Freedom of Criticism Under Communism

[PeacefulRevolution]

I've recently begun reading the works of Lenin, specifically "What is to be Done." In it, he explains why he believes "freedom of criticism" cannot exist if communism is expected to survive. I strongly disagree with him on this point. Although I believe in communism, I think that freedom of speech is one of the most important rights. I wish to know if it is compatible with the system of communism, and why or why not.

[ContrarianLemming]

It's alright, you're allowed disagree, as many of us do

edit: freedom of speech is not only possible in communism, it's necessary.

[A.R.Amistad]

I've recently begun reading the works of Lenin, specifically "What is to be Done." In it, he explains why he believes "freedom of criticism" cannot exist if communism is expected to survive. I strongly disagree with him on this point. Although I believe in communism, I think that freedom of speech is one of the most important rights. I wish to know if it is compatible with the system of communism, and why or why not.

First of all, this was from WITBD. I am a supporter of the vanguard party theory, but even Lenin changed many, if not most, of his views in WITBD after 1905 and later after 1914. I think people read way too much into WITBD and I'd refer you to Lar's Lih's book "Lenin Rediscovered: WITBD in context." Also, the passage of which you are refferring to has nothing to do with "freedom of criticism" under communism, he means within the party itself. Any party has restrictions on "freedom of criticism." If any idea would fly, then parties would be useless since they couldn't have any solid political foundation to stand on. I think when he refers to "freedom of criticism" he is talking about blatant reactionary elements within the party (remember, this was written in the time of the Second International, of whom some members would later be founding members of European fascist movements. Not all 'socialists' in the SI were progressive or revolutionary, and many were just flat out reactionary. Basically, i think the passage can be reduced to that a revolutionary party needs a solid foundation to work, and can't just be an undisciplined hodge-podge of revolutionary, reformist and reactionary ideas all in one party.

But the main point is that this passage, and even the entire pamphlet, has little to do with communism or socialism. I'd suggest you read State and Revolution, Lenin's magnum opus and by far his best (at least one of his best) works, and it deals entirely with the state and the transition to communism, and is much more applicable.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I've recently begun reading the works of Lenin, specifically "What is to be Done." In it, he explains why he believes "freedom of criticism" cannot exist if communism is expected to survive. I strongly disagree with him on this point. Although I believe in communism, I think that freedom of speech is one of the most important rights. I wish to know if it is compatible with the system of communism, and why or why not.It's been a while since I read it, but wasn't he arguing that "freedom of criticism" was just being used cynically by reformists wanting to criticize some essential parts of Marxist theory that Lenin believed was in order for the "economist" faction to justify moving the party away from a revolutionary goal and towards a reform-goal.

Maybe you can quote the section you are talking about because I haven't read this book in a long time.

Lenin also describes democratic-centralism as: "freedom of criticism, unity of action" so I don't think he is against criticism or debate. And also it is important to separate what Lenin talks about in regards to the party than society post-revolution (obviously any party is automatically much more restrictive and self-selecting organization than a country as a whole). For his views on post-revolution society, you should read "State and Revolution".

Personally I do not think freedom of speech in the abstract exists, but that democratic debate and speech are very important things that the working class would want to defend for itself. Now, the question is, what happens if someone is openly trying to recruit for an armed counter-revolution against the working class - then I think workers have every right to shut down that kind of speech in the short-term because they would basically be defending themselves and protecting the free-speech and other freedoms they won through the Revolution.

[Jazzhands]

I've recently begun reading the works of Lenin, specifically "What is to be Done." In it, he explains why he believes "freedom of criticism" cannot exist if communism is expected to survive. I strongly disagree with him on this point. Although I believe in communism, I think that freedom of speech is one of the most important rights. I wish to know if it is compatible with the system of communism, and why or why not.

I suggest you read Rosa Luxemburg's The Russian Revolution.

Freedom from the bourgeoisie must mean absolute freedom. If there is more freedom for the proponent than an opponent, the proponents become the new oppressors and the opponents become oppressed. The unfree state of bourgeois society comes as a result of them having more freedom as a result of their wealth. In this sense, all freedom becomes privilege and becomes meaningless under capitalism. This is a reason why capitalism is an inevitably exploitative system. To liberate the worker through socialism must mean abolishing all the things that make capitalism exploitative, including this privilege. When freedom becomes a privilege it is gone, no matter how the privilege is attained.

