Education and “ideological indoctrination”. A critical reading of the far-right discourse
Within the "Latin American Critical Thought Notebooks" Collection, CLACSO presents "Education and 'ideological indoctrination'. A critical reading of the discourse of the far right", by J. Fabián Cabaluz D.
Education and “ideological indoctrination”. A critical reading of the far-right discourse
J. Fabián Cabaluz D.[1]
In general terms, the far right[2] It has an international presence, with a strong foothold in countries such as Argentina, Hungary, the United States, India, Brazil, Turkey, and Italy, among others. Specialized literature agrees that it is a profoundly neoliberal political and social force (unlike the anti-liberal nature of 20th-century fascism and Nazism). In this sense, Álvaro García Linera (2022) has characterized it as a kind of “fascistized neoliberalism” that sacralizes the free market, delegitimizes any type of public enterprise and/or property, and therefore rejects social rights; and opposes any initiative that attempts to increase taxes on business sectors. In turn, the far right is characterized as conservative, nationalist, racist, xenophobic, authoritarian, and as promoting aporophobia, among other traits. They denounce representative liberal democracy, its institutions and mechanisms, and also promote fake news through the use of multiple networks and virtual platforms. They are reactionary groups, openly anti-democratic, and promoters of hatred and violence. In the current global scenario, marked by the structural crisis of capital, the far right has positioned itself as a “political alternative,” as a real possibility for overcoming the problems of insecurity, uncertainty, and fear, raising the banners of public safety, authority, and stability. And in this process, it launches frontal attacks against Marxists, communists, leftists, feminists, indigenous rights activists, and many other groups that are perceived as “internal enemies,” veritable “scapegoats” used to promote resentment and incite hatred.
The current projects of the far right, or at least those outlined since the 21st century, are expressions that share elements of continuity with the projects of the civic-military dictatorships established by force in Latin America and the Caribbean during the second half of the 20th century. In this sense, we maintain from the outset that the current far right is a political and historical force that revives dictatorial projects; that is, they are heirs and continuators of the Latin American dictatorships. And in this regard, their projects incorporate numerous elements of the agenda of privatization and commodification of social life, anti-statism, as well as authoritarian, militaristic, conservative, religious, and moralistic logics, among others.
Now, let us delve into the core of this work. The essay is organized into four sections: (I) We will begin by revisiting some of Karl Marx's reflections on ideology, and then (II) explore the discourse of "ideological indoctrination" promoted by the far right. Next, (III) we will reflect on how the discourse against "ideological indoctrination" has manifested itself in the field of education. Finally, (IV) we will address some demands and/or challenges for critical perspectives within the field of pedagogy today.
I
The concept of ideology was developed by Karl Marx in various texts and passages of his work; therefore, it is necessary to approach it as a complex, dynamic, and multifaceted concept, rich with numerous interpretive keys. The concept of ideology was not systematically addressed in any single publication, which has sometimes led to ambiguous interpretations. Given this difficulty, it is important to note that Marx's concept of ideology should be studied within the broader historical context of his thought, avoiding the forced distinction between a young Marx, the philosopher, and a mature Marx, the scientist and economist (Silva, 1985; Larraín, 2014; Rohbeck, 2016). However, at the risk of falling into reductionist and schematic approaches, we will now present some of the central ideas on ideology developed by Karl Marx.
In his critique of religion, or religious alienation, the young Marx argues that religion performs an exercise in ideological inversion, attempting to resolve or provide solutions to the contradictions of the real world. The relationship between religion and ideology refers to this process of distortion generated by religion in its attempt to reward humanity in heaven for the real suffering that exists on earth. Along the same lines, the idealist conception of the State is formulated through a similar exercise, in which the concrete separation between political society and civil society is resolved in an abstract way. Thus, for Marx, religion and the State perform a process of inversion, but—and this is important—it is an inversion carried out on the basis of an inverted reality, a twisted world, one that is “upside down.”
In accordance with the above, ideology carries out a process of inverting a reality that is already inverted. In the words of Jorge Larraín (2014), one of those who has studied in detail the concept of ideology developed by Marx:This means that Marx proposed the existence of two types of inversion: the inversion of consciousness—ideology—and the inversion of objectified social practice—alienation. Ideology conceals alienation; it is an inversion of real inversion.” (p. 49).
