The following text is a synthesis of a contradictory discussion we had within our group about the use of Internet, forums and social networks (like Facebook) by the working class and in particular by the communist groups and their members. These new media – whose main utility is to favour and accelerate the circulation of capital and commodities – also present some interest for bourgeois ideology to foster the belief in the definitive advent of Democracy where everyone, each isolated individual, would have access to the knowledge and free expression of their individuality. This mystification consequently destroys even more the social links of any kind, and primarily the class collective links.

As such, the ideology which goes with these new media exerts its negative influence on the working class struggles – even though it still only remains an auxiliary which reinforces the mystifications and the sabotages that the bourgeois forces put forwards in the strikes and demonstrations.

On the other hand, it is far from being without effect on the communist groups at the level of their intervention. Should they carry on publishing regular publications and journals on paper and developing their militant diffusion in the struggles, the demonstrations, the strikes, the assemblies, the political meetings, in the streets, while one can be content with the publication on a web site? Relating to the debates between political groups, why not be content with the Internet forums and social networks each one having its own sympathizers network and Facebook ’friends’? Finally, with respect to their internal life, why should they carry on holding formal meetings of the group while e-mail and ’miraculous’ links thanks to Skype or others seem to enable maintaining and developing permanent contact and exchanges?

For us, the Internet can only be a technical means, the state, police (surveillance) and above all ideological, control of which is even more efficient than that which the bourgeoisie could exert beforehand with the telephone – to give an example of a technical tool which can appear equivalent. Even though we can hardly do without it in the so-called ’modern’ society of today, as we could hardly do without the use of the telephone, the communists must limit its utilization and, above all, fight against the ideological mystification which accompanies its development at the risk of losing themselves and liquidating a great part of the experience and the lessons of the workers movement at the level the working class struggles as well as at the level of the struggle for the future communist party.

We encourage our readers and the communist groups to look at this question, to contribute – by participation and criticism – to our reflection, and to be part of the denunciation and the fight against democratism in general and its ’Internet’ version in particular. Amongst the few serious contributions we know on this subject, it is important to refer to the article the PCint-ICT wrote on this question in its Italian review Prometeo #4 (2010), Libertà virtuale e catene reali - La battaglia per il controllo di Internet. Even though we share good part of the arguments, we remain more doubtful on the possibility for communists to lead « a battle for the Internet control » and to « oppose (…) to the controls and the censorship on the Internet forums » [« Dobbiamo opporci (…) ai controli e alla censura sui forum del web »]. Besides the limits (and even the dangers) of such a battle, we think that the Prometeo text tends to underestimate the political and ideological utilization of these new media by capitalism and the ruling class especially against the working class struggles and its communist minorities.

1) Bourgeois Democracy and the Individuals’ So-called Equality

Bourgeois Democracy essentially bases itself on an abstract vision of the individual. Or more commonly: one man, one voice (one vote); each one being equal to the other. For a long time, Marxism, the revolutionary theory of the proletariat - as exploited and revolutionary class – has denounced the mystification of the equality between the individuals belonging to the different social classes; in particular, « can there be equality between the exploited and the exploiters? (…) Even in the most democratic bourgeois state the oppressed people at every step encounter the crying contradiction between the formal equality proclaimed by the “democracy” of the capitalists and the thousands of real limitations and subterfuges which turn the proletarians into wage-slaves » (Lenin, The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky). In reality, « although the bourgeoisie represents a minority within society, the democratic state represents the system of armed force organised for the purpose of preserving the capitalist relations of production » (Thesis of the Abstentionist Communist Faction of the Italian Socialist Party, 1920). Contrary to the democratic bourgeois ideology, Marxism does not claim equality between individuals, neither in the framework of capitalist society, nor even in the framework of Communism. It is Capital which makes women and men equal by alienating them to wage labor as proletarians. And if the revolutionaries are the first to put forwards “egalitarian” demands in the working class struggles, in particular in wage demands, it is not by principle, and less still for reasons of morality (both would be there abstractions) but as a means for the extension and unification of the struggle. « The concept of a socialist society as a realm of equality is a one-sided French concept deriving from the old “liberty, equality, fraternity,” a concept which was justified in that, in its own time and place, it signified a phase of development, but which, like all the one-sided ideas of earlier socialist schools, ought now to be superseded, since they produce nothing but mental confusion, and more accurate ways of presenting the matter have been discovered » (Engels, Letter to Bebel, March 18th 1875, emphasis by Engels).

