Something about this Luxemburg excerpt rubs me the wrong way.

[Ostrinski]

Public control is indispensably necessary. Otherwise the exchange of experiences remains only with the closed circle of the officials of the new regime. Corruption becomes inevitable. (Lenin’s words, Bulletin No.29) Socialism in life demands a complete spiritual transformation in the masses degraded by centuries of bourgeois rule. Social instincts in place of egotistical ones, mass initiative in place of inertia, idealism which conquers all suffering, etc., etc. No one knows this better, describes it more penetratingly; repeats it more stubbornly than Lenin. But he is completely mistaken in the means he employs. Decree, dictatorial force of the factory overseer, draconian penalties, rule by terror – all these things are but palliatives. The only way to a rebirth is the school of public life itself, the most unlimited, the broadest democracy and public opinion. It is rule by terror which demoralizes.

From The Russian Revolution, Ch 6, The Problem of Dictatorship

In the preceding paragraph, she goes on about there is no mold for which we can simply plan out a socialist society, we have to let history run its course and let the development of a socialist economy happen spontaneously. She explains that this is why scientific socialism is superior to utopian socialism.

Why then, does she stoop to making moralistic appeals to "spiritual transformation" and "idealism." This seems very unscientific and utopian. She implies that we can simply create or recreate society in our own image irrespective of pre-existing conditions. She doesn't argue for the absolute rule of the public from a pragmatic or productive standpoint, but from an ethical one. What do you all think?

[citizen of industry]

This is how I interpreted it:

1. Capitalism makes people egotistical, competitive, individualistic(in the bad sense), so the need for - "social instincts instead of egotistical ones"

2. Capitalism makes people apathetic, hence - "mass initiative in place of inertia" and "idealism which conquers all suffering."

So basically, she is saying centuries of life under capitalism makes people apathetic and "dog-eat-dog," and that for socialism to work and for this mentality to be reversed ("spiritual transformation"), public, rather that bureaucratic control is necessary. She compliments Lenin on recognizing this better than anyone, but then critisizes him for being authoritarian in his methods, which demoralizes and results in the same apathy and egotism because of a lack of public control and democracy.

I don't think her argument is ethical. She is just saying authoritarian rule doesn't solve the problems of apathy and egotism under capitalism. Whether you agree or disagree with her analysis of Lenin's methods is another thing. But I don't see her argument as moralistic. Seems pragmatic to me.

[Rafiq]

"apathy" and "ego" won't be "solved" in any deliberite manner. She IS making an ethical argument.

[citizen of industry]

"apathy" and "ego" won't be "solved" in any deliberite manner. She IS making an ethical argument.

What, that greater democracy results in less apathy, and that lack of democracy results in apathy? How is it an ethical argument?

[Die Rote Fahne]

"apathy" and "ego" won't be "solved" in any deliberite manner. She IS making an ethical argument.I'm by no means an authority on Luxemburg. However, I have read much of her work, and much about her. She was a dialectical materialist in the purest form, and refused to lay anything down in theory that wasn't based on it.

I really don't think she's speaking of ego and apathy in the absolute, but in terms of participation in society and the workplace. She goes on to explain that as the role of authoritarianism increases and drowns out democracy, it results in a dying out of political life of the masses, and the participation in affairs.

However, do go on to explain why you think her argument is an ethical one, as opposed to gracing us with a one-liner.

[Mr. Natural]

Brospierre, I'm guessing that what "rubbed you the wrong way" is Rosa Luxemburg's, "Socialism in life demands a complete spiritual transformation in the masses." (emphasis mine)

I'm an atheist, but I long for the "spirituality" of human community and socialism/communism wherein individuals come together in common purpose to realize their social being and human nature. I yearn for communism and community and a revolutionary process leading to them.

Rosa Luxemburg is a red, red rose of communism. Her passionate, deeply radical and deeply Marxist yearning for human liberation and realization is always on display for all to see. In the passage quoted, she begins by writing "Public control is indispensably necessary," and then criticizes Lenin for his authoritarian tendencies: revolution from above.

Simply put, Rosa Luxemburg is emphasizing that socialism/communism is bottom-up community: "We shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all." (Manifesto) Then she asserts that in such communities a sort of spiritual humanism will arise--the spirituality of individuals who are actively engaged with each other and life and are at home in the world.

Rosa is right. We have all had experiences in which we came together with others in families, sports, politics, etc., and felt a living "spirituality." This "communist spirituality," though, is opposed to the dogma and rigidity of religions.