I haven't read Lenin in a long time, so I may be taking it out of context.

[A.R.Amistad]

I suggest you read Rosa Luxemburg's The Russian Revolution.

Freedom from the bourgeoisie must mean absolute freedom. If there is more freedom for the proponent than an opponent, the proponents become the new oppressors and the opponents become oppressed. The unfree state of bourgeois society comes as a result of them having more freedom as a result of their wealth. In this sense, all freedom becomes privilege and becomes meaningless under capitalism. This is a reason why capitalism is an inevitably exploitative system. To liberate the worker through socialism must mean abolishing all the things that make capitalism exploitative, including this privilege.

which is also what State and Revolution posits as well. The problem with the OP is that it is taking a passage in WITBD way out of context.

[PeacefulRevolution]

In the section "Dogmatism and 'Freedom of Criticism'" Lenin writes,

"And if we judge people, not by the glittering uniforms they don or by the highsounding appellations they give themselves, but by their actions and by what they actually advocate, it will be clear that “freedom of criticism” means’ freedom for an opportunist trend in Social-Democracy, freedom to convert Social-Democracy into a democratic party of reform, freedom to introduce bourgeois ideas and bourgeois elements into socialism. “Freedom” is a grand word, but under the banner of freedom for industry the most predatory wars were waged, under the banner of freedom of labour, the working people were robbed. The modern use of the term “freedom of criticism” contains the same inherent falsehood. Those who are really convinced that they have made progress in science would not demand freedom for the new views to continue side by side with the old, but the substitution of the new views for the old. The cry heard today, “Long live freedom of criticism”, is too strongly reminiscent of the fable of the empty barrel."


I'm probably misinterpreting him, and I guess I just haven't learned enough about Russia under Lenin. Anytime I bring him up around a capitalist, they talk about the "Red Terror," and from what they say about it, I can't say that I would have supported it. I believe that even capitalists should be allowed to speak their minds (as long as they aren't calling for armed revolution, of course).


This has all been very helpful, by the way.

[Uppercut]

The concept of recallable delegates encompasses the freedom to criticize.

[A.R.Amistad]

In the section "Dogmatism and 'Freedom of Criticism'" Lenin writes,

"And if we judge people, not by the glittering uniforms they don or by the highsounding appellations they give themselves, but by their actions and by what they actually advocate, it will be clear that “freedom of criticism” means’ freedom for an opportunist trend in Social-Democracy, freedom to convert Social-Democracy into a democratic party of reform, freedom to introduce bourgeois ideas and bourgeois elements into socialism. “Freedom” is a grand word, but under the banner of freedom for industry the most predatory wars were waged, under the banner of freedom of labour, the working people were robbed. The modern use of the term “freedom of criticism” contains the same inherent falsehood. Those who are really convinced that they have made progress in science would not demand freedom for the new views to continue side by side with the old, but the substitution of the new views for the old. The cry heard today, “Long live freedom of criticism”, is too strongly reminiscent of the fable of the empty barrel."


I'm probably misinterpreting him, and I guess I just haven't learned enough about Russia under Lenin. Anytime I bring him up around a capitalist, they talk about the "Red Terror," and from what they say about it, I can't say that I would have supported it. I believe that even capitalists should be allowed to speak their minds (as long as they aren't calling for armed revolution, of course).


This has all been very helpful, by the way.

1. The quote from Lenin that you posted should answer your question. In no way is Lenin talking about freedom of criticism in the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, let alone communism. Its about inner party discipline, and the pamphlet isn't attacking all criticisms, just opportunist or reactionary actions by members of a socialist party to completely derail the program. Remember, this was at a time when there were some socialists who were revolutionaries, some who were philanthropic businessmen or smaller businessmen against monopoly capitalism, future and proto-fascists, liberal reformists, economic determinists (economism) etc, all of whom were trying to get the political basis of the party on their own terms. For some "freedom of criticism" meant the "freedom" of turning the party into a liberal party rooted in small business. I'm not sure if this was the direct problem in the Russian party, but I know that this was a real phenomenon in the US Socialist Party. It should also be noted that when the Bolshevik party was founded, Lenin was more than often in the minority of the party on key issues, right up to the October Revolution itself, when everyone in the Bolshevik majority, from Trotsky, to Stalin and Zinoviev wanted to supress the April Theses because they thought Lenin had been "in exile too long." Luckily Lenin was able to sway the majority of the party to support the socialist revolution in the end, as we all know. So Lenin himself, as well as others, certainly had to use freedom of criticism within the Bolshevik Party to get anything accomplished.

