Democracy, freedom of expression and Lenninism

[Kenco Smooth]

Ok please accept first that my knowlege of Lenninism and it's derivitives is pretty limited.

How do most Lenninists (here and around the world) view the ideas of freedom of expression and un-hindered democracy post revolution? Whenever implemented it seems to limit these in the name of preventing counter revolution. If communism is ultimately based upon the will of the people should we not trust them to tell what's in their interest from what's not rather than dictate it from our intelectual pedistals?

Bonus question: If a revolution requires more than the will of the people to maintain it i.e. revolutionary firing sqauds (not saying these and governing from the will of the people are exclusive), control of the press, etc. is is it not brought about prematurely?

[A.R.Amistad]

Lenin consistently advocated for and fought hard for all democratic rights such as freedom of speech, etc. I am pressed for time now but I will post later. The fight for proletarian dicataorship is and was synonymous with the fight for political freedom. According to Lenin, democracy must mean "formal equality" where all are entitled to the same rights, but the capitalists as a class possess less power than the working class in that they cannot use their wealth and power to manipulate the state.

Lenin

The [Russian] Social Democratic Party (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/orgs/r/u.htm#rsdlp), as the conscious exponent of the working-class movement, aims at the complete liberation of the toiling masses from every form of oppression and exploitation. The achievement of this objective—the abolition of private property (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/p/r.htm#property) in the means of production (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/m/e.htm#means-production) and the creation of the socialist society (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/s/o.htm#socialism)—calls for a very high development of the productive forces (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/p/r.htm#productive-forces) of capitalism and a high degree of organisation of the working class. The full development of the productive forces in modern bourgeois society, a broad, free, and open class struggle, and the political education, training, and rallying of the masses of the proletariat are inconceivable without political freedom (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/f/r.htm#freedom). Therefore it has always been the aim of the class-conscious proletariat to wage a determined struggle for complete political freedom and the democratic revolution.
The proletariat is not alone in setting this task before itself. The bourgeoisie, too, needs political freedom. The enlightened members of the propertied classes hung out the banner of liberty long ago; the revolutionary intelligentsia, which comes mainly from these classes, has fought heroically for freedom. But the bourgeoisie as a whole is incapable of waging a determined struggle against the autocracy; it fears to lose in this struggle its property which binds it to the existing order; it fears an all-too revolutionary action of the workers, who will not stop at the democratic revolution but will aspire to the socialist revolution; it fears a complete break with officialdom, with the bureaucracy, whose interests are bound up by a thousand ties with the interests of the propertied classes. For this reason the bourgeois struggle for liberty is notoriously timorous, inconsistent, and half-hearted. One of the tasks of the proletariat is to prod the bourgeoisie on, to raise before the whole people slogans calling for a complete democratic revolution, to start working boldly and independently for the realisation of these slogans—in a word, to be the vanguard, to take the lead in the struggle for the liberty of the whole people.
In the pursuit of this aim the Russian Social-Democrats have had to fight many a battle against the inconsistency of bourgeois liberalism. Let us recall, for instance, how Mr. Struve began his career, unhampered by the censor, as a political champion of the “liberation” of Russia. He made his début with his preface to the Witte “Memorandum”, in which he advanced the markedly “Shipovian” (to use the current political nomenclature) slogan, “Rights, and an Authoritative Zemstvo”. The Social-Democratic Party exposed the retrogressive, absurd, and reactionary nature of that slogan; it demanded a definite and uncompromising democratic platform, and itself put forward such a platform as an integral part of its Party programme. Social-Democracy had to combat the narrow conception of the aims of democracy which obtained in its own ranks when the so-called Economists did their best to play down these aims, when they advocated the “economic struggle against the employers and the, government”, and insisted that we must start by winning rights, continue with political agitation, and only then gradually (the theory of stages) pass on to political struggle.
Now the political struggle has become vastly extended, the revolution has spread throughout the land, the mildest liberals have become “extremists”; it may therefore seem that historical references to the recent past such as we have just made are out of place, with no bearing on the actual turbulent present. But this may seem so only at first glance. To be sure, such slogans as the demand for a Constituent Assembly and for universal, direct, and equal suffrage by secret ballot (which the Social-Democrats long since and in advance of all presented in their Party programme) have become common property; they have been adopted by the illegal Osvobozhdeniye, incorporated in the programme of the Osvobozhdeniye League, turned into Zemtsvo slogans, and are now being repeated in every shape and form by the legal press. That Russian bourgeois democracy has made progress in recent years and months cannot be doubted. Bourgeois democracy is learning by experience, is discarding primitive slogans (like the Shipovian “Rights, and an Authoritative Zemstvo”) and is hobbling along behind the revolution. But it is only hobbling along behind; new contradictions between its words and its deeds, between democracy in principle and democracy in “Realpolitik”, are arising in place of the old; for revolutionary developments are making steadily growing demands on democracy. But bourgeois democracy always drags at the tail of events; while adopting more advanced slogans, it always lags behind; it always formulates the slogans several degrees below the level really required in the real revolutionary struggle for real liberty.
Indeed, let us take that now current and generally accepted slogan, “For a Constituent Assembly on the basis of universal, direct, and equal suffrage by secret ballot”. Is that slogan adequate from the standpoint of consistent democracy? Is it adequate in the light of the urgent revolutionary tasks of the present moment? The answer to both these questions can be only in the negative. To be convinced that this is so one has only to examine carefully our Party programme, to which our organisations, unfortunately, do not often refer and which they quote and disseminate all too little. (As a happy exception, worthy of the widest emulation, we note the recent reprint of our Party programme in leaflet form by the Riga, Voronezh, and Moscow committees.) The keynote of our programme, too, is the demand for a popular Constituent Assembly (let us agree, for brevity’s sake, to use the word “popular” as denoting suffrage that is universal, etc.). But this slogan does not stand isolated in our programme. The context and the addenda and notes prevent any miconstruction on the part of those who are least consistent in the struggle for liberty or who even struggle against it. It occurs in our programme in conjunction with the following other slogans: (1) the overthrow of the tsarist autocracy; (2) its replacement by the democratic republic; (3) the sovereignty of the people, safeguarded by a democratic constitution, i.e., the concentration of supreme governmental authority entirely in the hands of a legislative assembly composed of representatives of the people and forming a single chamber.
Can there be any doubt that every consistent democrat is obligated to accept all these slogans? Why, the very word “democrat”, both by its etymology and by virtue of the political significance it has acquired throughout the history of Europe, denotes an adherent of the sovereignty of the people. It is absurd, therefore, to talk of democracy and in the same breath to reject even a single one of these slogans. But the main contradiction, the contradiction between the desire of the bourgeoisie to preserve private property at all costs and its desire for liberty, is so profound that spokesmen or followers of the liberal bourgeoisie inevitably find themselves in this ridiculous position. As everyone knows, a very broad liberal party is forming Itself in Russia with enormous rapidity, a party which has the adherence of the Osvobozhdeniye League, of the mass of the Zemstvo people, and of newspapers like Nasha Zhizn, Nashi Dni, Syn Otechestva, Russkiye Vedomosti,[1] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/jun/17b.htm#fwV08P514F01) etc., etc. This liberal-bourgeois party likes to be called the “Constitutional-Democratic” Party. In actual fact, however, as can be seen from the declarations and the programme of the illegal Osvobozhdeniye, it is a monarchist party. It does not want a republic at all. It does not want a unicameral assembly, and it proposes for the Upper House indirect and virtually non-universal suffrage (residence qualification). It is anything but anxious for the supreme governmental authority to pass entirely into the hands of the people (although for window-dressing purposes it is very fond of talking about the transfer of power to the people). It does not want the autocracy to be overthrown. It wants only a division of power among (1) the monarchy; (2) the Upper House (where landowners and capitalists will predominate); and (3) the Lower House, which alone is to be built on democratic principles.
Thus, we have before us the indisputable fact that our “democratic” bourgeoisie, even as represented by its most advanced, most educated elements, those least subject to the direct influence of capital, is trailing behind the revolution. This “democratic” party fears the sovereignty of the people. While repeating our slogan of a popular Constituent Assembly, it in fact completely distorts its sense and significance and misleads the people by its use, or, rather, abuse.
What is a “popular Constituent” Assembly? It is an assembly which, in the first place, really expresses the will of the people. To this end we must have universal suffrage in all of its democratic aspects, and a full guarantee of freedom to conduct the election campaign. It is an assembly which, in the second place, really has the power and authority to “inaugurate” a political order which will ensure the sovereignty of the people. It is clear as daylight that without these two conditions the assembly can be neither truly popular nor truly constituent. Yet our liberal bourgeois, our constitutional monarchists (whose claim to be democrats is a mockery of the people) do not want real safeguards to ensure either of these conditions! Not only do they fail to ensure in any way complete freedom of election propaganda or the actual transfer of power and authority to the Constituent Assembly, but, on the contrary, they seek to make both impossible since they aim at maintaining the monarchy. The real power and authority is to remain in the hands of Nicholas the Bloody (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/people/n/i.htm#nicholas-II). This means that the dire enemy of the people is to convene the assembly and “ensure” that the elections will be free and universal. How very democratic! It means that the Constituent Assembly will never have and (according to the idea of the liberal bourgeois) must never have all power and all authority; it is to be utterly devoid of power, devoid of authority; it is merely to come to terms, to reach an agreement, to arrive at an understanding, to strike a bargain with Nicholas II for the assembly to be granted a modicum of his royal power! The Constituent Assembly elected by universal suffrage is to differ in no way from a Lower House. That is to say, the Constituent Assembly, convened for expressing and executing the will of the people, is designed by the liberal bourgeoisie to “constitute”, over the will of the people, the will of an Upper House and on top of that the will of the monarchy, the will of Nicholas.
Is it not obvious that in talking, speechifying, and shouting about a popular Constituent Assembly, the liberal bourgeois, the Osvobozhdeniye gentry, are actually planning an anti-popular consultative assembly? Instead of emancipating the people, they want to subject the people, by constitutional means, first, to the power of the tsar (monarchism), and, secondly, to the power of the organised big bourgeoisie (the Upper House).
If anyone wishes to dispute this conclusion, let him assert: (1) that there can be a true expression of the popular will in elections without complete freedom of propaganda and without the actual abolition of all the propaganda privileges of the tsarist government; or (2) that an assembly of delegates devoid of real power and authority, in that these are left in the hands of the tsar, is not, in effect, a mere consultative body. To make either of these assertions one must be either a brazen charlatan or a hope less fool. History proves conclusively that a representative assembly coexisting with a monarchical form of government is in actual fact, so long as governmental power remains in the hands of the monarchy, a consultative body which does not bend the will of the monarch to the will of the people, but only conforms the will of the people to the will of the monarch, i. e., divides the power between monarch and people, bargains for a new order, but does not constitute it. History proves conclusively that there can be no such thing as really free elections, that the significance and character of these elections can hardly be brought home to the whole people unless the government that is combating the revolution is replaced by a provisional revolutionary government. Granting for a moment the improbable and the impossible, namely, that the tsarist government, having decided to convene a “Constituent” (read: consultative) Assembly, will give formal guarantees of freedom of propaganda, all the vast advantages and superior facilities for campaigning which accrue from the organised power of the state will nevertheless remain in its hands. These advantages and facilities for propaganda during the elections to the first people’s assembly will be enjoyed by the very ones who have oppressed the people by all the means in their power, and from whom the people have begun to wrest liberty by force.
In a word, we arrive at the very conclusion we reached on the previous occasion (Proletary, No. 3),[2] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/jun/17b.htm#fwV08P517F01) when we examined this question from another angle. The slogan of a popular Constituent Assembly, taken by itself, separately, is at the present time a slogan of the monarchist bourgeoisie, a slogan calling for a deal between the bourgeoisie and the tsarist government. Only the overthrow of the tsarist government and its replacement by a provisional revolutionary government, whose duty it will be to convene the popular Constituent Assembly, can be the slogan of the revolutionary struggle. Let the proletariat of Russia have no illusions on this score; in the din of the general excitation it is being deceived by the use of its own slogans. If we fail to match the armed force of the government with the force of an armed people, if the tsarist government is not utterly defeated and replaced by a provisional revolutionary government, every representative assembly, whatever title—“popular”, “constituent”, etc.—may be conferred upon it, will in fact be an assembly of representatives of the big bourgeoisie convened for the purpose of bargaining with the tsar for a division of power.
The more the people’s struggle against the tsar comes to a head and the greater likelihood there is of a speedy realisation of the demand for an assembly of people’s representatives, the more closely must the revolutionary proletariat watch the “democratic” bourgeoisie. The sooner we gain freedom, the sooner will this ally of the proletariat become its enemy. Two circumstances will serve to cloak this change: (1) the vagueness, incompleteness, and non-committal character of the would-be democratic slogans of the bourgeoisie; and (2) the endeavour to turn the slogans of the proletariat into mere phrases, to substitute empty promises for real safeguards of liberty and revolution. The workers must now watch the “democrats” with intensified vigilance. The words “popular Constituent Assembly” will be nothing more than words if, owing to the actual conditions under which the election campaign and the elections themselves are conducted, this assembly fails to express the will of the people, if it lacks the strength independently to establish the new order. The cardinal issue is now shifting from the question of summoning the popular Constituent Assembly to the question of the method by which it is to be summoned. We are on the eve of decisive events. The proletariat must not pin its faith in general democratic slogans but must contrapose to them its own proletarian-democratic slogans in their full scope. Only a force guided by these slogans can really ensure the complete victory of the revolution.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/jun/17b.htm