Rosa lives!

[Rafiq]

It wasn't ethical in a certain sense. I was wrong.

However I don't see the correlation between authoritarianism and participation in the work place and in politics

Authoritarianism doesn't equal isolating the masses from the government.

[Die Rote Fahne]

It wasn't ethical in a certain sense. I was wrong.

However I don't see the correlation between authoritarianism and participation in the work place and in politics

Authoritarianism doesn't equal isolating the masses from the government.

No, but when those who disagree and those who do not hold views that correlate to the central committee, they are drowned out and ignored. On the end the party bureaucracy is all that remains active.

[A Marxist Historian]

This is how I interpreted it:

1. Capitalism makes people egotistical, competitive, individualistic(in the bad sense), so the need for - "social instincts instead of egotistical ones"

2. Capitalism makes people apathetic, hence - "mass initiative in place of inertia" and "idealism which conquers all suffering."

So basically, she is saying centuries of life under capitalism makes people apathetic and "dog-eat-dog," and that for socialism to work and for this mentality to be reversed ("spiritual transformation"), public, rather that bureaucratic control is necessary. She compliments Lenin on recognizing this better than anyone, but then critisizes him for being authoritarian in his methods, which demoralizes and results in the same apathy and egotism because of a lack of public control and democracy.

I don't think her argument is ethical. She is just saying authoritarian rule doesn't solve the problems of apathy and egotism under capitalism. Whether you agree or disagree with her analysis of Lenin's methods is another thing. But I don't see her argument as moralistic. Seems pragmatic to me.

In fact, her argument is moralistic and ethical, which is a good thing not a bad thing, and perfectly materialist.

Human ethics and morality correspond to the level human society has evolved to. Since, as Luxemburg understood very well, she was the one who coined the phrase "socialism or barbarism," human society had evolved materially to a level where a socialist society had become possible, then after a socialist revolution a "spiritual revolution" in the human race in a socialist direction had become possible. All quite materialist.

The great moralist of the Bolshevik Party, Felix Dzherzhinsky, was after all Rosa Luxemburg's follower for two decades. Strict attention to proletarian morality does not necessarily mean softness.

-M.H.-

[Rafiq]

No, but when those who disagree and those who do not hold views that correlate to the central committee, they are drowned out and ignored. On the end the party bureaucracy is all that remains active.

I believe you are confused as to what constitutes as authoritarianism.

It's not about isolating ideas from the proletariat. Because it is a DICTATORSHIP of the proletariat. The authoritarianism is directed at the former ruling class...

And the views of the central committie will be elected by the masses. So if you voted against what was elected that's too bad.

[Rafiq]

Let's get something straight


A moralist IS NOT someone who holds morals "up high". it's a person who believes morals are the foundations of society and that universal morality, ethical absolutism exist, ergo Dzerzhinsky was not a moralist.

[Die Rote Fahne]

I believe you are confused as to what constitutes as authoritarianism.

It's not about isolating ideas from the proletariat. Because it is a DICTATORSHIP of the proletariat. The authoritarianism is directed at the former ruling class...

And the views of the central committie will be elected by the masses. So if you voted against what was elected that's too bad.

The idea is that the "ultra-centralism", as Luxemburg called it, is an expression of authoritarianism, and aids in the process of ostracising those who go against the line. Not allowing certain views to be voted on if they go against the CC.

Lenin stressed ultra-centralism, Luxemburg stressed democracy and organisational flexibility. Lenin emphasised the dominant role of the professional revolutionaries, Luxemburg countered with emphasis on the mass movement and its elemental upsurge.

This was rightly expressed as the CC in Lenin's party dictated to the party and the party dictated to the masses. The CC was "the only thinking element".

[citizen of industry]

I believe you are confused as to what constitutes as authoritarianism.

It's not about isolating ideas from the proletariat. Because it is a DICTATORSHIP of the proletariat. The authoritarianism is directed at the former ruling class...

And the views of the central committie will be elected by the masses. So if you voted against what was elected that's too bad.

I think Luxemburg elucidated her opinions quite clearly in Leninism or Marxism? Namely, that Lenin wanted the Central Committee to have the privilege of naming all the local committees of the party and the right to appoint all of the local bodies. Meaning that the Central Committee could determine the composition of the entire party congress, therefore, it would be the only thinking element of the party. She quotes Lenin that this central committee with absolute power would be made up of Jacobins "indissolubly joined to the organization of the proletariat."

