Subject: LL9806016 Ben Seattle: The "D of P" and the internet in the modern world Date: Wednesday, June 03, 1998 10:28 PM Hi Klo, Thanks for your reply. I think that intelligent discussion about this topic could be very useful. We have to start somewhere. >> Ben Seattle: >> ============= >> OK folks, this is all well and good. I agree with all of the >> above. But at some point we have to actually do this. > Klo McKinsey: > ============= >Do what Ben? With our numbers are as they are, what are you >proposing in concrete practical terms? I hope you are not >advocating we engage in some kind of Blanquist escapade? Ben Replies: ============= You are being silly Klo. I am advocating that we focus discussion on the theoretical issues that are most decisive. The most decisive of these issues, in my view, is the nature of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" in a modern, stable society. >> Ben Seattle: >> ============= >> I have raised on several occasions the need to consider the >> attitude of the dictatorship of the proletariat towards the >> internet. So far--no one has been willing to touch this topic >> with a ten foot pole. > Klo McKinsey: > ============= > Ben. I have no problem touching it with a one inch thimble. > Exactly what do you want to know [?] Ben Replies: ============= Somehow I assumed that you would understand the central question I am asking: ======================================== Will the dictatorship of the proletariat censor the internet ? ======================================== _That_ is the question I am asking. I have given my own opinion on this matter. I have said that the D of P will _not_ censor the internet in relation to its use by individuals (even individuals with reactionary opinions). I have said that a _different_ attitude will be taken towards use of the net by economic enterprises. I believe that my opinion corresponds to a materialist analysis, etc. I have qualified my opinion somewhat. I have stated that I am discussing the D of P in a modern, stable society with modern communications infrastructure, etc. This may exclude, for example, a society in the midst of a civil war, and so on. Do you agree with me or disagree with me? You raised some of these issues yourself in LL9804.438: > (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? > ... > (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 thought that these were good and useful questions. I attempted to answer what I felt were the most important ones in LL9804.469. Unfortunately, my reply drew very little interest. If anyone else answered these questions--I somehow missed it. Klo, if you really have as solid a grasp of some of these issues as you seem to project yourself as having--maybe you could answer some of these questions. It is good that you have raised such questions--but you have a strong tendency to get distracted from these questions to what I consider to be less important questions. >> Ben Seattle: >> ============= >> If _we_ are not willing to discuss how the system of workers' >> rule will function under modern conditions--then is it right to >> blame _others_ for not wanting to think about it? >> >> All the "Trotsky-hunting" that has been going on is a waste >> of my bandwidth. > Klo McKinsey: > ============= > It is not Trotsky-hunting. It is exposing an anti-Marxist ideology > that still infects a large number of people who consider themselves > leftists and Leninists. I think that "exposing anti-Marxist ideology" is a waste of time unless you can link this exposure to solving real problems today related to building an authentic and powerful communist movement. I am skeptical of your ability to make this linkage. If you are really knowledgeable about "anti-Marxist ideology" then you will be able to apply this knowledge towards those tasks which are decisive today. Do you believe that "people who consider themselves leftists and Leninists" are going to _first_ cleanse themselves of "anti-Marxist ideology" and _then_ go on to do something useful? I have a different view. I believe that serious and dedicated activists will recognize one another in the process of taking up those tasks which are most decisive. >> Ben Seattle: >> ============= >> I am confident that I am not alone in feeling this way. >> Anyone who has any theoretical ability should focus on >> the issues that are decisive. > Klo McKinsey: > ============= >To which ones are you referring specifically? Klo, if _you_ believe that you have theoretical ability--then I am suggesting that you use your abilities to help build interesting discussion (the kind of stuff capable of capturing the imagination of readers) on how the system of workers rule will function in a modern, stable society. Currently, the believe is widespread that the D of P will amount to the rule of a single party which has a monopoly of power and suppresses all opposition. This is the form the D of P necessarily took while Lenin was alive. But this is not the form the D of P will take in the future. It is important to clarify this because many (or most) people believe that the "alternative" to bourgeois rule is a permanent police state. It is important to smash this view. You can help in this. If you are in agreement with me--then say so. On the other hand, if you believe that the alternative to bourgeois rule is the rule of a single party that controls all media and decides who is allowed to voice what opinions in public--then come forward so that you can be smashed ;-) >> Ben Seattle: >> ============= >> The theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat is the >> _center_ of communist theory--and represents the >> decisive question of our time. > Klo McKinsey: > ============= >The D of P is not so much the center of communist theory >as it is that concept that separates Marxist-Leninists from >the others. Dialectical Materialism and the class struggle, >for example, are concepts of critical importance as well. I am not interested in "separating Marxist-Leninists" from everyone else. I am interested in uniting the working class for the overthrow of bourgeois rule. Communists will form their own organization on the basis of taking up those tasks which are decisive. It may be interesting and useful to discuss such things as dialectical materialism in various times, places and circumstances. But what is decisive--is a clear view of the central task of the working class--the overthrow of bourgeois rule. All working class organization will ultimately be assembled around this one central task. But the concept of overthrowing bourgeois rule _has no meaning_ without the concept of (after the initial proletarian victory) suppressing the inevitable attempts of bourgeois restoration. And such is the _essense_ of the theory of the D of P. >> Ben Seattle: >> ============= >>Anyone who refuses to discuss how the dictatorship of the >> proletariat will function under modern conditions (ie: with a >> modern communications infrastructure) is not really >> strengthening the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat. >> Instead they are just generating hot air. >> >> We can do better than that. > Klo McKinsey: > ============= >What exactly are you wanting to discuss that you consider >more important than that which we have been discussing. >Could you elaborate? Klo, hopefully I have clarified my views a bit. I am very busy and tired and believe it best that, rather than repeat myself endlessly, I append my earlier response to you and point out one or two places on my web site where I discuss some of these questions at greater length: 1) www.Leninism.org/pof/pof8.htm (section 8g) 2) www.Leninism.org/stream/97/1917beta.htm (task 2) 3) www.Leninism.org/stream/96/fire.htm ("The Digital Fire") Klo, I want you to know that in spite of our differences, I have respect for your efforts and dedication and I will strive to treat you with respect. Ben Seattle ----//-// Will the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" censor the internet? -- Find out at: www.Leninism.org ======================================= Appendix: Ben Seattle post # LL9804.469 ======================================= 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)