[ContrarianLemming]

How do most Lenninists (here and around the world) view the ideas of freedom of expression and un-hindered democracy post revolution? Whenever implemented it seems to limit these in the name of preventing counter revolution. If communism is ultimately based upon the will of the people should we not trust them to tell what's in their interest from what's not rather than dictate it from our intelectual pedistals?



You should be an anarchist :)

to answer, almost all leninists support democracy, in theory.

[ContrarianLemming]

Lenin consistently advocated for and fought hard for all democratic rights such as freedom of speech

I encourage you not to listen to such bullsh!t

[AK]

I encourage you not to listen to such bullsh!t
I don't know about the proof in his statement, but I do know Lenin wasn't so much of a prick like Stalin was for the most part.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I don't know about the proof in his statement, but I do know Lenin wasn't so much of a prick like Stalin was for the most part.

Whatever that's supposed to mean, "prick". My mother said that once. "Lenin was a prick" I asked what that was supposed to mean. She didn't elaborate. Regardless, sounds like petty-personal nonsense when you use an expression like "prick".

[AK]

Whatever that's supposed to mean, "prick". My mother said that once. "Lenin was a prick" I asked what that was supposed to mean. She didn't elaborate. Regardless, sounds like petty-personal nonsense when you use an expression like "prick".
Your post is petty nonsense. Why are you even debating the usage of the word "prick"?
And yes, my post was nonsense, too.

[Chimurenga.]

