-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Seattle
Date: Friday, May 01, 1998 12:15 PM
Subject: POF-8 -- Lenin's revolution was the pivot of the 20th century


To: "Party of the Future" mailing list recipients

Hi everyone,

After a considerable delay, work resumes!

What is in this chapter that may be important ?

In section 8d I discuss the attitude of the future
dictatorship of the proletariat towards the internet.

I say that, in modern, stable countries, the DoP will *not*
censor the internet in relation to its use by individuals.
Even reactionaries will be able to post their reactionary
views on their web sites. What _will_ be restricted will
be _commercial_ usage. Put in simpler terms: if some
future bourgeois or capitalist (for a considerable period,
under the DoP, there will be a certain amount of capitalism
present because it will take a while for the working class to
learn how to run the entire economy without capitalist
methods) wants to post reactionary views--he will be able
to do so. What he will _not_ be able to do--is to _hire_
others to do the same for him. His company _will be_
restricted in how it uses the internet and the mass media
(which are in the process of merging together).

Such a policy may address the concerns that many today
have for a future DoP degenerating along the lines of what
happened to Lenin's revolution. Access to the internet will
make many of the worst forms of political abuse and/or
repression extremely difficult. I suggest that discussion of
this issue may be a fruitful way to address some of the
central contradictions in the current, pitiful state of
"communist" theory.

Ben Seattle
1.May.98 ----//-// www.Leninism.org

_Critical Mass_ Productions presents:

__/ __/ __/ __/ __/ __/ __/ __/ __/ __/ __/ __/ __/

How to Build
the Party of the Future

__/ __/ __/ __/ __/ __/ __/ __/ __/ __/ __/ __/ __/

By continuing our political development
and harnessing the the power
of the coming revolution in communications --
we can help to lay the foundation
for a communist "trend of trends"
with the ability to eradicate sectarianism from our ranks,
puncture the influence of reformism over a vast audience,
capture the imagination of workers in their millions
and mobilize our class to ignite a fire
that cannot be extinguished.

by Ben Seattle (cyberRed) ----//-// www.Leninism.org

All released chapters of this series, and most
discussion, can be viewed at: www.Leninism.org/pof


__/ __/ __/ __/ __/ __/ __/ __/ __/ __/ __/ __/ __/

-- Chapter 8 --

Lenin's revolution became the pivot
around which revolved
the politics of the 20th century.

__/ __/ __/ __/ __/ __/ __/ __/ __/ __/ __/ __/ __/


===================================================
contents:
---------
8a. More of a Marxist than Marx
8b. The Pivot of the 20th Century
8c. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat:
-- The Sword and the Shield--
8d. The Sword and the Shield in the modern world
8e. The Sword and the Shield in Lenin's time
8f. "Pure Democracy" vs. "Pure Repression"
===================================================


On November 7 (by the modern calendar) 1917, the party led by Lenin
launched what is now known as the October Revolution. Lenin's party,
the Bolsheviks, overthrew bourgeois rule, defeated all the international
armies of world imperialism and set to work rebuilding a shattered
economy in a backward country in conditions of extreme hardship and
difficulty. In the course of this process, the Bolsheviks found it
necessary to suppress all opposing political organizations.

During the period in which it was led by Lenin, the October revolution
achieved an unprecedented mobilization of the revolutionary energy of
millions of people. After Lenin died--things slowly began to fall
apart.

===============================
8a. More of a Marxist than Marx
===============================

Lenin, above all, was a student of Marx. Karl Marx was the deepest
thinker that ever breathed the sweet air of this earth. But because
Lenin had the opportunity which Marx never had--to apply Marx's theories
in circumstances where the working class _held power_ -- Lenin was, in
this sense, more of a Marxist than Marx himself.

"Marxism" has come to mean not only the views of Karl Marx--but the
_science_ which guides the class struggle of the working class. Marxism
is not a science in the same sense as is physics (where, for example,
experiments are often easy enough to repeat and the phenomena being
investigated are comparatively simple enough to be described in the
powerful language of mathematics) but it remains a science and--more
than this--it is the _most important_ of all sciences. And, as a
science, Marxism involves both theory and practice. Lenin was more of a
scientist than Marx because he had vastly greater opportunities to test
and develop this science in practice. Lenin gives us the _only example
known_ of a workers' state being led by a _consistent Marxist_. This is
not to say that Lenin did not make serious errors. We know, from Lenin
himself, that many errors were made. And in any real revolution this is
bound to be the case because Marxism is as much an experimental science
as a theoretical one.

