3 | The Need for a Tactical Pedagogy
The Marx Engels Lenin Institute is, first and foremost, an educational institution committed to Marxism-Leninism and its contemporary application. We must make special emphasis on that word educational.
Our current objective lies in educating students in the science of Marxism-Leninism and arming them with the theoretical knowledge to begin operating cadres in their localities in the hopes of forming a future mass party. But we have so far neglected to give the proper attention, at least in writing, to the central question of the nature of the education we propose. We have not looked at the question, namely, of pedagogy.
It is always a positive thing to give context to our writings. No matter how inconsequential it may seem to share context, especially that from times of relatively low activity, it is with context that we best understand a text and avoid (or prevent) anyone from making hasty, broad generalizations about a complex problem when we only intended to write on a very particular question.
It is this view that compels us to make the state of the MELI at the current time clear, although by no means do we need or intend to make any thorough exploration: We have operated for a relatively short amount of time and thus have not gained vital experience needed for the full blossoming of our organization and to become closer to our ultimate goal. We have taught less than one semester of classes, not to lessen the significance of this first step in itself (in fact, those who are already teaching classes deserve recognition). We have not reached many students; we offer only a few classes. In short, we are still in the infancy of our organization. These are, of course, the simple facts of the thing.
With this basic background, though, we can pass back to the question of pedagogy with clearer intentions; that is, to the fact that we are not writing of pedagogy in general or educational theory in the broader sense but rather, that we are writing of pedagogy as it relates to our current situation and objectives as they are. We are writing, then, of a tactical pedagogy.
Why Do We Need A Tactical Pedagogy?
Yet we feel inclined to expound a bit more on why we think that such an undertaking must be carried out. In the upcoming essay, Tasks of the Revolutionary Socialist Movement, we have laid out the framework of our organization and explained our positions. The most important questions of our organization in general are explored in that essay. With this in mind, we find it excusable not to fully explore them here so that we may focus our attention on the particular issue at hand.
That said, we must make reference to points made in that essay. This essay should be read as a complementary piece to that one; the other should given greater attention. Still, we must emphasize the importance of this text for our instructors, even if only as advice to be considered at their discretion.
Firstly, we must recognize that our classes, which cover more than one subject, are all ultimately rooted in the aim of influencing the formation of various local cadres through our students. These cadres, we propose, must operate semi-independently, that is, each cadre must analyze the conditions and find the path to furthering the cause of the working class in their locality while simultaneously communicating with other cadres so that we may form a detailed understanding of the conditions, at the national level, that we operate within and find the best course of action. The strategy we have laid out is one heavily reliant on the cadre as an organizational form. Thus, the formation of cadres themselves is necessary before we can move any farther.
Secondly, we must recognize that we intend to educate and organize revolutionaries who are actively engaged in the class struggle (as if there is any other kind of revolutionary). This may seem obvious, even trivial, but it is important that we emphasize this and design our classes in accordance with this objective. We should never be content with education unless it brings the masses to action; we must avoid becoming an institution that produces sterile results. In effect, this objective states that we must emphasize praxis, the unity of practice and theory, at all times. Theory without practice leads to sterility; practice without theory leads to mere activism. To conclude, these objectives together inform us of the specific task to be accomplished before we can begin the groundwork we have proposed.
We find it is best to approach problems systematically; when we tackle problems with a specific plan in mind, we may face unforeseen issues but that does not mean we throw out the plan altogether. Rather, we consider what is and is not working and come to conclusions about how to rework our plan so that we may best approach and solve the problem at hand. The tactical pedagogy I am arguing for, then, is tentative and only the first in the long development of our programs but altogether necessary considering the particular objectives we have recognized.
Tactical Pedagogy
At this point, it is appropriate to begin laying out the principles of education we have thus far lead up to.
Education under capitalism is constantly plagued by that condition known as the transmission principle, in which the teacher becomes the center of the class, giving knowledge to the students who rotely memorize and regurgitate it at the will of the teacher. This model is conducive only for the abstraction of knowledge from any practicality and thus must be avoided at all costs. Admittedly, Paulo Freire wrote of this as “banking education” in his Pedagogy of the Oppressed and we borrow from his work, with some omissions of his overt, and ultimately unnecessary, humanism. The fact of the matter is that Freire was correct in his assertion of “problem-based learning” as the solution to “banking education” and that this method of education can be appropriately applied to our own situation.
We have hitherto made extensive use of texts in our classes; no doubt this practice will continue, as it should. Nonetheless, it is necessary to emphasize that those texts mean nothing if the experiences of the student are not taken into consideration; readings cannot be abstracted from the reality of the situation without picking up pieces of idealism along the way. Let us make something just as clear: writings based on readings alone, in our case, do not necessarily advance our students any farther. Just as reading is a component of our lessons, writing is as well; both should be used in the class, yet, writing in our classes must not be relegated to the position of the repetition of ideas. Even the synthesis of ideas found in readings through writing does nothing for us without practical considerations. We can say something similar for traditional tests and quizzes, as well. All of these various assignments have their time and place, yet we must use them appropriately in conjunction with less traditionalist methods. But what are we speaking of here, exactly?