She counters that the proletariat becomes conscious of its historical task only through struggle, that the party should not be "joined to the proletariat" but that it should in fact be the proletariat and the centralism of the party should be the rule of the majority within the party. That there are no detailed tactics the central committee can "teach" the party membership in the way soldiers are trained. She claims that in a parliamentary nation the opportunist tendency of intellectuals is toward decentralization, but that under the Tsarist regime the tendency of opportunist intellectuals was toward despotic centralism, and to place the entire labor movement into the hands of a few intellectuals would narrow the field of struggle and turn it into an automaton manipulated by a central committee, which would inevitably hold it back because of a lack of such concrete tactics. She stresses that socialism is a mass movement, and not the product of a few Jacobin individuals, and that putting the entire movement under the direction of such would squash initiative and political sense, and would then make it easier for intellectual and petty bourgeois domination.

She goes on to say that as the petty bourgeois elements fall into the proletariat, the best way to prevent their opportunist tendencies would be to subordinate them to the proletarian masses, rather than open the way for them to seize power over the movement. And she points out that trying to prevent that possiblilty by means of party constitution is meaningless, because the constitution just reflects the attitudes of those who wrote it at the time, and it can always be amended.

And we might want to stress a "dicatorship of THE PROLETARIAT" rather than a "DICTATORSHIP of the proletariat."

[Rafiq]

The idea is that the "ultra-centralism", as Luxemburg called it, is an expression of authoritarianism, and aids in the process of ostracising those who go against the line. Not allowing certain views to be voted on if they go against the CC.

Lenin stressed ultra-centralism, Luxemburg stressed democracy and organisational flexibility. Lenin emphasised the dominant role of the professional revolutionaries, Luxemburg countered with emphasis on the mass movement and its elemental upsurge.[/FONT]

This was rightly expressed as the CC in Lenin's party dictated to the party and the party dictated to the masses. The CC was "the only thinking element".

Okay but this isn't a legitiment argument against all forms of "Authoritarianism". It is an argument against "Ultra Centrism", which, I don't think Lenin thought would have to apply to the conditions of all countries. 'Ultra Centrism' was really the only way to deal with the terrible and shit material conditions brought about by the civil war, the actual world war, etc.

You couldn't take "Democracy and Organized Flexibility" and use it as an application to Russia's material and social conditions at the time. It wouldn't have been able to deal with the civil war, the counter revolution, or the economic crisis.

And with no countries to come to aid to the SU, more desperate actions were taken, thus resulting in the class contradiction between the workers and the party, etc. We all know how the story goes.

[citizen of industry]

Okay but this isn't a legitiment argument against all forms of "Authoritarianism". It is an argument against "Ultra Centrism", which, I don't think Lenin thought would have to apply to the conditions of all countries. 'Ultra Centrism' was really the only way to deal with the terrible and shit material conditions brought about by the civil war, the actual world war, etc.

You couldn't take "Democracy and Organized Flexibility" and use it as an application to Russia's material and social conditions at the time. It wouldn't have been able to deal with the civil war, the counter revolution, or the economic crisis.

And with no countries to come to aid to the SU, more desperate actions were taken, thus resulting in the class contradiction between the workers and the party, etc. We all know how the story goes.

Those are also good points. That's why I only tried to express Luxemburg's views in my posts and not my own. I'm the first to admit I'm on the fence about the issue of democracy, in what degree, etc. History doesn't provide us with an adequate answer, because there are countless examples of instances where both have had good and bad results. Practice hasn't yet provided me with an adequate answer either. I've been in organizations with varying degrees of democracy, representative and direct, and there have been pros and cons to each.

Thinking about it, this debate isn't restricted to us leftists either. Our class enemies have the same problem with democracy as well. They didn't like feudalism and smashed it. They like the idea of a "free market," but then in practice it leads to centralization and monopoly, economic disaster and huge groups of hungry angry proles out for their necks, so they introduce legislation and universal suffrage and throw the workers a few bones to keep the wheels turning a while longer. And look at them at each other's throats in parliament or congress over the same concept.

The issue of democracy covers the whole political spectrum and all aspects of human activity. It's a thorny issue. And it bothers me when people dogmatically hold on to one extreme or the other without weighing the pros and cons of each and applying them to different situations. But it also bothers me that in some situations I feel more democracy is required and at other times less and I don't have an adequate answer I can package up and label.