To the above, it is important to add that if ideology is associated with the inversion of reality, and therefore with a set of false beliefs, then criticism of ideology cannot share its assumptions, nor can it lead to other ways of seeing reality that are equally ideological or distorted. In other words, ideology cannot be combated from an ideological perspective; rather, it requires confronting it from a radically opposing perspective, which for Marx would be the scientific knowledge of history and society (Villoro, 2007). As stated directly by the German philosopher:Where speculation ends in real life, real and positive science also begins—the exposition of practical action, of the practical process of human development. There, pronouncements about consciousness cease, and real knowledge takes their place.” (Marx & Engels, 2020 [1845]: p. 22).
In addition to the points already raised, for the philosopher from Trier, ideology is closely linked to the dominant classes. On the one hand, the dominant classes control the means of intellectual and cultural production and therefore possess the conditions to produce or impose their ideas as those of society as a whole. On the other hand, the dominant ideology is functional for the reproduction of the dominant classes' interests. Ideology serves the interests of the dominant classes. That is to say, through ideology, the dominant classes can present their particular interests as if they were the interests of society as a whole. This is evident in the famous quote written by Marx (2020) [1845] in "The German Ideology":
"The ideas of the ruling class are the ruling ideas of every epoch; or, to put it another way, the class that wields the dominant material power in society is, at the same time, its dominant intellectual power. The class that possesses the means of material production also possesses the means of intellectual production, which means that, on average, the ideas of those who lack the necessary means of intellectual production are subject to it.” (p.39).
In this sense, for Marx, ideology is directly related to the dominant class, as it conceals real contradictions and justifies relations of domination. That is, ideology favors the domination of a class, but it cannot be defined solely by its class origin, since even dominated classes can uncritically define and reproduce the dominant ideology. Agreeing with the Venezuelan Marxist philosopher Ludovico Silva (1985) and the Mexican philosopher Luis Villoro (2007), we believe that it would be a departure from Marx's work to maintain that there is a kind of ideology of the dominated classes. Lenin's proposition that there is a "proletarian ideology" opposed to a "bourgeois ideology" has proven quite confusing in analytical and practical terms, since, based on this idea, an "expanded" conception of ideology has developed, which dilutes its explanatory potential.[3]In other words, if every set of non-scientific beliefs or thoughts is considered ideological, the specificity of those beliefs that actually falsify or distort reality becomes blurred. What we do want to make clear are two things: First, for Marx, ideology is functional to the interests of the dominant classes. Or as Luis Villoro (2007) pointed out:Marx's work is both a radical critique of ideological thinking and the foundation of a rational theory of society and history.“(p. 88). And secondly, and this was not said by Marx, but we can maintain it by projecting his ideas, we consider that the concept of ideology could be extended to other forms of domination: racial, colonial, gender, etc.
Continuing with Marxist arguments, we wish to emphasize that ideology is associated with a (inverted) material practice that generates ideas, beliefs, and/or prejudices that represent reality inadequately and distortedly, obscuring the concrete contradictions of our societies. In other words, Marx developed a critical conception of ideology. From this, it follows that the struggle against ideology cannot be limited to cognitive processes but must be linked to the revolutionary transformation of practical reality. If social contradictions are not resolved through revolutionary practice, ideology fulfills its role of concealing or misrepresenting those contradictions.
Considering this point, one observation is necessary: it is inappropriate to oppose the Marxian conception of ideology with the notion of science. Ideology is neither pre-scientific nor anti-scientific, but rather a specific type of distortion and/or concealment of real contradictions. For Marx, science can be dehumanizing or liberating. And in its liberating dimension, science can contribute to understanding and unmasking ideology; it can contribute to seeking what lies behind appearances. But, and Marx affirms this on numerous occasions, the overcoming of ideology will not occur through scientific or theoretical formulations, but through the concrete and revolutionary transformation of reality (Lenk, 2001).
The points raised above will be taken up again with great clarity by the Venezuelan philosopher and heretical Marxist Ludovico Silva (1985), who stated: “Marx tells us two crucial things: that a scientific theory can destroy a social facade that ideologically masks social exploitation, and that, nevertheless, this theoretical discovery alone is not enough to truly destroy exploitation: its material form is only destroyed practically. This is a very clear warning to those who think they can end capitalism simply by destroying capitalist ideology.” (p.61).
