Introduction - Ideological Warfare tactics of capitalists against socialism through concepts and theories

Ideological Warfare tactics of capitalists against socialism through concepts and theories

Preface

The struggle for socialism comprises three fundamental arenas: ideological, political, and economic. All three are integrated — each as important as the others, with variations based on the current conditions and situation.

Political struggle is tied to economic struggle before acquiring political power. After power is won, economic struggle takes precedence — for the construction of socialist society. Yet both remain tied to ideological struggle internally and to ideological warfare externally. In our technological era, external ideological warfare heavily influences the internal ideological struggle.

In this book, I will try to expose the weapons of the capitalists in the "ideological warfare" against socialism and socialist struggle — weapons designed to create confusion and mistrust among socialist-oriented masses, fracture movements and parties, and prevent the formation of ideologically unified movements against them. In this sense, ideology places itself at the core of the overall struggle within and without.

It is correct that practice is the mirror of theory and its validation. The fact is that capitalists are well aware of the importance of ideology. I can even argue that capitalist academicians and theoreticians read Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, and others more attentively than many Marxist-Leninists do — not to understand, but to find ways of creating confusion, splits, and antagonistic approaches. This is an inevitable outcome of ideological warfare.

Because they own and control the dominant means of mental production, they have been successful in penetrating their disguised perspectives into the large masses of the Marxist-Leninist left — especially with the immense support of their fake leftist institutions, parties, and "internationals."

I will be discussing the confusion created on fundamental subjects: their influence on ultra-left perspectives (in some cases as a reaction), on reformist perspectives, and their reflection on stances toward important questions. Although both ultra-left and reformists are two sides of the same coin, the conflicting narratives in appearance bring about "sectarianism" on one side and "liberalism" on the other — both of which are the worst enemies of socialist ideology. This, in turn, creates the conditions for opportunism, sophistry, and the petty-bourgeois competitive know-it-all character that ends up in identity politics rather than class politics — practices of acting as a "Comintern," criticizing communist parties of other countries, and labeling socialist leaders of the past and present as "revisionist," "opportunist," and even "counter-revolutionary."

My purpose is to expose the most important weapons the bourgeoisie uses — directly or indirectly — and to arm ourselves with counter-weapons through understanding the nuances of the questions at hand.

Introduction- Transformation to ideological warfare

From Ideological struggle to ideological warfare: historical evolution

Understanding the dialectical relationship between internal ideological struggle and external ideological warfare is essential for analyzing this phenomenon historically. The two are not identical but interconnected, and their interplay shapes the fate of socialist movements. This dialectical interplay is not confined to a single period of history; it continues today and will continue until one defeats and eliminates the other. Marxist-Leninist theory acknowledges that such ideological, cognitive, and political struggles against established systems persist.

The ideological conflict between socialism and capitalism has profoundly transformed since Marx and Engels first articulated their critique of political economy. What began as theoretical debate among intellectuals—a struggle to clarify working-class consciousness—has evolved into a global information war waged by state institutions with vast resources and sophisticated methods.

The stakes could not be higher. As capitalist states intensify ideological warfare through control of media, education, and culture—often through seemingly "progressive" fronts—Marxist-Leninists must develop a clear understanding of the battlefield to wage effective resistance.

Socialist theory must be applied to concrete national conditions and to the global situation—never as abstract formulas, but always through dialectical analysis. Marxist dialectics demands that we study any phenomenon in its particularity and its connection to the whole—neither exists in isolation. 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 on 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 is no different from the era of Stalin’s Soviets and the Cold War, but it is carried out in a skillfully concealed manner, with years of experience and through the available means of mental production controlled by capitalists. By studying and comparing the narratives used during the Stalin era and the current era, we can see that the same tactics are being used against socialist countries, countries with socialist tendencies, and anti-imperialist and anti-fascist struggles within countries. As M.J. Olgin once 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 to conceal their true nature.

Let's try to unpack the reasons “why the Marxist-Leninist left fails in ideological warfare, alienates and forces  the laboring 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?