I encourage you not to listen to such bullsh!t

How predictable.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Lenin consistently advocated for and fought hard for all democratic rights such as freedom of speech, etc. I am pressed for time now but I will post later. The fight for proletarian dicataorship is and was synonymous with the fight for political freedom. According to Lenin, democracy must mean "formal equality" where all are entitled to the same rights, but the capitalists as a class possess less power than the working class in that they cannot use their wealth and power to manipulate the state.

Lenin


http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/jun/17b.htm

i'm sketchy on this but didn't lenin

A; advocate too and take away the right to critise the soviet goverment from the right (no bad thing In my opinion, but hardly consistant with freedom of speech)

B; take away the right to critise the soviet goverment from the left, or hinder it to some degree. Even allowing for the stresses of "wartime" necessity constantly invoked by leninists, actions like those taken at Kronstadt seem incredibly bad.

C: Take away power from the Soviets that had sprung up during the revolutionary years and give it too his government and or/"specialists" appointed by his government. Again, I think this was justified by wartime necessity.

*Just a note, by "justified" by wartime necessity, I mean thats what the leninists claim. I wasn't giving my opinon on the matter :)

[Zanthorus]

I don't know about the proof in his statement, but I do know Lenin wasn't so much of a prick like Stalin was for the most part.

I have to agree with this. I know I probably would've at least supported Lenin in the 1914-1917 period when Bolshevism was a generally revolutionary force against Tsarism and the bourgeois dictatorship of the constituent assembly.


Even allowing for the stresses of "wartime" necessity constantly invoked by leninists, actions like those taken at Kronstadt seem incredibly bad.

Don't allow yourself to be trapped into the historical paradigms set for you by the apologists of Leninism. The Kronstadt uprising happened after the civil war had finished.

[Cowboy Killer]

Lenin consistently advocated for and fought hard for all democratic rights such as freedom of speech, etc.


In a meeting with Emma Goldman:
"Free speech," responded Lenin, "is, of course, a bourgeois notion.There can be no free speech in a revolutionary period"

[A.R.Amistad]

I encourage you not to listen to such bullsh!t

Lenin on freedom of the press:

For the bourgeoisie, freedom of the press meant freedom for the rich to publish and for the capitalists to control the newspapers, a practice which in all countries, including even the freest, produced a corrupt press.
For the workers’ and peasants’ government, freedom of the press means liberation of the press from capitalist oppression, and public ownership of paper mills and printing presses; equal right for public groups of a certain size (say, numbering 10,000) to a fair share of newsprint stocks and a corresponding quantity of printers’ labour.
As a first step towards this goal, which is bound up with the working people’s liberation from capitalist oppression, the Provisional Workers’ and Peasants’ Government has appointed a Commission of Inquiry to look into the ties between capital and periodicals, the sources of their funds and revenues, the list of their donors, covers for their deficits, and every other aspect of the newspaper business in general. Concealment of books, accounts or any other documents from the Commission of Inquiry, or the giving of any evidence known to be false shall be punishable by a revolutionary court.
All newspaper owners, shareholders, and all members of their staffs shall be under the obligation to immediately submit written reports and information on the said questions to the Commission of Inquiry, probing the ties between capital and the press, and its dependence on capital, at Smolny Institute, Petrograd.
The following are appointed to serve on the Commission of Inquiry: [Follows space for list of names—Ed.]
The Commission shall have the power to co-opt members, call experts, subpoena witnesses, order the presentation of all accounts, etc.


again, I will post more soon but I am pressed for time. Please respond with actual arguments, not just petty sectarian jabs.

[Zanthorus]

In a meeting with Emma Goldman:
"Free speech," responded Lenin, "is, of course, a bourgeois notion.There can be no free speech in a revolutionary period"

This is Goldman's recollection of the meeting with Lenin which coming from an anarchist is not really a reliable source because first of all she has an ideological reason in painting Lenin as an authoritarian and second of all even if it is a direct quote she could be skipping out important parts of Lenin's argument. Also if Lenin is talking about the civil war then he is no different than the government of Britian during the second world war who encouraged the press to print propaganda articles about how awesome the war was and leave out all the tragedies etc in order to keep support for the war up.

[Palingenisis]

In a meeting with Emma Goldman:
"Free speech," responded Lenin, "is, of course, a bourgeois notion.There can be no free speech in a revolutionary period"

I have no problemn with that statement of Lenin.

The fact is that a lot of working class anarchists spend a lot of time trying to deny free speech to fascists and of course I have no problemn with them doing so. Its only completely wishy washy liberals who believe in absolute free speech.

[blackwave]

I have no problemn with that statement of Lenin.

The fact is that a lot of working class anarchists spend a lot of time trying to deny free speech to fascists and of course I have no problemn with them doing so. Its only completely wishy washy liberals who believe in absolute free speech.

Okay then, explain to me why one should deny freedom of speech to a fascist.

[A.R.Amistad]

More Lenin on Political Freedom

1.

