Earlier (chapter 4) I said that the bourgeoisie cannot use the mass line since (for one thing) using the mass line means processing the ideas of the masses in light of Marxist theory, which is obviously something the bourgeoisie has no interest in doing, and could not do in any case. But let us not consider the Marxist mass line but a hypothetical bourgeois "parallel", which we might call "the anti-mass line".

The anti-mass line is, we might suppose, the ultimate method of counter-revolutionary leadership. Like the mass line it consists of three steps: 1) Gathering the ideas of the masses, 2) Processing the ideas of the masses with the aid of bourgeois ideology, and 3) Returning the concentrated shit back to the masses, attempting to lead them away from revolution on this basis. Of course the bourgeoisie will also persevere in their independent "pedagogical" efforts, their strictly-bourgeois agitation and propaganda against revolution and communism and in favor of the permanence of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie (though of course they will never openly call it that). Given the near monopoly on the mass media enjoyed by the bourgeoisie wouldn't such a sinister perversion of the mass line be frightfully effective?

There probably has never been a bourgeois theoretical description of the "anti-mass line" in just these terms, but actually such methods are far from rare on the part of the enemy. There is in fact a standard name for such leadership methods: demagoguery. Is it effective? Yes, unfortunately, sometimes it can be. Demagogues such as Hitler and Mussolini (and many a lesser figure) have shown themselves quite able to (mis-)lead a section of the masses, sometimes a very large section, by appealing to their prejudices, their erroneous ideas, the selfishness and other bourgeois characteristics which capitalist society has molded into them. Demagogues look for the short-term interests of the masses with which to obscure their long-term interests, their partial interests with which to obscure their overall interests, and scapegoats who may be offered up in place of the real enemies of the people.

Naturally demagogues must present themselves as friends of the masses, as people who represent the interests of the masses. For this reason demagoguery tends to appear most readily within revolutionary and other mass movements. It is certainly no accident that both Hitler and Mussolini claimed to be revolutionary socialists at the beginning of their careers. Especially at a time when genuine revolutionaries are not yet in leadership of the mass movement there are real dangers present from all sorts of demagogues. In 1902 Lenin remarked that

But while admitting here that demagogues can be successful for a time in swaying the masses, Lenin also puts his finger on the reason why such bourgeois-leadership-in-disguise is bound to fail eventually: the masses will learn through their own bitter experience that the demagogues are not acting in the people's interests but rather against their interests. Of course as long as there is not an effective focus for proletarian leadership, a proletarian party known to and respected by the masses, new demagogues will inevitably arise to replace those who have become discredited. The only real escape from this endless chain of charlatans—and all bourgeois leaders are charlatans and are more or less demagogic—lies in building and strengthening the proletarian party and its ties to the masses. To be sure, this is something we already knew we have to do; but it shows why we can and will triumph in the end over the bourgeoisie no matter what depths of demagoguery they may stoop to.

The bourgeoisie can and sometimes does use something like the "anti-mass line" to mislead the masses. But there are inherent difficulties and limitations in doing so. It requires close contact with the masses, which most bourgeois find repulsive. It requires some mobilization of the masses, which the bourgeoisie always fears may get out of hand. But most of all it requires fooling the masses about what is in their own interests, and eventually the masses are bound to learn the truth and turn against their false "friends". As Lenin said, the bourgeoisie "can attempt to lead part of the masses only by concealing its aims",[3] and what is concealed must eventually be exposed.

"The Socialist People's Libyan Jamahiriyah"

While this book is focused on using the mass line to make revolution in the U.S., it is worth noting that revolutionary bourgeois nationalist and anti-imperialist forces around the world are also sometimes attracted to ideas somewhat like that of the mass line. Recently, for example, I stumbled across the following comment by James C. Davies in the journal Political Psychology:

While I admit that I know very little about Libya, I think I know enough to laugh at the notion that it has "government through the masses," however opposed to American imperialism Gadhafi might be.

The thing that is wrong here is not the goal of "government through the masses", or the goal of all power to the people—but the painful fact that "saying so doesn't make it so." A major part of achieving these goals in reality is finding ways to expose and overthrow all the phonies—East, West or otherwise—who falsely make such claims of their exploiting class dictatorships.

Bourgeois political scientists, like Davies, have no trouble seeing through absurd claims like that of Gadhafi, but are totally incapable of seeing through the equally ridiculous claims of Western bourgeois "democracy".

We Maoists must pay increasing attention to arming the masses to spot phonies as they develop, especially since that may sometimes be from within the proletarian party itself. The masses cannot hope to achieve and hold on to genuine power until they become very skilled indeed at evaluating their own leaders and spotting and removing the demagogues and phonies.