The answer lies in the historical development of ideological struggle between socialist and capitalist thought, shaped by the balance of power at any stage of 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 used extensively for this purpose. So the “balance of power” in ideological warfare tilted in their favor, giving them the upper hand in defeating their 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 the Marxist-Leninist left in this warfare. Specifically, the confusion among the ranks of the left between the internal “ideological struggle”  and external “ideological warfare” is skillfully 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 have already 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 masks in their “ideological warfare” against socialism, socialist thought, and socialist struggles. Bear in mind that I purposely use two different terms (struggle-warfare) that are often treated as the same, but in Marxism-Leninism, neither is the same historically or in context, despite their dialectical connection.

Throughout this work, I use two distinct terms deliberately:

Ideological struggle refers to the internal process within working-class movements—debates over theory, strategy, and tactics conducted among comrades seeking revolutionary clarity. This is the necessary, ongoing work of political education.

Ideological warfare describes the external, organized conflict between capitalist and socialist systems—a battle waged by states and their institutions using propaganda, media manipulation, and cultural influence to destroy socialist alternatives.

The critical error facing the contemporary Left is treating these as identical. When communist parties engage in "ideological warfare" against fellow socialists of other countries—publicly criticizing their internal affairs, imposing foreign perspectives, and amplifying narratives that serve capitalist propaganda—they abandon the terrain of legitimate struggle and become unwitting participants in the enemy's campaign.

Theoretical Foundations  -  Ideology and its class character

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 reflect the material conditions of their time, specifically the social classes that control and are shaped 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.  (1)   Stalin, Anarchism Or Socialism

Ideological Struggle	Ideological Warfare
Internal to working-class movements	External, between core Ideologies
Comradely, constructive debate	Hostile, destructive attack
Aim: theoretical clarity & unity	Aim: defeat & discredit the opponent
Conducted by parties & intellectuals	Conducted by states & state institutions
Primary method: persuasion & education	Primary method: propaganda & manipulation

These are dialectically connected—external warfare influences internal struggles—but they are not the same. Confusing them is the root of the left’s contemporary weakness

The Dialectics of 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 is, as well known, socialism.” Marx 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 its interests, justify its actions, mobilize support, and criticize opponents. (1)   Stalin, Anarchism Or Socialism

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, aimed at overthrowing 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 were drawn during Lenin’s and Stalin’s eras and continue to be drawn in our era.  The intra-class ideological struggle has become an inter-class ideological struggle, meaning an ideological warfare, a general and ongoing conflict of ideas between any opposing classes or systems. While the key battlefield remains within the working class, the struggle 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; they are weapons in 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 a 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, the Party)  itself, but not isolated and not totally independent from the “ideological warfare “ in general- especially in an era where technological development makes the information flow (and thus propaganda) faster,  widely spread, and easily accessible worldwide.

Ideological struggle, in its general and historical context, is indeed broader and occurs both within classes and between classes.  Through the historical evolution, let’s say starting in the late 1920s, in contemporary usage, intra-class ideological struggle, with the direct involvement of capitalist states and their institutions, has turned into ideological warfare, specifically an inter-systemic one, heavily influencing the inter-class ideological struggles. This does not negate the fact that both concepts are part of a unified ideological confrontation, but it considers the historical evolution in which the inter-class struggle becomes dominant and, to some degree, decisive.

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 a “self-acclaimed Comintern,” interfering in 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)

(2) Lenin, The Tasks of the Proletariat in Our Revolution

(3) Lenin, Theses for an Appeal to the International Socialist Committee and All Socialist Parties

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.” Lunacharsky, the formation of Marxist criticism

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 principle should be applied between socialist countries and between communist parties of different countries.

Marxist-Leninist norms regulate relations among communist parties, especially those 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 comradely. 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 defend the struggles of 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.

Historical Evolution

Ideological struggle during Marx and Engels' time

In the earlier stage of Marxism, ideological struggle was focused on the clarification of Marxist ideology; that’s why it was a struggle between different schools of thought with no direct or, in most cases, even indirect involvement of “states”  and their institutions.  The primary concern was the understanding of capitalism and identifying socialism. It was a struggle for socialist ideas among thinkers through debates within 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 and 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.

This phase was largely theoretical. The next phase—Lenin’s—would test those theories in the crucible of revolution, requiring a new level of organizational unity and exposing ideology as a weapon of state power.

