Dictionary of Revolutionary Marxism

—   Ce - Cg   —

[Or, more generally, “digital addiction”.]

“Next, there’s our cell-phone addiction. American adults spend around 3 ½ hours on their devices each day, trying to keep up with the volume of emails, texts, social-media updates and 24/7 news. And much of our time is ‘contaminated time’—when we’re doing one thing but thinking about something else. Trying to get more miles out of every minute—scanning Twitter while watching TV, for example—makes us think we’re being productive, but really it just makes us feel more frazzled.”
         —James Wallman, “TheView Opener”, Time magazine, Feb. 10, 2020, p. 14.

“When work is interrupted by a digital distraction like a message, it takes 23 minutes on average to return to the original task, according to one study.”
         —“A Guide to Tech Use in the Hybrid Workspace”, New York Times, June 24, 2021.

CENSORSHIP — via Economics

The official count of the U.S. population which occurs every 10 years, but which is always deficient in various ways, such as by undercounting the poor and minorities.

“The 1870 census marked the first time Black people in the United States were counted with a name rather than a number.”   —“An Unflinching Look at Slavery”, New York Times, National Edition, Oct. 12, 2023.



A theory of the social world today which focuses on the exploitation and/or oppression of the “peripheral” countries of the world by the “central” dominant countries. It sometimes seems that the purpose of using this terminology is to avoid the word ‘imperialism’.
        See also:

A bank, usually owned by a government, which supervises and controls commercial banks, the prevailing interest rates, the amount of money in circulation, and so forth. The central bank in the United States is called the
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM or more informally, “the Fed”.
        See also: BANK

CENTRAL BANK — Government Debt Holdings
Central banks (see entry above) generally create new money in the economy in indirect ways. One primary method they use to do so is through buying bonds which their government issues by simply crediting a government bank account with that amount of money. The government may then spend that money for any purpose. It is really equivalent to the government just printing money and spending it, but supposedly this indirect method can keep the process under tighter control. The creation of new money is therefore the same thing as increasing the formal amount of government debt which the central bank holds.
        The creation of new money out of thin air in this fashion does not necessarily lead to inflation! In an expanding economy, for example, if the rate of increase in new money matches the rate of the real expansion of production, things should remain in balance (i.e., the total amount of money and the total amount of goods and services which that money can buy). Moreover, in times of capitalist economic crisis and when the real level of production might actually be stagnating or even shrinking, governments and central banks can use the creation of large amounts of new money in this fashion as a means of attempting to mitigate or temporarily resolve that crisis. The government may use its new money for
Keynesian deficit financing of budget deficits. These new government purchases made possible by budget deficits may lead to new production and an actual expansion of the overall economy. Of course, this can only work as long as the debt load does not become too extreme. And there is also the possibility that it may eventually lead to “stagflation”—the worst of both worlds—stagnation together with out of control inflation.
        In addition to the creation of money in the hands of the government, the purchase of government bonds by the central bank also has the effect of lowering the interest rate that governments have to pay to private capitalists who loan money to them (by increasing the demand for government bonds). This effect is especially important at times of high interest rates, even if the government does not actually use all the new money created in the process and put into its account.
        The graph at the upper right shows the huge growth in central bank government debt holdings in the U.S., Japan, Europe and Britain in the aftermath of the 2007-9 Great Recession, as the major capitalist countries of the world (including China and others whose data is not shown here) have tried to use Keynesian deficits to resolve the current intractable world overproduction crisis. However, while it is true that recent U.S. federal government deficits have been enormous (and are once again rising, probably exceeding $1 trillion this current fiscal year alone), the U.S. and world economies are still only limping along at slightly above stagnation levels. As vast as government deficits are and have been, they will have to be yet qualitatively larger in coming years. And that means ever more new money will have to be created by the central banks by buying ever more government debt. And in the end, that debt bubble can only collapse.