Finally, ideology is linked to Marx's distinction between apparent (or phenomenal) forms and essential (or real) forms. For Marx, essential or real forms are not transparently revealed. Ideology operates on a two-pronged approach: on the one hand, it conceals or hides the contradictory relationships of material life, and on the other, it presents a reality that is contrary to the essence or foundation. Bourgeois political ideology feigns equality and freedom for individuals, but in reality, workers are forced to sell their labor power because they have been deprived of the means of production. Equality and freedom are a mere illusion, the facade of modern bourgeois society. At this point, it is worth remembering that the understanding of ideology in Marx's work was developed to explain the concealment of social contradictions and specifically the concealment of the contradiction between labor and capital, thus obscuring the character of the class struggle (Silva, 1985; Larraín, 2014).
II
Having established these general elements of Karl Marx's concept of ideology, we now turn our attention to the notion of ideological indoctrination as developed by the far right. In this regard, it is important to note that the discourse of ideological indoctrination is fundamental to the far right's global agenda; therefore, it requires rigorous analysis and vigorous and clear opposition. From our perspective, there are at least two key ideas that allow us to understand the notion of ideological indoctrination; let us examine them in detail.
A first idea concerns the far right's understanding of ideology, a position that seems consistent with the formulations of Karl Mannheim's sociology of knowledge. Following the publication of his book "Ideology and Utopia" in 1929 (published in Spanish in 1941), Mannheim criticized Marxism for accusing other theoretical approaches or schools of thought of being ideological while simultaneously distancing itself from the same accusation. In other words, according to Mannheim, Marxism's critique of ideology was considered one-sided because it did not question or critique itself as an ideology. For the Hungarian sociologist, Marxism had to be considered a "socially determined theory" and, therefore, a limited, partial, and ideological perspective. However, as can be seen when compared with the points raised above, Mannheim's understanding of ideology differs from Marx's. The sociologist omitted the relationship between ideology and science developed by Marx, which allowed him to link all theoretical production to an ideological conception of reality, thus enabling the relativization of all forms of thought. In contrast, for Marx, all thought was socially determined, but this did not make it an ideology that falsified, distorted, and masked reality (Silva, 1985; Lenk, 2001; Villoro, 2007; Löwy, 2000 and 2008).
Considering the above, and hypothetically speaking, we can affirm that the current positions of the far right are consistent with the formulation of Mannheim and other intellectuals, even within the Marxist camp, who have maintained that Marxism is also ideological. Based on this, the far right has focused its discourse specifically on pointing out that Marxism is one of the main and most dangerous ideologies of our time and that, therefore, it is necessary to combat it with all available forces and means.
And as a second key idea, we can highlight that the far-right's discourse against ideological indoctrination places the problem of ideology outside of dominant and privileged groups, thus displacing the perspective developed by Marx. That is to say, there is agreement with the Marxist formulation of the relationship between ideology and class, but it is inverted; that is, it is the dominated classes and subaltern groups who produce ideology and bring it into educational and cultural spaces. For the far right, it is women, Indigenous people, and workers who, by challenging the order, promoting struggles, and raising demands and claims, produce ideology. This investment move conceals and naturalizes the ideological elements of the far right: its neoliberal ethos (mercantile, lucrative, individualistic, meritocratic, emphasizing accumulation, private initiative, competition), and its conservative ethos (authoritarianism, moralism, militarism, racism, religious fundamentalism), thus reproducing, once again, a twisted and distorted conception of social, educational and cultural reality.
In addition to concealing, naturalizing, twisting, and distorting reality, the far right deploys a set of mechanisms of subjugation that allow it to reproduce ideological domination. For the purposes of this section, we are interested in highlighting the following: (1) The mechanism of “adaptation,” which refers to when the dominated classes and sectors justify the current state of affairs and their indifference to social demands and struggles, based on the idea that there are vital elements that are more relevant than domination, such as, for example, having to work daily, regardless of what happens in the country. (2) The mechanism of “inevitability,” which naturalizes the status quo (3) The mechanism of “sense of representation” disseminates the idea that dominant groups govern for the benefit of the majority, projecting an image of superiority and/or exceptional qualities on the part of the dominant sectors. (4) The mechanism of “fear” is used to show subordinate classes that disobedience, defiance, and rebellion have serious repercussions. Fear is also used to delegitimize those who promote social transformations, activating fear of uncertainty, poverty, chaos, and crisis. And (5) the mechanism of “resignation,” which connotes pessimistic views of reality and the future, denying the possibility of building and consolidating processes of historical change, all of which triggers conformist conceptions of reality (Therborn, 2005).