Ideological struggle during Lenin’s time

This period required mobilizing a unified party structure against Tsarist autocracy and international opposition. The struggle intensified and required strong, unified leadership. Lenin’s period was also largely internal (at least until the revolution), within the working-class movement. His period saw the ideological struggle for unity and the solidification of theory into practice for revolution and its defense.

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.

With the establishment of the Soviet Union, the internal struggle became international. Capitalism could no longer ignore socialism; it had to attack it directly. Stalin’s era thus marks the transition from struggle to warfare—a shift that defines our own time.

Ideological struggle during  Stalin’s time

Before Stalin’s time, ideological struggle was primarily local, national, and theoretical, with a constant process of education and debate. During Stalin’s period, internal “ideological struggle” was inevitably transformed into a worldwide “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.” Stalin, The Seventh Enlarged Plenum of the E.C.C.I

 “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 ideologues 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.” Stalin, Briefly About Disagreements in the Party

Stalin's period marked the significant escalation in "ideological struggle." It wasn't just internal party debates; it also became an explicit military struggle that carried into 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 ways acceptable to capitalists, or at least serving their interests in practice. Liberalism (not criticizing-criticizing with bourgeois tendency) within, and sectarianism (destructive critique) not only within but largely in the international arena, especially after the 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 the 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. As the productive forces develop, these relations become 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." Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy

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.” Lenin, The Historical Destiny of the Doctrine of Karl Marx

Right and left deviations in practice end 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.” Stalin, The Foundations of Leninism

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." Lenin, What Is To Be Done?

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.” Stalin, The Seventh Enlarged Plenum of the E.C.C.I

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 criticizing it within the ranks of our Party.” Stalin, "The Sultan-Galiyev Case"

Within a given country, between the revolutionary forces,  this could be done publicly but within the norms of Marxist-Leninist critiques, as Hoxha 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 maneuver 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". Stalin, "The Sultan-Galiyev Case"

Under the conditions of the Soviet Union, where capitalism had already been overthrown, but its roots had not yet been torn out, Right and Left deviations were a tendency; they had not yet taken a clear shape but were 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 the Bolsheviks highlighted a contradiction between revolutionary theory and other Marxists' practical implementation. Lenin addressed the gap created by World War I and developed his concept of "socialism in one country," arguing for concrete adaptation to 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 use their influence strategically, as in 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 form of struggle. Differences and divergences should not be exaggerated, but they should not 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”, disorganization, petty rivalry, etc., on the other. They stressed that the Party Council should 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, 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,  turning into unending polemics between the communist factions. Polemics have been nothing but torrents of abuse, often exposing the cadres of rival sects to the state. Petty bickering, heated but empty polemics, intrigue, and hegemonism split group after group, routing every drive to unite Marxist-Leninists.

Throughout its history, the “ultra-left” answered the most burning international and domestic questions based on practicality, with learned-by-rote and sloganized general theories not based on analysis of existing conditions. That is why the empty boasts of the petty-bourgeois ultra-left and its Anti-Leninist tendency in practice have been far from consolidating themselves 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, using pacifism behind ultra-left slogans to hinder active struggle, while others make honest, invaluable efforts to move the struggle forward.

There are conscious (bourgeois agents) and unintended followers of ultra-leftists, most of whom fundamentally lack an understanding of dialectical materialism and therefore do not consistently apply its laws and principles to concrete conditions and situations.  This was the case during the “ideological struggle” period, and it is the case during the “ideological warfare” period.  The difference is that in the former it was an ideological trend between bourgeois and socialist trends within; in the latter, it is ideological warfare between capitalist states and socialist, socialist-oriented, anti-fascist, anti-imperialist states.

The ideological warfare of the working-class movement

Anti-communist “ideological warfare” activities, largely driven by organized Western capitalist state institutions, began in 1947 (though their roots go back to the 1930s) and intensified significantly throughout the early 1950s, systematically influencing cultural, media, and academic circles, anti-Soviet party organizations, and individuals across the globe.

During this period, funding like that of the CIA was dedicated to groups actively opposing communism. Propaganda campaigns to demonize communist ideologies and leaders (including targeting anti-communist forces within Western societies) were initiated and coordinated. Anti-communist movements in various countries were often linked closely with intelligence agencies that financed, militarized, and supported them.