Digital money, like Bitcoin in some ways, but created by national banks (such as the Federal Reserve in the U.S.) and in most cases expected to be tied in some way to the existing national currency. There are very few experiments with this sort of thing so far (and none in the U.S. yet), but it looks like they are the coming thing as governments get more and more desperate to try to find solutions to their financial problems and growing economic crises.
        One of the major problems with Bitcoin and most other non-govenment digital currencies is that their value is not tied to any existing currency and so they can suddenly crash down in value as well as zoom up. This means that they do not perform one of the essential requirements of money—that it be a secure store of value. However, there are still a great many other risks for such proposed governmental digital currencies, both for central banks and governments, and even more for the private holders of such digital currencies.
        See also:

The most important of the many intelligence and covert operations agencies of the United States government. It is notorious for overthrowing elected governments in other countries (such as in Iran in 1953 and Guatemala in 1954), for assassinations, torture and virtually every other crime that can be thought of, all in the service of U.S. imperialism.
        The CIA is also notorious for its incompetence and stupidity when it comes to actually gathering intelligence! It failed to foresee the collapse of the state-capitalist Soviet Union or the
9/11 attack by Al Qaeda, for example. It failed to take seriously China’s repeated warnings that it would enter the Korean War if the invading U.S. troops pushed close to the Chinese border. One ex-CIA analyst noted that “In 1979, the CIA’s highest-ranking analyst, Robert Bowie, testified to Congress that the shah of Iran would remain in power, that Ayatollah Khomeini had no chance to take over, and that Iran was stable.” Its faulty intelligence and planning led to the abject failure of the Bay of Pigs Invasion in Cuba which attempted to overthrow Fidel Castro in 1961. One of the major reasons for its continual intelligence failures is that the CIA is comprised of people who actually believe much of the endless political propaganda and wishful thinking put out by the U.S. government and the ruling class media.
        The death toll incurred by CIA activities and by governments that have been installed with the help of the CIA runs into the millions, with covert operations ranging from Indochina, Indonesia, Latin America and Africa which include horrific episodes of torture and political persecution. A recurring CIA specialty seems to be to support forces that later turn against the U.S. government and that must then be “neutralized”. This phenomenon is part of the more general category known as “blowback”. For example, Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda organization that carried out the 9/11 attacks against the U.S. in 2001 was originally funded and trained by the CIA as part of its covert war in the 1980s against the Soviet social-imperialist occupation of Afghanistan.
        CIA activities are occasionally “investigated” when some information about them comes to light, with some minor reforms or reprimands enacted. But these are at most cosmetic and invariably totally ineffective, as demonstrated by the revelations of still more nefarious activity later on. The CIA has been nicknamed “Capitalism’s International Army” (among other more unflattering titles, like “Cocaine Import Agency”, for its purported role in starting the inner-city “crack” cocaine epidemic) and the operatives of the agency (at least of its covert activities wing) are highly indoctrinated servants of American capitalism who see themselves as its guardians. The CIA is currently involved in activities throughout the Middle East and the Horn of Africa, where it is busy trying to subdue local Islamist militias and terrorist groups (i.e., those who threaten U.S. strategic designs on the region). One particularly ugly aspect of this activity is the kidnap and torture flights known as “renditions”, where suspects are flown to countries where torture is routinely practiced. —L.C.; S.H.

Hundreds (maybe even thousands!) of organizations and committees created over the decades by the CIA to further its nefarious activities and support the interests of U.S. imperialism.
        See also:

All theories in science are constructed for the purpose of organizing and explaining a diverse group of data, and as such all theories may be viewed as organizing theories. However, in any specific sphere of science there is usually one central theory, or at least only a very few such theories, without which the whole subject has little coherency and makes little overall sense. This is what we mean by a central organizing theory. In biology, for example, the theory (or fact) of evolution is often appropriately considered to be the central organizing theory. In geophysics, the theory of plate tectonics is now the central organizing theory. In the science of revolutionary Marxism the central organizing theory is
historical materialism.
        See also: PSYCHOLOGY—Central Organizing Theory Of

In his magnificent work,
Anti-Dühring Engels presented the reasons why we hold that each class in class society has its own separate morality. And each class morality is based on the interests of that particular class; that is, on those things which collectively benefit the members of that social class. The question then arises, however, what makes one class morality—that of the revolutionary proletariat—better than that of another class morality, such as the morality of the bourgeoisie? This question is what has been called (especially by bourgeois critics of Marxism) “the central problem of Marxist-Leninist ethics”. Although this question is relatively easily answered, because of its importance in fully understanding MLM ethics we will present a fairly long discussion of the issue here:

There is one little puzzle which often serves as a road block for people considering communist morality, and which is sometimes called the “central problem” of Marxist-Leninist ethics by bourgeois philosophers. (It is not just anti-Marxist philosophers who raise this point however; I’ve heard it from the masses as well.) The gist of it goes like this: “You say each class has its own morality, its own ideas of what is right and wrong, and that such questions can only be answered in terms of class moralities. But then you say that communist morality is better than bourgeois morality, a moral judgment which can only be made convincingly from outside any specific class morality. (After all, the bourgeoisie can claim that their morality is “better” too.) Obviously you haven’t thought out your position very well.” This little conundrum can be fairly easily dealt with, but I have yet to see any fully satisfactory resolution of it in print.
        In Anti-Dühring, for example, Engels attempts to resolve the problem this way (after introducing the three main European moralities of the age, Christian-feudal, bourgeois, and proletarian):
        “Which [morality], then, is the true one? Not one of them, in the sense of absolute finality; but certainly that morality which contains the most elements promising permanence, which, in the present, represents the overthrow of the present, represents the future, and therefore the proletarian morality.” [Peking, 1976, p. 117]
        There are really two, somewhat incompatible, principles here: 1) That morality is best which has the largest number of lasting elements, and 2) That morality is best which represents the future. Note first that both these ethical principles are extra-class; that is, neither really has a class basis. And in fact it is completely true that no principle for choosing among class moralities can be class based. If it was, it would be begging the question. Note secondly, that no real argument is given for either of these two principles. Why in fact should we accept them? How do we know that some other principle is not superior? Actually, I can’t accept either principle as it stands, though I recognize that there is an element of truth to each.
        Consider the first principle, that the best morality today is the one which has the largest number of lasting elements. If that were really true then the best morality today would already be the morality appropriate in the future. But the best morality today (proletarian revolutionary morality) is not in fact identical to the morality of the communist society of the future. To mention just one example, one that Avakian also alludes to, I am sure that in communist society, capital punishment will not exist; it would be wrong. But as Avakian correctly notes, the masses will not be able to advance to that situation unless some of the worst bourgeois representatives are executed in the course of the revolution. Once you recognize that present-day proletarian morality is not identical to the morality of communist society of the future, you are already implicitly granting that Engels’ first principle cannot be fully correct. If it were, we would have to try to do the impossible—implement today a form of morality appropriate to the future.
        Engels’ other principle isn’t completely correct either; the best morality is not necessarily the one that “represents the future”. The future is not always preferable to the past; Nazi Germany was not preferable to the Germany of Engels’ day. And bad as the bourgeois morality of Engels’ day was, Nazi “morality” was clearly worse. At this point in history, it is not even possible to be absolutely certain that humanity has a long-term future. Until capitalism is completely overthrown the serious possibility remains that it will destroy humanity completely, quite possibly in some future nuclear Armageddon, or perhaps through some environmental catastrophe. It is no longer possible to have the unqualified long-term optimism that Marx and Engels showed. The reality of today is much more desperate (even with the temporary respite due to the collapse of one of the two major imperialist superpowers [Soviet social-imperialism])—which makes proletarian revolution all the more necessary and urgent.
        Lenin suggested Engels’ approach when he said: “Morality serves the purpose of helping human society rise to a higher level and rid itself of the exploitation of labour.” [LCW 31:294] This of course is true, but it apparently fails as a principle for choosing among class moralities. The reason is simple: saying one form of society (communism) is “higher” or better than another form (bourgeois) seems to just be expressing a class attitude of the revolutionary proletariat, and not an extra-class judgment.
        So what then is the answer? On what basis can we choose among class moralities? We can turn to Marx and Engels for a hint. In The Holy Family, they remark (in pointing out the limits of the great French materialist philosophers of the Enlightenment) that “If correctly understood interest is the principle of all morality, man’s private interest must be made to coincide with the interest of humanity.” Carrying this idea a step further, in class society, the interests of one class must be made to coincide with that of humanity as a whole. Fortunately, this can in fact be done: any immediate selfish interests of the proletariat (yes, there are some) must be discarded, and the resulting long-term, true interests of the proletariat then do coincide with that of humanity. Lenin once remarked (I forget where) that even the interests of the working class must give way whenever they really come in conflict with that of humanity as a whole. The class interests, and thus the morality, of the proletariat, properly understood, do in fact represent the interests of humanity. Of all the classes and strata that exist today, only the revolutionary proletariat seeks to abolish all classes, including itself, and restore the harmony of interests among humanity that is necessary for there to be a single human morality. That’s why proletarian morality is better than any other class morality.