"Napolean, I think, wrote: 'On s'engage et puis ...
on voit.' Rendered freely this means: 'First engage
in a serious battle and then see what happens.'"
-- Lenin, "Our Revolution" [CW Vol 33, page 480]

There have been other examples, in this century, of communist parties
which overthrew bourgeois rule, set up some kind of dictatorship and
attempted to embark on the transition to communism (or at least claimed
they were)--in Eastern Europe, Albania, China, Korea, Vietnam and Cuba.
But these attempts were not led by consistent Marxists and were based to
one or another extent on a degenerated model (ie: the remnants of
Lenin's revolution) and this is the most likely reason they have all
failed. Only the experience of 1917-1923 gives us an example of the
dictatorship of the proletariat as led by a consistent Marxist--and this
is why this experience is so extremely valuable to us today--in an era
when workers' rule will emerge in conditions likely to be a hundred
times more favorable than the circumstances in which Lenin took power.

=================================
8b. The Pivot of the 20th Century
=================================

>From the time of the October revolution, Lenin enjoyed four years of
health (he first became too sick to work in December 1921) and an
additional 15 months during which he could conduct limited political
activity (Lenin was able to work at his office from March to May and
from October to December 1922. He suffered incapacitating strokes in
May and December 1922 and could dictate for a few minutes a day until
his political life was cut short by his third stroke in March 1923).
Hence Lenin's entire career "in power" lasted a bit over five years.

There is little agreement today over when Lenin's revolution failed.
Social-Democracy argues that it was wrong for Lenin to launch the
revolution in the first place. Some (anarchists and, I think,
Bordigists) hold that the October revolution was more or less a failure
from near the very beginning (or at least from the time in 1918 that the
Bolsheviks began to suppress all other trends). Most Trotskyists (and a
great many others as well) hold that the revolution began to become
seriously deformed (or degenerated) by the late 1920's. Maoists
generally date the degeneration of the October revolution to
approximately 1956 (the year of Krushchev's "secret speech" against
Stalin at the 20th Congress). Others (often called Soviet revisionists)
believe that Lenin's revolution lasted until the ascendency of Yeltsin
over Gorbachev in 1991.

What _is_ clear, I believe, is the following:

----------------------------------------------
The 64 months during which Lenin was in power
--have turned out to be _the pivotal event_
around which has revolved all of world
politics for most of the twentieth century.
----------------------------------------------

Degenerated or not, the emerging power and influence of the Soviet Union
(and the spectre of the revolt of their own working class) inspired
Western imperialism with fear--and for this reason it gave decisive
support and encouragement [1] to Hitler so that he might act as its
surgeon to excise the Bolshevik cancer. The surgery failed. The defeat
of the Axis powers in the Second World War set the stage for the
emergence of the cold war in which the U.S. and the Soviet Union, each
with their own blocs, confronted one another as "superpowers". The
Soviet Union (to a large degree for the sake of its own great power
ambitions) greatly encouraged national liberation and anti-colonial
struggles against Western imperialism. The most immense of these
victories was achieved with the liberation of China by Mao Tsetung's
forces in 1949. Other struggles, most notably that of the Vietnamese
people, captured world attention and inspired a world-wide wave of
revolutionary struggle in the late 1960's and early 1970's.

Legacy of theoretical crisis
============================

If, however, the dictatorship of the proletariat, under Lenin,
transformed world politics for the rest of the century--the way in which
this dictatorship lingered on as an essentially empty shell for six
decades (a class-divided society in which exploiters and exploited
carried on alongside big statues of Lenin)--has left, in its wake, an
incredible amount of confusion (from the point of view of communist
theory) concerning what socialism is and what a system of workers' rule
will look like in the modern world.

It is time for this confusion to be cleared up.

The October revolution never resulted in communism nor, even, in
socialism (althou the word "socialism" itself has no really adequate
definition other than as a word indicating a more or less stable society
under the rule of workers and in transition from capitalism to
communism). Instead, under Lenin, workers' rule consisted primarily of
a series of emergency measures aimed at the mobilization of the
revolutionary energies of the workers and peasants and comprising a
political and economic alliance between these two classes that was
directed against the landlords and the bourgeoisie of Russia and of the
entire world.

Lenin's revolution was suffocated (most likely by the late 1920's) and
transformed into a type of society for which there is no completely
adequate characterization (the term "state capitalism" comes somewhat
close but is at the same time inadequate to describe a type of deformed,
bureaucratic state capitalism which had many features of benefit to
workers--but which remained a society with class division and
exploitation and which could not escape political and economic
stagnation).

In spite of the fact that Lenin's revolution was suffocated, it (and its
aftermath--and the struggle of imperialism against it--and the national
liberation struggles which it influenced or inspired) dominated the
politics of the remainder of the 20th century. And the various
emergency measures carried out under Lenin's direction provide a
_brilliant light_ which illuminate many of the tasks of _workers' rule_
as it will emerge in the 21st century.

Particular features vs. underlying principles
=============================================

The _particular features_ of workers' rule in the 21st century will,
naturally, be as vastly dissimilar to the features of workers' rule
under Lenin--as 21st century social, economic and technological
conditions will be removed from Russia of 80 years ago. The _underlying
principles_ however, which guided Lenin, will _also guide_ systems of
workers' rule in the next century.