2. As for the "Red Terror" thing, pretty much every historian, revolutionary, reactionary or centrist, has recognized that the White Terror was far worse and more devastating than the Red Terror, which occured in response to the White Terror. Also, the word "terror," like "dictatorship" as in "dictatorship of the proletariet" means something different in Marxist terms then in everyday usage as we know it. The State is an organ of terror. Terror doesn't only have to be torture, bombings, executions, battles. Terror can be in the form of certain laws aimed at keeping a class in its place, terror can be discrimination or legal restrictions, terror can even be economic. Terror is just a tool to keep one class subjegated to the state, which is in the hands of the ruling class. In a worker's state, the state will inevitably use "terror" against the bourgeoisie. This doesn't have to be torture or war crimes, and it might not even be capital punishment (the RSFSR banned capital punishment except during the Civil War) but it will use forms of State, economic and legal terror to keep the opposing class (the capitalist class) from gaining power in the state.

[Jazzhands]

:confused: exactly what forms of state, economic, and legal terror would be used besides the stuff you've excluded? discrimination against the bourgeoisie? wouldn't it be enough to simply expropriate him and have him not be bourgeois anymore? isn't that the point of the revolution? what would we be fighting after a revolution when the bourgeoisie's property has been eliminated and thus the bourgeoisie? what would we be guarding against? It's not as if the bourgeoisie is some kind of genetic defect that you can't get rid of. Class comes from ownership and control of capital, economic and social standing. it's not a permanent thing because capital is independent of people. One of the first steps of the revolution should be to expropriate the bourgeoisie. After that, it seems like the threat is gone on that front, is it not?

[A.R.Amistad]

:confused: exactly what forms of state, economic, and legal terror would be used besides the stuff you've excluded? discrimination against the bourgeoisie? wouldn't it be enough to simply expropriate him and have him not be bourgeois anymore? isn't that the point of the revolution? what would we be fighting after a revolution when the bourgeoisie's property has been eliminated and thus the bourgeoisie? what would we be guarding against? It's not as if the bourgeoisie is some kind of genetic defect that you can't get rid of. Class comes from ownership and control of capital, economic and social standing. it's not a permanent thing because capital is independent of people. One of the first steps of the revolution should be to expropriate the bourgeoisie. After that, it seems like the threat is gone on that front, is it not?

expropriation is arguably a form of terror. Also, the bourgeoisie are not going to just lay down and be "expropriated." As Trotsky said, we're going to have to "step on a good many toes and turn over a few apple carts" in order to win.

[Jazzhands]

expropriation is arguably a form of terror. Also, the bourgeoisie are not going to just lay down and be "expropriated." As Trotsky said, we're going to have to "step on a good many toes and turn over a few apple carts" in order to win.

obviously, when you break the law there is punishment. That falls under the category of crime and punishment, the way you would punish a murderer or a thief. This is not terror. Fair and justified criminal punishment for people who resist expropriation is not terror because it's crime and punishment. Now, shooting someone because they whine about their golden toilet being melted down is terror because it's completely excessive. But since nobody here supports that, that shouldn't really be an issue.

[A.R.Amistad]

obviously, when you break the law there is punishment. That falls under the category of crime and punishment, the way you would punish a murderer or a thief. This is not terror. Fair and justified criminal punishment for people who resist expropriation is not terror because it's crime and punishment. Now, shooting someone because they whine about their golden toilet being melted down is terror because it's completely excessive. But since nobody here supports that, that shouldn't really be an issue.

Here's how Marxists define "terror":

Terrorism
An aspect of psychological warfare whose aim is to instill fear and intimidation among both civilians and the military/police through the use of limited but concentrated violence. The basis of terrorist actions are a lack of popular support and the need to subjugate the popular will through destructive acts of violence causing widespread fear and terror.


Terrorism has historically been practiced by any class as a weapon in the class struggle. It is typically a reactionary (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/r/e.htm#reactionary) use of force. While terrorism is commonly conducted by individuals or small groups, historical examples of terrorism can also be found in the Spanish Inquisition, and more recently in organizations like the U.S. Ku Klux Klan, and during the latter half of the 19th century terrorism was used by anarchist (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/a/n.htm#anarchism) organizations claiming "propaganda of the deed".


