Lenin: "Free speech is a bourgeois prejudice."

[Fietsketting]

"Freedom is a bourgeois prejudice. We repudiate all morality which proceeds from supernatural ideas or ideas which are outside the class conception. In our opinion, morality is entirely subordinate to the interests of the class war. Everything is moral which is necessary for the annihilation of the old exploiting order and for the uniting the proletariat. Our morality consists solely in close discipline and conscious warfare against the exploiters." Vladimir Ilylich LeninI would like to hear the opinion on this quote from his letter to Emma Goldman from the good people of Revleft, before i state my own view on this. :blushing:

[Luisrah]

Here comes something out of context trying to point out that it was all a conspiracy. In the end, me and my comrades just want to rule the world unopposed.

Frankly, this looks like something out of the mouth of a liberal or a tea bagger or whatever they're called.

[Obs]

I'm pretty much okay with that quote. What's wrong with it?

[Fietsketting]

Here comes something out of context trying to point out that it was all a conspiracy. In the end, me and my comrades just want to rule the world unopposed.

But if you agree on this stand and think freedom of speech or freedom as a whole is merely a 'bourgeois prejudice' then political rights and liberties have no value at all for the workers. Right?

But then all the struggle sof the past, all the revolts and revolutions to wich we owe those rights, are allso without value.




Frankly, this looks like something out of the mouth of a liberal or a tea bagger or whatever they're called.

This makes you look more stupid then a Stalinist.

[Hit The North]

The quote expresses the clarity of Lenin's political thinking. As revolutionaries our clear goal is the overthrow of capitalist exploitation and we need to be clear that this system of exploitation hides behind ideas of abstract universalism like "freedom" and "democracy" which are of no use for the working class. There can be no "freedom" where the majority of the population are in economic slavery. There can be no "democracy" whilst the direct producers are alienated from control over the means of production. Without socialism all the humanistic ideals of bourgeois civilization remain an illusion for the working masses.


Originally posted by Fietsketting
But if you agree on this stand and think freedom of speech or freedom as a whole is merely a 'bourgeois prejudice' then political rights and liberties have no value at all for the workers. Right?They're not of value in themselves (for the reasons given above); they're of value to the class struggle, as Lenin would no doubt agree. Moreover, workers continually have to fight for their real rights (as opposed to their formal rights as granted by the bourgeois state), so this also advances the class struggle.

[Zanthorus]

I don't think you should even be on this site if you disagree with that quote.


But if you agree on this stand and think freedom of speech or freedom as a whole is merely a 'bourgeois prejudice' then political rights and liberties have no value at all for the workers. Right?

That's not what the quote says though. It says that upholding "freedom" as a principle is worthless since "freedom" can be and is sometimes counter to the interests of the working class. On the other hand if "freedom" is in the interests of the workers then Lenin would support it and in fact did support the struggle for political freedoms within Tsarist Russia which could be used to topple the established order. You are creating a false dichotomy between upholding "freedom" as a principle and repudiating "freedom" completely. It is possible to view the question of political freedoms as a tactical issue and not an abstract one.

[Old Man Diogenes]

The quote expresses the clarity of Lenin's political thinking. As revolutionaries our clear goal is the overthrow of capitalist exploitation and we need to be clear that this system of exploitation hides behind ideas of abstract universalism like "freedom" and "democracy" which are of no use for the working class. There can be no "freedom" where the majority of the population are in economic slavery. There can be no "democracy" whilst the direct producers are alienated from control over the means of production. Without socialism all the humanistic ideals of bourgeois civilization remain an illusion for the working masses.

They're not of value in themselves (for the reasons given above); they're of value to the class struggle, as Lenin would no doubt agree. Moreover, workers continually have to fight for their real rights (as opposed to their formal rights as granted by the bourgeois state), so this also advances the class struggle.

Personally, I agree with the way you have put it, bourgeois regimes constantly rant and rave about 'freedom' and 'equality' and 'democracy' and in bourgeois society they are abstract works of fiction, only socialism can bring true, freedom, equality and democracy for all. However, I think this quote expresses a lack of clarity, because he does not say "Freedom is a bourgeois prejudice ", it could be interpreted all sorts of ways from it's actual meaning (which is a problem, in my opinion, with Marxist books I have read, then again I haven't read much). I think Lenin's view of freedom in capitalist society is expressed with greater clarity in another of his quotes from [I]The State and Revolution; "Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in ancient Greek republics: Freedom for slave owners."