[Rafiq]

Of course we know Democracy (to an extent) could have existed a lot more than it did after Russia went through the civil war. But by then there was already a class contradiction that formed.

[citizen of industry]

This is one of the reasons I like Rosa. She turns her guns on ultra-centrism but also on the anarchists. She grapples with the same organizational problem of democracy, how to achieve revolution without fucking it all up.

[Luís Henrique]

I believe you are confused as to what constitutes as authoritarianism.

Or perhaps the confusion is yours.


It's not about isolating ideas from the proletariat. Because it is a DICTATORSHIP of the proletariat. The authoritarianism is directed at the former ruling class...

Except, of course, it isn't. The "dictatorship of the proletariat" can only exist in the conditions described by Rosa, of "the most unlimited, the broadest democracy and public opinion". Otherwise it is a dictatorship against the proletariat.


And the views of the central committie will be elected by the masses. So if you voted against what was elected that's too bad.

Nonsence. A political party cannot be governed by the masses, or it will have absolutely no value. It will, as always, be governed by its adherents.

And, of course, vote is only democratic if it is informed vote, which absolutely requires, again in Rosa's words, the most unlimited, the broadest democracy and public opinion. Otherwise what you have is just a plebiscitary dictatorship.

Luís Henrique

[Thirsty Crow]

It wasn't ethical in a certain sense. I was wrong.

However I don't see the correlation between authoritarianism and participation in the work place and in politics

Authoritarianism doesn't equal isolating the masses from the government.
See, now we're having a strict semantics issue.
Considering the good probability that you would dismiss the notion of "authoritarianism" as mere moralist babble, you would have to justify this intervention of yours with a demonstration of concrete content "carried" by the notion.
Oh yeah, I didn't notice that you think that authoritarianism amounts to class dictatorship. Of course, this make sense only if you adopt the viewpoint of the class enemy. For me, it makes no sense, since the dictatorship of the working class is a precondition for its emancipation.

The phenomena you're dismissing as pertinent to the notion are, in my opinion, the only ones which enable people to meaningfully talk about authoritarianism. In other words, the degree of authoritarianism of a network of political institution is precisely dependent on the degree of exclusion/inclusion of the broad layers of the working class from the possibility to directly engage in the decision making process.

[Rafiq]

Or perhaps the confusion is yours.


And is the notion of one class exerting it's interests over another not authoritarian? They very act of proletarian emancipation will have to be authoritarian, none the less their campaign against the reaction afterwords.



Except, of course, it isn't. The "dictatorship of the proletariat" can only exist in the conditions described by Rosa, of "the most unlimited, the broadest democracy and public opinion". Otherwise it is a dictatorship against the proletariat.


"The most unlimited, broadest democracy and public opinion." can only exist in some kind of proletarian dominated society isolated from the reaction, i.e., Free Speech, democracy are things that can not be tolerated for the former ruling class. But should conditions be okay (Definitely not something resembling Russia in 1917) then yes, an unrestricted proletarian democracy is needed.

However I don't buy that anything else is a dictatorship against the proletariat. We shouldn't criticize something like that solely on that basis. For example, we shouldn't just say that that's what happened in Russia. We should ask ourselves why it happened and speculate as to whether it's possible to prevent it. Definitively what didn't cause it was some kind of "Power corrupts" rubbish.



Nonsence. A political party cannot be governed by the masses, or it will have absolutely no value. It will, as always, be governed by its adherents.

I guess you could say this is a semantics issue. A state can be governed by the masses, though. A vangaurd party obviously couldn't be directed and governed straight from the masses but it could have the capability of bringing the masses to power.


And, of course, vote is only democratic if it is informed vote, which absolutely requires, again in Rosa's words, the most unlimited, the broadest democracy and public opinion. Otherwise what you have is just a plebiscitary dictatorship.

Informed vote? When did I argue against this?

[Rafiq]

See, now we're having a strict semantics issue.
Considering the good probability that you would dismiss the notion of "authoritarianism" as mere moralist babble,

No, I wouldn't. The reason I did that to a lot of people is because they couldn't provide me with a problem in authoritarianism that is systemic, and when they did, it was jumping on the notion that "Power corrupts".

If authoritarianism is necessary then I don't see what the problem would be, if it is unnecessary, then the same.