III
Next, we will attempt to characterize the ways in which the discourse against “ideological indoctrination” developed by the far right has been expressed in the educational field.
In education, the Latin American and global far right has raised the banner of criticism against “ideological indoctrination.” This component is one of the most recurrent elements of this political sector's educational and cultural agenda and, to varying degrees, has managed to permeate the common sense of our societies. The discourse against “ideological indoctrination” reveals a component of fear and hatred toward everything that challenges or strains the conservative and neoliberal tradition. It is the mask behind which they hide their defense of privileges, segregation, xenophobia, homophobia and racism, “white supremacy,” sexist and patriarchal violence, aporophobia, and colonialism.
Currently, in the field of education, the far right's frontal assault on "ideological indoctrination" can be succinctly summarized in a few points. We will examine some of them below. First, this entire discourse is clearly directed against teachers and their potential to contribute to the development of awareness and critical thinking in new generations. Teachers are perceived as a potential enemy, as a dangerous subject that must be controlled, monitored, and regulated. All of this materializes in the creation of mechanisms and devices that encourage students, families, other teachers, or education workers to denounce them. In this way, denunciation among members of a community has been promoted (recording classes, reporting teachers), seeking to sow fear, silence, and submission. A culture of censorship, distrust, and control is established against teachers, which, in turn, is articulated with mechanisms of judicialization within educational spaces, which Díez (2022) has called a “educational lawfare strategy“(p. 30) or harassment through judicial means of democratic practices and values, which erode the confidence of the teaching staff and promote “self-censorship”.
Another relevant point within the neo-fascist struggle is against “gender ideology,” which pursues the fundamental objective of halting the advances of feminism in multiple dimensions. The far right appropriates and promotes, in various ways, a kind of “unease” or “anger” among men regarding the different approaches of feminists and sexual dissidents. Various mechanisms are employed to reinstate a conservative agenda on sexuality, reproductive rights, and gender identities. Patriarchal violence is denied as a problem to be addressed in schools, comprehensive sex education is opposed, the use of inclusive language is rejected, and feminist demands, claims, and achievements are ridiculed (Díez, 2022).
Another point raised by the far right is its criticism of the presence in educational systems of topics and issues related to memory and human rights. Neofascism has strived to cultivate forgetting, silence, and impunity regarding the recent dictatorial processes experienced in Chile, Latin America, and the world. In this vein, they deny collective memory, the memory of peoples, render invisible systematic human rights violations, omit state terrorism, and silence direct responsibility for the repression. Denialist discourse and historical falsification are promoted and defended by these sectors, to the point of desecrating and destroying memorial sites, detention and torture centers, and various sites and symbols that commemorate state terrorism. Given the above, teachers of subjects related to history, social sciences, and the humanities are at the center of the neofascist attack.
In addition to all of the above, the far right promotes the militarization of education, creating schools and military camps—spaces where “patriotic values” are promoted, associated with traditional symbols (flag, anthem, coat of arms, etc.) and a stale nationalism reminiscent of large estates, order, and authority. In all these spaces, the far right exacerbates the discourse of “insecurity” and the “internal enemy,” all of which drives certain sectors of society to arm themselves to defend against crime, vandalism, and terrorism (Díez, 2022; Sena, 2022).
As noted above, the far right and its discourse against “ideological indoctrination” has promoted neoliberal discourse in education, legitimizing and defending privatizations, profit-making, freedom of teaching, school segregation, family debt, human capital theory, meritocracy, individualism, competition, success-driven thinking, management logic, the defense of privileges, the promotion of efficiency and effectiveness, standardization, among others (Ruíz, Reyes, and Herrera, 2018; Cabaluz, 2022). Related to this, the far right has fiercely defended religious education in schools. Under the guise of “freedom of teaching,” they have protected the educational projects of conservative religious orders such as Opus Dei and the Legionaries of Christ. Obviously, these champions of order and freedom of teaching do not accuse schools that promote religious dogmas of “ideological indoctrination” (Díez, 2022; Sena, 2022).