Terrorism is a weapon that has been used by nearly all governments at various times against their opposing classes. Some of the best known examples of this in the 20th-century were Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union under Stalin, the United States during the McCarthy trials, etc. After this, imperialism predominantly exported terrorism to the underdeveloped nation's – U.S. tactics from Guatemala to Iraq, etc.
Terrorism is not necessarily violence against civilians, but if not it is then certainly meant to create psychological terror against civilians through violence against the government, police, military, structures, etc. Some terrorists target the government or the police, just as a guerilla would, but without *local* popular support. As an example, put a Black Panther in a white suburban community who acts exactly as he would in a minority community, and he would be a terrorist (The Black Panthers never did this, and they were not terrorists). The narodiniki (http://marxists.org/glossary/orgs/n/a.htm#narodniks) were assasins, and believed that attacks on the government would show the masses that the government was bad; they were terrorists because the people loved the czar, and were terrified that something could happen to him. Castro was not a terrorist in his Moncada attack; there was not obvious support for a revolution in that there were no open revolutionary groups nor movements, but his attack expressed the will of the people -- he became an instant hero among Cuba's peasants. The issue of popular local support is thus fundamental to understanding the terrorist. Terrorist ideals may be popular in Afghanistan, for example, but when exported to the US, they are not popular, and when violence is employed, they become terror. A palestinian among his brother and sister civilians who defends herself against an invading Israeli solider is a guerilla (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/g/u.htm#guerrilla-warfare), not a terrorist; while those who go into land occupied by Isreali's and carry out attacks against soldiers and/or civilians are terrorists, different only from an invading army as a result of a lack resources; e.g. having a conventional military.


"In our eyes, individual terror is inadmissible precisely because it belittles the role of the masses in their own consciousness, reconciles them to their powerlessness, and turns their eyes and hopes towards a great avenger and liberator who some day will come and accomplish his mission. The anarchist prophets of the 'propaganda of the deed' can argue all they want about the elevating and stimulating influence of terrorist acts on the masses. Theoretical considerations and political experience prove otherwise. The more 'effective' the terrorist acts, the greater their impact, the more they reduce the interest of the masses in self-organisation and self-education. But the smoke from the confusion clears away, the panic disappears, the successor of the murdered minister makes his appearance, life again settles into the old rut, the wheel of capitalist exploitation turns as before; only the police repression grows more savage and brazen. And as a result, in place of the kindled hopes and artificially aroused excitement comes disillusionment and apathy."
Leon Trotsky
Why Marxists oppose Individual Terrorism (http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1909/xx/tia09.htm)


Governmental Use: In practice, governments have defined terrorism in many different ways to defend themselves with whatever means they deam necessary. After September 11, 2001, the U.S. government created a new definition for domestic terrorism.
Groups or individuals operating entirely inside the US, attempting to influence the US government or population to effect political or social change by engaging in criminal activity.
FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force Pamphlet
October, 2002
Needless to say, this means everyone from Civil Rights (http://marxists.org/glossary/events/c/i.htm#civil-rights) activists to environmentalists, to anyone who engages in unlawful activity with the intent to influence others to think differently. This definition has little bearing on the history nor meaning of the practice of terrorism.


So, why can't a government arresting a criminal and throwing them in jail be considered terror. The use of "consequences" is a form of terror, terrorizing people into following a certain law. Laws become really useless (in a State society, that is) without some form of terror, whether in the form of capital punishment, lay-offs and strike breakers, jail time, etc. Not all terror is necessarily a bad thing, although it should be noted (as the glossary here says correctly) that terror is more than often the reactionary use of terror by the ruling class against the exploited class, but terror can go both ways. it is also important to distinguish individual terrorism from terrorism executed by a mass movement (such as the "Red Terror," which was supported by the toiling masses against counterrevolution). If one were to just define terror as :


Now, shooting someone because they whine about their golden toilet being melted down is terror because it's completely excessive.

Excessive to what? Excessive terror, yes, I agree. But then there must be a more "moderate" terror. No one is advocating excessive behvior or vigilante retribution style violence, but the use of violence, physical, psychological, social or economic, is terror nonetheless and is used by the State (either bourgeois or proletarian) on pretty much a daily basis so long as the class struggle exists.

