Did Lenin actually say this?

[Charred_Phoenix]

"Why should freedom of speech and freedom of press be allowed? Why should a government which is doing what it believes to be right allow itself to be criticized? It would not allow opposition by lethal weapons. Ideas are much more fatal than guns. Why should any man be allowed to buy a printing press and [spread dangerous] opinions calculated to embarrass the government?"

Did Lenin say this? Is it taken out of context?

I've considered myself a Marxist-Leninist for quite some time now, but I don't know if I can accept a complete denial of free speech... :(

[The Feral Underclass]

Where did you find this quote? Lenin was by no means affraid of repressing opposition. Whether it was bouregois secret agents or starving sailors.

Most Leninists will argue that this was said in the context of oppressing the bouregoisie and that he meant that counter-revolutioanries should not be given the right to free sppech etc. The problem is that this now gave Lenin or any future Lenin wannabe the pretext to kill or restrict the freedoms of anyone they don't like. Lenin was a politician and a clever one at that. Anyone who got in his way of power could have been accused of counter-revolutionary activities. This is what happens when you place unquestionable power in the hands of "intellectuals."

[Charred_Phoenix]

No offence, but I'm not really looking for the opinion of an anarchist. :unsure:

[The Feral Underclass]

erm...none taken....however, what I told you is exactly what Leninists will say to you...they will tell you that he was talking about repressing the bouregoisie...you then have to ask yourself whether what he said and what he did were the same thing.

Where did you read this quote?

[Blackberry]

Here are some gems from Trotsky , who isn't much different ...

In 1921 Trotsky criticized the Workers' Opposition, a dissident faction within the Communist party, saying:

"They come out with dangerous slogans, making a fetish of democratic principles! They place the workers' right to elect representatives above the Party, as if the party were not entitled to assert its dictatorship even if that dictatorship temporarily clashed with the passing moods of the workers' democracy. It is necessary to create amongst us the awareness of the revolutionary birthright of the party, which is obliged to maintain its dictatorship, regardless of temporary wavering even in the working classes. ... The dictatorship does not base itself at every given moment on the formal principle of a workers' democracy."

Trotsky's speech 30. March 1920 at the 9th Party congress:

"If we seriously speak of planned economy, which is to acquire its unity of purpose from the center, when labor forces are assigned in accordance with the economic plan at the given stage of developement, the working masses cannot be left wandering all over Russia. They must be thrown here and there, appointed, commanded, just like soldiers". In the same speech, he says "Deserters from labour ought to to be formed into punitive battalions or put into concentration camps".

[The Feral Underclass]

A shining beacon of democracy!

[Cassius Clay]

Since that quote shares many of the same words and meaning as a quote atrributed to Josef Stalin I highly doubt it.

Why you feel the need to quote Trotsky as somesought of representative of Leninism or Leninists I dont know. The man was about as anti-Leninist as you could get, writing the same things you Anarchists do. More to the point all the Leninists condemmed Trotsky's actions and ideas in the 1920's, including Lenin.

[The Feral Underclass]

can you explain the Lenin quote cassius clay?

[Cassius Clay]

I would do if Lenin had said that, he didn't. No doubt there's many things Lenin said which you take issue with but he did NOT say that.

[YKTMX]

I'd like to see a source for this but as Cassius says it has many the same words as a relatively well known Stalin quote. As far the Trotsky quotes go, :rolleyes: YAWWWNNNNN!

[Bianconero]

Why should freedom of speech and freedom of press be allowed?

Well, why should it? The oppression of the ruling class during and after the revolution is a vital part of Marxism-Leninism. This may sound 'rude' and 'authoritarian' to most of you, but keep in mind that the reactionaries are doing exactly the same thing to us at the moment. They wouldn't hesitate to execute you if it was for the good of their political power, so why should we? Wouldn't that be not only idiocy but also cowardice? Repression is a political mean of the ruling class. For now, the reactionaires are the ruling class. After revolution, the proletariat will be ruling, it will have to oppress the reactionaries, who may have lost the very first battle, but not yet the war.


Why should a government which is doing what it believes to be right allow itself to be criticized?

It doesn't matter where you look really, be it western 'democracies' or South American dictatorships, all of these states will tolerate criticism as long as it doesn't cause rebellion.

Naive people would indeed say that we shouldn't use their dirty means, realistic Marxists-Leninists understand that it is necessary.


It would not allow opposition by lethal weapons. Ideas are much more fatal than guns. Why should any man be allowed to buy a printing press and [spread dangerous] opinions calculated to embarrass the government?

Relevant criticism will be handled within the party ranks. The rest is counter-revolutionary action.

Of course, this is not what we learned as 'democracy.' Is is indeed not that perverted piece of corruption that we know as 'democracy.' It is the dictatorship of the proletariat. Anyone not willing to accept this should not subscribe to Marxism-Leninism.