It is necessary, therefore, to clearly distinguish between the
_particular features_ of workers' rule under Lenin and the _underlying
principles_ which guided it. Particularly _today_, when the rebirth of
a communist movement worthy of the name requires getting rid of an
_incredible amount of trash_ that has accumulated under the name
"Leninism", "Communism", etc--we must be _relentless_ in our struggle to
clearly separate (on the level of theory) the _particular features_ and
the _underlying principles_ of Lenin's rule.

Today, "Leninism", "Communism" and the "dictatorship of the proletariat"
is strongly associated in the public mind (thanks to the efforts, not
only of the bourgeoisie--but also of vast numbers of "Marxists") with
the rule of a _single party_ which _suppresses all opposition_ and
_decides_ (for the entire population) _what ideas people are allowed to
read and write and talk about in public_.

These were indeed features of workers' rule under Lenin. These were
also features of the bastardized revisionist rule which lingered on for
half a dozen decades or so after Lenin's death. But these features
(which were both extremely harsh and extremely necessary--in Lenin's
time) were only _particular features_ of workers' rule in the most
difficult imaginable conditions.

The fight to _separate_ these _particular features_ from the _underlying
principles_ of the dictatorship of the proletariat constitutes an
_absolutely necessary and decisive front_ of the _theoretical war_ which
we must wage _today_ in order to build the party of the future--a party
with the ability to mobilize the masses in their millions and draw both
active and passive support from the _majority_ of workers in modern
society--in order to _overthrow bourgeois rule_ and create a political
and economic system ultimately capable of meeting every fundamental
human need.

========================================
8c. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat:
-- The Sword and the Shield--
========================================

What then are the _underlying principles_ (as opposed to the _particular
features_ which emerged under Lenin) of the "dictatorship of the
proletariat"? Any trend in the modern world which claims to be
communist must address this question--or ultimately be discredited.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is the class rule of the workers in
the period of transition from capitalism to communism. As such, it has
two primary aims which, for purposes of explanation, I will call the
"sword" and the "shield". The sword and the shield represent,
respectively, the essential economic and political program of workers'
rule. I call these programs the "sword" and the "shield" to emphasize
their respective offensive and defensive natures.

The Sword
=========

Ultimately, for the working class to achieve communism, it must create
an economy that does not rely on the market.

But this alone is not enough.

The Soviet revisionists created an economy which relied on the market to
a much smaller extent than do "free market" economies. But the Soviet
economy was characterized by a class division between exploited and
exploiters. The Soviet economy was characterized by bureaucracy,
inefficiency and stagnation. The revolutionary energy of the workers
could not be unleashed in such an economic-political system because the
workers--once conscious and in command of the levers of social
power--would have made short work of the ruling regime. Hence it was
always necessary to _suppress_ the workers in the Soviet revisionist
system--to make sure that the revolutionary initiative of the masses was
kept bottled up and under _tight control_. Better that the workers be
kept _ignorant and passive and demoralized_--even if this restricts
their initiative and the development of the _productivity_ of their
labor--than to have them rise up and settle accounts. Hence the
standard refrain of the workers in an economy characterized by
inefficiency, stagnation and low productivity:

"We pretend to work ... and they pretend to pay us".

This example may help readers to understand an essential point:

--------------------------------------
A communist economy cannot exist when
it contains within itself a division
between exploited and exploiters.
--------------------------------------

This fundamental principle can be understood from several angles. What
I would like to emphasize here is one aspect of this in particular:
Within the workplace--the _conflict of material interests_ between
exploiters and exploited--will inevitably _reduce the flow of
information_ and _human energy_ necessary for the most rapid
revolutionization of the process of production and the most rapid growth
of labor productivity.

The is a key (and decisive) point because it is the potential of a
communist economy to achieve _vast increases_ in the _productivity of
labor_ which guarantees that it will render capitalism extinct.

Once an economy exists--which does not _rely on the market_ to
coordinate the actions of millions--and which does not exist in a
society _divided between exploiters and exploited_--then humanity will
be in a position to fully tap into and unleash the _immense forces of
nature_ that have created ourselves and the world in which we live.

The Shield
==========

Once the working class is in power, the creation of a communist economy
and the elimination of classes will take a long time--probably at least
two or three generations (counting a generation as roughly 20 years) and
probably a lot longer than that.

In the meantime, the _essential defensive measure_--which must be taken
by the working class in power--is the _suppression of the bourgeoisie_.
To this must also be added (in the light of the experience of Soviet
revisionism) -- the prevention of the rise to power of a _new privileged
class_--a new class of exploiters.

It is important to understand that even after the working class takes
power, for a very considerable period of time, the former bourgeoisie
(which will still have _tremendous resources_--including knowledge and
connections--at its disposal) will remain powerful and will be very
determined to restore its former class rule. Further, the dynamics of
the transition economy will spontaneously engender _privileged sections_
which will, naturally, strive to assert their control and domination
over all of society.