[Old Man Diogenes]

But if you agree on this stand and think freedom of speech or freedom as a whole is merely a 'bourgeois prejudice' then political rights and liberties have no value at all for the workers. Right?

But then all the struggle sof the past, all the revolts and revolutions to wich we owe those rights, are allso without value.

In bourgeois society, largely those principles are meaningless. If you truly believe they have been fully realized in present society for all then you would not be here, unless you were a troll. The futility of such principles in bourgeois society is the reason that we struggle for socialism, because how can you be free when there is a boss over you in your workplace making all the decisions in which you have no say?

I don't think that past struggles are meaningless, I just think they didn't go quite far enough. Thus we must push harder and further until we a free and democratic society.

[Die Neue Zeit]

That's not what the quote says though. It says that upholding "freedom" as a principle is worthless since "freedom" can be and is sometimes counter to the interests of the working class. On the other hand if "freedom" is in the interests of the workers then Lenin would support it and in fact did support the struggle for political freedoms within Tsarist Russia which could be used to topple the established order. You are creating a false dichotomy between upholding "freedom" as a principle and repudiating "freedom" completely. It is possible to view the question of political freedoms as a tactical issue and not an abstract one.

Freedom is a very nebulous word. It stands in between liberty and emancipation, and what used to be known as "freedom from debt" in Sumerian times is now the watchword for individualist reactionaries (the l-word).

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

Personally, I agree with the way you have put it, bourgeois regimes constantly rant and rave about 'freedom' and 'equality' and 'democracy' and in bourgeois society they are abstract works of fiction, only socialism can bring true, freedom, equality and democracy for all. However, I think this quote expresses a lack of clarity, because he does not say "Freedom is a bourgeois prejudice ", it could be interpreted all sorts of ways from it's actual meaning. I think his view of freedom in capitalist society is expressed with greater clarity in another of Lenin quotes from [I]The State and Revolution quote; "Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in ancient Greek republics: Freedom for slave owners."

I fully agree with this: abstract freedom in bourgeois society is meaningless, but it does not thereby follow that all freedom is some kind of illusion (Marx and Engels do address the subject in their works). Zanthorus also explains why the OP's dichotomy is false.


Fietskitting quotes from a letter whose full text I haven't found through Google. However, either Lenin was talking about freedom as interpreted by the bourgeoisie, or he was simply completely wrong about it (and quite out of tune with the earlier Marxists).

Moving further:


But if you agree on this stand and think freedom of speech or freedom as a whole is merely a 'bourgeois prejudice' then political rights and liberties have no value at all for the workers. Right?

Even if one does take the position that "freedom of speech or freedom as a whole is merely a 'bourgeois prejudice'" -- that is, a prejudice of bourgeois moral notions -- it does not follow from that all "political rights and liberties have no value at all for the workers": such political rights and liberties could have a practical basis. Trotsky opposed the post-Civil War ban of factions among the Bolshevik Party and condemned the bureaucracy's suppression of the workers' dissent.

That sort of argument makes sense from at least a practical perspective: if the people have no right to check the power of the bureaucracy, then the bureaucracy will become irresponsible and corrupt, undermine the workers' state, make unchecked theoretical errors that destroy socialism, and so forth. (I suppose that even a Stalinist could deliver an "anti-Revisionist" argument along very similar lines: one could thus say that the leaders of the anti-Khrushchevite "Anti-Party group" -- Molotov, Malenkov, and Kaganovich -- were so easily purged in the fifties because of the unchecked power of Khrushchev and his supporters.) So long as we accept that the bureaucracy is imperfect and susceptible to grave mistakes, it follows that abolishing the freedom to criticize it is simply going to be a counterproductive strategy.

Fietsketting, would you mind putting up the whole of the letter you're quoting from? (And if you have not found the full text itself, your argument is merely so much weaker on account of that: the author who's quoting Lenin may or may not have been quoting him completely out of context.)

[Blackscare]

Frankly, this looks like something out of the mouth of a liberal or a tea bagger or whatever they're called.

Come now. I personally have no problem with that quote, but you can do a little better than calling a direct quote without commentary liberal/teabagger propaganda.