An Urgent Political Question

At the present revolutionary juncture the question of the convocation of a popular constituent assembly is on the order of the day. Opinions are divided on the point as to how this question should be solved. Three political trends are to be observed. The tsarist government admits the necessity of convening representatives of the people, but it does not want under any circumstances to permit their assembly to be a popular and a constituent assembly. It seems willing to agree, if we are to believe the newspaper reports on the work of the Bulygin Commission (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/orgs/b/u.htm#bulygin-commission),[2] to an advisory assembly, to be elected without freedom to conduct agitation, and on the basis of restricted qualifications or a restricted class system. The revolutionary proletariat, inasmuch as it is led by the Social-Democratic Party, demands complete transfer of power to a constituent assembly, and for this purpose strives to obtain not only universal suffrage and complete freedom to conduct agitation, but also the immediate overthrow of the tsarist government and its replacement by a provisional revolutionary government. Finally, the liberal bourgeoisie, expressing its wishes through the leaders of the so-called “Constitutional-Democratic Party (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/orgs/c/a.htm#cadets)”,[3] does not demand the overthrow of the tsarist government, does not advance the slogan of a provisional government and does not insist on real guarantees that the elections will be absolutely free and fair and that the assembly of representatives will be a genuinely popular and a genuinely constituent assembly. As a matter of fact, the liberal bourgeoisie, the only serious social support of the Osvobozhdeniye trend, is striving to effect as peaceful a deal as possible between the tsar and the revolutionary people, a deal, moreover, that would give a maximum of power to itself, the bourgeoisie, and a minimum to the revolutionary people—the proletariat and the peasantry.
Such is the political situation at the present time. Such are the three main political trends, corresponding to the three main social forces in contemporary Russia. We have already shown on more than one occasion (in the Proletary, Nos. 3, 4, 5)[1] how the Osvobozhdentsi use pseudo-democratic phrases to cover up their half-hearted, or, to put it more bluntly and plainly, their treacherous, perfidious policy towards the revolution. Let us now see how the Social-Democrats appraise the tasks of the moment. Excellent material for this purpose is provided by the two resolutions that were passed quite recently by the Third Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party and by the “Conference” of the section which has seceded from the Party. The question as to which of these resolutions more correctly appraises the political situation and more correctly defines the tactics of the revolutionary proletariat is of enormous importance, and every Social-Democrat who is anxious to fulfil his duties as a propagandist, agitator and organiser intelligently, must study this question with the closest attention, leaving all irrelevant considerations entirely aside.
By the Party’s tactics we mean the Party’s political conduct, or the character, the direction and methods of its political activity. Tactical resolutions are adopted by Party congresses in order precisely to define the political conduct of the Party as a whole with regard to new tasks, or in view of a new political situation. Such a new situation has been created by the revolution that has started in Russia, i.e., the complete, resolute and open rupture between the overwhelming majority of the people and the tsarist government. The new question concerns the practical methods to be adopted in convening a genuinely popular and genuinely constituent assembly (the theoretical question concerning such an assembly was officially settled by Social-Democracy long ago, before all other parties, in its Party program). Since the people have broken with the government, and the masses realise the necessity of setting up a new order, the party which set itself the object of overthrowing the government must necessarily consider what government to put up in place of the old, deposed government. A new question concerning a provisional revolutionary government arises. In order to give a complete answer to this question the Party of the class-conscious proletariat must make clear: 1) the significance of a provisional revolutionary government in the revolution that is now going on and in the entire struggle of the proletariat in general; 2) its attitude towards a provisional revolutionary government; 3) the precise conditions of Social-Democratic participation in this government; 4) the conditions under which pressure is to be brought to bear on this government from below, i.e., in the event of there being no Social-Democrats in it. Only after all these questions are made clear, will the political conduct of the Party in this sphere be principled, clear and firm.
Let us now consider how the resolution of the Third Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party answers these questions. The following is the full text of the resolution:
“Resolution on a Provisional Revolutionary Government
“Whereas:
“1) both the direct interests of the proletariat and the interests of its struggle for the final aims of socialism require the fullest possible measure of political liberty and, consequently, the replacement of the autocratic form of government by a democratic republic;
“2) the establishment of a democratic republic in Russia is possible only as a result of a victorious popular insurrection whose organ will be a provisional revolutionary government, which alone will be capable of ensuring complete freedom of agitation during the election campaign and of convening a constituent assembly that will really express the will of the people, an assembly elected on the basis of universal and equal suffrage, direct elections and secret ballot;
“3) under the present social and economic order this democratic revolution in Russia will not weaken, but strengthen the rule of the bourgeoisie, which at a certain moment will inevitably try, stopping at nothing, to take away from the Russian proletariat as many of the gains of the revolutionary period as possible:
“The Third Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party resolves that:
“a) that it is necessary to disseminate among the working class a concrete idea of the most probable course of the revolution and of the necessity, at a certain moment in the revolution, for the appearance of a provisional revolutionary government, from which the proletariat will demand the realisation of all the immediate political and economic demands contained in our program (the minimum program);
“b) that subject to the relation of forces, and other factors which cannot be exactly determined beforehand, representatives of our Party may participate in the provisional revolutionary government for the purpose of relentless struggle against all counter-revolutionary attempts and of the defence of the independent interests of the working class;
“c) that an indispensable condition for such participation is that the Party should exercise strict control over its representatives and that the independence of the Social-Democratic Party, which is striving for a complete socialist revolution and, consequently, is irreconcilably hostile to all bourgeois parties, should be strictly maintained;
“d) that irrespective whether the participation of Social-Democrats in the provisional revolutionary government prove possible or not, we must propagate among the broadest masses of the proletariat the necessity for permanent pressure to be brought to bear upon the provisional government by the armed proletariat, led by the Social-Democratic Party, for the purpose of defending, consolidating and extending the gains of the revolution.”


Lenin again on free speech and association:

Calm yourselves, gentlemen! First of all, we are discussing party literature and its subordination to party control. Everyone is free to write and say whatever he likes, without any restrictions. But every voluntary association (including the party) is also free to expel members who use the name of the party to advocate anti-party views. Freedom of speech and the press must be complete. But then freedom of association must be complete too. I am bound to accord you, in the name of free speech, the full right to shout, lie and write to your heart’s content. But you are bound to grant me, in the name of freedom of association, the right to enter into, or withdraw from, association with people advocating this or that view. The party is a voluntary association, which would inevitably break up, first ideologically and then physically, if it did not cleanse itself of people advocating anti-party views. And to define the border-line between party and anti-party there is the party programme, the party’s resolutions on tactics and its rules and, lastly, the entire experience of international Social-Democracy, the voluntary international associations of the proletariat, which has constantly brought into its parties individual elements and trends not fully consistent, not completely Marxist and not altogether correct and which, on the other hand, has constantly conducted periodical “cleansings” of its ranks. So it will be with us too, supporters of bourgeois “freedom of criticism”, within the Party. We are now becoming a mass party all at once, changing abruptly to an open organisation, and it is inevitable that we shall be joined by many who are inconsistent (from the Marxist standpoint), perhaps we shall be joined even by some Christian elements, and even by some mystics. We have sound stomachs and we are rock-like Marxists. We shall digest those inconsistent elements. Freedom of thought and freedom of criticism within the Party will never make us forget about the freedom of organising people into those voluntary associations known as parties.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/nov/13.htm


I recommend you read The State and Revolution and Two Tactics of Social Democracy. Plainly stated, the Leninist stance on political freedom is that we support the fullest amount of political freedom, but we aren't libertarians and rightly so. Libertarians, both to the left and right, believe that political freedom means that the state and the individual are totally separate entities and the less one interferes with the other the better. Yet we Leninist are staunch advocates of proletarian democracy, particularly as it was practiced in the Paris Commune. That means that we believe the state entails more freedom when the masses are actively participating in it. A gap between the masses and the state not only preserves the state but is almost a guarantee of some level of tyrannical bureaucracy. The fight for proletarian rule in Russia was synonymous with the struggle for political freedom because, unlike in the bourgeois republics, it didn't exist even in a fictitious form. After 1905 the masses gained limited freedom and Lenin and the Bolsheviks jumped on it to demand full freedom of political expression. All of the criticisms you come across by Lenin against "bourgeois democracy" are not against democracy and democratic principles. In fact, it is a true dedication to democratic principles, since that is what Lenin emphasized in State and Revolution. In even the most "democratic" of bourgeois republics, freedom of speech is given as long as the proletariat are powerless to do anything. In proletarian democracy, freedom of speech, association, religion, press, etc. is not only guaranteed, but it is excersized to the fullest seeing as it is (in Lenin's own words) "for the first time democracy for the poor, for the toiling masses."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/tactics/index.htm#ch04

http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/index.htm

[A.R.Amistad]

This is Goldman's recollection of the meeting with Lenin which coming from an anarchist is not really a reliable source because first of all she has an ideological reason in painting Lenin as an authoritarian and second of all even if it is a direct quote she could be skipping out important parts of Lenin's argument. Also if Lenin is talking about the civil war then he is no different than the government of Britian during the second world war who encouraged the press to print propaganda articles about how awesome the war was and leave out all the tragedies etc in order to keep support for the war up.

Right on. I think it is important that we realise the context of what people are saying and not just isolate their quotes to be mangled for others ideological purposes. In a time of civil war, such as what Russia was enduring, political freedom cannot exist to the extent that it would during a time of relative peace. Hell, Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus during the Civil War, John Adams enacted the Alien and Sedition Acts, the French Revolution had the Great Terror, etc. etc. War is war. You can't sugarcoat war, not even revolutionary war. I believe also, in response to the task of the civil war, Lenin said something along the lines of 'by the time this war is over, it will be impossible to establish the death penalty in Russia.' Again, the answers to all of these questions can be answered by reading Lenin's actual works on the State, all of which are at MIA.


The Kronstadt uprising happened after the civil war had finished.

Um, no, Krondstadt was led by a pro-White army anti-Semitic "anarchist" (in name only) who was in contact with Wrangel's still active counter-revolutionary army of 40,000 who were depending on the victory of the Krondstadt sailor's revolt to topple the entire revolution and re institute a military dictatorship. The official war may have been over, but the threat was still there in full. I feel no qualms about Krondstadt it was necessary to preserve whatever order there was in the revolutionary government from total reaction and a White Army victory.

[Palingenisis]

Okay then, explain to me why one should deny freedom of speech to a fascist.