The working class will never be able to complete the transition to a
classless society--a communist economy with abundance for all--without,
in a most determined way, preventing the former bourgeoisie (or an
emerging new bourgeoisie) from _seizing control of society_ and
directing its development along the road to an exploiters' paradise.

The Sword and the Shield work together
======================================

All attempts by the working class to bring about communist society must
involve skillful combination of the sword and the shield. And the
shorter the sword, the heavier must be the shield. This is only an
analogy, of course, and requires concrete explanation.

I have written some about the "sword"--the nature of a communist economy
and some of the probable features of the transition period (ie: "The
Self-Organizing Moneyless Economy [S.O.M.E.] Hypothesis" and "On the
Transition to a Communist Economy". The former is at
"http://www.Leninism.org/some" and the later is not yet posted).

Of greater importance in the present work are the _particular features_
and the _general principles_ of the "shield". The heavy-duty repression
which characterized the Soviet state under Lenin (and which became a
permanent nightmare for the working class under Stalin) has become a
_theoretical problem_ which blocks the development _today_ of an
authentic communist movement capable of challenging and overthrowing
bourgeois rule. In particular, there are many who claim that the
particular measures _necessary at the time_ (state control of all mass
media, the suppression of all independent political activity) hold good
for _all times and places_ and for all attempts by the working class to
overthrow and replace the capitalist economic and political system.
More than any other wrong theory, this myth stands as a barrier to the
development of a communist movement capable of mobilizing the working
class and overthrowing the bourgeoisie. This myth not only isolates us
from the masses but, more importantly, makes it impossible for us to
even conceptualize the nature of our tasks--and (because it causes
progressive activists to _recoil_ from the perspective of overthrowing
bourgeois rule) acts _to support_ the domination of the _reformist
ideology_ within the "communist" movement.

=============================
8d. The Sword and the Shield
in the modern world
=============================

For this reason it is _decisive_ today to understand that the workers'
dictatorship, in the modern world (ie: under modern social, economic and
technological conditions) would have a vastly more powerful "sword" (ie:
offensive capability) in the shape of an economic engine capable of
creating vast amounts of material and cultural wealth. For this reason
(and in order to fully harness this economic engine) workers' rule in
the modern world would have comparatively (ie: in comparison to the
experience of the Soviet Union) little need for measures of
_repression_. Of course, from the point of view of the former (or
aspiring) _bourgeoisie_, there would be repression plenty--they would be
_prevented_ from using their resources to buy, bribe or otherwize seize
control of the state machinery, mass media and other levers of social
control. But from the point of view of the _workers_--there would be
all the difference in the world.

I have written of the use of the internet under the dictatorship of the
proletariat (see "The Digital Fire" at
www.Leninism.org/stream/96/fire.htm). All workers (and everyone else
for that matter, including reactionaries) would have access to the
universal communications net (or whatever it is called at the time) and
would be able to freely post their views and read the public views of
others. It is important to understand this because this ability (ie: to
read from and post to the universal net) will (because it will become
the _most practical way_ to communicate with _large numbers_ of people)
become _the _essential democratic right_ necessary to organize
politically_.

How then will the workers' dictatorship prevent the former (or aspiring)
bourgeoisie from using their resources to buy up and control the mass
media and once again dominate the culture and the sphere of political
ideas ? I deal with this in "The Digital Fire" but I can summarize here
the measures that will be taken:

1) Bourgeois wealth won't be able
to buy vast armies of slick liars
====================================

While everyone, as an _individual_, will have the right
to post their views on the net (ie: in effect have
their own web site with dynamic interaction and links
to whomever or whatever they so please) there will be
restrictions on the use of _bourgeois wealth_ to
assemble vast armies of slick liars and skilled technical
people. The resources of the former bourgeoisie (and
the developing privileged strata) will _not_ be able to
freely flow in such a way as to dominate this medium.

2) Obnoxious views will be democratically filtered from
large numbers of independent and influential forums
=======================================================

While people with backward (and reactionary) views will
not be prevented from posting their views publically--
they will be restricted from a wide variety of forums.
These restrictions need not be administered by the workers'
state but would, in the majority of situations, consist of
democratic methods by which the majority of participants in
large numbers of independent forums act to either ban
obnoxious people or filter out obnoxious content.

It is highly likely that, under the system of workers' rule,
there would be hundreds of thousands (or tens of millions)
of forums that would play a huge role in the mobilization
of revolutionary energy, the formation and development of
public opinion and policy and in the administration of
state functions.

These forums (or whatever they will be called) could
effectively function and carry out many of the tasks
of a workers' state independently of whether or not
they have _official status_.

3) Ceaseless "information war" will be waged
against reactionary views by "little brother"
================================================

Most important, also, will the unceasing _war_ (manifested
in millions and billions of individual personal encounters
on the net) which the _masses_ will wage against views
which are backward, reactionary, bourgeois or just plain
stupid. Here the powerful force is not "big brother"
deciding from on high who is allowed to say what--but rather
"little brother" in the form of tens of millions of workers
opposing (or taking a critical attitude toward) views which
are in opposition to their interests as a class.