Karl Marx was the first to recognize the primacy of the class struggle in the course of human history, yet class struggle obviously existed before this recognition. We owe Marx the discovery rather than the invention of the class struggle. The class struggle, while operating at a societal level, is also carried out through and by the individual (which we speak of without all the metaphysical, bourgeois notions commonly attached to it). Of course, then, the individual is a witness to and participant in the class struggle as it occurs in reality. Thus, this firsthand knowledge cannot be discounted on the measure that it is not as refined as the studies of our theorists; intellectualism maybe just as dangerous as populism.
This particular knowledge of the class struggle cannot be found in books, but it can be found in experiences. On this account, we must make a concerted effort to emphasize the importance of engaging our students and having students engage each other (which we will further explore momentarily) on a personal level. Even more so than this, though, is that we must emphasize that our students apply their studies to their local conditions and share their findings and conclusions.
Study of theory must come with a more general study of our surroundings. If our objective is to influence the formation of cadres which operate semi-independently and locally, then we must teach our students the importance of collecting information on their local conditions (perhaps this could even be made into the subject of a class). Let us work with this point for a moment and categorize the information we should have our students go after: the first is demographic, the second is grounded.
The demographic level is arguably the less important of the two but must still be considered. Demographic information ranges from local poverty levels, racial/ethnic composition, trade union activity, unemployment, income levels, homelessness rates, etc. In short, it is the quantitative data which gives us a general picture of what our students are working with. Admittedly, this information can be challenging to acquire, but difficulty is to be expected and we should let our students realize this as soon as possible.
The grounded level is all information which we cannot necessarily quantify. This information is, in general, an assessment of the subjective prerevolutionary conditions, that is, of the class consciousness of the population of a locality. Such information can only be found through interaction with the community in question. We should encourage students to work within their communities. On this front, the community organizations we write of in Tasks of the Revolutionary Socialist Movement can be useful, if the means to create or work with community organizations is feasible in that given area, but it is not necessary to have an active community organization at this specific point (on this point, we refer to the community organization as a tactic that cadres should strive towards utilizing, but the student who is not yet in a developed cadre probably cannot do this alone). The students can find this information through interacting with their neighbors and coworkers, through interviews, through observing and noting the general political climate, etc. None of this needs to be formal; rather, it should be organic and neighborly if possible.
The key point here is that the teachers must have students engage not only with the instructor but with their communities and other students as well. This prepares our students for the semi-independent, local activity that their eventual cadre will perform. With the current methods of teaching we employ, the importance of activity is not stressed to the extent it should be. We must do more than tell our students to be active; our assignments should make activity a necessary component. This is the first aspect of our tactical pedagogy: the emphasis of practical activity in assignments, even in the more theoretically-heavy courses, if at all possible.
As noted above, we find it necessary to mention something about communication here. We have made the importance of communication known in Tasks of the Revolutionary Socialist Movement, and it is clear that we must take this into consideration in our teaching. It is of the utmost importance to have our students engage us and each other. We cannot stress this point enough, but we do not think this requires any extensive amount of exploration as we have already done this in Tasks of the Revolutionary Socialist Movement. Yet, we will be sure to emphasize this point in the following section.
Lastly, because it may seem as if we have downplayed the importance of theory, we must emphasize that this is absolutely not the case. Theory is as much tantamount to the revolutionary struggle as anything else already mentioned above. In our case, we must always strive to be on the correct side of theoretical divides and just as importantly, be unified in our theory. This approach directs us to the conclusion that our instructors must always be at the forefront of the institute theoretically; fortunately, this is not a problem at the moment, yet it is important to address this now before it becomes, and to prevent it from becoming, an issue. Our tactical pedagogy would be incomplete without giving proper attention to how we must approach theory as an organization.
I cannot, nor do I, claim that I am at the forefront of theory within our organization, but I must take some liberty here so that our tactical pedagogy can be developed to its fullest potential at this moment. I will try to be concise as to not overstep my boundaries.
Simply, we must ensure that our instructors are, at all times, developing, learning, and furthering their theoretical knowledge. That is, our instructors, as the most active participants in our organization at this moment, should always be “teacher-students”, always learning as well as teaching.
Our instructors, no matter how skilled and learned they may be, should be answerable to all other instructors. This point is somewhat intertwined with our emphasis on communication, but we must take it further than that. Our classes, while we should allow some autonomy to the teacher in their teaching, should be held to standards of operation. Essentially, our classes must be ensured to be productive and correct in theory so as to further us along in the course of the class struggle.
We must pass on to our students our views on the importance of theory. Our students must respect and appreciate theory for what it is worth, all other considerations mentioned above still valid. The point is that our students now are our operatives in the future, and thus, they must carry the ability with them to develop theory in its most productive sense, that is, theory as it pertains to the activity of the class struggle. Thus, while we have argued that writing is not effective in and of itself, we must stress its worth when it coincides with practice.
Altogether, we have emphasized three main points that will guide our tactical pedagogy: first, an emphasis on practice and practical assignments, secondly, an emphasis on communication between students and teachers as well as with other students, and lastly, the emphasis of theory as an important tool in achieving our goals without theory becoming something in-and-of itself. None of this is anything profound, as I have tried to warn. Likewise, we hope these points are not seemingly unfounded or unnecessary but rather can be viewed as the result of the forward-looking development of our organization in accordance with its objectives. This much remains to be seen.