(ALDS) Ben's casual reply to Daniel--part A
(Leninism, happiness, socialism from below,
the lack of an organizational model)

Hi Daniel,

In my formal reply (part 5 and essay 153 and 160) I believe I
addressed the most important issues: the main economic and
political aspects of your comments in part 4 (and the debate
question itself). However in part 4 you also raised a number of
interesting side topics that are important to you and may also be
of interest to a number of readers.

I have wanted to comment on these side topics and I will do so
here--in the context of an email reply to the pof-200 elist. The
pof-200 archives are public and I will link from the "action"
page to our individual replies here. At the same time I can
present the links in such a way that readers will understand that
these issues are somewhat peripheral to our debate question and
may not be of interest to everyone.

It is quite a lot of work for me to assemble comments into a
concise and compelling format that is easy to follow for readers
who have not been following the discussion closely. My remarks
here therefor will be in a more casual format--in which I will
reply in something closer to the standard way people reply to
email.

I will also note (for readers from the ALDS site) that the
pof-200 list is the only discussion list I run that is relatively
loosely run: if you believe you have something intelligent to
contribute to the discussion, you are welcome to join this list
and post here.

Now let's get started:

* * * * * * *

Daniel -- Part 4 -- November 11:

> Firstly, my name is Daniel. About 18 or
> so months ago (when I was a Leninist)

It is probably more accurate to say when you _thought_ you were a
Leninist. My opinion is that your basic views (in both strengths
and weaknesses) have changed much less than you think they have.

Yesterday you were a "Leninist". Today you are an "anarchist".
But your grasp of theory is not much changed from it what it was
before.

> the desired 'rapprochement' had
> in fact already been achieved, to the greatest degree
> possible between anarchists and (non-statist) marxists, in
> the form of the Situationist International in Paris, May
> 1968; and that this organisation was itself the culmination
> of a long history of struggle between various Trotskyist,
> council-communist, anarcho-syndicalist and numerous other
> groupings beginning well before 1917.
> [...]
> The differences between anarchists and Leninists then, are
> immense; so immense, in fact, as to be incommensurable.

The Situationists is, I think, a dead trend. Guess what? It is
dead for a reason.

I believe that a deeper rapprochement is inevitable, for reasons
I explained in part 5: the basis of unity between progressive
activists is dealing with the _m_a_t_e_r_i_a_l_ _w_o_r_l_d_.
The material world will prove stronger than incorrect conceptions
and the _serious_ activists will find themselves forced to
abandon ideas and illusions that prove themselves to be junk.
This simple fact is overlooked by detached intellectuals who
insist that activists with different views can never come to
agreement. Such people lose sight of the _primacy_ of the
material world. Consistent materialists do not lose sight of the
primacy of the material world.

> I was
> becoming increasingly dissatisfied with the politics of the
> Leninist sect I was in at the time, and was looking to find
> out more about "the other side".

I understand what you are trying to say but I believe it is
unhelpful to refer to the sect you were involved with as
Leninist. It would be better to put quotes around the word
"Leninist"--or use the phrase "sect which considered itself to be
Leninist".

I have seen comments from a great many pissed off anarchists on
various lists who, essentially, fly into a rage at me because
they have had bad experiences with clueless sects of this kind
and these pissed off activists assume that I am the same as the
clueless jerks because "Ben is a Leninist". I have had activists
refuse to talk to me with the excuse that "people who think like
[Ben] want to kill me". So the assumption is made that it makes
sense (and serves the revolutionary movement) to lump people into
a bucket depending on whatever "ism" they currently believe is
the least fucked up.

But this is a very shortsighted and sectarian way of assessing
activists because _all_ trends contain a mixture of both clueless
and clueful people. And what counts, when you are dealing with
an activist--is how _serious_ he (or she) is--how much
_humility_, how much _dedication_, how _deeply thoughtful_ he (or
she) is.

The fact is that serous activists will not all select the same
"ism". (This is a symptom of the current crisis of theory in
which all trends suffer from theoretical bankruptcy.) And the
less-serious activists will tend to select trends on an even more
shallow basis (ie: whichever trend of thought appears to be
"winning").

Some people are a complete waste of time to talk to. And some
people are worth investing the time to develop a channel. But
using an "ism" as a shortcut to making such an assessment is
shortsighted and stupid and I am sorry to see you, Daniel,
reinforcing such a prejudice.