Hence this would be similar to the delightful chaos we
experience here on M-I with the exception--that the war of
correct against incorrect would take place in an atmosphere
characterized by a (hopefully) _much_ higher level of culture.


=============================
8e. The Sword and the Shield
in Lenin's time
=============================

The October 1917 revolution inherited a devastated economy and the
necessity of imposing extreme hardship and discipline on the population.
Peasants had to live at starvation levels in order that the grain which
they grew could feed the workers in the cities and be traded abroad for
desperately needed technology.

The level of unhappiness and dissatisfaction with these conditions--and
with the measures which required so much sacrifice from everyone--was
very high amongst both the peasantry and workers. To make matters
worse, the level of incompetence, self-serving corruption, stupidity and
hypocrisy that contaminated the administrative and state machinery of
the Soviet government was quite high (for example, the number of
competent, experienced and reliable people available for administration
in all of Moscow numbered less than 5,000 and the Bolsheviks were forced
to rely upon an entire strata of former Tzarist officials until they
could train--a process that takes years--their own worker-experts).

In short, there was a great deal of anger and dissatisfaction with the
shortcomings of the Soviet government. In these circumstances, if the
parties of _petty bourgeois democracy_ (ie: the Mensheviks, the
Socialist-Revolutionaries, etc) had been allowed to openly carry out
political work (ie: print and distribute leaflets and newspapers,
organize public meetings and demonstrations, run for election to the
Soviets and other bodies) they would certainly have found a receptive
audience, defeated the Bolsheviks and removed the Bolsheviks from power.
Unfortunately this would not have been the end of the story. The rule
of the parties of petty bourgeois democracy would have inevitably been
followed by the rule of the bourgeosie and landlords. (This was proven
by abundant historical experience in previous revolutions as well as the
events in Soviet Georgia where Menshevik rule became a conduit for
whiteguard rule.) How long would this have taken ? Probably about as
long as it takes autumn to turn into winter.

Now it is important to understand that while the masses in Soviet Russia
may have had many grievances against the Soviet government--they had
much _greater grievances_ against the bourgeoisie and landlords. They
were opposed, more than anything, to a return to bourgeois-landlord
rule. This is why the most powerful revolts against Soviet rule (such
as at Kronstadt) only took place as the civil war was _drawing to a
close_ and the bourgeoisie and landlords had been thoroughly defeated.

And the masses would have supported the parties of petty bourgeois
democracy only because the petty bourgeois democrats would have made
_false promises_ to them: would have promised them some easy way out of
the hardship and misery they were experiencing--would have promised them
that they could get rid of the rule of the bolsheviks _without_ facing
the restoration of bourgeois-landlord rule (ie: that a "third path",
neither bolshevik nor bourgeois was possible). These false promises
would have been _believed_ because of the desperate circumstances of the
times. But the parties of petty bourgeois democracy--would have only
understood how to suppress the _Bolsheviks_ -- they would not have
understood how to suppress the _bourgeosie_. And for this reason the
Bolsheviks suppressed the parties of petty bourgeois democracy.

The reality was that _no third path was possible_. The only two
possibilities at the time--were dictatorship under the rule of the
Bolsheviks or dictatorship under the rule of the bourgeoisie. And, for
the masses, the later alternative was the worse.

Hence the actions of the Bolsheviks corresponded, in this essential way,
to the needs and desires of the masses--because it prevented the
restoration of bourgeois-landlord rule along the only path which was
possible.

And this brings us to one of the central contradictions we must
confront. Under the dictatorship of the proletariat, led by Lenin, the
masses could experience better conditions and a greater degree of
democracy--when the bolsheviks _took from the masses_ what are generally
considered to be essential _democratic rights_ -- the right to hear the
views of and support the parties of petty bourgeois democracy.

_In no other way could a return to bourgeois rule have been prevented._

===========================================
8f. "Pure Democracy" vs. "Pure Repression"
===========================================

Today, the bourgeoisie and its flunkies, as well as many who are simply
confused, argue that Lenin was very "undemocratic". It is wrong in
_all_ circumstances, such people argue, to prevent the population from
having access to the views of _all political trends_ and to decide for
themselves whom to support. Lenin called this view (and the arguments
that support it) "pure democracy". This "pure democracy" view argues
that if the majority of the population are fooled in one way or another
and make serious mistakes in terms of whom to support and whom to put
into power--they can simply learn from these mistakes and draw their own
conclusions. So therefore, according to this view, shouldn't the masses
be allowed the traditional bourgeois-democratic rights?

I believe it is important to reply to such arguments for two reasons.

1) The _evasion must end_ so we can
bring the goal within sight
===================================

First: A large number of progressive activists have such a view and it
is necessary to give straitforward replies to questions which such
activists raise. No political organization or party which seriously
contemplates the overthrow of bourgeois rule can _evade, ignore or
refuse to deal with_ such questions.

