Subject: LL9806021 Klo McKinsey: re: The "D of P" and the internet in the modern world
Date: Sunday, June 07, 1998 4:26 AM
Ben Seattle wrote:
> 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.
My reply,
At this stage of the game, Ben, I don't think that is the most decisive
question in the non-socialist countries. A more fundamental question
is: What is a Marxist-Leninist policy or program within a capitalist
country.
Who are real Marxist-Leninists and who are the Mensheviks. In other
words, to what extent do you compromise your principles in order to gain
adherents and allies. This is the fundamental problem for the CPUSA and
similar organizations. It is certainly the major problem confronting
the CPRF led by Zuganov and company.
>
> >> 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.
My reply,
The answer is yes. Everything has to be kept clean, including my car.
Ben says,
> 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).
My reply,
I can't agree with that at all. I can think of many comments,
statements, and ideologies that will not be allowed.
Ben says,
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.
My reply,
What relationship does granting carte blanche have to a materialist
analysis?
Ben says,
>
> 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?
My reply,
If I understand you correctly, we are in complete disagreement.
Ben says,
>
> 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.
My reply,
Could you give me a short synopsis of your answer, since I appear to
have missed it.
Ben says,
>
> 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.
My reply,
Could you be more specific.
Ben says,
>
> >> 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.
Ben says,
>
> 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.
My reply,
Now Ben! Exposing anti-Marxist ideology is never a waste of time in any
age.
Ben says,
>
> 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.
My reply,
Again I will have to ask for specifics.
Ben says,
>
> 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?
My reply,
That is not what I am asking them to do but I am not going to forego
telling them they have erred when they need to know.
Ben says,
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.
My reply,
Again. What tasks are you referring to. You often fail to provide
specifics.
Ben says,
>
> >> 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?
Ben says,
> 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.
My reply,
Before you can capture the imagination of millions, they must first be
given reasons for rejecting that which they already have. And
unfortunately that, to a tremendous degree, is out of our hands. It is
primarily contingent upon something physically happening to millions,
mainly a depression or a war. Changes in material conditions alter
ideology, not vice versa. That is axiomatic to Marxism-Leninism as
Lenin showed very clearly in "Materialism and Empirio-Criticism." You
can read this in my book THE RELEVANCE OF MARXISM at my web site which
is: www.infinet.com/~klomckin
Surely you are not asking for a detailed description of each aspect of a
proletarian state in modern society? That would be a rather tall order
indeed.
Ben says,
>
> 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.
My reply,
How many working classes do you have? How could five or ten parties
with divergent programs correctly represent the working class? As Lenin
said, Parties are nothing more than the political expression of various
classes. Therefore only one party can correctly represent the interests
of the working class. All you are doing is providing an opportunity for
agents of other classes to work their way in when you denigrate
leadership by the party of the working class.
:You say "this is not the form the D of P will take in the future." To
what future are you referring? If you are referring to the entire
period throughout the socialist era, then you have erred. It is the
form it will take during that era. If you are referring to the ultimate
period of communism, then you are correct. Again you would do well to
read my book.
Ben says,
>
> It is important to clarify this because many (or most) people believe
> that the "alternative" to bourgeois rule is a permanent police state.
My reply,
"Police state." So this is your conception of the socialist era? What
do you think exists throughout 90% of the capitalist world, so that the
remaining 10% can give the facade of democracy. Every government is a
dictatorship, my friend. There is no such thing as a government that is
not a dictatorship. It does not exist, never has, and never will.
Lenin made that quite clear. The art of living is to select the correct
kind of dictatorship and there are basically only two options. One in
which 10% (the property owners) dictate to the remaining 90% or one in
which the 90% dictate to those who favor rule by the 10%. If you think
there is a third option, Lenin, Stalin and I would all like to hear it.
Good luck!
Ben says,
> It is important to smash this view.
My reply,
No, it is not important to smash this view, if you mean the bourgeoisie
and its agents should be allowed to operate freely. How do you intend
to keep them at bay?
Ben says,
You can help in this. If you are
> in agreement with me--then say so.
My reply,
Sorry. I can't. In fact, I am very much in disagreement.
Ben says,
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 ;-)
My reply
Well finally it comes out. That could just as easily have been said by
anyone on Wall Street. Don't you know that everyone censors. You are
being naive. Censorship is rampant. Capitalist media spend far more
time hiding the news than reporting it and conditions are even more
involved than that.
Ben says,
>
> >> Ben Seattle:
> >> =============
> >> The theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat is the
> >> _center_ of communist theory--and represents the
> >> decisive question of our time.