Obviously, each of the points mentioned systematically contributes to the discrediting of public education and democratic, pluralistic educational spaces. The teaching profession is questioned, its daily work is viewed with suspicion, systems of control and surveillance are implemented, educational spaces are subjected to legal proceedings, and conservative, traditional, militaristic, and authoritarian perspectives are promoted. And with this, not only are teachers' working conditions undermined, but all kinds of rights of children and young people to be educated in democracy, pluralism, justice, and human rights are also violated.
IV
In the 21st century, the far right has not only made global progress in gaining political representation, parliamentary seats, and government positions, but, more importantly, has gained ground in the common understanding of our societies. In this sense, the rise of Bolsonaroism, Trumpism, Pinochetism, and other ideologies are clear and deeply concerning for those of us working in education. They present the unavoidable challenge of combating the far right not only in the political arena, but also in the cultural and educational spheres. Therefore, educational and pedagogical organizations—including professional, union, community, and grassroots groups—require an accurate and rigorous analysis that will allow for a coordinated response from diverse social and political organizations against the real threat of the far right.
Recent cases in which the far right has been in government show us what is truly at stake: the possibility of annihilating social rights and the gains achieved through the struggles of the working class and marginalized groups. Particularly in education, the Brazilian experience under the Bolsonaro government demonstrates the high levels of violence that can erupt in schools, universities, and educational institutions if the discourse against “ideological indoctrination” proliferates. This is because hate attacks (both in person and online) increase, and academic, scientific, pedagogical, and political work is delegitimized, severely eroding democracy and the possibilities for advancing social justice (Sena, 2022).
Finally, to conclude this essay, we are interested in highlighting two tactics that have been used by teachers' organizations, education workers, and popular educators in Latin America to confront the far-right discourse surrounding "ideological indoctrination".
One initial tactic has recognized that education is an arena of ideological dispute and contradictions, and that, therefore, just as neoliberal and conservative sectors promote meritocratic, individualistic, authoritarian, and other ideologies, it is legitimate to confront them with “ideological” positions that promote democracy, justice, equality, dignity, and so on. This position implies accepting, both theoretically and politically, that the role of critical and transformative education involves confronting the dominant ideology and promoting, through democratic processes or the construction of “community consensus from below,” an ideology that defends and promotes popular interests. By employing this tactic, a broadened conception of ideology is assumed. A discursive resource is mobilized that builds upon the accusation of the far right, in order to return the same accusation to the dominant groups.
And a second tactic emphasizes recognizing that education is a space of struggle and contradiction against all ideologies, understood as those conceptions of reality that twist it to legitimize and validate it.. From this perspective, the approach advocates for a strong critique of the neoliberal and conservative ideology that privileges the lives of a few while sacrificing those of the vast majority. This tactic engages educators in processes of denaturalizing and problematizing social life, valuing scientific and disciplinary knowledge to the extent that it serves processes of social justice. Employing this tactic entails a limited understanding of ideology. It mobilizes a discursive resource contrary to the claims of the far right, emphasizing that public education teachers would not indoctrinate ideologically, but rather provide epistemological, theoretical, conceptual, methodological, and practical resources to oppose, critique, and overcome ideologies.
Obviously, the choice of one tactic or another, rather than responding to abstract theoretical and political conceptions, responds and/or should respond to a concrete historical analysis, which considers the scenarios, subjects, resources and power relations that actually exist in our society, in order to define possible lines of action based on that analysis.
And we believe it is relevant, as noted in the section on Marx's reflections on ideology, to recognize that the only real opposition to ideology is the concrete and radical transformation of this inverted reality. Tactics that merely know how to discursively confront the far right are insufficient. In this sense, we cannot forget the importance of keeping alive the organizations, mobilizations, and concrete, material struggles carried out by teachers, educators, professors, and education workers.
Bibliography
Althusser, Louis (2003). Ideology and ideological state apparatuses. Freud and Lacan. Buenos Aires. Nueva Visión.
Appel, Michael (1986). Ideology and Curriculum. Madrid. AKAL Editions.
Cabaluz, Fabian (2022). Education and Latin American Marxism. Essays on critical pedagogy for emancipatory projects. Buenos Aires. Editorial El Colectivo.
Díez Gutiérrez, Enrique (2022). Antifascist Pedagogy. Building an inclusive, democratic pedagogy for the common good in the face of the rise of fascism and xenophobia. Barcelona. Octaedro Editorial.