[anticap]

In a workers' democracy, free speech -- which is to say free access to the organs of communication -- will be controlled by those who labor in that capacity. Workers at a newspaper, for example, are not going to print anti-worker rubbish. So there goes the free speech of the wannabe bourgeois, and rightly so. Let him go rant in the community square and see if he can convince anyone of his nonsense; but by no means should workers be compelled to spread it for him in the name of abstract freedom.

[Luisrah]

Come now. I personally have no problem with that quote, but you can do a little better than calling a direct quote without commentary liberal/teabagger propaganda.

I'm sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I meant the post he made, not the quote. I mean that his post was like ''OMG lenin hates freedom! How do you explain that you too hate freedom!?''
This while it was a quote that is most probably in a context that would help us understand better what he was trying to say.

[Q]

However, I think this quote expresses a lack of clarity, because he does not say "Freedom is a bourgeois prejudice ", it could be interpreted all sorts of ways from it's actual meaning
Well, that's what happens when you quote stuff out of context, like Fietsketting did (purposefully or not).


I think Lenin's view of freedom in capitalist society is expressed with greater clarity in another of his quotes from [I]The State and Revolution; "Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in ancient Greek republics: Freedom for slave owners."
Yes, that is a very good way to put it.

[Fietsketting]

Well, that's what happens when you quote stuff out of context, like Fietsketting did (purposefully or not).

Thats how i came along the quote, this is learning afterall so nothing wrong with that. Good explanations given. I am satisfied with the answer.

[ContrarianLemming]

I don't think you should even be on this site if you disagree with that quote.

It's "RevLeft.com" not "let's quote Lenin to fill in the blank spots in our beliefs.com"

[devoration1]

In practice, such as in the US, the 1st amendment regarding freedom of speech merely means that the state doesn't have the power to inhibit your ability to speak, rally, publish, etc through repression or legislation.

As was shown in the German revolution in 1918, workers and people in general have a false 'sense' of what this means. Americans today are specifically juvenile about it- if you tell someone to shut up in a conversation, you're "violating their freedom of speech", if you say someone should shut down the publisher of a volatile and offensive leaflet, you are attacking their 'freedom of speech'. In the winter of 1918, the militant workers of Spatarkus raided and occupied the bourgeois Vorwarts (paper of the SPD) printing building to stop the publishing and distribution of slanders and lies about the communists and workers revolt. In such a situation, 'freedom of speech' was touted as some sort of magic right that is afforded to everyone by everyone- which is not what it is, but what it has become associated with, this resulted in a horrible PR situation for Spartakus.

However, the 'freedom of speech' of the bougeois SPD with their huge coffers and massive printing and distribution apparatus, meant that their 'speech' could reach infinitely more people more often than that of the workers militant paper 'Die Roht Fahne'. So, 'freedom of speech' in this context is inherently biased towards the bourgeoisie, who own the means of publishing, own the resources to create massive amounts of propaganda, employ numerous full time reporters and writers and propagandists, etc.

It is thus a bougeois prejudice. It is a backdoor for the bourgeoisie to wage their counter-revolutionary goals even after a successful workers uprising by appealing to 'fairness' and 'equality' and most of all 'freedom' (even if by the nature of capital their 'equality' to publish and speak is by no means equal to that of the workers).

Thats why equality in the propaganda and distribution of leaflets, press, etc was enshrined in the first constitution of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic in 1918:




14. For the purpose of securing freedom of expression to the toiling masses, the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic abolishes all dependence of the Press upon capital, and turns over to the working people and the poorest peasantry all technical and material means for the publication of newspapers, pamphlets, books, etc., and guarantees their free circulation throughout the country.
15. For the purpose of enabling the workers to hold free meetings, the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic offers to the working class and to the poorest peasantry furnished halls, and takes care of their heating and lighting appliances.
16. The Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic, having crushed the economic and political power of the propertied classes, and having thus abolished all obstacles which interfered with the freedom of organization and action of the workers and peasants, offers assistance, material and other, to the workers and the poorest peasantry in their effort to unite and organize. 17. For the purpose of guaranteeing to the workers real access to knowledge, the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic sets itself the task of furnishing full and general free education to the workers and the poorest peasantry.