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 the working class has become the overarching process of contesting and overcoming the ruling class's dominant ideology, both within one's own ranks and in society at large. The ideological struggle and “ideological warfare,” as commonly used today, mutually reinforce each other through control of information flows.  In this sense, the contemporary ideological warfare is “information warfare,”  which is systemic and implies a macro-level, organized, and often state-sponsored conflict between two complete and opposing systems: socialism and capitalism. When states and state institutions are involved, its intensity heightens, becoming more acute, active, and a total conflict than a "struggle." As seen during the Cold War, ideological warfare gained international dimensions, using propaganda, media, education, culture, and diplomacy to 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 an 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 the 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. Control over information flow, media narratives, education, and academic discourse has become a decisive factor in ideological warfare between socialism and capitalism.

Means and methods - Contemporary Analysis

The preceding chapters traced how ideological conflict evolved from theoretical debates among Marx's contemporaries to state-sponsored warfare in Stalin's era. This transformation was not merely quantitative—more participants, larger scale—but qualitative. The involvement of capitalist states changed the nature of the conflict itself.

Understanding this historical trajectory is essential because the methods developed during the Cold War have not been abandoned. They have been refined. In the chapters that follow, I examine how contemporary capitalist states wield control over mental production—media, education, culture—to wage ideological warfare, and how the Left's confusion between struggle and warfare plays directly into their hands.

Demonization

External demonization, propaganda, false narratives, and blatant “big lies” affect and fuel internal conflicts. Capitalist states create narratives like "personality cult," "bureaucracy," etc., which internal opponents use to discredit leadership and sow division, framing these critiques as proof that socialism was failing because of its leaders. This external narrative provides material for internal criticism.

Influencing the internal ideological struggles

Internal conflicts provide 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 was transformed through the use of cognitive warfare and manipulation, first benefiting from the narratives of  Trotskyist parties since 1929 and later making them totally serve their interests in their “ideological warfare”. This manifested in infiltration, subversion, and the division of socialist parties and movements globally and domestically.   The struggle against socialism and socialist ideology gradually became an organized project by external capitalist forces, with internal agents aiming to destroy and/or revise it in ways acceptable to 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 controlling 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, and promote certain values like free markets and 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, and 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 and Cato Institute in the US (disguised as libertarianism), Chatham House in the UK (historically influential in 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 favor 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 and 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; it often involves partnerships, funding specific programs (e.g., economics focused on free markets), guest lectureships, and publishing biases that favor 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 ways acceptable to capitalists.

In addition, academic centers and Institutes like Liberal Arts Departments/Faculties, especially in elite universities globally, 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 and Twitter/X are dominated by US-based companies that control algorithms and shape information consumption patterns globally. The design often favors 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 ideological warfare.

Most International Organizations, beyond explicit intelligence agency fronts, are manipulated, forced, and subjugated for ideological purposes. United Nations & subsidiaries, while ostensibly neutral or pro-development, are heavily influenced by funding streams, reporting requirements, and agenda-setting by powerful member states (especially the US), which heavily influence outcomes. The World Bank's structural adjustment programs have ideological implications that favor 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 an 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 minutiae, 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 associated with the names 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 as crucial weapons in the arsenal it deploys to perpetuate US interests around the world. The recently released 1985 research paper, entitled “France: Defection of the Leftist Intellectuals,” examines—undoubtedly 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 Lévy, 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 left-wing 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), headquartered in Paris and later revealed as 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.”  Gabriel Rockhill, The CIA Reads French Theory: On the Intellectual Labor of Dismantling the Cultural Left

The spy agency’s cultural strategy of fragmenting, polarizing, and pacifying the Marxist-Leninist left has become widespread and powerful with fake “communist” parties, organizations, and “internationals” they formed and/or financed. They are very effective 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, later, CIA counter-intelligence head and modernist-verse lover James Jesus Angleton, the CCF became a cultural superpower.