        Although many well-intentioned people imagine otherwise, in class society the interests of humanity can only be championed via the interests of a class, the one class whose interests can be made to coincide with those of humanity as a whole, and that is the revolutionary proletariat.
        The key concept in resolving this conundrum of choosing among class moralities is once again that of interests, but now the interests of humanity as a whole. As I said before, it is impossible to overemphasize the importance of the concept of interests in ethics. But some Marxists may still be a bit uncomfortable with my resolution of the conundrum. Lenin insists, in The Tasks of the Youth Leagues, that “We reject any morality based on extra-human and extra-class concepts.” [LCW 31:291] But here I am using an extra-class principle (though not an extra-human one) to decide among class moralities, and even insisting that only an extra-class principle can accomplish this—if the reasoning is not to be circular.
        I have found that it is helpful to recall the general overall history of human morality at this point. Morality first arose in primitive-communal society where there were no classes, and at that time it was based on the common, collective interests of the whole group (tribe or whatever). Class moralities arose later when, with the advent of slavery, most of those common, collective interests ceased to exist. When common interests were split asunder, morality had of necessity to be split asunder as well. Only when humanity completely regains all these common, collective interests will it be possible to once again have a unified human morality. And this is only possible if one single class gains total ascendancy and transforms itself, along with the remnants of all other classes, into a unified classless humanity. No exploiting class, of any variety, can possibly do this, because obviously every exploiting class needs another class to exploit. No exploiting class wants for one minute to get rid of social classes! Only the modern exploited class, the proletariat, can accomplish this, because only the proletariat truly has an overriding interest in getting rid of all classes, transforming even itself.
        Moreover, it is useful to think about what must have happened when the common, collective interests of primitive-communal society were split. Did this mean that humanity then had no common interests whatsoever? No, the split-up was not that extreme. When slavery arose, the once common interest in seeing everyone in the group prosper no longer existed; the slave owner no longer gave a damn about whether his slaves prospered; his only concern for his slaves was that they remain healthy enough to work hard for him. The slaves, in turn, had no interest in seeing the slave owner prosper; their interests lay more in seeing him dead. But both the slave owner and the slaves did have a residue of some common interests. Both had at least some common interest in the continued health of the slaves, though for drastically different reasons. As another example, both had an interest in the continuation of humanity as a species.
        When we say that in class society there must be separate class moralities because there are basically incompatible sets of class interests, we are not denying that there is also a slight residue of abstract universal (above-class) human interests common to all classes. It is because such a residue of abstract universal interests still exists that we can talk about such things as the “common elements” in various class moralities (as Engels does). Thus all class moralities say that murder is wrong in the abstract; but slave owners did not believe that killing a slave was “murder” or morally wrong, nor did any enlightened slave think that killing a slave owner was murder or wrong. Similarly, the modern bourgeoisie does not really believe that killing rebellious workers in the home country is wrong, nor do they view it as wrong to kill rebellious people of any class in foreign countries under their thumb. And the revolutionary proletariat does not view it as wrong to kill some of those bastards if that is what it takes to get rid of their rule. In short, the prohibition against murder is a “common element” of the two hostile class moralities only if expressed in the abstract, and not when you get down to the specific content involved. So what good then is this abstract residue of common interests, and common morality, that all classes can agree on? It is of no use whatsoever in practice, and that is why there needs to be separate class moralities. The abstract residue of universal human interests, and a universal human morality, has in fact only one valid use—namely, in deciding which of the various competing class moralities is the best, or in other words, which class morality comes closest to the abstract ideal now (here is the echo of Engels’ view), and much more importantly, which can eventually lead to a universal merging of all the most basic interests of everyone, with a new universal human morality erected on that base (here is the echo of Lenin’s view).
        This so-called “central problem” of Marxist-Leninist ethics, does in fact provide a serious obstacle for many who might otherwise accept our class-based point of view. That is why we need to get clear on just why this is not really a genuine “problem” for MLM ethical theory.
         —Scott Harrison, adapted from his “Review of Bob Avakian’s We Need Morality, But Not Traditional Morality”, Jan. 23, 1996, which is available in full at: https://www.massline.org/Philosophy/ScottH/Avaketh.htm

