cognitive infiltration and political division.
Therefore, it's crucial to
recognize that internal ideological struggles are often not purely
spontaneous phenomena among workers or intellectuals, but frequently
influenced or directed by external manipulations. Capitalists, with their
immense power and control over the means of mental production uses
sophisticated tools for misinformation like "fake news",
psychological operations, framing tactics, and exploiting perceived weaknesses
within any system against its interests .
The use of dialectical method
helps in identifying these foreign roots while also critically examining whether
certain internal features are indeed temporary transitional phenomena or
have become ossified structures hindering socialist development and thus
fulfilling their own historical materialist criteria for decay. However, this
is related to an internal affair
of a given country.
As I have noted in “The Marxist
norms and Marxist criticism among the communists and parties on international
relations”; although there may be exceptional situations, it is not common to
see serious and genuine communist parties criticizing the communist parties in
their theory and practices related to their internal affairs. Every communist,
communist organization and party would know the existing condition and
situation of their own country better
than those outsiders who have no serious knowledge of culture, traditions,
history and existing conditions of that
given country other than the knowledge it/ he/she acquired from the bourgeois
sources. Either as a Petty bourgeois habit or as a “CIA-NED” formed
communist party or “international”, “criticizing” communists of other countries in
the name of “internationalism” has nothing to do with Marxism Leninism. Repeating Lenin’s words a thousand times; “ "Socialists
in every country must expose their own government and their own
bourgeoisie...Lacking that, all talk of socialism, syndicalism, internationalism
is a sheer deception of the people...
He is an internationalist who in a really internationalist way combats
his own bourgeoisie, his own social-chauvinists, his own
Kautskyites". (1) Because; “there is one, and only
one, kind of real internationalism, and that is—working
whole-heartedly for the development of the revolutionary movement and
the revolutionary struggle in one’s own country, and
supporting (by propaganda, sympathy, and material aid) this struggle, this,
and only this, line, in every country without exception.” (3)
It is the Marxist-Leninist
norms that regulate relations among communist parties. Based on
Marxist Leninist norms, criticism of mistakes observed in the line and the
activity of this or that party should be objective, reciprocal,
principled, constructive and in a comradely manner.
Criticism is not to dictate and impose one’s views on others,
especially on the smaller parties of other countries. Criticism should be
constructive and defending the struggles of the Communists, anti-imperialists,
and anti-fascists and the fate of the
revolution if they were successful in their struggles.
In the era of “ideological
warfare” we should seriously and vigilantly keep those words in mind in order
not to land ourselves in the ranks of capitalists.
Suggested update notes for conclusion section; Trotsky has supplied immense ammunition to the capitalists in their ideological warfare against socialism and have them facilitate setting the foundation for fake socialist intellectuals, writers, organisations and parties. "Socialist" rhetoric, lies and slanders against socialist, anti-fascist, anti-imperialist countries and parties coming from these fakes make the arguments more "credible" in the service of capitalists. In addition to the "critiques" of socialists by these fakes, petty bourgeois "ultra-left" intellectuals, organisations and parties serve the interests of the capitalists through their critique which are in concert with these fakes in "context". So, they become "volunteer" servants of capitalists in the "ideological warfare". Through their arrogant and condescending critiques, they supply enough information to be focused and abused by the capitalists in their propaganda and actions against the socialists, anti-fascists and anti imperialists. In this sense, their function historically resembles those of the Fifth-Column "socialists" in the service of imperialists and fascists.
Erdogan A
November-December 2025
Next; From direct wars to proxy wars; How the imperialist wars in our technologic era differs in their forms?
Notes
(1) Stalin, Anarchism Or Socialism
(2) Lenin, The Tasks of the Proletariat in Our Revolution,
(4) Lunacharsky, the formation of Marxist criticism
(5) Stalin, The Seventh Enlarged Plenum of the E.C.C.I
(6) Stalin, Briefly About Disagreements in the Party
(7) Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy
(8) Lenin, The Historical Destiny of the Doctrine of Karl Marx
(9)Stalin, The Foundations of Leninism
(10) Lenin, What Is To Be Done?
(11) Stalin, The Seventh Enlarged Plenum of the E.C.C.I
(12) Stalin, "The Sultan-Galiyev Case"
(13) The CIA Reads French Theory: On the Intellectual Labor of Dismantling the Cultural Left
(14) How the CIA created the modern Left and why the Right still think its a Marxist plot
(15) The CIA and the Cultural Cold War Revisited
(16) Lenin, Guerrilla Warfare
(17) Lenin, Plekhanov's Reference to History
(18) Lenin, The Tasks of the Youth Leagues
(19) Lenin, ‘Speech at the Second Congress of the Communist International’).
.jpg)