Oh yeah, I didn't notice that you think that authoritarianism amounts to class dictatorship. Of course, this make sense only if you adopt the viewpoint of the class enemy. For me, it makes no sense, since the dictatorship of the working class is a precondition for its emancipation.

One class dictating and exerting it's interests over the rest would require a good amount of authoritarianism. You'd be naive to think otherwise.

I mean let us take the ruling class now. They exert their interests over the rest of the classes through authoritarianism, yet it is still a genuine dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Now, I understand that the proletariat requires no other classes to exist, unlike the bourgeoisie, however all I am trying to say is that for the proletariat to emancipate itself from Bourgeois society it will have to destroy bourgeois society, and that will require staunch authoritarianism.


The phenomena you're dismissing as pertinent to the notion are, in my opinion, the only ones which enable people to meaningfully talk about authoritarianism. In other words, the degree of authoritarianism of a network of political institution is precisely dependent on the degree of exclusion/inclusion of the broad layers of the working class from the possibility to directly engage in the decision making process.


Why can't the working class use authoritarianism against the class enemy? Don't you think authority is necessary to exert the will of the democratic majority in a proletarian society, even after a revolution? Even if you don't like that idea, don't you at least think it will be necessary for a short period of time to weaken the class enemy?

[Thirsty Crow]

One class dictating and exerting it's interests over the rest would require a good amount of authoritarianism. You'd be naive to think otherwise.

Not quite. The notions you're seeking here are "force" (also direct physical force) and "coercion". I prefer the former since I wouldn't advocate measures that, for instance, compensate the expropriated bourgeois class in one way or another.
It's not "authority" that will expropriate the class enemy and smash its apparatuses of political rule. It's the direct physical force of organized and militant working class.
And from a more personal perspective: I don't give a flying fuck about people moaning about expropriation as "authoritarian" and "dictatorial". That's the condition for my onw freedom, so I just can't see why communists should adopt the viewpoint of the class enemy, if unconsciously and implicitly.

I guess that what I'm trying to say is that the notion of authoritarianism shouldn't be taken as indicative of the relationship between classes during the course of revolution, but as pertinent for the way the proletariat organizes itself as the ruling class.

[Luís Henrique]

No, I wouldn't. The reason I did that to a lot of people is because they couldn't provide me with a problem in authoritarianism that is systemic, and when they did, it was jumping on the notion that "Power corrupts".

No, power doesn't corrupt, and this notion is just bourgeois ideology.

What you fail to see is that the exercise of power requires those exerting it to be free. If the working class is limited in its freedom, then it is not exerting power. If it is exerting power, who will tell it that it cannot read this or that literature or listen to this or that news source?


One class dictating and exerting it's interests over the rest would require a good amount of authoritarianism. You'd be naive to think otherwise.

I mean let us take the ruling class now. They exert their interests over the rest of the classes through authoritarianism, yet it is still a genuine dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

But, of course, what makes a bourgeois regime an actual dictatorship (not a class dictatorship, fwiw) is when an external force exerts authority over the bourgeoisie, temporarily saving it from its own pettyness. The examples abound: Bonaparte, Mussolini, Dolfuss, Vargas, Franco, etc. Those are authoritarian regimes.

The difference, of course, is that the bourgeoisie can take such limitations to its political power for some time, because, first, it has it is own base of power within private property, and, second, its rule is anyway a rule based on oppression and exploitation.


Now, I understand that the proletariat requires no other classes to exist, unlike the bourgeoisie, however all I am trying to say is that for the proletariat to emancipate itself from Bourgeois society it will have to destroy bourgeois society, and that will require staunch authoritarianism.


As Menocchio pointed out, this requires the use of force, physical coercion, political power, etc. It doesn't require the new ruling class to forbid itself anything. Much on the contrary.

Luís Henrique

[A Marxist Historian]

Let's get something straight


A moralist IS NOT someone who holds morals "up high". it's a person who believes morals are the foundations of society and that universal morality, ethical absolutism exist, ergo Dzerzhinsky was not a moralist.

That is your opinion, which I do not share.

Morality, like all other phenomena of society, reflects social evolution and has a class character. There is no such thing as "universal morality," but Dzherzhinsky was the great upholder of proletarian morality in the Russian Communist Party, which is the reason he was selected, originally over his own objections, to head the Cheka.