Because Free Speech doesnt exist in some vacum seperated from the rest of life, ideas have consequences and the results of fascists sucecessfully spreading their propaganda have historically being not exactly nice. This artificial division between thought and action on which liberal notions of absolute free speech rest as opposed to seeing the world more wholistically is typical of the bourgieouse.

[A.R.Amistad]

Because Free Speech doesnt exist in some vacum seperated from the rest of life, ideas have consequences and the results of fascists sucecessfully spreading their propaganda have historically being not exactly nice. This artificial division between thought and action on which liberal notions of absolute free speech rest as opposed to seeing the world more wholistically is typical of the bourgieouse.

I think a better way of putting forward this idea is that everyone, even fascists, have freedom of speech. Fascists and the like have the right to say and associate themselves with all sorts of reactionary vile and filth, and that won't be punished. But the moment they try to take a violent action against the state or try to instigate an uprising against the worker's state and organizations, they will be met with suppressive force. This is the function of the state, defending the worker's state from counter-revolution. Counter-revolutionary speech, press, association, etc. can be allowed to a full extent, but counter-revolutionary practice will not be tolerated.

At a time of real civil war it is inevitable that freedom relative to a time of peace will be diminished, but the proletariat would be active participants in the revolutionary war effort and the war effort would be entirely defensive. Otherwise, political freedom is a vital tenet of revolutionary socialism.

[ContrarianLemming]

Either you believe in free speech for your enemies or you don't believe in it at all.

[Broletariat]

I wouldn't hand a Facist a gun, why would I give him something far more powerful like speech or ideas?

[Palingenisis]

Either you believe in free speech for your enemies or you don't believe in it at all.

Put me down for not believing in it at all than.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1946/violence.htm

[Palingenisis]

Actually I think this is the issue for me that divides anarchists into either confused comrades or class enemies.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Freedom of speech for fascists to spew bile and hate, especially in a "revolutionary" period can in no reasonable way be said to be a greater right for people to be protected from rascist discrimination etc, or violence based on those principles.

The problem is when you censor your own comrades, not the fascists. To reduce the criticism of lenin's actions just to a general "he denied freedom of speech to some" , or even worse, to specifically arguing against his repression against obvious rightists and counter revolutionaries is just playing into the Lenin apologists ballpark.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Freedom only for the supporters of the government, only for the members of one party – however numerous they may be – is no freedom at all. Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently. Not because of any fanatical concept of ‘justice’ but because all that is instructive, wholesome and purifying in political freedom depends on this essential characteristic, and its effectiveness vanishes when ‘freedom’ becomes a special privilege.

That said, like some comrades here, I'd stop short of absolute freedom of speech. I don't believe in the right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, for instance, nor do I believe in allowing fascists to organize and launch a counter-revolution.

Of course, that's assuming a society with genuine workers' control. I'm a bit skeptical about letting a group of bureaucrats scream "Counter-revolutionaries!" at anyone with a dissenting view in order to legitimize secret police, state terrorism, and things of that nature.

It's been argued that "Sunlight is the best disinfectant", but too much of it can be harmful as well.

[Kenco Smooth]

I think a better way of putting forward this idea is that everyone, even fascists, have freedom of speech. Fascists and the like have the right to say and associate themselves with all sorts of reactionary vile and filth, and that won't be punished. But the moment they try to take a violent action against the state or try to instigate an uprising against the worker's state and organizations, they will be met with suppressive force. This is the function of the state, defending the worker's state from counter-revolution. Counter-revolutionary speech, press, association, etc. can be allowed to a full extent, but counter-revolutionary practice will not be tolerated.

At a time of real civil war it is inevitable that freedom relative to a time of peace will be diminished, but the proletariat would be active participants in the revolutionary war effort and the war effort would be entirely defensive. Otherwise, political freedom is a vital tenet of revolutionary socialism.

This I can agree with and I even think most liberals (that word is thrown around here as ad hominem so much it's ridiculous, attack an issue on it's own merits not those who support it) wouldn't have an issue with this course of action. Applied in liberal capitalist society obviously.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

This I can agree with and I even think most liberals (that word is thrown around here as ad hominem so much it's ridiculous, attack an issue on it's own merits not those who support it) wouldn't have an issue with this course of action. Applied in liberal capitalist society obviously.

Why would liberals not agree, that's all very liberal; "free speech", "freedom of religion", "freedom of association", "political freedom", all abstract. Before you know it, you have nationalists, fascists, and "free enterprise" all over. If they are not actively fought against, because after all - they have their right to voice their opinions! - they can even work within, without trying to expressively overthrow worker's state, and influence workings. Handing out their magazines on street corners or shops, maybe they'll gain a following if circumstance plays into their hands, that's what free press gets you. Capitalist restoration approaching.

Where is then the line drawn between "counter-revolutionary practice" and the allowed "counter-revolutionary speech and association"? By nature of being counter-revolutionary and organising into associations, they are unavoidably enemies of the worker's state and want to see it overthrown, and by organising, they are beyond the shadow of a doubt engaging in "practice". Why should they not be suppressed? It's to deny reality to hold onto absolutist policies of abstract things like "freedom of speech" or "human rights".

[BellaCiao]

"I think a better way of putting forward this idea is that everyone, even fascists, have freedom of speech. Fascists and the like have the right to say and associate themselves with all sorts of reactionary vile and filth, and that won't be punished. But the moment they try to take a violent action against the state or try to instigate an uprising against the worker's state and organizations, they will be met with suppressive force."

With respect, I find that naive. Violence and counter revolution are not spontaneous but are calculated and executed through stages of recruitment, dispersal of propaganda, organisation etc. The act of violence and counter revolution therefore finds its roots in the 'freedom of speech and association' that you find tolerable. Surely, to protect the state/masses from the menace of reaction then limitations - or downright suppression I would personally support - must be placed upon them.

[Devrim]

Um, no, Krondstadt was led by a pro-White army anti-Semitic "anarchist" (in name only) who was in contact with Wrangel's still active counter-revolutionary army of 40,000

That is pretty slanderous, and absolutely untrue. Would you care to try to provide evidence for any of it?

Devrim

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Um, no, Krondstadt was led by a pro-White army anti-Semitic "anarchist" (in name only) who was in contact with Wrangel's still active counter-revolutionary army of 40,000

Bullshit.


You know I wish we could have comradely discussions without utter nonsense like this popping up. It just makes me suspicious - either you've just been horribly misled, or you are knowingly deceiving people who are supposedly on the same side as you. Are you seriously suggesting that the Kronstat saliors, who had previously been called as the "cream of the revolution" by the Bolsheviks themselves, had turned "pro white" in 2 years, and despite the fact that all their public declarations were criticizing the Bolsheviks from the left?

[NecroCommie]

What we have to understand about Lenin is that he was a political realist, as opposed to the left communists who basically have same policies, but who are political idealists.

If one reads "the state and revolution", one understands that Lenin opposed any form of state, because state implies class society. Lenin clearly states that even a socialist workers state (which he did not see SU to be) would be a compromise between materialist conditions and purely democratic society. While we remember these two points we must remind ourselves that promoting an idealist society does not exclude defending right political moves (which are rarely ideal).

In his article: "On left wing infantilism and wordplays" (does anyone have a correct english translation?) he clearly states that the soviet union was state capitalist, and therefor far from ideal. Still he used that article to defend state capitalism, not as a correct policy, but a lesser evil from foreign invasion (both military and economic). He also stated that due to the backwards nature of russia during that time, capitalism was more or less inevitable in some form in order to industrialize russia.