-Article 2, Chapter 5, sections 14 - 17 of the Constitution of the RSFSR 1918.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I don't think you should even be on this site if you disagree with that quote. It's "RevLeft.com" not "let's quote Lenin to fill in the blank spots in our beliefs.com"I think the comrade meant agreeing with the content of the quote, not agreeing with it based solely on who the author is.

In other words, if freedom was "universal", it would be wrong to have a revolution or be on RevLeft because in order for us to have a revolution, some kings, dictators, and capitalists are going to have their rights to property and ruling over us "trampled".

[28350]

It's "RevLeft.com" not "let's quote Lenin to fill in the blank spots in our beliefs.com"

What blank spots?

[mossy noonmann]

my go ,paraphrase from lenin i think

Freedom, yes of course, but freedom to do what?

[mossy noonmann]

and one of my favourite intros for a pamphlet
is this from trotsky

DURING AN EPOCH OF triumphant reaction, Messrs. democrats, social-democrats, anarchists, and other representatives of the “left” camp begin to exude double their usual amount of moral effluvia, similar to persons who perspire doubly in fear. Paraphrasing the Ten Commandments or the Sermon on the Mount, these moralists address themselves not so much to triumphant reaction as to those revolutionists suffering under its persecution, who with their “excesses” and “amoral” principles “provoke” reaction and give it moral justification. Moreover they prescribe a simple but certain means of avoiding reaction: it is necessary only to strive and morally to regenerate oneself. Free samples of moral perfection for those desirous are furnished by all the interested editorial offices.


The class basis of this false and pompous sermon is the intellectual petty bourgeoisie. The political basis – their impotence and confusion in the face of approaching reaction. Psychological basis – their effort at overcoming the feeling of their own inferiority through masquerading in the beard of a prophet.

[Die Rote Fahne]

The idea of free speech is vital to maintaining communication and education. Without the ability to dissent and question authority we can't have worker unity as workers are unable to express varied opinion.

The only reason to fear free speech is if something can be said that will counter your own ideal. In Lenin's case, it's his fear that his power would be questioned and the vanguard would be put to a vote.

A true communist movement should fear no verbal dissent.

[the last donut of the night]

I agree with the posts above. Like it's been said, capitalism has taken the words "freedom", "democracy" and even "human rights" on journey of not only falsification, but also an extreme distortion -- so much that they have been not only covers for imperialism but also have been pretty much gutted of their original meaning. An example can be the popular right-wing phrase "freedom ain't free". What does this really mean? That "our" freedom is not really a right; it's a privilege that has to be defended by soldiers. Initially, that's not too bad to think about it. But when you really go into it, you see that "freedom" is a privilege that we have to take off the backs of people in the Third World, that we have to accept the brutalization of the rest of the world so we can gain something. Of course, that "we" is always the bourgeoisie. The working class of imperialist countries gains little from its ruling classes' exploits elsewhere. Freedom, rights, and democracy have lost their meaning and become words without class-struggle behind them. They are empty ideals, simply put.

My 2 cents.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I don't see anything wrong with the quote, it's right. It doesn't mention free speech like the thread title suggests either.

[Vanguard1917]

The quote expresses the clarity of Lenin's political thinking. As revolutionaries our clear goal is the overthrow of capitalist exploitation and we need to be clear that this system of exploitation hides behind ideas of abstract universalism like "freedom" and "democracy" which are of no use for the working class. There can be no "freedom" where the majority of the population are in economic slavery. There can be no "democracy" whilst the direct producers are alienated from control over the means of production. Without socialism all the humanistic ideals of bourgeois civilization remain an illusion for the working masses.

There can be no real freedom or democracy in bourgeois society, but i hope you would agree that, for socialists, a more democratic and a more free bourgeois society is better from the perspective of working class politics than a bourgeois society in which there is a greater state curtailment of democratic rights and social and political freedoms.

[scarletghoul]

Lenin wasn't the most romantic speaker/writer, bless him, but behind the cold, hard, baldness there lies an intense longing for freedom and a love for all working peoples. It is important to keep this in mind when coming across hard-ass lenin quotes

[Obs]

Lenin wasn't the most romantic speaker/writer, bless him, but behind the cold, hard, baldness there lies an intense longing for freedom and a love for all working peoples. It is important to keep this in mind when coming across hard-ass lenin quotes
Lenin said shit like it was, and didn't care if he offended anyone. That's why he was cool.