It organized 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 of 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 wasn't just ideas that were funded—aesthetics were, 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—now seen as quintessentially American artists—were promoted internationally as proof 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.” Ryan Perkins, How the CIA created the modern Left and why the Right still think it's a Marxist plot

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 appeared in 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 CIA's International Organizations Branch, 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." The CIA and the Cultural Cold War Revisited

The capitalist states and institutions penetrated every decisive field in the “ideological warfare,” from arts to culture, from intellectuals to the fake communist parties. I can’t help but note the fact that even some of the leading “theoreticians” I know are into “bourgeois art”, especially the “abstract” ones,  without even considering the fact that every form of culture has its ideological background and represents an ideological framework.

Now, those outlined above are the capitalist state and state institutions’ practices carried out in the ideological warfare waged between socialism and capitalism.  It is an unavoidable and undeniable fact that those practices will be reflected in the approach and practices of “sincere” left individuals, parties, and organizations. We can clearly see their position on the wrong side in their assessments and stances on any given issue, which puts them in 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. The ultra-left, while revolutionary in words and slogans, falls behind the reformists in practice in most cases. They like to criticize every action of every other party and organization worldwide, yet they literally do 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 movement 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 are even insolent to the struggle within their own countries. Their approach and practice are fundamentally against Lenin’s definition and warnings on the subject.

Different objective perspectives in each different country 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 anti-feudal,  national liberation, anti-imperialist, or socialist.  Learned-by-rote theories and ready-made schemes do not determine conditions and situations; conditions and situations determine how 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. “ Lenin, Guerrilla Warfare

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.” Lenin, Plekhanov's Reference to History

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." Lenin, The Tasks of the Youth Leagues

Unfortunately, what we witness in our days is that a few so-called “communist”  Parties have taken upon themselves the role of “Comintern” and are criticizing the communist parties, anti-fascist, anti- imperialist struggles of every other country, arrogantly and in a condescending way pontificating them and trying to dictate their own perspectives onto “others”. Is this coincidence? No, it is not. Petty bourgeois competitiveness drives them into a competition with the capitalist-formed and shaped fake “communist party”  and organizations and thus lands them in the same ranks with them in the “ideological warfare” serving the capitalist interests.

Compared to Lenin’s time, the movements in the world are relatively more united in thinking and action and stronger ideologically, politically, and organizationally- which was an underlying reason for the dissolution of Comintern. Playing the “Comintern” role and pontificating and dictating to the communist parties, criticizing, and belittling the anti-imperialists 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.' Lenin, ‘Speech at the Second Congress of the Communist International

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 criticism takes a stand on the side of the capitalist camp, regardless of the subjective intentions of the individuals making the claim. In practice, their argument disarms and discredits the primary contemporary alternative to Western capitalist hegemony. We are not living in Lenin’s time, and the “ideological struggle” has long shifted into “ideological warfare,” where capitalists have the upper hand because they control the means and methods of mental production.

 

Conclusion

This work has argued that the contemporary Left's failure in ideological warfare stems from a preventable error: confusing internal ideological struggle with external ideological warfare. The consequence is that sincere communists—particularly those influenced by petty-bourgeois ultra-left tendencies—become unwitting tools of capitalist propaganda.

Marxist-Leninists must recognize that ideological criticism of fellow socialist parties is only legitimate when it is constructive, comradely, and conducted through appropriate channels. Public denunciation, particularly from abroad, violates Marxist norms and serves capitalist interests.

Genuine internationalism requires focusing on one's own national struggle while supporting others materially and through solidarity—not through pontification. Lenin's injunction remains definitive: 'He is an internationalist who combats his own bourgeoisie.'

The dialectical method demands concrete analysis of concrete conditions. The application of theory is not the mechanical imposition of formulas but the organic development of strategy from material reality.

We must vigilantly distinguish between legitimate revolutionary criticism and the narratives of capitalist ideological warfare—narratives that often disguise themselves as progressive, anti-authoritarian, or even Marxist.

The ideological warfare waged by capitalism is unprecedented in its sophistication, resources, and global reach. But it is not invincible. Clear understanding of the battlefield—of the distinction between legitimate struggle and enemy warfare—is the first condition for victory. The proletariat has defeated capitalism before, and it will do so again—but only if its vanguard does not mistake the enemy for the comrade."