We must assess people as individuals and we must assess
organizations by their _practice_ (ie: what they _do_ not what
"ism" they follow). This is the only materialist method. This
may be hard work sometimes but there are no shortcuts.

> The Leninist believes that happiness -
> liberation - is some purely subjective feeling,
> corresponding to no social reality, and can therefore be
> compromised in the desperate struggle to secure and protect
> the gains of the proletarian upsurge. The only measure of
> happiness, for the Leninist, is the level of material
> equilibration of wealth.
> [...]
> The Leninist
> cannot understand that to liberate oneself, one must
> expropriate one's masters; and that one cannot expropriate
> one's masters without also liberating oneself. There cannot
> be one without the other.

These are some good examples of the same thing: making sweeping
and unsupportable assertions that everyone who is a Leninist
subscribes to one or another brand of stupidity. But it is this
style of "debate" that has given debate a bad name--that has led
many serious activists to regard exchange of views to be a waste
of time. This is not a serious approach to debate. And a
serious approach is urgently needed.

Clearly there is an underlying reality that you are struggling to
describe as you develop your theme on the importance of
happiness. The problem (in my view) is that your description of
this underlying reality is poorly expressed.

Now I know that you are somewhat inexperienced in public polemics
and, furthermore, that you wrote part 4 under considerable time
pressure and with many other pressing issues on your agenda. It
was very important to help get the debate started in a timely way
and so your errors, in this context, are minor. But I want you
to be aware of them.

Here is how I would describe (in 3 stages) the underlying reality
that I believe you wish to confront:

1) The first tragedy:

The circumstances of Soviet Russia following the end of the Civil
War in the winter of 1920-21 (ie: a shattered economy and a
peasant majority that was very dissatisfied with forcible
seizures of crops and which would have supported and swept into
power _any_ political trend that made fraudulent promises that it
was possible to keep the bourgeoisie and landlords from coming
back to power without the existing measures of hardship) made it
necessary for the bolsheviks to suppress all political
opposition. Such suppression was necessary until the economy
could be restored (ie: for ten or twenty years, by Lenin's
estimate). The suppression of all opposition meant that what
existed at the time was _not_ the dictatorship of the working
class but the dictatorship of a small group that hoped to lay the
foundations for a class dictatorship. (And these hopes were
never realized--the party became corrupted before the economy
could be restored.)

So the circumstances of peace during the time that Lenin was
alive and active (ie: essentially 1921 and 1922, Lenin was
essentially incapacitated by 1923) were the harshest imaginable.
Twenty million probably died of famine and disease in that
period. And brutal and harsh suppression of all opposition was
necessary in order to avoid a _certain_ and _immediate_ return to
bourgeois rule. Furthermore, following Lenin's death, this same
suppression effectively made it extremely difficult (or
impossible) to oppose the gradual degeneration of the bolshevik
party.

So with immense famine, disease, death, necessary suppression and
the stage set for the complete degeneration of the party--this
was not a happy period.

2) The second tragedy

What was particularly unfortunate about the counter-revolution
was that it held high all kinds of red flags and created
confusion that lasts to this day among essentially all political
trends (ie: Stalinists, Trotskyists, Maoists, anarchists,
social-democrats, etc). The regime that survived was not marxist
(except in name) but it was a better deal for the masses than if
the bourgeoisie and landlords had returned. The regime was a
semi-fascist police state but it did develop the economy and
improve the standard of living of the great majority of the
population. Also (and very importantly) the regime had its own
contradictions with Western imperialism and encouraged (as well
as undermined) anti-imperialist struggles on all continents.

But this regime also developed a state religion it called
"marxism-leninism" which was used to justify the permanent
suppression of the independent political voice and independent
political life of the working class. This state religion (and
other feudal-style political features of a state ruled by a
political party with a monopoly of media expression and a
monopoly of power) both encouraged (and made possible) the
Chinese revolution and at the same time saddled the Chinese
revolution with a host of backward features (ie: the suppression
of the independent voice and politics of the working class) that
would lead it to the same degenerate end as the Soviet
revolution.