The mystification on equality between individuals within capitalist society and its democratic state results in the deception of the free political choice by the “people” through the affirmation of a majority vote, the “people” being understood as the sum of so-called “free and equal” individuals – this being another abstraction under capitalism. « The division of society into classes distinguished by economic privilege clearly removes all value from majority decision-making. Our critique refutes the deceitful theory that the democratic and parliamentary state machine which arose from modern liberal constitutions is an organization of all citizens in the interests of all citizens » (The Democratic Principle, Bordiga, 1922).

The democratic lies and mystifications which base themselves on an abstract, ahistorical, non-material, ultimately metaphysical, notion of the individual are at first used to impose on the exploited masses, primarily the proletariat, « the democratic republic (…) this final state form of bourgeois society » (Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program, 1875) by denying the reality of the social classes, above all the ruling bourgeois class and the exploited proletariat, as well as their irreconcilable antagonism.

2) The So-called ’Sovereignty’ of the Individual

But the bourgeois mystification does not simply confine itself to foster the belief in pure political democracy (elections, parliament, etc), to erase from the consciousnesses the reality of the class dictatorship that bourgeois democracy does exercise, and to deny any reality to the class struggle. The democratic bourgeois ideology goes much further and tends to impregnate all the moments and all the spaces of social life to the detriment of the vision and, above all, the collective action and reflection; i.e. of the working class as Marxism has relentlessly demonstrated and defended. The democratic bourgeois ideology tends to make each individual a “unity” in itself, autonomous, « Without any doubt, the individual is a unit from a biological point of view, but one cannot make this individual the basis of social organization without falling into metaphysical nonsense. From a social perspective, all the individual units do not have the same value. The collectivity is born from relations and groupings in which the status and activity of each individual do not derive from an individual function but from a collective one determined by the multiple influences of the social milieu » (The Democratic Principle, Bordiga, 1922). The “proletarian” individuals are nothing by themselves. They are within the historical collective which represents their class, both exploited and revolutionary class. « This does not mean that we resuscitate the illusory myth of individualism, which wishes to liberate the human “ego” from external influences, especially since these influences tend to become ever more complex and the life of the individual ever more an indistinguishable part of a collective life. On the contrary, the parameters of the problem are changed, with will and freedom attributed to a class, a class destined to become the unitary human grouping itself, a grouping which one day will struggle against the adverse forces of the external physical world alone » (Theses for the 3rd Congress of the Communist Party of Italy presented by the Left, Lyon, 1926, www.sinistra.net, our emphasis).

3) Capitalist State’s Totalitarism and the Atomization of the Proletarian Individuals

With the historical period of capitalism’s decline – or period of ruling imperialism – and the increasing state totalitarism which goes with it, this democratist and individualist ideology – capitalist class’s ideology – never ceased to develop up to the caricatural level we experience today, particularly with the utilization of Internet and the social networks. In many aspects, Georges Orwell’s novel, “1984”, that it would be wrong to confine to a simple denunciation of the Nazi and Stalinist capitalist states, has become reality. With the Internet and its “cookies”, the GPS and Facebook, not only is Big Brother watching you, but above all each one, as isolated individual, is forced one way or another to submit to this permanent dictatorship which reaches all the recesses of social life: at work of course through the management ideology and the “internet-intranet” networks; movement and transportation with the mobile telephones and the GPS; at home, in the so-called “home privacy” of the Internet; Skype and the social networks. If television had been a great factor for the development of state and democratic bourgeois totalitarism as well as a great booster of social atomization, at least it was not “interactive”, each one remaining passive in front of the media. Today, the isolated individual – most of the time salaried or unemployed proletarian – apparently, superficially, becomes actor of the media and of their own social atomization – and this not only from time to time in the elections, but daily, permanently, at home, during the commute, during their spare time, at work... Even worse, the individual ends up believing that the only remaining social space is the one, virtual, of the Internet and the social networks: is it not there, by paying, that the single persons look for their soul mate and to establish love relations? Moreover the fact that capitalism transforms love relations and sentiments into... commodities, the space of social relations as intimate as love is more and more reduced to the Internet and so-called “social” networks – it goes the same with the “social networks” as for the newspeak of “1984”: they are as social as « freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength ».