Dzherzhinsky most certainly did see proletarian morality as a foundation of Soviet society, and the Cheka under his leadership did its best to enforce proletarian morality as he understood it, by any means necessary.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

I think Luxemburg elucidated her opinions quite clearly in Leninism or Marxism? Namely, that Lenin wanted the Central Committee to have the privilege of naming all the local committees of the party and the right to appoint all of the local bodies. Meaning that the Central Committee could determine the composition of the entire party congress, therefore, it would be the only thinking element of the party. She quotes Lenin that this central committee with absolute power would be made up of Jacobins "indissolubly joined to the organization of the proletariat."

She counters that the proletariat becomes conscious of its historical task only through struggle, that the party should not be "joined to the proletariat" but that it should in fact be the proletariat and the centralism of the party should be the rule of the majority within the party. That there are no detailed tactics the central committee can "teach" the party membership in the way soldiers are trained. She claims that in a parliamentary nation the opportunist tendency of intellectuals is toward decentralization, but that under the Tsarist regime the tendency of opportunist intellectuals was toward despotic centralism, and to place the entire labor movement into the hands of a few intellectuals would narrow the field of struggle and turn it into an automaton manipulated by a central committee, which would inevitably hold it back because of a lack of such concrete tactics. She stresses that socialism is a mass movement, and not the product of a few Jacobin individuals, and that putting the entire movement under the direction of such would squash initiative and political sense, and would then make it easier for intellectual and petty bourgeois domination.

She goes on to say that as the petty bourgeois elements fall into the proletariat, the best way to prevent their opportunist tendencies would be to subordinate them to the proletarian masses, rather than open the way for them to seize power over the movement. And she points out that trying to prevent that possiblilty by means of party constitution is meaningless, because the constitution just reflects the attitudes of those who wrote it at the time, and it can always be amended.

And we might want to stress a "dicatorship of THE PROLETARIAT" rather than a "DICTATORSHIP of the proletariat."

The trouble with Luxemburg's argument is that it was valid for German conditions circa 1904 when she wrote it, as the Central Committee of the German Social Democracy was going reformist. But not for Russian.

The Russian party before Bloody Sunday, both Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, was an underground persecuted party by and large isolated from the working class. In those conditions, what was needed was to construct the party, which inevitably had to mean from the top down. Pseudo-"democratism" would simply have meant opening it up to Tsarist police infiltration, Zubatov etc.

In Germany, where the Social Democratic Party was the mass party of the working class and where it was legal, the democratic principle was absolutely vital, and bureaucratism went hand in hand with the descent of the SDP into reformism.

And in 1905 after Bloody Sunday, with the masses of workers in the streets and joining the revolutionary movement by the thousands, it was necessary to change the pattern and democratize. Which was done, over the opposition of some conservative Bolshevik committeemen, such as one J.V. Stalin in Georgia.

And when "old Bolshevik" Stalin, erroneously made party general secretary in 1922, went back from the elective principle to appointments, this had disastrous consequences, which Lenin unfortunately did not have time to deal with before his stroke took him out of the political arena. Though he tried!

-M.H.-

[Marxaveli]

"apathy" and "ego" won't be "solved" in any deliberite manner. She IS making an ethical argument.

No, she isn't. She is merely stating that Capitalism creates apathy and egoism (which is true), and not the reverse. This is a critique of material conditions and its influence on human ethics and behavior.

[Rafiq]

That is your opinion, which I do not share.

Morality, like all other phenomena of society, reflects social evolution and has a class character. There is no such thing as "universal morality," but Dzherzhinsky was the great upholder of proletarian morality in the Russian Communist Party, which is the reason he was selected, originally over his own objections, to head the Cheka.

Dzherzhinsky most certainly did see proletarian morality as a foundation of Soviet society, and the Cheka under his leadership did its best to enforce proletarian morality as he understood it, by any means necessary.

-M.H.-

I don't disagree with your second sentence.

A moralist is someone who thinks that the problems of society could be resolved with morals. Like a priest who thinks the faults of society could be solved with christianity. Dzerzhinsky does not apply.

[A Marxist Historian]

I don't disagree with your second sentence.

A moralist is someone who thinks that the problems of society could be resolved with morals. Like a priest who thinks the faults of society could be solved with christianity. Dzerzhinsky does not apply.

Well, silly to argue about how to define a word. Dzherzhinsky was certainly not a moralist in the sense you prefer to give the word.

-M.H.-

[Rocky Rococo]

It seems to me she's arguing for a transformation in consciousness, which was something quite within the understanding of the conventional socialism of the period, including Leninists: viz., "the new Soviet man".