Part of the task of _conceptualizing_ a system of workers' rule is to
understand the attitude of a workers' state toward opposing political
trends. If this question is not understood--it becomes difficult or
impossible to bring the concept of a workers' state to the _masses_.
And without the concept of the workers' state (ie: a system of workers'
rule capable--during the period of transition to a communist economy and
classless society--of _suppressing the inevitable attempts of the former
bourgeoisie_, or _any newly arising privileged section_, to assert its
"right" to _dominate_ all of society and exploit everyone else) the
communist movement has no ideological center--no foundation--no
anchor--no _real goal_--and will _inevitably collapse_ into a _reformist
orientation_ restricted to the struggle against the worst excesses of
capitalism.

Such an orientation amounts to a struggle to push a heavy rock up a
steep hill--for _all eternity_--without ever having any real aim,
prospect or hope of reaching the top.

2) Ridicule is required
=======================

Second: There are today many "Leninists" who give almost the _exact
opposite_ argument: that it is better, in _all_ circumstances, to
restrict the access of the population to the views of trends which would
oppose, in whole or in part, the system of workers' rule. I believe
that _this view deserves ridicule_ and therefore I will characterize it
as the view in favor of "pure repression".

This view must be _smashed_ in order to _lay a theoretical foundation_
which is _solid enough_ to support the efforts of humanity to _overthrow
bourgeois rule_.

In particular, today, in the conditions of the developed countries such
as the US, Europe, Japan and many other countries with modern economies
and social development, to argue that the workers' state (once it had
achieved basic stability) would need to _suppress_ oppositional
political trends (ie: _prohibit_ them from creating _leaflets,
newspapers and web sites_, organizing _public meetings and
demonstrations_, running for _elected positions_, etc) would not only be
stupid but would represent a phenomenal failure to grasp the abilitites
of the masses to _think for themselves_.

One stupidity vs. another
=========================

One of the problems with the view of "pure repression" is that it is
often counterposed to the view of "pure democracy"--as if activists are
supposed to examine both of these absurd theories and decide which of
them would be best in all circumstances and in all times. In such a
contest, the view in favor of "pure repression" usually comes off as the
stupider of the two. Hence this counterposition of two stupid arguments
is often used to support the view in favor of "pure democracy". (In
fact, much of the complete bankruptcy of what most of the world knows as
"Marxism" comes from the presentation of matters as if activists can
only choose between one or another absurd positions: reformism or
sectarianism, "market socialism" or central planning, Trotskyism or
Stalinism-Maoism, etc).

We must therefore deal with (and smash) the arguments supporting both
"pure democracy" and "pure repression". We will start with the latter.

The absurdity of "pure repression"
==================================

A key fallacy is being promoted by many "Leninists" today--who believe
that a workers' state in the modern world would need to replicate the
various harsh measures which were necessary in Lenin's time.

In the developed countries (ie: probably most of the world by the time a
workers' state emerges) the workers' state would not need _heavy
repression_ but rather would only need to _restrict the flow of
bourgeois wealth_ used to promote or advertize reactionary or bourgeois
views in the realms of politics, economics and culture. Such action
(which could never take place under conditions of bourgeois rule) would
be decisive in changing the nature of the playing field such that
workers (by virtue of both their numbers and their class consciousness)
would win _hegemony_ (in all _decisive spheres_) for the views which
conform to their material interests.

Why is it important for the workers' state to be able to ensure the
hegemony of the proletarian class outlook in all decisive arenas
_without_ resorting to the _suppression_ of opposing trends?

We should be clear on this: such an attitude, on the part of a future
workers' state--will certainly not lessen the opposition, today, of the
bourgeoisie, and its flunkies, towards our movement. Rather, we should
expect the _opposite_. As popular consciousness of our attitude
spreads--the _masses_ will like our stand--and the bourgeosie will know
that they have something to _fear_.

The _significance_ of recognizing that the workers' state (once it has
achieved stability) will be so powerful (and enjoy such abundant
support) that it _will not need_ to suppress opposing political
trends--is two-fold:

1) We oppose crippling the internet
and we support social development

It demonstrates that our movement understands the
relationship between (a) technology, (b) economics,
(c) culture and (d) politics -- well enough to
recognize that the _suppression_ of opposing political
trends would require _crippling the development of
the internet_ (which--since it is moving rapidly
in the direction of becoming the _backbone_ of
the entire economy and culture--would also _cripple
all social development_).

2) We oppose censorship of
opposing political trends

It addresses the concerns of both progressive activists
and workers--that a workers' state could _degenerate_
into a _corrupt regime_ which _silences genuine working
class trends_ and rules all society thru _fear and
intimidation_. Such a nightmare (as actually emerged
from the suffocation of Lenin's revolution) would be
very difficult to get organized in a society in which the
_censorship of opposing political trends was not possible_.

This is part of a question which is ultimately _decisive_.