Even more dangerous still, the Internet enabled democratic bourgeois ideology to achieve a particularly mystifying dimension: everybody, all individuals, can “freely express themselves” at will without particular financial means, without a newspaper, without particular social relations, etc... This is the top of formal and abstract democracy; finally, each individual is equal to the other one: from one human being, one vote, the Internet makes us pass to “one human being, one permanent voice” (or “post”). At the risk of appearing as old “squares” in front of this modernity – have not some, up to revolutionaries, spoken of the Internet as factor of the revolution? –, it is in the past and our class history that we find the theoretical denunciation of the democratic and individualist ideology of which Internet has become the height.

« (…) If it is admitted from the outset that the vote, that is, the judgement, the opinion, the consciousness of each elector – we can add today of each “Facebook friend” or participant to the forums – has the same weight in delegating power for the administration of the collective business. It is already evident that this conception is unrealistic and unmaterialist because it considers each individual to be a perfect ’unit’ within a system made up of many potentially equivalent units, and instead of appraising the value of the individual’s opinion in the light of his manifold conditions of existence, that is, his relations with others, it postulates this value a priori with the hypothesis of the ’sovereignty’ of the individual. Again this amounts to denying that the consciousness of men is a concrete reflection of the facts and material conditions of their existence, to viewing it as a spark ignited with the same providential fairness in each organism, healthy or impaired, tormented or harmoniously satisfied in all its needs, by some undefinable supreme bestower of life. » (The Democratic Principle, quoted above).

At the same time, it is also the negation of social collective what ever it may be. An apparently “neutral” example in class and political term: it is now common to see ’the people’ having a party with friends (collective social framework) isolating themselves a good time to send or read SMS or short mails without any interest or urgency with another individual not present at the party (or even sometimes present) and so to forget, even deny, the collective social event!

This “anti-social”, anti-collective, individualist corrupting influence gets into all the recesses of social life and pollutes it facilitated by the ideological utilization of the Internet and the social networks – but only facilitated because it existed beforehand as product of the democratist and individualist ideology. Internet worsens it and accelerates its spreading.

From the class point of view, that is from the proletarian political point of view, each individual, worker, salaried, employee, unemployed, each exploited, ends up permanently and increasingly under surveillance and competition with the others by totalitarian capitalism through the means of Internet. This new medium provides to the whole capitalist state apparatus the means of surveillance and above all of repression in the social life in general as well as in the workplaces. We’ll come back on this on the following section. As such, the Internet and its utilization by capitalism worsens the living and working conditions of the working class and the ideology associated with the Internet strengthens the totalitarian stranglehold of capital on labor, that is on the proletarians.

4) Internet Ideology Participates to the Sabotage of the Working Class Struggles

The democratic ideology through its Internet variant also pollutes and weakens the workers and communist movement by aggravating even more the breaking with its traditions and, partly, by seeking to distort the conditions of struggle of the working class so that it can better paralyze them. The particular Internet democratist ideology has favoured and participated to promote the “Indignados” [“the Indignant ones”] movements and the fetishization of self-organization and assemblies in which everyone could, and had to, express 3 minutes maximum. If often it was forbidden to speak on behalf of a political group, on the contrary it did not matter that every individual repeated the same thing as the previous one. This pure democracy is a trap from the point of view of the interests and goals of the working class struggle against capitalism. The role of a workers assembly is not to make every individual attending it speak but to decide what are the immediate interests and aims of the struggle so that the most favourable relation of forces against capital can develop. In general, there is leading guide: the extension and the unification of the fight to other sectors of the working class. Faced with this practical necessity of the fight and the particular decisions to take in relation to the different moments and conditions of each struggle, the key is that the political orientations which affirm this dynamic towards unity and the ones which oppose it can confront in the assembly. And if only few speakers, even only two, can be their bearers by posing the terms of the “debate”, that is by assuming and bringing the immediate political confrontation, and that they clearly appear to the eyes of the assembly – without be submerged under floods of 3 minutes talks on all and everything – then the “proletarian democracy”, the “democracy of the workers’ struggle”, serves the class struggle and its immediate and long term goals.