So as a short story, Lenin's view of freedom and state: Ideal society is stateless and utterly democratic, yet a revolution may happen in such political and economic circumstances as to justify acts of "lesser evil". After all, maximizing worker power was more important than playing a game of "all or nothing".

If you read Lenin enough he critisizes left communists and anarchists, not because of what they want, but because of the circumstances they want it in. He never blames left-communists and anarchists for wanting the wrong things, he accuses them of not understanding the danger the russian workers were in. (Which he saw to be greater than state-capitalism)

[Zanthorus]

Um, no, Krondstadt was led by a pro-White army anti-Semitic "anarchist" (in name only) who was in contact with Wrangel's still active counter-revolutionary army of 40,000 who were depending on the victory of the Krondstadt sailor's revolt to topple the entire revolution and re institute a military dictatorship.

Seriously, where the hell did you get this crap from :confused:

If you're referring to Makhno with the "pro-White army anti-semitic "anarchist"" bit then first of all Makhno fought alongside the Bolsheviks for a good deal of the war and at one point the RIAU was incorporated into the Bolshevik army. Peter Arshinov devotes a whole chapter of his "History of the Makhnovist Movement" to debunking the "anti-semite" slander here (http://www.nestormakhno.info/english/arshinov/10.htm). And Makhno was never anywhere near Kronstadt.

Where the hell this actually came from is beyond me but I advise reading some more objective accounts of history.


What we have to understand about Lenin is that he was a political realist, as opposed to the left communists who basically have same policies, but who are political idealists.

This isn't true at all. The main criticism Gorter threw at Lenin was that he was relying on experiences of communist revolution in Russia and failing to understand the specific material conditions in the west that necessitated left-communist tactics.


"On left wing infantilism and wordplays" (does anyone have a correct english translation?)

I believe you're referring to "Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder".

[Cowboy Killer]

I think oppressing peoples right to free speech or any other civil right is just sign of fear and a lack of confidence.
Example:
McCarthy and the red scare inquisitions-There was much fear against the communist movement because it showed how faulty capitalism was and some people actually joined the movement. So in reaction to that the house of un anmerican activities committee was started and they hunted down and trialed anybody who they thought promoted communism and pretty much ruined their lives, the sad thing was that most people who went through this weren't even communist.

point and case is, we shouldn't be driven by fear because if we are we won't get anything accomplished and we'll end up killing each other. If anything we should be driven by passion and necessity.

[NecroCommie]

This isn't true at all. The main criticism Gorter threw at Lenin was that he was relying on experiences of communist revolution in Russia and failing to understand the specific material conditions in the west that necessitated left-communist tactics.
Gorter is not every left-communist. Whereas I do not claim to have superior knowledge on the subject, it is my understanding that at the time of soviet power (before the actual SU), the biggest critizism at the Bolsheviks was from left-wing communists specifically demanding that there would be no peace with capitalist states (the soviets were at war with Poland), that there should be no independence for nationalist states within soviet territories (which Lenin had promised), and that the power should not be centralized.

It might be that these were not the main issues, but these all were issues the left-communists raised, and all were about idealism vs. realism in political tactics.


I believe you're referring to "Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder".
No, that's a different work of Lenin. The article I am talking about was published in Pravda (issues: 88, 89 and 90, 9th, 10th and 11th of may 1918.)

[Zanthorus]

Gorter is not every left-communist. Whereas I do not claim to have superior knowledge on the subject, it is my understanding that at the time of soviet power (before the actual SU), the biggest critizism at the Bolsheviks was from left-wing communists specifically demanding that there would be no peace with capitalist states (the soviets were at war with Poland), that there should be no independence for nationalist states within soviet territories (which Lenin had promised), and that the power should not be centralized.

I don't know about the other two but I do know that Left-Communists are very much in favour of centralisation. Or at least some of them. You should read into Amadeo Bordiga, he was "more leninist than lenin".


No, that's a different work of Lenin. The article I am talking about was published in Pravda (issues: 88, 89 and 90, 9th, 10th and 11th of may 1918.)

Well then I haven't got a clue, sorry.

[Palingenisis]

That is pretty slanderous, and absolutely untrue. Would you care to try to provide evidence for any of it?

Devrim

Its funny how the Trots who like to go on about the Moscow trials suddenly start sounding like the most hardline Hoxhaite when it comes to the the Kronsdadht rebellion.

[Devrim]

No, that's a different work of Lenin. The article I am talking about was published in Pravda (issues: 88, 89 and 90, 9th, 10th and 11th of may 1918.)

I think that the piece that you are referring to is actually called "Left Wing Childishness and the Petty Bourgeois Mentality".

It can be found here:http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/may/09.htm

Devrim

[Devrim]

Gorter is not every left-communist. Whereas I do not claim to have superior knowledge on the subject, it is my understanding that at the time of soviet power (before the actual SU), the biggest critizism at the Bolsheviks was from left-wing communists specifically demanding that there would be no peace with capitalist states (the soviets were at war with Poland), that there should be no independence for nationalist states within soviet territories (which Lenin had promised), and that the power should not be centralized.

I think you are factually wrong on this. The argument about peace wasn't about Poland. It was about Brest-Litovsk. The Polish war statrted in 1919 about a year later, I don't think that the national question was a big part of the discussions at all, and all left communists argue for centralisation.

Devrim

[KC]

Its funny how the Trots who like to go on about the Moscow trials suddenly start sounding like the most hardline Hoxhaite when it comes to the the Kronsdadht rebellion.It has nothing to do with just "Trots". Trotsky wasn't even involved in Krondstadt.


I have never touched on this question [of Kronstadt - KC]. Not because I had anything to conceal but, on the contrary, precisely because I had nothing to say. The truth of the matter is that I personally did not participate in the least in the suppression of the Kronstadt rebellion, nor in the repressions following the suppression. In my eyes this very fact is of no political significance. I was a member of the government, I considered the quelling of the rebellion necessary and therefore bear responsibility for the suppression. Only within these limits have I replied to criticism up to now. But when moralists begin to annoy me personally, accusing me of exceeding cruelty not called forth by circumstance, I consider that I have a right to say: “Messrs, moralists, you are lying a bit.”
http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/07/kronstadt2.htm

[Devrim]

It has nothing to do with just "Trots". Trotsky wasn't even involved in Krondstadt.
I have never touched on this question [of Kronstadt - KC]. Not because I had anything to conceal but, on the contrary, precisely because I had nothing to say. The truth of the matter is that I personally did not participate in the least in the suppression of the Kronstadt rebellion, nor in the repressions following the suppression. In my eyes this very fact is of no political significance. I was a member of the government, I considered the quelling of the rebellion necessary and therefore bear responsibility for the suppression. Only within these limits have I replied to criticism up to now. But when moralists begin to annoy me personally, accusing me of exceeding cruelty not called forth by circumstance, I consider that I have a right to say: “Messrs, moralists, you are lying a bit.”
http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/07/kronstadt2.htm


Not involved at all, except for issuing the orders for the suppression of the revolt:



The Workers and Peasants Government has decreed that the Kronstadt and the rebellious ships must immediately submit to the authority of the Soviet Republic. Therefore I command all who have raised their hand against the Socialist fatherland to lay down their arms at once. The obdurate are to be disarmed and turned over to the Soviet authorities. The arrested Commissars and other representatives of the Government are to be liberated at once. Only those surrendering unconditionally may count on the mercy of the Soviet Republic.
Simultaneously I am issuing orders to prepare to quell the mutiny and subdue the mutineers by force of arms. Responsibility for the harm that may be suffered by the peaceful population will fall entirely upon the heads of the counter-revolutionary mutineers. This warning is final.
TROTSKY
Chairman Revolutionary Military Soviet of the Republic
KAMENEV
Commander-in-Chief


Devrim

[KC]

Not involved at all, except for issuing the orders for the suppression of the revolt:



Devrim
The rebellion broke out during my stay in the Urals. From the Urals I came directly to Moscow for the 10th Congress of the party. The decision to suppress the rebellion by military force, if the fortress could not be induced to surrender, first by peace negotiations, then through an ultimatum – this general decision was adopted with my direct participation. But after the decision was taken, I continued to remain in Moscow and took no part, direct or indirect, in the military operations. Concerning the subsequent repressions, they were completely the affair of the Cheka.
-ibid.