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 of Marxism, is the doctrine of political, economic, juridical, social, and cultural theories and practices in applying Marxist theory to concrete conditions. Leninism is an application of Marxism designed to address modern phenomena like colonialism and finance capital, providing tools for revolution in conditions Marx and Engels did not anticipate. 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 changes in any given situation or era. Marxism wasn't developed in a vacuum; it required constant interaction with the real world and went through formalization, experimentation, implementation, and combining-refinement to become a solidified theory. Fundamentally, Marxist principles operate objectively and concretely. This process 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 we should consider in all our “ideological struggle” so we do not fall on the wrong side in our critiques of fellow socialists in other countries.

One must distinguish struggle from warfare. Internal debate is legitimate; external denunciation of fellow socialists serves the enemy.

Internal critique involves 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, in the age of “ideological warfare,” most often becomes discreditation by the capitalist. It is used as a 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. This refers to the need to continuously analyze the enemy's methods, recognizing that “internal” ideological conflict is often a consequence or 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 whose 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, use sophisticated tools for misinformation like "fake news", psychological operations, framing tactics, and exploit perceived weaknesses within any system against its interests.

The dialectical method helps identify these foreign roots while also critically examining whether certain internal features are 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 knows the conditions and situation of their own country better than outsiders who have no serious knowledge of that country's culture, traditions, history, and existing conditions, other than what they acquired from 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.” (2)

(1) Lenin, Theses for an Appeal to the International Socialist Committee and All Socialist Parties

(2) Lenin, The Tasks of the Proletariat in Our Revolution

Marxist-Leninist norms 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 defend 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. For Marxist Leninists, the concept of the "chief enemy," and its determination under any given conditions, is a fundamental requirement to follow. Marxist Leninists must answer the questions of where the interest of the laboring people lies in specific cases, and in the world in general. “Marxist dialectical method forbids the employment of “ready-made schemes” and abstract formulas. The dialectical method demands, first, that we should consider things, not each by itself, but always in their interconnection with other things.”  Maurice Cornforth, Materialism, and the Dialectical Method

 In general, when Marxist Leninists supports capitalism against feudalism, that does not make them pro-capitalist, or when they support monopoly capitalists against the capitalists, that does not make them pro-imperialist (in its scientific meaning), or when they declare that they prefer a populist bourgeois democracy against an autocratic fascist government form, that does not make them pro-bourgeois democracy, or when they support regimes like that of Iran in their resistance against the aggression of US-NATO imperialism, that does not make them pro-reactionary regimes, or when they welcome the defeat of US-NATO imperialists in Afghanistan, that does not make them pro-Taliban. These are mechanical equations made by liberals or by those who memorize the theories that fit their own subjective stand, sloganize them, and use them as a “formula” on each and every situation. This has nothing to do with applying the dialectics of Marxism; thus, it does not serve the interests of the working class in ideological warfare."

No account of capitalist ideological warfare is complete without recognizing the role Leon Trotsky and his followers played. While Trotsky's theoretical contributions to the revision of Marxism are undeniable, his post-exile writings—particularly after 1928—provided capitalists with an arsenal of narratives that have been weaponized against socialism for nearly a century.

The CIA's cultivation of anti-Stalinist leftists, Trotskyists, and disillusioned Marxists was not random. These figures possessed the credibility of having 'once been Marxist,' making their critiques more persuasive to workers than overtly capitalist propaganda. Trotsky's accusations of 'bureaucratic deformation' and 'betrayal of the revolution' were repurposed by intelligence agencies, given institutional support, and transformed into the foundation of a 'left' anti-communism that persists to this day.

This is not to deny the legitimacy of all internal critique—Stalin himself acknowledged the necessity of "criticizing it within the ranks of our Party." But the public, external, and destructive character of the critiques emanating from Trotskyist and post-Trotskyist circles has consistently served imperialist objectives, regardless of the subjective intentions of those making them."

Trotsky has supplied immense ammunition to the capitalists in their ideological warfare against socialism and has facilitated the laying of the foundation for fake socialist intellectuals, writers, organizations, and parties. "Socialist" rhetoric, lies, and slander 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, organizations, and parties serve the interests of the capitalists through their critiques, 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 on 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 that of the Fifth-Column "socialists" in the service of imperialists and fascists.  

Part 1