And this set things up for the next stage:

3) The farce

One result of the tragedy of the Soviet and Chinese revolutions
is the survival, here in the Western imperialist countries, of
the state religion as manifested in essentially all organizations
which consider themselves to be "marxist" or "leninist". The
majority of these organizations degenerated long ago and are now
nothing more than social-democratic. Those trends which are
_not_ social-democratic are overwhelmingly infected with the
sectarian disease. There is a _r_e_l_a_t_i_o_n_s_h_i_p_
between the sectarian disease and the survival of the
"marxist-leninist" state religion in these groups. In order to
protect themselves (and survive) these groups have turned into
cults (the best of them are hybrids: half revolutionary
organization and half religious cult) that perpetuate themselves
thru a variety of highly manipulative techniques that keep
activists within their ranks from thinking for themselves.

It is these manipulative, mind-control techniques aimed at
keeping activists from thinking for themselves--that is the
likely source of the failure of these groups to appreciate what
you describe as "happiness".

So I believe that you are attempting to describe a problem that
is real. The problem, in my view, is that you fail to see the
larger picture and are actually understating the _depth_ of the
problem. It is difficult to be happy and to appreciate the real
importance of happiness when you are part of a mind-control cult
designed to keep you from thinking for yourself.

(This is not to say that anarchist groups do not have their own
problems that are sometimes analogous--that is a topic for
another day.)

From a scientific point of view these "Leninist" groups are often
"cargo cults" (which I have written about in many places--see
footnotes 6 and 7 in part 2 of the ALDS). These kinds of cults
are bound to be unhappy in many ways because they are _doomed_.
Civilization, and advanced scientific ideas, are spreading
everywhere. The good news is that an alternative is emerging
that will make possible the creation of _genuine_ mass
revolutionary organizations that are deserving of the respect of
the working class and progressive activists everywhere.

> The differences between anarchists and Leninists then, are
> immense; so immense, in fact, as to be incommensurable. That
> is why the Bolsheviks shot and imprisoned anarchists (and
> councilists) after 1917.

This is not the reason at all. The reasons for this are
discussed above. It had less to do with ideology than the need
to suppress all opposition--especially opposition that staged
armed revolts.

In a _real_ dictatorship of the working class--anarchists would
have the same unrestricted rights as everyone else to organize
and agitate.

> But between anarchists and Leninists,
> there can be no rapprochement

See above. Idealists imagine that allegiance to ideology is
primary. Consistent materialists understand the primacy of the
material world.

> I have not been a
> principled anarchist for very long, and wanted to engage the
> only Leninist I have ever argued with online who did not
> strike me as being a complete fool.

Sometimes, in periods of despondency, I have wondered if I am the
only Leninist who is not a complete fool--but that is emotion,
that is not reality. The truth is that there are many serious
activists who consider themselves to be Leninists and a process
of gradual awakening is taking place. My own work is a very
small part of this awakening. All I can do is my best to
contribute my share.

> When I was Leninist, I did
> as Leninists do, and read a lot of Lenin; searching
> desperately for some sign, some quote that I could show to
> people as proof that Lenin was indeed interested in
> socialism from below. I never found it, and I looked very
> fucking hard for it. If Ben can pass this gem of wisdom on
> to me, whether in the form of a quote from Lenin or as an
> original argument of his own, I will be forever grateful to
> him.

There are a couple issues here.

These kinds of questions puzzled me for years. Only in
retrospect can I see why matters were so confusing. Many of the
"Leninist" views I encountered were not Leninism at all but were
doctrine left over from a state religion promoted by cargo cults.
I have read many times over the years Lenin's description of the
need to suppress the Kronstadt revolt and cripple internal
democracy in the party (ie: the formal banning of factions in
March 1921) but it was difficult to make sense of this all
without understanding the historical context that made these
measures necessary (ie: that the bolsheviks were highly unpopular
in 1921 and would have been creamed had they been foolish enough
to allow elections). The light went on for me one day as I was
reading "The Tax in Kind" (written to explain the necessity of
ending the policy of forcible confiscation of surplus grain from
peasants). It was there that Lenin explained how, in the absence
of suppression, the parties of petty bourgeois democracy would
have gained power, gotten rid of the bolsheviks and then, having
outlived their usefulness, would in turn have been "slapped down"
by the bourgeoisie as the insignificant non-entities they were.