Here is precisely what the democratist and individualist ideology – of which the Internet has become the most appropriate vehicle – aims at liquidating by flooding the issues and the terms of the confrontations that the workers, particularly the most militant and the most conscious, must inescapably and necessarily assume in the struggles of the working class against bourgeois political and trade unionist forces. These forces do intervene, and will intervene including in the revolutionary period, in the struggles and the unitary organizations of the class: assemblies, demonstrations, meetings, committees, workers councils, etc. Emptied of their political content and objectives – decision to strike, definition of the demands and the goals of the struggle and the means of its spreading and its unification at first; decision and organization of the insurrection, then of the exercise of power by the councils or soviets –, inescapably these organs of struggle fall into the bourgeoisie’s hands who knows how to paralyze and emasculate them in the name of the democratic virtue in itself, supposed “natural”, of these political organs.

From this point of view, the democratic ideology – to which the individualist visions reinforce and give credence to – becomes the apostle of the fetishization of “self-organization”, often today of “assembleism”, to better empty the organization of the struggle by the workers themselves of its class content and potential. Our generations of proletarians, particularly the youngest, are influenced by the Internet democratic ideology and are used to instant individual exchanges of mails and “posts” on the social networks, that each idea or comment has the same value as the others, etc. As a result, they tend to confound the debates and the confrontation of the conflicting positions and orientations with the material, temporal, possibility of each individual to have their say. Instead of favouring the interest of the assembly and the struggle, that is the class collective, one favours the individual expressions of the largest number of people on behalf of formal democracy emptied of any political and class content.

The use of smartphones for informing and calling to gatherings or spontaneous demonstrations is today presented as the example to follow. Each individual so warns his friend, or friends, the people he knows. One thing is to inform somebody by phone on the location of the spontaneous demonstration – we have nothing against it in itself. On the contrary, another thing is to substitute the individual utilization of smartphones to the collective sending of massive delegations for going to get the workers en masse at such or such workplace so that they join the demonstration. Yet, more and more, we can note that numbers of participants in the street demonstrations, even when they are massive – whether called by the unions or not – come individually and not in a collective delegation or procession. Certainly, we have nothing against the fact one worker decides alone to come to a demonstration – it is better than nothing – but it nevertheless remains that this expresses a weakness and a difficulty of the working class. And, since we cannot “make a virtue of necessity”, we fight against the idea that it would be an example to follow as well as any apology of the so-called “modern” method. In this way, Facebook and Twitter are presented as tools and means of the working class struggle and its extension to the detriment of the genuine organizations of the struggles which physically gather together workers such as the massive delegations or the workers assemblies.

5) The Pressure of Democratism and Individualism upon the Communist Groups

Political opportunism expresses the penetration of bourgeois ideology within the revolutionary camp, within the communist vanguard organizations of the proletariat. Democratism and individualism reach it too, even more strongly, after one century of increasing state capitalism at the economic level as well as social and ideological. We can say that this phenomenon has sped up dramatically these last decades, including and even particularly in the ranks of the vanguard organizations, weakening them accordingly, favouring the dispersion of these political groups (that the class still does not recognize), their desertion and individualism. Not only are the communist political groups very few and very dispersed, but besides there certainly are more individuals declaring themselves revolutionaries outside these groups, and justifying it, than these groups have members. Consequences: first individualism within the Proletarian Camp – i.e. groups and elements which claim communism and its theoretical, political and organizational tradition – is today theoricized and develops to the extent that these comrades reject the communist activity which can only be organized and centralized in a collective organization; later, democratism spreads to these people with an individualist approach who defend, in the name of the individual freedom of critique and revision of the program and positions of the past, that each idea or expression is as valid, equivalent, as another; and in particular as valid whether it comes from an individual or a group, or a communist organization. For us, that is not the case! All “revolutionary ideas” are not of equal value and one criteria for assessing them, besides their political content, is the fact that they are voiced by political groups and organizations or by non-organized individuals. Unlike the “revolutionary” individual who is not accountable to anyone but themselves, or to their “friends”, the political group is accountable for the history of the working class movement and for its own history at the programatic, theoretical, political and organizational levels. As such, and contrary to the individual, it is not free. As such, it cannot consider any idea as valid, equivalent, as another. As such too, it has to discuss, debate, and fight the other positions and “ideas”, of unequal value, that it does not share.