[MarxSchmarx]

Why does it matter what Lenin thought about "freedom of criticism", not least as an exile eking out an existence whilst exiled in Switzerland from Czarist Russia over 100 years ago?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Why does it matter what Lenin thought about "freedom of criticism", not least as an exile eking out an existence whilst exiled in Switzerland from Czarist Russia over 100 years ago?The comrade was reading "What is to be Done" and wanted to know what the author meant, I don't see how that's an irrelevant question. Particularly not an irrelevant question since this particular pamphlet is always used by the right to "prove" that Bolsheviks in particular and radicals in general are sneaky, undemocratic, and so on.

[BLACKPLATES]

Isnt time locked in 1905. Marxist thought has evolved over time and with the benfit of experience. I am certainly no one to criticise Lenin, and am not saying what he said was wrong, im saying i dont think a communist society needs to fear or actively suppress ANY criticism. Words certainly havent toppled down American Imperialism.

[MarxSchmarx]

Why does it matter what Lenin thought about "freedom of criticism", not least as an exile eking out an existence whilst exiled in Switzerland from Czarist Russia over 100 years ago?
The comrade was reading "What is to be Done" and wanted to know what the author meant, I don't see how that's an irrelevant question. Particularly not an irrelevant question since this particular pamphlet is always used by the right to "prove" that Bolsheviks in particular and radicals in general are sneaky, undemocratic, and so on.

I agree, but it always strikes me as odd how worked up people can get over the likes of Peaceful Revolution's rather innocuous question.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I hear where you are coming from.

[A.R.Amistad]

Isnt time locked in 1905. Marxist thought has evolved over time and with the benfit of experience. I am certainly no one to criticise Lenin, and am not saying what he said was wrong, im saying i dont think a communist society needs to fear or actively suppress ANY criticism. Words certainly havent toppled down American Imperialism.

again, its a big misunderstanding of a pamphlet. Lenin wasn't saying anything about supressing freedom of criticism under communism. This pamphlet deals with inner party policy and discipline, and there are much more (and better) writings on the party by Lenin, particularly his response to Luxemburg's accusations.

[chegitz guevara]

It's been a while since I read it, but wasn't he arguing that "freedom of criticism" was just being used cynically by reformists wanting to criticize some essential parts of Marxist theory that Lenin believed was in order for the "economist" faction to justify moving the party away from a revolutionary goal and towards a reform-goal.

What JH wrote here is key.

With Lenin, what is absolutely critical to keep in mind always is that he is not writing universal "truths," but dealing with immediate problems. You cannot understand Lenin without understand the context and purpose of his writing.

In this case, people calling themselves social democrats (btw, at this time, the whole movement was called social democracy) had begun, five years previously, to openly oppose political action, and had declared that revolutionaries were opportunistically using the workers movement in order to make a political revolution, when all the workers were interested in were bread and butter issues. In Germany, this tendency was articulated by Bernstein, and fought by Luxemburg. In Russia, it was the self-declared 'economists', and the Emancipation of Labor group, i.e., Plekhanov, Lenin, Martov, etc., carried on a vigorous debate against them.

In response to this criticism, the economists claimed their freedom of criticism was being attacked. In truth, they wanted the freedom to criticize social democracy, but wanted to deny others the freedom to criticize them, a point which Lenin makes. Invariable, those who call for freedom of criticism actually mean freedom from criticism for their own positions.

Furthermore, this was at a time of rising worker militancy, with very bloody, violent strikes on the part of the Russian workers against the Tsarist regime. At the very moment when the workers movement was, in fact, rushing out beyond the ability of social democracy to keep up, the economists were arguing that social democracy should abandon politics and simply content itself with trade unionist type politics. To the Emancipation of Labor group, this was a deadly attack by liberalism against Marxism, and the tendency needed to be defeated, lest it inhibit the ability of social democracy to provide effective political leadership.

[gorillafuck]

:confused: exactly what forms of state, economic, and legal terror would be used besides the stuff you've excluded? discrimination against the bourgeoisie? wouldn't it be enough to simply expropriate him and have him not be bourgeois anymore?
The former bourgeoisie need to be excluded from democratic processes. It would be stupid to let the former bourgeoisie who just had their property expropriated be in a workers council.

[Thirsty Crow]

The former bourgeoisie need to be excluded from democratic processes. It would be stupid to let the former bourgeoisie who just had their property expropriated be in a workers council.
So, the sole option would be to imprison them, on the assumption that they will probably refuse to work?