BTW Devrim, I'm not sure if you're understanding my point, which is not that Trotsky wasn't involved whatsoever in the Kronstadt affair, but rather that he was involved as a member of the government and so to attack Trotsky exclusively is rather silly.

[Zanthorus]

Brilliant. We'll take exactly what Trotsky said about his role in an event potentially damaging to his reputation as exactly what happened :rolleyes:

[Devrim]

The rebellion broke out during my stay in the Urals. From the Urals I came directly to Moscow for the 10th Congress of the party. The decision to suppress the rebellion by military force, if the fortress could not be induced to surrender, first by peace negotiations, then through an ultimatum – this general decision was adopted with my direct participation. But after the decision was taken, I continued to remain in Moscow and took no part, direct or indirect, in the military operations. Concerning the subsequent repressions, they were completely the affair of the Cheka.
-ibid.



So what you are saying is that he directly participated in the decision to suppress the uprising, then sent the orders ordering its suppression, and then let the military do its work.

Trotsky said:


I personally did not participate in the least in the suppression of the Kronstadt rebellion, nor in the repressions following the suppression.

Well know, I don't think anybody has ever said he personally picked up a gun and went and fought. He was certainly 'involved' though.

Trotsky at least is honest about his involvement:


In my eyes this very fact is of no political significance. I was a member of the government, I considered the quelling of the rebellion necessary and therefore bear responsibility for the suppression.

Devrim

[KC]

Brilliant. We'll take exactly what Trotsky said about his role in an event potentially damaging to his reputation as exactly what happened :rolleyes:

Ah, the classic RevLeft post where, when one does not know enough about a subject to participate but is too dogmatic/braindead to seriously consider what another has said, one just makes a completely empty comment about the legitimacy of what the other has posted and tops it off with a rolling-eyes smiley.

Maybe eventually you'll be interested in actually participating in a discussion instead of making silly remarks and attempting to sound like you know more than you actually do.


So what you are saying is that he directly participated in the decision to suppress the uprising, then sent the orders ordering its suppression, and then let the military do its work.

Yes, this is exactly what I am saying, which I covered in my above edit:



BTW Devrim, I'm not sure if you're understanding my point, which is not that Trotsky wasn't involved whatsoever in the Kronstadt affair, but rather that he was involved as a member of the government and so to attack Trotsky exclusively is rather silly.

[Devrim]

BTW Devrim, I'm not sure if you're understanding my point, which is not that Trotsky wasn't involved whatsoever in the Kronstadt affair, but rather that he was involved as a member of the government and so to attack Trotsky exclusively is rather silly.

Edit came after I posted: He did actually sign the orders for the suppression.

I don't think that anyone is 'attacking Trotsky exclusively'.

Devrim

[Palingenisis]

BTW Devrim, I'm not sure if you're understanding my point, which is not that Trotsky wasn't involved whatsoever in the Kronstadt affair, but rather that he was involved as a member of the government and so to attack Trotsky exclusively is rather silly.
I think you misunderstood my point...Which wasnt that Trotsky was exclusively responsible for the Kronsdadht tragedy just that his present day followers who are so quick to dismiss the findings of the Soviet justice system during the Moscow trials come out with the worst type of "Stalinist" white washing and slander when ever the issue of the Kronsdadht revolt comes up.

[Zanthorus]

Ah, the classic RevLeft post where, when one does not know enough about a subject to participate but is too dogmatic/braindead to seriously consider what another has said, one just makes a completely empty comment about the legitimacy of what the other has posted and tops it off with a rolling-eyes smiley.

Maybe eventually you'll be interested in actually participating in a discussion instead of making silly remarks and attempting to sound like you know more than you actually do.

I don't claim to know all that much about Trotsky's role in the Kronstadt uprising. What I was trying to get across is that you can't use someone's own account of their actions exclusively as evidence. Both your posts so far have just quoted Trotsky as if Trotsky would never lie to cover up his own failings.

[Palingenisis]

I don't claim to know all that much about Trotsky's role in the Kronstadt uprising. What I was trying to get across is that you can't use someone's own account of their actions exclusively as evidence. Both your posts so far have just quoted Trotsky as if Trotsky would never lie to cover up his own failings.

My point was though I have never met a Trot or come across a Trot organization that doesnt defend outright the suppression of the kronsdadht rebellion and also I have only ever come across one Trot who didnt label the rebels agents of Imperialism, fascists, etc which doesnt seem to have been the case at all sadly.

[KC]

I don't claim to know all that much about Trotsky's role in the Kronstadt uprising. What I was trying to get across is that you can't use someone's own account of their actions exclusively as evidence. Both your posts so far have just quoted Trotsky as if Trotsky would never lie to cover up his own failings.

You can if they are supported by the historical record. Nobody here is doubting the legitimacy of what Trotsky wrote with regards to his role in Kronstadt but you. Hell, if you even went to the article, as Devrim did, you would clearly see that he doesn't attempt to "hide" from it and in fact fully supports and defends his actions with regard to the Kronstadt affair.

This is why your statement questioning the legitimacy of Trotsky's account on the grounds that he would "lie to cover up his own failings" is ridiculous; from Trotsky's perspective, there were no failings.

[Zanthorus]

Ok, fair enough.

[NecroCommie]

I think that the piece that you are referring to is actually called "Left Wing Childishness and the Petty Bourgeois Mentality".

It can be found here:http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/may/09.htm

Devrim
That's exactly the one! Thanks!
... playing with three different languages and translations... :rolleyes:

[blackwave]

Because Free Speech doesnt exist in some vacum seperated from the rest of life, ideas have consequences and the results of fascists sucecessfully spreading their propaganda have historically being not exactly nice. This artificial division between thought and action on which liberal notions of absolute free speech rest as opposed to seeing the world more wholistically is typical of the bourgieouse.

I can't help but think this is a covert way of saying 'people are gullible, don't let them hear certain ideas'. If you think that, why not just say so.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I can't help but think this is a covert way of saying 'people are gullible, don't let them hear certain ideas'. If you think that, why not just say so.

Because that's obviously an absurd simplification of the issue.

[blackwave]

Because that's obviously an absurd simplification of the issue.

In what way? If we are talking of the historical impact of certain ideologies, then surely communism has caused more damage than fascism?! Why not seek to revoke the free speech of communists?

And don't talk to me like a piece of shit just because I don't understand your rationale.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

If we are talking of the historical impact of certain ideologies, then surely communism has caused more damage than fascism?

That statement is hardly worth commenting upon.

What I meant was obviously that by posing it as simply being a question of whether people are gullible or not is an absurd simplification. While overall people in general can surely be said to be gullible, this isn't some fact detached from the cultural and social context of which it undeniably forms a part; and there are times, particularly times of struggle and difficulty, where people will be more open, more gullible, because they want to fall for simple solutions, or other contexts, some of which we might not from this point in time and space be able to foresee, which fascism and nazism and whatever other counter-revolutionary thought can use to gain an advantage.