The Internet and its by-products are not at the origin of this specific weight of democratism and individualism within the Proletarian Camp. Nevertheless, it comes to serve these two mystifications and becomes one of its main vehicles through the propaganda and the illusions about its utilization and by... its “easy” and daily utilization which veils also the emptiness of the real action, that is class action. And above all, the Internet and its social networks favour the individual expressions to the detriment of the collective and organized political expressions, that is of organization and party.

Instead of the political debates and confrontations between political currents and organizations, one increasingly tends to see and consider them as confrontations and quarrels between individuals. From this point of view, the utilization of the social networks and the Internet which are greatly favoured by the bourgeoisie, does not confine itself, far from it, to the increased possibility of state and police control and surveillance; but also to pollute the minds with individualist vision and practices which derail from collective action and reflection, particularly class action and reflection, up to denying and excluding them, including within the political vanguard of the proletariat.

6) Internet and its By-Products: a Means of Repression

As a technical tool or means, the Internet is controlled and managed by the present power, that is by capitalist states. It is true at the economic level which remains the main dimension of this media and which sees an acceleration as never before of capital and commodity circulation and the wild search for capitalist profit in all the corners of the planet and social life – up to love relations as we have mentioned earlier. But also, by the ideological and propaganda utilization of which it is also the vehicle, the Internet and the technical means that go with it, have become the favoured space for state surveillance and repression. It is also important to underline that the democratic states are much more efficient in this repression since they do not need, contrary to so-called non-democratic states, to cut off the network and the access to Internet (nevertheless, the day they will think it necessary, they will not hesitate to do so at once). We will not come back here on the revelations by WikiLeaks and other “scandals” around the activities of the secrete services such as the American NSA. Actually, for whoever may reflect on it for two minutes and refer to the various revelations of the bourgeois press itself, the omnipotence and omnipresence of the police surveillance and repression on the Internet is obvious.

Unfortunately, the democratic illusions amongst the revolutionaries still remain so widespread. This is an old disease of the workers movement; above all in the countries with strong democratic traditions which are often at the same time the historical centers of capitalism. Without coming back on the illusion according to which the bourgeoisie of the democratic countries will never reproduce Rosa Luxemburg’s murder directly sponsored and executed by German Social Democracy – it is always worth reminding –, our generations of revolutionaries who never lived open and massive repression – except a few cases – are particularly infected by this disease to the point of neglecting the most elementary means of “discretion”. Of course, it is important to find a point of balance between the immediate benefit that the modern means can provide and the long-term concern for protecting the communist activity from repression – and thus to limit the state surveillance. How many political discussions by phone, as means of facility, could and should have been avoided at the condition of waiting for the group meeting? Or for regular mail? Yet this political concern did not forbid the use of the telephone – sometimes indispensable for the good daily functioning – but should have limited its utilization, firstly because of state surveillance and, secondly, because its excessive use implied practices, debates in particular, outside the collective control and life of the group. It goes the same for Internet except that... this medium is even more under surveillance and controlled by the bourgeois state and that it can still more easily –only because it can put in direct, oral and visual, contact more than 2 persons – substitute itself to regular collective meetings of the group.

The illusions in bourgeois democracy and the political and organizational concessions to it, which are still reinforced by the Internet ideology, have negative effects at the level of surveillance and repression – including indirect for instance through a greater ease for police manipulation and infiltration – as well as at the level of the very functioning of the organization, whether it is group, fraction or communist party, and its theoretical and political understanding.

7) The Social Forums and Networks Liquidate the Political Debates

Is there any point of meeting since we can discuss and see each other by Skype at home? With no effort. What is the point of organizing internal debates and, if possible, writing texts when everybody can debate with everybody and anyone instantaneously, with immediate “response” on the social forums and networks? The ease of utilization of the Internet and its by-products, each one at home in front their computer, each one giving their word and opinion on anything on the forums and networks, develops the cancer of individualism and the rejection of any collective, regular, organized and centralized activity; in particular of any collective argumented and contradictory debate as, nevertheless, unique weapon enabling to clarify the political questions and to regroup the revolutionary energies within a collective and militant framework; in brief, the individualist and democratic “Internet” ideology aims at liquidating any communist, or “party”, activity.