But Lenin was not writing for readers 80 years later--he was
writing at the time mostly for his fellow bolsheviks--who were
acutely aware that they were living on top of a lighted stick of
dynamite--and needed to sternly suppress many dozens of armed
revolts and _terrorize_ (ie: make them _shit_ in their pants)
anyone who thought it was possible to openly oppose bolshevik
power. Lenin was very careful to explain how _weak_ the
bolsheviks were at a time when they would not allow _anyone_ to
_publicly_ explain that the bolsheviks were weak. But there
was no one to explain this to me and I had to figure it out more
or less on my own.

So the 1st point here is that a quote from Lenin that you could
"show to people" would settle nothing. Who is foolish enough to
be impressed by a quote?

It is not so much an issue of what Lenin said (which is difficult
for activists to understand if they do not understand the
conditions of the time) as what he _did_ and _why_ he did it.
This is what needs to be understood. The people at the time who
were talking about "socialism from below" were advocating a
course of action that would have led to complete and certain
defeat in less than six months. So Lenin opposed this course of
action and told the truth about it--that it would certainly lead
to the restoration of the bourgeoisie and landlords. Lenin was
acutely aware that only "socialism from below" would be real
socialism--but he also knew that this would not be possible
without an economy in a country with a majority of _very_
dissatisfied peasants--and therefor that real socialism (ie: the
dictatorship of the working class, as opposed to general martial
law imposed by a party which assigns itself monopoly power) would
not be possible for at least ten or twenty years.

Socialism from below (ie: real socialism) requires that the
_majority_ of the population either:
(a) have their basic material needs met, or
(b) understand (in a conscious way) why these needs
. cannot be met and understand the nature of the
. various political trends which falsely promise
. quick and easy solutions.

These conditions did not exist in 1921.

The 2nd point is that various quotes do exist but they don't
really carry much weight unless you understand the situation at
the time and know what to look for. In chapter 7 (sections 7c
and 7d) of my unfinished "How to Build the Party of the Future"
(http://Leninism.org/pof ) I show how Lenin advanced the idea of
centralism as the only possible way, in the conditions of the
time, for the _majority_ of the party to control its actions and
destiny. In a discussion of the "Gohre Incident" in the German
party Lenin describes how the extreme opportunist wing of the
party (as well as the German equivalent of the Wall Street
Journal, which had taken a sudden interest in democracy within a
workers' party dedicated to the overthrow of bourgeois rule) used
demogoguery against "bureaucracy and the suppression of
individuality" in order to try to _prevent_ the majority of the
party from controlling its actions.

There are other quotes by Lenin which have been particularly
meaningful to me but which I doubt would be very understandable
to activists today who was unaware of the context in which Lenin
argued. (I just looked at Lenin's talk on trade unions delivered
December 30, 1920 and I can imagine how some of his assessments
of the circumstances of the times would sound in today's
conditions.) Lenin was realistic in his assessment of events and
Lenin knew that, in the circumstances of the time, it was
inevitable that a minority would rule--the only issue was which
minority: the bourgeoisie and landlords--or a section which
intended to create the foundations (for the first time in
history) for majority rule ten or twenty years down the road
when the country had a functioning economy.

(Theoretical point for nitpickers: genuine socialism in a modern
country would be the rule of the _majority_ of society.
Genuine communism, on the other hand, would be the rule of
_everyone_ in a society with no classes and no state at all.)

The 3rd point is (again) the role of the state religion (ie:
"marxism-leninism") and the sectarian cargo-cults in presenting
matters as if Lenin believed that the rule of a minority over the
majority was some kind of _general principle_ applicable to
working class rule in all circumstances. Such a position places
our cargo cultists in a position where they oppose democratic
rights and majority rule in modern societies with working class
majorities and modern communications infrastructure. It is this
cargo-cultist version of "workers' rule" (ie: the rule of a
minority over a majority) that leads militant progressive
activists to reject the concept of a workers' state and place
their faith in a non-existent alternative. Both sides of this
dispute are completely bankrupt: The cargo-cultists are unable
to defend their views in public forums (this is why I have been
expelled from many "marxism" related lists in spite of being calm
and professional in my conduct). And the anarchists are not able
to escape the various absurdities that hit them in the face when
they try to describe a society that functions without a state on
the morning after bourgeois rule is overthrown.

