Discrediting the revolutionaries only serves the interests of the capital state

13 posts / 0 new
Last post
Internationalis...
Discrediting the revolutionaries only serves the interests of the capital state
Printer-friendly versionSend by email

Discrediting the revolutionaries only serves the interests of the capital state

 

Homepage: www.internationalist.tk

E-mail: [email protected]

 

The bourgeoisie, with the help of a massive propaganda machine and with its ideologues, has always been trying to provide a barbaric image of communism, pretending that any attempt to overthrow capitalism or to establish a non-class society will result in a gulag and terrorist regime as embodied in the former Eastern bloc. The bourgeoisie’s campaign of lies, attacks, slander and falsification of history will resorting to any device to turn black into white and portray the monstrous image of communism.

Along with these propaganda machines, we see another kind of discrediting of communists and revolutionaries. These creatures are keen to claim that Lenin was a German spy or that Trotsky was a double agent, while sinisterly pointing out that Marx was Jewish. While Marx has indeed been the recipient of the most heinous slander, it has been claimed that the international communist current has been shaped by the CIA, and... Well, you can make this a very long list.

These individuals appear to be radical critics of the existing order, but their common property is about being unidentified. They do not appear as real individuals. They are posted on the pages of Facebook, in discussion forums, on blogs, in rumours that do not specify the source, etc., with different names and in various forms to highlight their malicious activities, with lumpen language. Like viruses, they can be inactive for a long time, but reappear when the right conditions are in place; and, whenever they need to, they simply change their name. These individuals can be found in any language and any country.

These individuals do not criticize, because they have to work hard to criticize and be taken seriously; rather, they lie, slander and defame, widely disseminating their slime, while criticizing political positions, leads to clarify of the political milieu. In the critique of political positions, firstly, a person or a political current should work hard to criticize; secondly, a person with his critique or a political current with its critique shows where in the upside-down world is standing.

The aim of these individuals is to construct an insecure political space, be pessimistic about political and revolutionary organizations, create a climate of distrust and, in a word, discredit revolutionaries. One of the most famous of these was Karl Vogt who dared to spread a rumour using his true identity about Marx in order to slander and discredit him. He claimed that Marx was a spy with the secret police in Germany, who, at the expense of a few metamorphosed individuals, was living a comfortable life in England. He claimed how easy it was for anyone approaching Marx to being arrested or killed, while he was busy participating in an orgy in England. In a book entitled Herr Vogt, Marx emphatically revealed Vogt’s bogus character in order to defend his revolutionary dignity. The political atmosphere changed after the publication of this book, as well as Vogt’s later acquisition of documents from Napoleon, which were made public. Meanwhile, 100 years ago, the Bolsheviks replied to the dirty slander that Aleksinsky had made against Lenin:

“A great accusation has been made against comrade of Lenin, that he received and continues to receive money from German sources for his propaganda activities. The newspapers are now spreading this massive accusation. The secret declarations now print the views of former representative Aleksinsky [representative of the social democrats in the Second Duma who claimed that, according to the confession of a German agent, Lenin was also a spy]. There were requests for the killing of the Bolsheviks. The list of persons to be executed is now in the hands of deceived soldiers. The goal is clear: the counterrevolution wants to eradicate the seeds of pessimism in the hearts of the masses and, by provoking those against their most beloved leaders, those fierce fighters of the revolution, scream revolution in the simplest way. We declare by these means that anything about monetary affiliation or other dependencies between comrade Lenin and the ruling classes of Germany are lies and slander. Aleksinsky, the initiator of this affair, has more profoundly accused a number of people of accepting a bribe from the Germans... All aspects of this incident must be clarified, and this research will convince all people that this is not the smallest assault on the revolutionary dignity of comrade Lenin.” [1][Our translation]

The discrediting of revolutionaries in different forms is not a new phenomenon, since Marx resorted to such dirty practices in his time. We should not allow such individuals to poison the political milieu with a lumpen attitude; we should not take them seriously, but instead expose them. Such individuals in the real world and in the form of real characters cannot continue their destructive function; they have better conditions for manoeuvring themselves in the virtual milieu. The valuable work of Victor Serge, entitled What Every Revolutionary Should Know About State Repression [2], is vital to understanding the destructive role of such individuals. The destructive function of these individuals serves to poison the political milieu and support the capital state.