If one fancies that the future is bright and clear once one sets off on the path to socialism and communism and the great utopia will soon rear its head on the horizon, just a few kilometres down the golden motorway of glory is an oasis of tolerance and peace where all come together in harmony and acceptance, one is clearly rather naïve. There will be opposition, there will be attempts to thwart this change by all manner of opportunists and reactionaries, thinking otherwise is simply delusion. You cannot educate, enlighten and inform, reform and change society over night. The revolution is only the first step on this arduous journey.

If you handle the fascists and the nazis and the free-marketers like some liberal would, they will be back, again and again.

[syndicat]

Um, no, Krondstadt was led by a pro-White army anti-Semitic "anarchist" (in name only) who was in contact with Wrangel's still active counter-revolutionary army of 40,000 who were depending on the victory of the Krondstadt sailor's revolt to topple the entire revolution and re institute a military dictatorship. The official war may have been over, but the threat was still there in full. I feel no qualms about Krondstadt it was necessary to preserve whatever order there was in the revolutionary government from total reaction and a White Army victory.

this is a lie. the leading figure in the Kronstadt strike in 1921 was Lamonov, who was a maximalist (libertarian socialist) who had been president of the Kronsdadt soviet in 1917. the claim they were in contact with the whites has been refuted. read Israel Getzler's definitive history of the Kronstadt soviet, "Kronstadt 1917-21". the claim they were in cohoots with the whites is based on an offer of aid sent by Victor Chernov, former SR leader who was in exile. but Chernov made advocacy of the constituent assembly a condition of aid. this was rejected by the rebels who were advocating a return to genuine soviet democracy, which they had advocated during the 1917 revolution.

I would not put too much heed in what Lenin said in 1917, before gaining power. Lenin also had a belief that too much concern about the niceties of principles was "sentimentality." In other words, he had a view that can be described as a belief in "the ends justifies the means." Lenin was basically a Jacobin for whom the primary condition of socialism being achieved was the vanguard party keeping its hand on state power.

[the last donut of the night]

Okay then, explain to me why one should deny freedom of speech to a fascist.

The liberal notion that asserts that everybody is allowed the same opportunities of free speech in a revolutionary period completely forgets class power and hegemony. It rests on the assumption that the working class and its allies are on the same plane or even more powerful than the bourgeoisie. We know that it's much more complicated than that. For example, denying fascists rights, period, is very necessary because we must strangle any control the bourgeoisie still has in society. I have no problem restricting any anti-socialist speech. One thing is to criticize the socialist regime for errors, abuses, or mismanagement. Another thing is to criticize socialists and socialism in general while secretly aiding counterrevolutionary activities. The whole argument made by capitalists that the USSR and others denied free speech willingly forgets that these restrictions were made on conservative and disgusting counterrevolutionaries.

[syndicat]

The whole argument made by capitalists that the USSR and others denied free speech willingly forgets that these restrictions were made on conservative and disgusting counterrevolutionaries.

this is the sort of lie one expects from stalinists. among the organizations who had their ability to organize and publish their views restricted after Nov 1917 were the Left-Mensheviks, syndicalists, and the Union of SR-Maximalists. The latter two groups were libertarian socialists. All three of these groups throughout 1918-20 opposed any sort of armed rebellion against the Communist regime, advocated within the workplaces, unions and soviets, and in public meetings, for authentic soviet democracy, and, in the case of the maximalists and syndicalists, for direct workers self-management of production. these groups were ultimately outlawed and their activists arrested.

freedom to discuss, consider and organize for a viewpoint is a necessary condition of working class power. workers cannot run the society if they do not have the freedom to participate in and make decisions, and debate and discuss among themselves what direction to go in. if one particular faction, in a top-down way, simply arrogates power to itself and disallows the mass worker democracy to debate and discuss its various internal viewpoints, there can be no working class rule.

moreover, in the course of building an alliance of labor and social movements to get rid of the exploitative capitalist regime, it is essential that there be open discussion among the various groups and movements who make up the oppressed and exploited. This is necessary in order for the class to develop a broad perspective that shows it is prepared, has a perspective, for running the whole society. this is what Gramsci calls "hegemony" -- the ability of a contender for power being able to project an alternative view of the running of society, in a way that shows it is not one narrow group that it intends to benefit. this is not likely without developing a practice of democratic discussion.

[MarxSchmarx]

this is the sort of lie one expects from stalinists. among the organizations who had their ability to organize and publish their views restricted after Nov 1917 were the Left-Mensheviks, syndicalists, and the Union of SR-Maximalists. The latter two groups were libertarian socialists. All three of these groups throughout 1918-20 opposed any sort of armed rebellion against the Communist regime, advocated within the workplaces, unions and soviets, and in public meetings, for authentic soviet democracy, and, in the case of the maximalists and syndicalists, for direct workers self-management of production. these groups were ultimately outlawed and their activists arrested.

freedom to discuss, consider and organize for a viewpoint is a necessary condition of working class power. workers cannot run the society if they do not have the freedom to participate in and make decisions, and debate and discuss among themselves what direction to go in. if one particular faction, in a top-down way, simply arrogates power to itself and disallows the mass worker democracy to debate and discuss its various internal viewpoints, there can be no working class rule.

moreover, in the course of building an alliance of labor and social movements to get rid of the exploitative capitalist regime, it is essential that there be open discussion among the various groups and movements who make up the oppressed and exploited. This is necessary in order for the class to develop a broad perspective that shows it is prepared, has a perspective, for running the whole society. this is what Gramsci calls "hegemony" -- the ability of a contender for power being able to project an alternative view of the running of society, in a way that shows it is not one narrow group that it intends to benefit. this is not likely without developing a practice of democratic discussion.

I guess that is all well and good, but how do you deal in this framework with objectively reactionary speech, not only regurgitating talking points about the supposed virtues of capitalism but also the glories of the white man and suchwhat?

Unfortunately, it strikes me that this really is a stark all or nothing thing that people like YHLO are making it out to be. Indeed, whether or not the Bolsheviks historically expanded their censorship to include the lefitst groups you mention is interesting not because they were imperfect executioners of an otherwise sound policy of restricting speech, but ultimately because any attempts to reign in the freedom of expression have dire counter-revolutionary consequences at best and at worst bely our claims to see workers as agents of the new order. I therefore contend that tolerating such counter-revolutionary nonsense the sort of which is claimed by yhlo that lenin specifically targeted, on a society wide level, is the price paid in the interest of maintaining an open dialog among workers.

I just don't think that the parameters of what constitutes constructive, working class discourse can be as neatly delimited as is suggested. Lenin and the Bolsheviks appeared to have tried this upon taking power, with at best mixed and arguably disastrous and counter productive results. The fact of the matter is that in issues of speech there are ambiguities that humans, even through large democratic assemblages, can't reliably solve. Speech as such has only as much impact as it will on the people it is being communicated to. I don't want to get into a side debate, but ultimately individuals can refuse to listen, a restricting speech in a very real sense impinges on their right to be educated or at least hear out the opposing view. Restricting speech betrays either our lack of faith in the mass of men (and women) to be fair and come to the correct conclusions about the justness of our cause, or our own ability to indeed make a compelling case, or both.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Re. free speech and mass media, "the undemocratic part of Lenin's legacy comes in large part from European Social Democracy, while the Russian context contributed to the democratic part." (Lars Lih)

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Could this thread not die until A.Amstad responds to being called out on his accusations about the workers who died at Kronstadt. if nothing else, its insulting to their memory to be called anti semtic and in league with the whites.

And more importantly, accusations with no factual backing against different left factions like this seem to pop up all the time, from Stalinist trials to the eternal SWP split rumours and its got to stop, damnit! :p