still unsure about lenin? [edit/ dictatorship]

5 posts / 0 new
Last post
still unsure about lenin? [edit/ dictatorship]
Printer-friendly version

could someone - from the ICC i mean - define their position on:

a) a cheka or censorship of the press, brought about by the party not the worker's councils?

b) red terror - by which i mean the execution or imprisonment of non violent counter revolutionaries, and anything else the term means?



thanks and sorry for making ANOTHER thread!

red terror

We think a key lesson of the Russian revolution is that the party does not control the means of violence. Any 'Cheka' like organisation - which, like other statist bodies such as standing army, would inherently contain considerable dangers - would have to be controlled by the councils. 

We are opposed to the notion of Red Terror because it is based on the notion that the end justifies the means, which is inimical to proletarian morality

terror, as a content and method, is by nature opposed to the aims of the proletariat. Can the Calvinists of the revolution really believe, can they really convince us, that the proletariat can make use of concentration camps, the systematic extermination of whole populations, the installation of a huge network of gas chambers, even more scientifically perfect than those of Hitler? Is genocide part of the ‘Programme’ of the ‘Calvinist Road to Socialism’?

We have only to recall the points we made about the main characteristics of the content and methods of terror to see at one glance the enormous gulf between terror and the proletariat:

1.    “Being organically linked to exploitation and used to impose it”. The proletariat is an exploited class and struggles for the elimination of exploitation of man by man.

2.    “Being the action of a privileged class”. The proletariat has no privileges and fights for the abolition of all privileges.

3.    “Being the action of a minority class in society”. The proletariat represents the immense majority of society. Some may see this as an expression of our ‘incorrigible penchant for the democratic principle’, the principle of majority and minority, but it is they who are obsessed by this problem - and what is more, for them minority acts held in horror by the majority are the criterion for revolutionary truth. Socialism cannot be realised if it is not based on historical possibility and does not correspond to the fundamental interests and will of the immense majority of society. This is one of the key arguments of Lenin in State and Revolution, and also of Marx when he said that the proletariat cannot emancipate itself without emancipating the whole of humanity.

4.    “Being the action of a specialized body”. The proletariat has inscribed on its banner the destruction of the permanent army and the police, and the general arming of the people; above all of the proletariat. “...tending to elude any control by society over it”. As an objective, the proletariat rejects all specialization, and because it is impossible to realise this immediately the class will insist that specialists are under the complete control of society.

5.    “Reproducing and perfecting itself endlessly...”. The proletariat aims to put a stop to all this and begins to do so as soon as it takes power.

6.    “Having no other raison d’etre than subordinating and crushing the human community”. The aim of the proletariat is diametrically opposed to this. Its raison d’etre is the liberation of human society.

7.    “Developing feelings of hostility and violence between social groups; nationalism, chauvinism, racism, and other monstrosities”. The proletariat will suppress all these historical anachronisms which have become monstrosities and barriers to the harmonious unification of humanity.

8. “Developing feelings and behaviour patterns of egoism, sadistic aggressiveness, vindictiveness; the daily unending war of each against all...”. The proletariat will develop quite new feelings - of solidarity, collective life, fraternity, ‘all for one and one for all’, the free association of producers, socialised production and consumption. And while terror “...plunges the whole of society into a state of terror”, the proletariat will call upon the initiative and creativity of everyone, so that in a general state of enthusiasm they can take their life in their own hands.

The class violence of the proletariat cannot be terror because its raison d’etre is to do away with terror. To consider them the same is to play with words. The hand of a murderer drawing his knife isn’t the same thing as someone who stops the murder being committed. The proletariat cannot resort to the organisation of pogroms, lynchings, schools of torture, Moscow Trials, as methods for realising socialism. It leaves these methods to capitalism, because they are part of capitalism, they are suitable to its ends and they have the generic name of TERROR.

thank you,,, :-)

thank you,,, :-)


edit and the bordigists ? it seems like a big issues within leninism, as big as kronstadt - in a way...

Supplementary to the quote

Supplementary to the quote Alf gives, the same article also says:

[quote ] It is quite certain that, in general, the working class will have an attitude of solidarity and sympathy - not towards terrorism which it condemns as an ideology, a method, and a mode of organisation - but towards the elements who are drawn into terrorism. This is so for obvious reasons:

 1.    because elements drawn into terrorism are in revolt against the existing order of terror that the proletariat aims to destroy from top to bottom. 2.    because, like the working class, elements drawn into terrorism are victims of the cruel exploitation and oppression of the capitalist class and its state, the mortal enemy of the proletariat. The only way the proletariat can show its solidarity with these victims is by trying to save them from the executioners of the state terror, and by attempting to draw them away from the deadly impasse of terrorism.[[

a continuation of the above

As you will see above something went wrong with my attempt at quoting. Sorry about that..  I just wanted to query whether changed historical circumstances, like the advance of decomposition , means that the ICC would want to change some of the above which was written in the 1970's 

I mean: would the ICC have sympathy for terrorist groups today?  Is it true today that " elements drawn into terrorism  are victims  of the cruel exploitation and oppression of the capitalist class and its state..." 


Well I suppose they might be.  Those lads who "terrorized" Boston recently might well be construed as victims of society themselves. Or victims of religion; or austerity; or just of capitalist society like the rest of us.  And the police who went after them to save the local citizenry, proved themselves even greater and more successful at terror than the two young men, and caused far more materiel if not psychological damage  and probably not by accident.  


The two guys who shot people near Woolwich Arsenal recently...the bourgeoisie  presents them  as undoubted terrorists of a classic type. Certainly they committed deliberate murder.  But they did it for Islam. (I think?) Couldn't  that be construed as meaning that as terrorists-for-Islam they  themselves were  victims of Islam, or a certain kind of militant warring Islam?  And, as such, that they were very respectable petty bourgeois terrorists of a religious maniac type?  They need psychiatric counseling not life in prison. The  ICC  in its  seventies frame of mind might have wondered if they could be saved for the proletariat. I wonder about that  myself.  


And then of course there's al  Qaida.  The Twin  Towers  and other monstrosities.  The bourgeoisie's favorite terrorists.  But don't al Qaida also kill and maim for God, or is  that just a cover - certainly they're not doing it for some quaint and totally outdated nationalism as do or did the IRA and the PLO - or is it just out of a misplaced hatred of everything and "the other", or for malicious fun like a kid destroys his toys when he can't get his own way, or because they want to be the new number one bourgeoise, or are they in fact, is it possible, a misguided collection of victims of capitalism, like the rest of us, who might in the end be saved for the proletarian cause?  (Do I hear gasps of horror?  But  I'm only  joking.) 


In the end though, I suppose we must content ourselves with seeing al Qaida  and all of terrorism's lunatic fringe, so busy at work in Africa which appears their happiest hunting ground at the moment, as nothing more than the product of decomposition and the terminal decay of capitalism.  Nothing more glamorous than that. 

And it needs to be pointed out, finally, that the biggest terrorists around on the planet now, with all the money and   resources needed for properly organized terrorism on a mass and world wide scale, is the bourgeoisie itself.  Perfected for the job, after two  hundred and fifty years of training and practice, their expertise plus their talent for cover-ups and lies -   an essential part of terrorist training often overlooked by amateurs - makes breakaway splinter groups like al Qaida  appear like clumsy beginners.  The working class will have to get rid of them all.