Firoz Akbari

5 September 2018

 

 

Notes:

[1] https://www.marxists.org/farsi/history/sosyal-demokrasiye-roosiyeh/eteham-be-lenin.htm

[2] https://www.marxists.org/archive/serge/1926/repression/index.htm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mizar
Really, the chain "class -

Really, the chain "class - party of the class - leaders of the party" is inseparable. An attack on any link is the attack on the whole chain. Anti-Stalinism is a good example of a hidden attack on the worker's class and the worker's revolution. Counter-revolutions in countries of the Soviet block started under the banner of anti-Stalinism.

Tagore2
The chain "class - party of

The chain "class - party of the class - leaders of the party" is not a communist principle, this is the Führerprinzip of Hitler. Do you remember the German-Soviet pact? It is not even surprising that Stalinists evoke the Führerprinzip to protect Stalin.

I do not understand why we tolerate Stalinists on this forum.

Mizar
A bit of ABC:"It is a common

A bit of ABC:

"It is a common knowledge that the masses divided into classes,...that as a rule and in most cases...classes are led by political parties;that political parties,as a general rule, are run by more or less stable groups composed of the most authoritative ,influantial and experienced members,who are elected on the most responsible positions, and are called leaders...To go so far,in this connection,as to contrast, in general, the dictatorship of the masses with a dictatorship of the leaders is ridiculously absurd, and stupid" - Lenin.

Mizar
A bit of ABC: "It is a common

A bit of ABC:

"It is a common knowledge that the masses divided into classes,...that as a rule and in most cases...classes are led by political parties;that political parties,as a general rule, are run by more or less stable groups composed of the most authoritative ,influantial and experienced members,who are elected on the most responsible positions, and are called leaders." - Lenin.

i

Mizar
A bit of ABC: "It is a common

A bit of ABC:

"It is a common knowledge that the masses divided into classes,...that as a rule and in most cases...classes are led by political parties;that political parties,as a general rule, are run by more or less stable groups composed of the most authoritative ,influantial and experienced members,who are elected on the most responsible positions, and are called leaders." - Lenin.

i

Mizar
A bit of ABC: "It is a common

A bit of ABC:

"It is a common knowledge that the masses divided into classes,...that as a rule and in most cases...classes are led by political parties;that political parties,as a general rule, are run by more or less stable groups composed of the most authoritative ,influantial and experienced members,who are elected on the most responsible positions, and are called leaders." - Lenin.

i

Tagore2
What effect on the

What effect on the Stalinists! Quadruple post! Do you know this picture? How do you explain that Stalin murdered half of the Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party? Not to mention his alliance with Hitler! Naturally, Lenin would have approved the murder of half of his comrades! Lenin would have given a friendly pat on the back of Stalin: "ally with the Nazis? What good idea, Stalin! You say that it will protect the USSR from a German invasion? How smart you are, Stalin! "

Since you are talking about ABC, here is another ABC, better adapted to the intellectual level of Stalinists.

Teivos
Debate behavior, banning and slander

I think that neither Mizar or Tagore2´s behaviors here expressed are healthy for the debate. Mizar might be a stalinist, which doesn´t mean a priori that has to be censored or banned. We would be panicking and failing in trying to understand. However, usually the concept that stalinists have of organization and morals, and their behavior lead to the need to expell them because of sabotage. But...it might also be someone with a strong influence from leftism who is looking forward to discussion. This is the reason why I think that stalinists don´t have to be banned just because of expressing positions which defend state capitalism.

Anyway, posting the same thing 3 times (which might be an error or a tactic to “make himself bigger”) and with a superiority tone (“a bit of ABC”, as if reffering to a sacred text) doesn´t point towards a sincere proletarian fraternal discussion behavior.

On the other hand, ridiculing is not the best answer to a provocation. It is just falling into the same game of insults and laughing down at eachother.