[Morpheus]

I doubt Lenin said that, it sounds like Stalin, but you can see his 1921 position on "freedom of the press" at http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/work...1921/aug/05.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/aug/05.htm) That letter was written in response to G. Myasnikov, an Old Bolshevik who was advocating that Russia restore freedom of the press at the time. You can see an essay about him at http://www.struggle.ws/russia/bol_opp_leni...nin_avrich.html (http://www.struggle.ws/russia/bol_opp_lenin_avrich.html)

Lenin did say:

"The Mensheviks and SRs who advocate such views wonder when we tell them that we are going to shoot them for saying such things. They are amazed at it, but the question is clear: when an army is in retreat, it stands in need of discipline a hundred times more severe than when it advances because in the later case everyone is eager to rush ahead. But if now everyone is just as eager to rush back, the result will be a catastrophe. And when a Menshevik says: ‘you are now retreating but I was always favoring a retreat, am in full accord with you, I am one of your people, let us retreat together,’ we tell them in reply: an avowal of Menshevik views should be punished by our revolutionary courts with shooting, otherwise the latter are not courts but God knows what. … if you don’t refrain from openly enunciating such [Menshevik and SR] views, you will be put against the wall" (quoted on Maximoff, Guillotine p. 204)

The 'retreat' he was referring to was the NEP. Criticizing the Workers' Opposition (a dissident faction within the Communist Party) he also said:

"After two and a half years of the Soviet power we came out in the Communist International and told the world that the dictatorship of the proletariat would not work except through the Communist Party. ... What is this “All- Russia Congress of Producers”? Are we going to waste more time on that sort of opposition in the Party? I think we have had enough of this discussion! All the arguments about freedom of speech and freedom to criticize, of which the pamphlet is full and which run through all the speeches of the Workers’ Opposition, constitute nine-tenths of the meaning of these speeches, which have no particular meaning at all. They are all words of the same order. After all, comrades, we ought to discuss not only words, but also their meaning. You can’t fool us with words like “freedom to criticize”. … this is no time to have an opposition. Either you’re on this side, or on the other" http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/work.../1921/10thcong/ (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/10thcong/)

You can read one of the pamhplets of the Workers' Opposition, which Lenin was criticizing, at http://geocities.com/cordobakaf/koll.html The author, Allexandra Kollontai (one of the main leaders of the Workers' Opposition), was the only senior Bolshevik leader to support Lenin's April Theses from day one. The Workers' Opposition were effectively outlawed with the ban on factions passed at the 10th party congress.

The USSR under Lenin, and every other Leninist state, imposed great restrictions of freedom of speech and suppressed opposition. Leninists claim this is necessary in order to suppress the bourgeoisie, although historically this repression has not been limited to reactionaries. In April 1918 the Bolsheviks raided anarchists and in May they started shutting down anarchist newspapers. Similar things were done to many other radical tendencies. I recommend you read the book Before Stalinism by Samuel Farber for a good discussion of repression under Lenin. The author is a Revolutionary Marxist. One of the main demands of the Kronstadt rebels was the restoration of free speech for workers, peasants, socialists & anarchists. The sailors at Kronstadt were among the most militant supports of the October revolution, they helped put the Bolsheviks in power, but in 1921 they rebelled accusing the Bolsheviks of betraying the revolution. You can read their newspaper at http://www.struggle.ws/russia/izvestiia_krons1921.html

[Red Louisiana]

What is "freedom of speech"?

At its base, it is a means of power of one group over another - If the workers declare their control of the means of produ tion, meaning also the means of communication, then why should the workers allow the bourgeoisie power?

Can you honestly say the Bourgeoisie aloows "freedom of speech" to worker-revolutionists? No.

Freedom of speech REALLY MEANS freedom of bourgeois speech. Freedom of press means the right for bourgeois press to exist!

Thus, freedom of speech in a socialist nation would exist FOR THE WORKER-CLASS, just as "freedom of speech" existed in bourgeois society FOR the bourgeoisie.

[lostsoul]

i remember reading that quote before also. I think its from "what needs to be done?" by lenin..i don't have the book with me anymore so i cannot confirm,

[Jesus Christ]

I love how some of you just jump to insulting and bashing Trotsky if you don't see something you like

[KickMcCann]

I can really understand the need Lenin had to tighten the press because of the threat of having all the Soviet media controlled by foreign aggressors. These capitalist owned papers could publish all sorts of filth and collapse the soviet union as quickly as it rose. But I really have to question Lenin's lack of vision for the future.
The whole idea of limiting freedom of speech was to oppress their former oppressors, to protect the reforms they established. But that ruling did not take into acount the principles of time; i.e.- greatness is not hereditary, nor is villainy by the way. But rich land owners, royalty, aristocracy, nobility, and revolutionaries are all human, and they all die eventually. In the first Soviet generation, you had the new leaders, who were all in all good people, and you had the former elites and rulers who were dethroned and resentful. But after some time, those good old revolutionaries died off, as did the former elites. So, after a few decades, who was left in the USSR that you could call bourgeoisie? Just like in all societies, no matter what, there well always be the rich, poor, and in between. There will always be those who have and those who have not. Again greatness is not hereditary, so if those who are members of the new elite, established, ruling upper crust are currupt, even though those before them were good, how can a worker question their authority and keep his country on the side of good? The people who were at the bottom of soviet society at its strongest point were not dangerous monarchists, just average soviet people. I understand that foreign powers were a threat, But by 1955 the USSR was not a weak, unstable alliance, it was a power house, so a threat of outside influence in the press would be easy to counter act.
Plus, I believe freedom of speech adds a certain sense of legitimacy to a government. If it truely believes that it runs the best system or subscribes to the best ideology, than why should it be afraid of defending and explaining it to the people? And the excuse that having to explain their actions and beliefs would take too much time is complete bull shit. If Brezhnev had enough time to take vacations on the communist party's private cruise ship, or enough time to supervise the creation of hour after hour of propaganda, then he had enough time to tell the truth.