The 4th point--is that we must think for ourselves. Daniel I am
not interested in "converting" you into being a "Leninist" again.
You already tried that and it didn't work. It led you to
practices that you instinctively recognized were largely a waste
of your time. I want to win you to another kind of platform (one
that is much more difficult than being either a "Leninist" or an
anarchist). I want to win you to a platform of thinking things
thru for yourself. The immediate objective I have is to
encourage you to think in a realistic way about the material
needs of the working class on the morning after bourgeois rule is
broken. I assert that the working class will need a machine--a
state--that will allow (for the first time in history) a stable
situation in which society is actually controlled by the
majority.

At that point I believe that (whatever you would want to call
yourself) you would be on your way to becoming a Leninist. But
it would be a _different_ kind of Leninism than the kind you have
rejected.

> It was Ben who suggested an organised public debate, and who
> has largely assumed the task of promoting it at a public
> level through his website at http://struggle.net/alds/. I
> quite naively accepted this challenge of an organised public
> debate, not realising (or realising only too late) that Ben
> has quite significantly more to gain politically from it
> than I do - after all, it is not me who has anything to gain
> from exposing that vast multitude of Leninist youth to
> anarchist ideas! It has been said that there is little point
> in engaging in "rational" debate with Leninists; that a
> Leninist is a statist like any other statist, and that
> rather than debating them we should be trying to exclude
> them from our associations. I agree wholeheartedly with
> this, as should any other libertarian who has seen the
> effect a Leninist presence tends to have on affinity-group
> based organisations.

Two points here.

1) You are waffling on the importance of a real debate that
brings forth the best arguments from all sides and you are
tending to capitulate (either a little or a lot) to pressure from
anarchists who oppose intelligent debate. It is important to
recognize that "both sides" (ie: clueless anarchists and
cargo-cult Leninists) will lose big in this debate. Science, in
the hands of the serious activists, tends to smash up ideas and
theories that belong in the trash. All the excuses and reasons
that are given to oppose intelligent debate--originate in the
knowledge that science will win against garbage--by people who
are afraid of this victory. Science will win--that is one reason
we must strive hard to put forth our best efforts and keep the
debate on a solid scientific footing.

2) How about the presence of a "Leninist" on an affinity-group
based organization? I imagine it is something like a hungry
shark let loose among a school of tuna. Unfortunately, these
"Leninists" as you call them are generally either reformist or
sectarian cults. And if affinity-group based organization is not
robust enough to withstand attack by clueless cults--then maybe
affinity-group based organization is something less than a
complete organizational model for a genuine revolutionary
organization.

I think that we need to give serious thought concerning what such
an organizational model should be. I have given a lot of thought
to this question and have concluded that such a model does not
exist at present.

If we want to see a genuinely revolutionary organization emerge
(and I do--it is my mission in life to assist this process) then
we must think for ourselves and sort out what this model might
look like.

Such a model _might_ have _some_ features of an affinity-group
based organization. I _do_ know that such a genuinely
revolutionary organization would be based on the principle of
political transparency that would allow the activists within this
organization (and the masses outside of this organization) to
democratically intervene in the internal struggles of this
organization in order to defend its revolutionary character. So
the _internal_ struggles of this organization would be
_broadcast_. I have also come to the conclusion that the
organization would contain within it different political trends
that would manifest this internal struggle. But reformist trends
would be expelled from this organization as they emerged and as
their character became clear.

And such an organization would have the ability, when necessary,
to strike, so to speak, with a single fist.

Finally, I have argued in other places that I believe that this
organization will likely emerge in the work of creating
revolutionary channels to the masses that would ride the wave of
the emerging revolution in digital communications. Such work
will bring serious activists into contact with one another and
help to develop their assessements of one another's conduct in
various struggles.

But the nature of this genuinely revolutionary organization is a
topic that goes beyond the debate on the state. It is an
interesting question--and an extremely important one. But Rome
was not built in a day and our time is limited. So we may not be
able to sort out all these questions until we accumulate more
experience.

At this point Daniel, I need to take a break. You have raised
several more questions which I will respond to when I have a
little more time. In the meantime, I hope things are going well
in your reply to my formal response (part 5 plus essay 160). Let
me know if you think that we should extend the 30 day time limit
on responses. I believe the time limit should be short enough to
keep us engaged but it also needs to be long enough to allow us
to put forth powerful and well-considered arguments. Now that
the debate is in "full swing" the urgency of timely replies is
not as great as when we were trying to get this thing started.

Sincerely and with revolutionary regards,
Ben Seattle
----//-// 19.Jan.2003
http://struggle.net/Ben (my elists / theory / infrastructure)