Additionally, I do not find the quote of Mizar substantially incorrect. What is incorrect is using it as a opportunist justification of anything that might serve for a particular interest. This is called descontextualizing or misinterpreting. In the quote and from a working class interests perspective:
-“More or less stable” would imply: depending on the constant control and revocability of the delegates by workers assemblies.
-“More authoritative”: authority is something gained not by force or manipulation but through repeated convincing arguments and behavior. In this sense, Marx, Engels, Rosa, Lenin, Trotsky, Miasnikov, Pannekoek, Bordiga, etc tended to be leaders...or ceased to be so.
This leadership tends to be less stable or particular with the political development of the working class and its organizations.

Another important point seen here is the capacity of burgeois ideology to manipulate any idea coming from the working class and conveniently adapt it to burgeois politics.
We have to distinguish a deep investigation and rooted, reasoned arguments from (VS) the use of unsupported slander and insults.
For example, if now I decide to argument my support of Democracy or Fascism as revolutionary, because anti-fascism and anti-democracy are counter-revolutionary, I am making a circular argument. It has to be proven first that fascism or democracy are revolutionary. If not, the rest of the sentence is a complete nonsense.
In order to valid his first statement, Mizar should argument first what was the counter-revolution according to him/her, and after prove that counter-revolution started with anti-stalinism. This would make clear if he is referring to a proletarian or burgeois party.

Mizar
It's a common knowledge that

It's a common knowledge that revolution is a change of social economic systems. It's undeniably,I think, that in the middle of 1930s in Russia was established a new social economic system,no matter how would you call it.

Going further. We can mark four stages in Russian revolution:

1. February 1917-October 1917 - a bourgeois democratic stage;

2. October 1917-1921 - a start of a socialist phase of revolution,but in countryside still the bourgeois revolution lasts;

3. 1921-1929 - a retreat of the revolution (NEP), the proletariat still helds power but in economy "capitalism was restored to a large extent";

4. 1929-the middle of 1930s - the revolution transferes into a fully socialist phaze.As a result instead of a microstructure economy appeared an economy whith a dominating socialist sector.

Thus the Russian revolution lasted almost for twenty years and almost for fifty years it was led by Stalin.

Thus the attack on Stalin is the attack on revolution.

Teivos
new? social economic system

And aren´t the main charachteristics of this "new social economic system,no matter how would you call it" the following?:

Quoting the begining of Lenin´s book "The State and the Revolution":
- "The imperialist war has immensely accelerated and intensified the process of transformation of monopoly capitalism into state-monopoly capitalism. The monstrous oppression of the working people by the state, which is merging more and more with the all-powerful capitalist associations, is becoming increasingly monstrous. The advanced countries - we mean their hinterland - are becoming military convict prisons for the workers".

-"The elements of opportunism that accumulated over the decades of comparatively peaceful development have given rise to the trend of social-chauvinism which dominated the official socialist parties throughout the world. This trend - socialism in words and chauvinism in deeds (...) is conspicuous for the base, servile adaptation of the "leaders of socialism" to the interests not only of "their" national bourgeoisie, but of "their" state".

By the way, did you post your comment 4 times by mistake or was it on purpose?

Mizar
By mistake of course,I didn't

By mistake of course,I didn't find how to delete double posts.

So are you going to assert that there was no revolution at all?

Teivos
Discussion topics

I share ICC´s position that there was a truly proletarian revolution and revolutionary wave (1917-1923 aprox) and a degeneration of the revolution and a whole period of counterrevolution:"The failure of this revolutionary wave, particularly in Germany in 1919-23, condemned the revolution in Russia to isolation and to a rapid degeneration. Stalinism was not the product of the Russian revolution, but its gravedigger"-ICC Basic Positions.
If you find it necessary to deepen into the particular question of stalinism, revolution and state capitalism I recommend to participate in, for example, this discussion: http://en.internationalism.org/forum/1056/commiegal/8396/state-capitalism-and-stalinism-question
Or start a new discussion, which may be related to one of the ICC articles that you think best suits the topic.
Sometimes, connecting to another topic is useful to clarify, but I think that there is a strong disagreement between you and the ICC on the nature of capitalist vs. communist social relations, and maybe the best thing to do is start discussing your disagreement on the nature of stalinism.
I think that this topic is more about our positions on slander, insults, conspiration, duplicity, progromism, secretism, unargumented recrimination and opposition without positive alternatives, etc. In my opinion you are completely welcome in comenting your opinions on these behaviors.