[stella2010]

The workers must always progress. The way to do this is to enjoy nothing. No drugs
No exotics.
Don't be worn out though. The capitalist can b tough.
There will always b class struggle so economic slavery is always on your mind.

Change the way u think.

Change the idea of freedom.

ZEN

[devoration1]

The idea of free speech is vital to maintaining communication and education. Without the ability to dissent and question authority we can't have worker unity as workers are unable to express varied opinion.

The only reason to fear free speech is if something can be said that will counter your own ideal. In Lenin's case, it's his fear that his power would be questioned and the vanguard would be put to a vote.

A true communist movement should fear no verbal dissent.

Successful working class movements have been carried out under intense oppression from absolutist and totalitarian regimes.

'Freedom of speech' doesn't mean that every person has a chance to enter and contribute to the 'marketplace of ideas', it means, as it is enshrined in every bourgeois-democratic republic charter/constitution, that the state will not infringe on a persons ability to assemble, print, publish and distribute speech or published material.

Opposing this has nothing to do with 'fear of other ideas', it has to do with the inherent inequity in such a bourgeois 'right': a political organization backed by capitalist money (in the case of the German revolution of 1918, the SPD) has the capacity to produce, publish and distribute (via print, radio, film, rented halls, etc) massive amounts of propaganda material for consumption on a massive scale. The workers paper, Die Roht Fahne, could not be on an equal plane with the SPD paper Vorwarts for example because of this inequality.

There is no marketplace of ideas, there is no freedom of speech, if only one side has the capability to reach everyone with massive amounts of varying media.


14. For the purpose of securing freedom of expression to the toiling masses, the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic abolishes all dependence of the Press upon capital, and turns over to the working people and the poorest peasantry all technical and material means for the publication of newspapers, pamphlets, books, etc., and guarantees their free circulation throughout the country.

-Constitution of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic.

Enshrined in the first Bolshevik constitution is the absolute equality of speech and expression, compare that to the bourgeois-democratic views of free speech, which merely say the government won't prevent you from speaking or publishing.

Its absolutely false that Lenin and communists in general oppose 'free speech' because they're "afraid" of losing their power.

[robbo203]

'Freedom of speech' doesn't mean that every person has a chance to enter and contribute to the 'marketplace of ideas', it means, as it is enshrined in every bourgeois-democratic republic charter/constitution, that the state will not infringe on a persons ability to assemble, print, publish and distribute speech or published material.

Opposing this has nothing to do with 'fear of other ideas', it has to do with the inherent inequity in such a bourgeois 'right': .

The word you are looking for, I would suggest, is not "opposing", but "transcending". It would be utterly stupid for any working class movement to call for the retraction of the right of individuals "to assemble, print, publish and distribute speech or published material" as enshrined in the constitutions of bourgeois democratic states. Give me a bourgeois democratic state any day over a bourgeois fascist one.



-Constitution of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic.

Enshrined in the first Bolshevik constitution is the absolute equality of speech and expression, compare that to the bourgeois-democratic views of free speech, which merely say the government won't prevent you from speaking or publishing.

Its absolutely false that Lenin and communists in general oppose 'free speech' because they're "afraid" of losing their power.

Is that why Lenin banned external opposition and factions within the Communist party - so that the workers would have nothing to distract from...ahem... expressing their full support for the state capitalist dictatorship?

[A.R.Amistad]

The reason he calls freedom of speech a bourgeois "prejudice" is because it is prejudiced, its freedom of speech for one class and is therefore not freedom of speech at all. I think a talk with comrade Mumia Abul Jamal would give you a good idea of the level of "freedom of speech" we have in bourgeois society. I think Lenin would respond that in the dictatorship of the proletariat, freedom of speech becomes real freedom for the toiling majority and not the "right" of the capitalists to buy out the press, and therefore our speech. Thats why Lenin put so much stress on furnishing meeting halls and printing presses for the proletariet and "full freedom of expression for the toiling masses, the proletariet,etc." (Of course, the brutal civil war hindered this from coming to fruition) but thats the Leninist attitude: how does it fit into the class struggle?

[anticap]

The reason he calls freedom of speech a bourgeois "prejudice" is because it is prejudiced, its freedom of speech for one class and is therefore not freedom of speech at all.