Actually, instead of internal and external debate of the political groups – in which sometimes individuals or sympathizers can also participate – we witness as never before the development of interventions on all and anything by individuals, more or less revolutionary according to them, often isolated, most of the time in the grip of immediate emotion, often guided by their ego and their will to “exist” as personality, in the Internet forums. Instead of organized and centralized debates whose aim is the clarification of the political positions – for instance by conclusions and practical political decisions, i.e. militant decisions – we see an accumulation of individuals’ pseudo-contributions which, very often, do not respond to each other or if they do, do not refer to any political tradition or, worse, to the most dangerous. Obviously it is even worse on the social networks like Facebook. There, emotion, personal feelings, immediate reactions, lack of reflection and argument, in short the crassest and roughest individualism reign supreme. But do not criticize at the risk your “Facebook friend” deletes the “post” or the thread of the “chat” after having accused you of insulting them and not respecting their thought... as valid as yours – that is precisely why it is so impolite and inappropriate to discuss it! As a result: all this ends up often by personal insults or by silence; in short, it is all except the debate, including and above all one in which conflicting positions confront each other, aiming at political clarification and, by the way, it is all except the genuine respect we owe to workers and revolutionary militants.

But the petit-bourgeois affected by democratism and individualism will be satisfied; they will indulge themselves: they will express “their” idea and above all assert their “personality”.

8) Internet and Communist Activity

Obviously, the communist groups as well as the proletarians in their daily life, are constrained to utilize the new media that capitalism controls and imposes. They even can find in it an immediate interest as for the utilization of the telephone for instance. It would be stupid because almost impossible to not use E-mail, or the possibilities that the setting up of the website offers. But it is important to consider them as modern technical tools that the communists must put at their service as much as possible – while knowing that the bourgeoisie keeps and will keep the grip on this tool it can cut off at any moment as long as it controls State power. Does the setting up of a website justify the stopping of any regular revolutionary press? We do not think so. On the contrary. First, because as long as the bourgeoisie’s State power is not destroyed and replaced by the power of the revolutionary proletariat, that is the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, the ruling class can at any moment interrupt and silence the website – even easier than the paper press. But also because we think that it is the frequency and the regularity of a journal or a review which determines the organisation, the “layout”, of the presentation and the activity of a communist group’s Internet site – and not the opposite. This is the reason why we refuse to utilize our site as a blog with the publication of our articles one after the other according to their final writing. The Internet site of a communist organization must also have a militant dimension; or rather must express the militant dimension of the communist group. In particular, it has to treat its statements, leaflets, communiqués, articles, etc., on a hierarchical and priority basis – and not one after the other. In this sense too, there is no equality between the statements. They have not the same value and their layout is determined by the political priorities and orientations.

Thus, far from us is the idea of a return to the pre-digital age even though the domination of the bourgeoisie over digital media remains complete. But a preoccupation and a struggle in all cases must animate us against the revival of democratic and individualist ideologies and mystifications that the Internet and its social networks have enabled to provoke. For that, for this fight, we do not invent anything. We just content ourselves modestly and no doubt incompletely – we wait for criticisms – to try to base ourselves on the theoretical criticism of democratic ideology and mystification made by Marxism in general and, more particularly here, by Bordiga and the Communist Party of Italy almost a century ago. It seems to us still more present and valid today faced with the new media, Internet and Facebook, and the ideology which goes with them:

« Setting out from the individual-unit in order to draw social conclusions and to construct social blueprints or even in order to deny society, is setting out from an unreal supposition which, even in its most modern formulations, only amounts to refurbishing the concepts of religious revelation and creation and of a spiritual life which is not dependent upon natural and organic life. The divine creator - or a single power governing the destiny of the universe has given each individual this elementary property of being an autonomous well-defined molecule endowed with consciousness, will and responsibility within the social aggregate, independent of contingent factors deriving from the physical influence of the environment. Only the appearance of this religious and idealist conception is modified in the doctrine of democratic liberalism or libertarian individualism. The soul as a spark from the supreme Being, the subjective sovereignty of each elector, or the unlimited autonomy of the citizen of a society without laws - these are so many sophisms which, in the eyes of the Marxist critique, are tainted with the same infantile idealism, no matter how resolutely ’materialist’ the first bourgeois liberals and anarchists may have been. » (The Democratic Principle, our emphasis).

Is this not a particularly acute and sharp criticism of the ’Internet’ democratic ideology that the revolutionary class (and above all its political organizations) must fight with all of the strength at their disposal?

The IGCL