Subject: LL9804469 Ben Seattle replies to Klo & Andrew -- Will the Dictatorship of the Proletariat censor the internet ? Date: Monday, April 27, 1998 2:58 PM ------- Forwarded message follows ------- Klo (LL9804.438) writes: > I also have some questions I would like you to answer ... > (a) Would you allow bourgeois parties to run candidates, > distribute literature, appear on the media etc., if you > were making policy for a socialist state? > (b) Would you allow private ownership of the means of > production, distribution and exchange and, if so, to what > degree? > (c) How would the leaders of a socialist system be selected, > if your program were instituted? How do you stand with > respect to Lenin's democratic centralism? > (d) What guidelines would you institute regarding the distribution > of anti-socialist writings, books, periodicals, magazines, etc. > and what rules would you institute regarding public speaking? > I await your replies with bated breath. Andrew (LL9804.455) writes: > Bravo Bravo! what a great set of questions! IMHO every comrade > on this list should complete the above and ponder the over their > replies. I will be. Ben Seattle replies: -------------------- These are indeed extremely good questions. Thanks to Klo for asking them and Andrew for calling everyone's attention to them. If we can focus on discussing questions such as these in a calm and thoughtful atmosphere of polemical decency--we can strike a blow at both reformist ideology and sectarian methods. The basic question here is how the system of workers' rule will function in a modern society. I have been, without success, attempting to draw attention to this question myself. For example, in LL9804.039 I asked: ============================== How will a workers' state suppress the newly overthrown (but still immensely powerful) bourgeoisie *without also* suppressing workers ? ============================== This question has many aspects. The most interesting part of the answer involves the control of the media. For a considerable period, under workers' rule, bourgeois elements will still have tremendous resources at their disposal. How will the workers' state prevent these bourgeois elements from dominating the media in their struggle against the proletarian ideology? This is such an interesting question because it is also central to the question of proletarian democracy. How can we censor bourgeois views without also censoring workers who have bourgeois views? This question can be posed most sharply in respect to the internet and the web. Bourgeois democracy allows everyone to have their own website and say what they will. Will the workers' state allow everyone to have the same right? This question assumes immense importance because the internet is destined to merge with the mass media. In fact, this merger is in its earliest stages already. I concluded, in an essay "The Digital Fire" (written in November 1996 and available at my website) that the answer to this question is: yes--everyone, even reactionaries, will have the right to express their views on their website. Such a policy will not endanger the system of workers' rule--but on the contrary will make it far more powerful. (Included below is a short excerpt from "1917 was the beta version" (November 1997) where I summarize my views.) For proletarian democracy, Ben Seattle ----//-// 26.Apr.98 www.Leninism.org The principle that "information wants to be free" fits Leninism as a bullet does a rifle. ============================================ from "Task 2" of "1917 was the beta version" ============================================ A sharp focus on workers' rule as it will exist in the modern world will be the cutting edge against reformism, sectarianism and charlatanism The fundamental ideological focus for communist work in the countries of bourgeois democracy will increasingly be recognized to be the system of workers' rule in the modern world. It is the sharp and unrelenting focus on the system of workers rule--the dictatorship of the proletariat--as a system capable of suppressing the bourgeoisie without simultaneously suppressing the working class (and thus paving the way for another disaster)--that will allow the influence of reformism to be effectively fought in the workers movement and in the "communist" movement. Unfortunately, most political trends which consider themselves to be communist will not touch this subject with a ten-foot pole. No question is more important (and no question has been more completely fucked-up by the bankruptcy of communist theory over the last 70 years) than the question of what the dictatorship of the proletariat will look like in the modern world. Will the "D of P" censor the internet ? In one of my works, "The Digital Fire" (written a year ago and available at my website), I state that in a stable, modern society--the system of workers' rule will NOT censor the internet with respect to the expression of political views by individuals. Individuals, even those with reactionary views, will be able to post their views to the net and read the views of others. Of course it would be a different matter in regard to the promotion of material on the net that is backed by bourgeois money and resources. The ability of bourgeois money and resources to *buy and assemble armies* of slick flacks and skilled technical people to advertize greasy food and greasier politics would be most sharply and resolutely restricted. Such measures alone would change the nature of the playing field such that views corresponding to the material interests of the proletariat would be able to defeat bourgeois and/or reactionary views in all decisive forums. Now my formulations are not necessarily the last word on this topic and are subject to criticism and improvement. And I welcome comments from readers (who I also invite to read "The Digital Fire"). But the point is that I am unaware of any political trend that has dealt with this subject at all. Will the dictatorship of the proletariat censor the internet? It is a question that cannot be avoided--but avoided it has been to date. Reformism (naturally) avoids this question because it dare not speak of any systematic measures the victorious proletariat would use to keep the former bourgeoisie from asserting its sacred "right" to dominate society. Reformism as a trend avoids all talk of the dictatorship of the proletariat--because it does not want to give the workers hope that life without bourgeois rule can be imagined (much less fought for). Reformism is intelligent enough not to bite the hand that feeds it. Sectarian trends tend to avoid this question also--in many cases because the mythology that glues them together generally involves a conception of working class rule that involves a complete and permanent monopoly of power by a single party--such as would be inconsistent with the unrestricted use of the internet by individuals not backed by bourgeois resources. Charlatans avoid this question also. Charlatans very rarely achieve fame by making progress on the key questions necessary for the development of communist theory. Why is this question so darn important ? This question is important because a correct answer to it is inseparable from the repudiation of the "single point of control" theory. The "single point of control theory" is the theory that--under working class rule--all major political, economic and cultural decisions must be channeled thru (or approved by) a single authority (elected or otherwise) which is vested with veto power and which has dominion over lower authorities arranged in a hierarchical structure. This is more or less equivalent to saying that a single party calls the shots--and decides what ideas are healthy or unhealthy and should be allowed to circulate. The "single point of control theory" concentrates all three elements of the "platform" which has served to drag communist theory thru the mud and bring joy to the bourgeoisie and their reformist lackies. What is the real content of this bullshit platform for what communism will bring to humanity ? ** A society which will produce less material and cultural wealth than capitalism ** A society in which all political life is permanently extinguished ** A system of rule under which all questions will be answered when hell freezes over I have formulated this platform with assistance from Joseph Green (my collaborator, in a manner of speaking, on "The Self-Organizing Moneyless Economy"). What is important is to understand is that this platform has been the real content of much of what has passed for communist theory in the past 70 years. And we must deal with this platform if we are to end the reign of confusion, reformism, sectarianism and charlatanism that has dominated the communist movement since the death of Lenin. Many of the measures taken by Lenin in the October Revolution are not features of workers' rule as it will exist in a stable and modern society. Nor did Lenin ever make such a claim. On the contrary, such features of Bolshevik policy as one-party rule and the suppression of all opposing political trends--were nothing more than a series of emergency measures forced on the Bolsheviks by extreme circumstances and aimed at maintaining political stability and economic recovery in a highly unusual and unstable situation extremely unfavorable to the possibilities of workers' rule. The features of the dictatorship of the proletariat during the time of Lenin--will resemble the dictatorship of the proletariat as it will exist in a modern, stable society--about as much as the conditions of 1920 Russia resemble modern conditions in the countries of bourgeois democracy. (available at www.Leninism.org)