It will certainly be necessary for any future workers' state to suppress
the efforts of its _bourgeoisie_ (both former and _aspiring_) to _grab
control_ of all society. But the problem is that there is no practical
way to _outlaw_ the promotion of bourgeois views and ideology without
_also_ outlawing the ability of working class activists to promote their
own _independent views_.

This is because:

(a) representatives of bourgeois political trends, influence
or ideology will often enough be quite capable of passing
themselves off as workers, and

(b) working class activists will inevitably be "contaminated"
with one degree or another of bourgeois ideology.

Legal wheat and illegal chaff ?
===============================

Anyone who believes that it would be easy (or even possible) to sort out
the wheat, so to speak, from the chaff, and to allow one--and prohibit
the other--is living in a _fantasy world_.

Such a separation, of the wheat from the chaff, is _impossible_ without
allowing the more or less free interaction and open combat of all the
opposing views (in the presense of and with the most energetic
participation of the _masses_) over a more or less _prolonged period of
time_ in which the weight of the practical experience of hundreds of
millions of people has time to play its role.

Other than this, it is simply not a soluble problem. The Bolsheviks
never solved this problem. If they had been able to solve this problem
I doubt that the October 1917 revolution could have been suffocated. In
fact, from one point of view--this allows us to understand _why and how_
the 1917 revolution was deprived of necessary oxygen.

The danger of repression
========================

On August 5, 1921 Lenin wrote a letter to G. Myasnikov, who had come out
in favor of complete "freedom of the press" [2]. Myasnikov argued that
"Outrage and abuses are rife in this country: freedom of the press will
expose them." Lenin replied that it would be most wonderful if the
freedom of the press could be used to help purge the party of its
"weaknesses, mistakes, misfortunes and maladies". But, Lenin also
added, this is _not_ what would happen. It would not happen because
freedom of the press would lead to the _restoration of bourgeois power_
and the bourgeoisie had _no interest_ in seeing the Bolshevik party
purged of its weaknesses and maladies. The bourgeoisie would have had
_other plans_ for the Bolshevik party.

Lenin understood that the suppression of the petty bourgeois democrats
required, to a very large extent, the suppression of the independent
voices of the masses. The petty bourgeois democrats, he noted, had
"learned to don the 'non-party' disguise" [3]. This made it quite
difficult and complex to allow the _masses_ to express themselves
without providing a _platform_ for the _petty bourgeois democrats_. In
practice, it meant that the independent voices and initiative of the
masses could only express itself on rare occasions and with _close and
careful Bolshevik supervision_. Or, in simpler terms, that the
independent political activity of the masses had to be largely _shut
down_.

This was unfortunate inasmuch as it was the independent political
activity of the masses that would have been the _powerful force_ capable
of preventing the _degeneration_ of the party that took place in the
years after Lenin died.

What would have been necessary before the restrictions on the
independent political activity of the masses could have been lifted ?
The main thing would be that the _level of dissatisfaction_ of the
peasantry would not be at such a high level. In his speech closing the
10th Congress of his party, Lenin pointed out that the October
revolution was still a great distance from "a normally functioning
socialist society" [4]. What would be necessary for a normally
functioning society ? _The existence of an economy with large-scale
industry capable of satisfying the needs of the peasantry and
demonstrating to the peasants that Bolshevik rule could provide a
"tangible and obvious improvement over the capitalist system"_ [5].
Elsewhere Lenin identified the necessary development of large-scale
industry with the _electrification_ of the country and estimated that
this would take _between 10 and 20 years_ [6].

Unfortunately, by the time the Bolshevik party had created large-scale
industry capable of satisfying the needs of the peasants, the party had
_already degenerated_ into a machine to serve the interests of a _newly
engendered privileged section of society_, a _new ruling class_. And
the easing of the heavy repression (and the gradual restoration of the
more ordinary democratic rights--such as freedom of press and public
association) which would have represented the _oxygen_ necessary to
support the _independent political activity of the masses_ and make
possible the building of a socialist society--represented, by this time,
a _mortal danger_ to an _entrenched clique_ which would oppose it _at
all costs_.

The absurdity of "pure democracy"
=================================

It is time to reply to the arguments that the supporters of "pure
democracy" aim at Lenin today. I will attempt to summarize what I
believe are the most important issues. I should probably also point out
to readers that I am by no means any kind of expert on either Lenin or
the October 1917 revolution. Rather, I study Lenin for practical
reasons: _Lenin brings us a light by which we can understand the tasks
which workers will face_ in conditions which will likely be _far more
favorable_ than they were in 1917. If we study the conditions that
Lenin faced, and understand why it was necessary for the Bolsheviks to
take the actions which they did--it will help us to understand the tasks
which a workers' state will face when it comes to power sometime in the
21st century.

The supporters of "pure democracy" argue that the Bolsheviks should not
have prevented the population from having access to the views of the
petty bourgeois democrats such as the Mensheviks and the
Socialist-Revolutionaries.