García Linera, Álvaro (2022). Politics as a dispute over hope, Buenos Aires. CLACSO.
García Linera, Álvaro (2023). Lefts and neo-fascism. Santiago. Pehuén Editores.
Hinkelammert, Franz (2021). The critique of ideologies versus the critique of religion. Returning to Marx by transcending him. Buenos Aires. CLACSO.
Larraín, Jorge (2014). The concept of ideology. Vol. 1. Carlos Marx. Santiago de Chile. LOM Ediciones.
Lenk, Kurt (2001). The concept of ideology. Critical commentary and systematic selection of texts. Buenos Aires. Amorrortu Editores.
Löwy, Michael (2000). What is the sociology of knowledge? Mexico City: Editorial Fontamara.
Lowy, Michael (2008). “Mannheim et le marxisme: idéologie et utopie.” In Actuel Marx N° 43. Éditions Presses Universitaires de France. pp. 42-49. https://www.cairn.info/revue-actuel-marx-2008-1-page-42.htm
Markovic, Mihailo (1978). The Contemporary Marx. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Marx, Karl (2008) [1844]. “Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. Introduction.” In Early Writings on Law. Texts 1837-1847. Anthropos Publishing House, Barcelona.
Marx, Karl and Engels, Friedrich (2020) [1845]. The German Ideology. Critique of the New German Philosophy in the Persons of Its Representatives Feuerbach, B. Bauer, Stirner and of German Socialism in the Persons of Its Different Prophets. Madrid. AKAL Editions.
Mészáros, István (2008). Education beyond capital. Buenos Aires. Siglo XXI Editores – CLACSO.
Ministry of Public Education (1975). Educational policies of the Government of Chile. Santiago, Chile.
Mudde, Cas (2021). The far right today. Barcelona. Editorial Paidós.
Oliva, María Angélica (2010). “Chilean educational policy 1965 – 2009. What is hidden in this plot?” Revista Brasileira de Educaçao, 15(44), 311-410.
Poulantzas, Nicos (2016). Fascism and Dictatorship. The Third International Against Fascism. Mexico City. Siglo XXI Editores.
Interdisciplinary Program of Educational Research (1984). The transformations of education under the military regime. Santiago, Chile. PIIE.
Rohbeck, Johannes (2016). Marx. Madrid. Editorial Alliance.
Ruiz, Carlos; Reyes, Leonora; Herrera, Francisco (2018). Privatization of the public in the school system. Chile and the global education agenda. Santiago. LOM Ediciones.
Sena Junior, Carlos Zacarias (2022). Where we monsters are born. Extreme right, Bolsonarism and fascist performance. Salvador de Bahia. Quartet Editora.
Silva, Ludovico (1985). Theory and practice of ideology. Mexico City: Editorial Nuestro Tiempo.
Stefanoni, Pablo (2021). Has rebellion turned right-wing? How anti-progressivism and anti-political correctness are building a new common sense (and why the left should take them seriously). Buenos Aires, Siglo XXI Editores.
Therborn, Göran (2005). The ideology of power and the power of ideology. Buenos Aires. Siglo XXI Editores.
Villoro, Luis (2007). The concept of ideology and other essays. Mexico City. Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Zavaleta Mercado, René (2013) [1978]. “Apparent Formations in Marx”. In Complete Works. Volume II. Essays 1975 – 1984. La Paz, Plural Editores.
[1] Lecturer and researcher at the Faculty of Educational Sciences of the University of Playa Ancha and the Department of Education, FACSO, University of Chile. He is a member of the CLACSO Working Group on Popular Education and Critical Pedagogies. Coordinator of the Latin American Pedagogies Research Group, UPLA. https://upla-cl.academia.edu/FabianCabaluz
[2] For a more in-depth characterization of the far right today, it is suggested to read: Stefanoni (2021), Mudde (2021) and García Linera (2023).
[3] It is Lenin himself, in his book What Is to Be Done?, who refers to the concept of “socialist ideology” in contrast to “bourgeois ideology,” but when he refers to socialist ideology, he does so in reference to the theory of scientific socialism, or how scientific knowledge can guide revolutionary practice. These formulations of Lenin had a profound impact on communist parties and within Soviet Marxism and its spheres of influence (Markovic, 1978).
If you would like to receive more information about CLACSO's training programs:
[widget id=”custom_html-57″]
to our email lists.