My reply,
Keeping in mind what I said earlier in regard to this comment, the
important point to note is that all the time you extol the importance of
the D of P you are simultaneously gutting it. While talking as if you
favor it, you simultaneously want to remove all its potency. You want a
dictatorship with no teeth, no fangs, no claws, and no guts. Why not
just ask the working class to surrender and be done with it. Just
dispense with all the facade and formalities!
We are talking about a dictatorship, not a soft cuddly, toothless,
declawed ball of warm fur.
>
> > 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.
Ben says,
> 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.
My reply,
How do you unite the working class when you have no interest in
determining who are and who are not its real and most accurate leaders?
You want to unite the working class, yet you have almost no interest in
determining if its leadership is composed of surreptitious bourgeois
agents and is serving bourgeois interests. You want to bring all the
parts of a car together without assembling qualified engineers to
construct the plans and assemble the components.
Ben says,
>
> Communists will form their own organization on the basis of taking up
> those tasks which are decisive.
My reply,
What does that mean in practical terms?
Ben says,
>
> 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.
My reply,
And how are you suggesting that be done?
Ben says,
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.
My reply,
Here we are in agreement yet your conception of the D of P negates what
you are saying.
Ben says,
>
> >> 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?
Ben says,
>
> 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.
My reply,
And I respect your efforts, although I am in disagreement with some of
your basic premises.
Ben says,
>
> 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?
My reply
I fail to see how the agent for the view bears upon the accuracy of the
view itself. Bourgeois views should be censored regardless of who has
them. Are you saying it is impossible for a proletarians to have a
bourgeois outlook, make mistakes, and be agents of capitalism. The view
matters far more than who is carrrying it.
Ben says,
>
> 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?
My reply,
Ben. You are the victim of one of the greatest con games to have ever
been foisted upon humanity. First, you should take account of who
controls the means of production, distribution, and exchange before you
start making judgments with respect to who is allowing what. This
bourgeois trick has deceived an incredible number of even the most
intelligent political observers. If you want the specifics I will spell
them out.
Ben says,
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.
My reply,
Not in the D of the P phase. By no means. I can also spell out these
reasons should you so desire..
Again you are ignoring the relationship to the means of production,
distribution, and exchange. Stated in more simple terms, you are
completely ignoring who has the money. The amount of freedom you have
is directly related to the size of your pocketbook.
Again you need to read THE RELEVANCE OF MARXISM.
Ben says,
Such a policy will not endanger the system of
> workers' rule--but on the contrary will make it far more powerful.
My reply,
Are you serious? Without a tremendous shift in wealth, you are telling
the working class to commit mass political suicide.
Ben says,
> (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.
My reply,
What are you saying specifically, and if it is what I think, where did
Lenin state that in his 45 volumes?
>
> ============================================
> 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.
My reply,
I hope I am a lot closer than 10 feet.
Ben says,
>
> 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.
My reply,
During what era and by whom are you saying it was "fucked up." Could
you provide specifics.
Ben says,
>
> 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.
My reply,
Ben. And you are accusing me of being silly? How would you possibly
make this distinction or police it and how would you prevent the latter
from acting through the agency of the former. You had not thought this
through.
Ben says,
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.
My reply,
I think my disagreements with many of these judgments have been
sufficiently delineated.
>
> 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.
My reply,
I was unaware it was being so thoroughly avoided. Well, then, by all
means we do not want to avoid it any longer. I hope I have confronted
it to your satisfaction.
Ben says,
>
> 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.
My reply,
This distinction you keep making between "individuals" and those backed
by bourgeois resources is utterly vapid.
Ben says,
>
> 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.
My reply,
This is nothing more than a surreptitious repudiation of democratic
centralism as defined by Lenin and a rejection of the leading role of
the party. What are you advocating instead?
Ben says,
>
> 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.
My reply,
I can't agree at all. What is important is to realize that you reject
the D of the P while paying it lip service. You want a dictatorship in
which every "individual" can say and do as he likes which is a
prescription for disaster.
Ben says,
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.
My reply,
When, where, and by whom?
Ben says,
>
> 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.
My reply,
To what measures are you referring?
Ben says,
>
> 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.
My reply,
Ben. You need to either read or reread State and Revolution. Indeed,
you need to read much of what Lenin had to say in this regard. Best
yet, I again refer you to my book.
The D of the P will exist throughout the entire transition period from
capitalism to communism, i.e. socialism or the socialist phase.
Ben says,
>
> 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)
My reply,
Ben. I am sorry to say you have completely misunderstood Lenin with
respect to this entire issue. Your entire approach is nothing more than
an agenda for ruination.
P.S. SHOULD YOU DECIDE TO REPLY TO ANY POINTS, BEN, I WOULD STRONGLY
SUGGEST THAT YOU START A NEW POST AS THIS ONE IS GETTING MUCH TOO LONG
WITH A LOT OF REPETITION.