The problem with the arguments in favor of "pure democracy" is that
these arguments amount to nothing more than nice sounding platitudes and
abstract generalizations--which evade dealing with the concrete
circumstances that actually existed in the material world.

Abstract generalizations are, of course, often useful. But such
abstractions can become less than useful if they drift away from the
most basic tenet of materialism:

--------------------------
Truth is always concrete.
--------------------------

If the Bolsheviks had allowed the petty bourgeois democrats to openly
conduct political work--this would have led to the restoration of
bourgeois-landlord rule. _Would the bourgeoisie have allowed the
population access to the views of all political trends?_

Absolutely not.

The bourgeoisie in Russia held undivided power, more or less, from July
1917 until the October revolution. During that time they attempted to
maintain Russia's participation in a ruinous war and keep a lid on the
efforts of the peasants to confiscate the landed estates. The
_Bolsheviks_, who supported mass opposition to these measures, were
_persecuted_ and _Lenin escaped arrest only because the Bolsheviks had
created a machine which could function effectively in conditions of
illegality_. The result of bourgeois restoration would have been a
complete settling of scores against all workers and peasants who had
dared to rise up against their "masters".

Our reply to those who argue against Lenin for violating "pure
democracy" is therefore two-fold. Do those who argue in favor of "pure
democracy":

(a) _deny_ that any easing of Bolshevik censorship and repression
would have led to a _restoration of bourgeois rule_ ?

And if they don't deny this--do they

(b) therefore argue that bourgeois rule would have been any _less
harsh_ and more democratic than that of the Bolsheviks ?

We can see the result of bourgeois rule in Germany, where the General
Staff of the German army, in secret alliance with the petty bourgeois
democrats who officially held power--murdered Karl Leibnecht, Rosa
Luxemburg and many others and, with the support and connivance of the
international bourgeoisie, would eventually elevate to power such a
charming champion of democracy as Hitler.

<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>
Next week: Lenin's organization faces crisis and suffocation
<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>

===========
footnotes:
===========

[1] Western support for Hitler
------------------------------

One historical question on which there are differences is the nature and
extent of western imperialist support for German fascism in the period
leading up to the second world war (ie: 1933-1939). This is a major
question that carries great weight in terms of how we view this century.
It is my conviction that the phenomenon of european fascism cannot be
understood except as the response of world imperialism to the threat of
Bolshevism. Without the spectre of the revolt of their own working
class--the German bourgeoisie would never have felt compelled to play
the Hitler card. Without the threat to world capital embodied in the
Soviet Union--the western powers would probably have squashed Hitler
like a bug--while he was still weak--as soon as he threatened
disobedience.

The support and encouragement given Hitler by the western powers took
numerous forms. Probably the main forms of support and encouragement
were the winks and nods given on many occasions--the occupation of the
Ruhr, the alliance with Franco against the Spanish Republic, the
occupations of Austria and Czechoslovakia and so forth (which is taught,
in most western history books, as the starry-eyed policy of
"appeasement"--but which, in reality, was a series of cold-blooded
advance payments for services to be rendered in Operation Barbarosa).

The nature of what was being planned was evident even before Hitler was
elevated to power. Note this speech--made 10 years and four months
before June 22, 1941:

"In ten years at most we must make good the distance we
are lagging behind the advanced capitalist countries."
"We must make good this distance in ten years.
Either we do it or they crush us."
-- Stalin, February 1931

Less clear to me are the other forms of support given Hitler by the
western imperialists: support such as financing and armaments. I looked
into this question more than ten years ago but my work was cut short by
other events and did not get very far.

Questions such as this are often quite complex. Many historians see the
second World War as a continuation of the first one--as a "30 year war"
for world supremacy, through which England passed it's testimony to the
USA, jointly defeating the challenge of the continental european powers.
In this view the main driving force of the arms build-up of the 30's was
still the settling of the unfinished business of 1914-18. I believe
that such a view is, at most, only a very partial explanation for the
rise of european fascism. At any rate, this is an interesting and
important question and therefore I have created a web page at:

www.Leninism.org/historical_research

to help explore this and other important questions. And I encourage any
readers who may have significant information on anything related to this
subject to write to me ("ben@...", subject: "historical research:
western support for Hitler") with historical info, book or article
reviews, or links to web pages that may shed light on one or two pieces
of this picture. I will link from that page to anything that may be
helpful or of interest.

[2] Myasnikov (see LCW, vol 32)

[3] the 'non-party' disguise
(See the "Political Summary and Deductions"
section of "The Tax in Kind", LCW vol 32)

[4] "a normally functioning socialist society"
("Speech in Closing the Congress" LCW 32)

[5] "tangible and obvious improvement over the capitalist system" (ibid)

[6] electrification--10 to 20 years
(see "Report on Party Unity and the Anarcho-Syndicalist Deviation"
and "Plan of the Pamphlet Tax in Kind", both in LCW 32)

<end>