And just in case anyone raises the objection that what I've called for in my previous post is merely the reversal of those roles, let me interject here to remind that person that a workers' democracy is classless: since everyone (save for the young, old, and infirm) must contribute to the common good if they expect to participate in decision-making, the only "classes" will be those who accept this, and those who reject it. The latter will live a meager existence on the outskirts of society, like lone wolves (which reminds me of the origins of "outlaw": utlagr, meaning "banished"). They will not be welcomed into society or allowed to participate in its functions. This will leave society with only one "class," which is to say no classes. Free speech can then be opened wide, since only the views of contributors will be available to be heard, as it should be.

We can listen to the howls of the lone wolves as entertainment on still nights, but there'll be no reason to take them seriously until they tuck tail and whimper to come back into the fold as active members of society.

[Hit The North]

There can be no real freedom or democracy in bourgeois society, but i hope you would agree that, for socialists, a more democratic and a more free bourgeois society is better from the perspective of working class politics than a bourgeois society in which there is a greater state curtailment of democratic rights and social and political freedoms.

We always fight for these things, but I'm not sure there's a way of arguing that the latter state is worse for working class politics, as it at least has the merit of not sowing illusions in the minds of workers, than the former state which promotes a more conciliatory and legalistic tendency within working class politics.

I mean, you could probably make a humanistic argument for bourgeois social democracy, but not really an emancipatory proletarian class struggle argument for it.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Successful working class movements have been carried out under intense oppression from absolutist and totalitarian regimes.

'Freedom of speech' doesn't mean that every person has a chance to enter and contribute to the 'marketplace of ideas', it means, as it is enshrined in every bourgeois-democratic republic charter/constitution, that the state will not infringe on a persons ability to assemble, print, publish and distribute speech or published material.

Opposing this has nothing to do with 'fear of other ideas', it has to do with the inherent inequity in such a bourgeois 'right': a political organization backed by capitalist money (in the case of the German revolution of 1918, the SPD) has the capacity to produce, publish and distribute (via print, radio, film, rented halls, etc) massive amounts of propaganda material for consumption on a massive scale. The workers paper, Die Roht Fahne, could not be on an equal plane with the SPD paper Vorwarts for example because of this inequality.

There is no marketplace of ideas, there is no freedom of speech, if only one side has the capability to reach everyone with massive amounts of varying media.



-Constitution of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic.

Enshrined in the first Bolshevik constitution is the absolute equality of speech and expression, compare that to the bourgeois-democratic views of free speech, which merely say the government won't prevent you from speaking or publishing.

Its absolutely false that Lenin and communists in general oppose 'free speech' because they're "afraid" of losing their power.

Here's where were going wrong. Yes, in capitalist society, the idea of free speech is bourgeois. However, I'm not dealing with semantics here. I'm dealing with the idea that no one should be able to stop you from speaking up with a different opinion. We need to debate the dissenters, not suppress them. Norman Finkelstein allows dissenters to his ideas to question him, does he get security to throw them out? No, he counter's there argument and makes them look like fools, leading to support for him. This example too is one of how bourgeois free speech is not free speech at all. Why? The bourgeois, in this case Zionist elite, do not allow Finkelstein to express his opinions on a wider venue (CNN, FOX News, MSNBC) through throwing money at the situation.

If a communist movement is educated enough to be against capitalism and they wilfully and successfully overthrow it, what capitalist propaganda could reverse that? We aren't in the 1900s anymore, most of us can read and have some basic education level. The capitalist minority will have no power. They won't be able to use their capital for anything, because they won't have it.

However, we cannot allow the debate within the communist movement to be stifled by, for example, a Trotskyist majority, because they disagree with Luxemburgist minority. As a Luxemburgist, I don't want to be silenced because I oppose a vanguard party, or because I oppose the new communist government's support of national liberation or mass bureaucratization. I don't want to be locked up because I'm making such a statement that it will cause the worker's to question this vanguard/leadership. I don't want to be punished for saying the leaders are wrong in what they are doing. Leading with support, not fear, is what is necessary.

The only way dissent will counter a communist movement/revolution is if support is not strong enough within the masses and if those within cannot counter the arguments of the dissenter(s).

The suppression of dissent did occur in Lenin's Russia. Not just silencing capitalists (Social Democrats included), but silencing what should have been it's close allies -- left communists, mensheviks, etc.