See also:

“In 1957 I said: ‘We must bring about a political climate which has both centralism and democracy, discipline and freedom, unity of purpose and ease of mind for the individual, and which is lively and vigorous.’ We should have this political climate both within the Party and outside. Without this political climate the enthusiasm of the masses cannot be mobilized. We cannot overcome difficulties without democracy. Of course, it is even more impossibile to do so without centralism, but if there’s no democracy there won’t be any centralism.
        “Without democracy there cannot be any correct centralism because people’s ideas differ, and if their understanding of things lacks unity then centralism cannot be established. What is centralism? First of all it is a centralization of correct ideas, on the basis of which unity of understanding, policy, planning, command and action are achieved. This is called centralized unification. If people still do not understand problems, if they have ideas but have not expressed them, or are angry but still have not vented their anger, how can centralized unification be established? If there is no democracy we cannot possibly summarize experience correctly. If there is no democracy, if ideas are not coming from the masses, it is impossible to establish a good line, good general and specific policies and methods. Everyone knows that if a factory has no raw material it cannot do any processing. If the raw material is not adequate in quantity and quality it cannot produce good finished products. Without democracy, you have no understanding of what is happening down below; the situation will be unclear, you will be unable to collect sufficient opinions from all sides; there can be no communication between top and bottom; top-level organs of leadership will depend on one-sided and incorrect material to decide issues, thus you will find it difficult to avoid being subjectivist; it will be impossible to achieve true centralism.
        “Our centralism is built on democratic foundations; proletarian centralism is based on broad democratic foundations.”
         —Mao, from a “Talk at an Enlarged Central Work Conference”, in the section “The problem of democratic centralism”, January 30, 1962; Chairman Mao Talks to the People, Stuart Schram, ed., (NY: Pantheon, 1974), pp. 163-164.

See also:

[In Marxist usage:] Views and positions which attempt to find a “middle ground” between revolutionary Marxism, on the one hand, and liberalism or
revisionism, on the other hand. In other words, centrism is in practice usually a weaselly form of revisionism itself.
        It should be noted, however, that merely from the fact that one holds a view which is in between two extremes, it does not follow that one is a “centrist” in the Marxist sense. For example, revolutionary Marxism itself holds a view in between pacifism and the sort of wild-eyed anarchism that views violence as always being appropriate, no matter what the circumstances.
        See also: IDEOLOGICAL STRUGGLE—Within the Revolutionary Movement [Lenin quote];   KARL KAUTSKY

CEO   [Chief Executive Officer]
The top boss in charge of the day-to-day operations of a capitalist corporation. Although strictly speaking CEO’s are subordinate to the Board of Directors of the corporation, in actual practice they usually have quite a free hand. Moreover, they often also simultaneously hold the position of Chairman of the Board as well as CEO, which really puts them almost completely in charge.
        In capitalist theory corporations are owned and supposedly controlled by those who own stock in that company, and the managers only “work for those owners”. However, the CEO and other top managers of most corporations are in a position to effectively loot a considerable part of the wealth of the companies they run and actually do control. They do this through awarding themselves huge salaries, and via company stock sales to themselves at huge discounts from market prices, etc. All capitalist corporations are in effect gangs of capitalist thieves who exploit and steal the wealth created by their ordinary workers. But within those gangs the top managers are the biggest thieves of all, and even steal disproportionate amounts of the overall loot from the other share holders.
        CEO’s in contemporary American capitalism are typically paid vast amounts of money, including not only official salaries which are often in the millions of dollars annually, but also with stock options, endless additional benefits, perquisites, and so forth. And when they leave or retire—even if they get forced out because of gross mismanagement of the corporation (a common occurrence)—they are usually presented with enormous departure bonuses (often referred to as “golden parachutes”).

[American corporations today often “reward” their workers with small-scale social events such as pizza parties, where the company graciously picks up the tab for a few pizzas. —Ed.]
        “If pizza parties are adequate reward for hard work or extraordinary accomplishment, why aren’t they a bigger part of CEO compensation?”   —Disgruntled comment by someone using the handle “Gritty 20202” on the Internet in 2023.

Before you become totally certain of something it is a good idea to put some serious thought and investigation into the matter. Otherwise you’ll be like Donald Trump—absolutely certain about so many things about which you are totally uninformed and willfully, abysmally, ignorant.
        In Trump’s case, however, what has been called his insistent certainty is not just a result of his gross ignorance, but also a necessary aspect of his
demagoguery. Those who demand that others invariably agree with and follow them, and who demand that their followers never have any reservations in doing so nor raise any questions, are compelled to present an image of total correctness, total authority, and total certainty in everything they say or do.

Dictionary Home Page and Letter Index