From: Ben Seattle [icd@communism.org] To: marxism@lists.panix.com Subject: Re: The core of the working class program Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 08:01:41 -0700 Hi Juan, First of all, I would like to thank you for your reply. There are a number of questions related to this that I believe are truly interesting and, with your help, maybe the value of some of these questions may be made more clear to some of our readers. Ben Seattle wrote: >> I think there are many misconceptions about what such a system >> of workers rule would be like. These misconceptions arise, in >> my opinion, from the view that the measures of repression and >> one-party rule (which were an unfortunate necessity in Russian >> conditions while Lenin was alive) would be appropriate in a >> modern stable society. Juan Rafael Fajardo replied: >They also may arise from the misconception that one-party rule was a >"necessity" while Lenin was alive. In fact it was viewed as neither >desirable nor necessary that the Bolsheviks have total control of the >government. The RSDLP(b) ended up in sole possession of the government >because other workers parties *declined* to participate although their >relative strength in the national assembly --the Soviet-- entitled them >to help form a government. It happened, but it was in no way >"necessary" or part of the Bolshevik program for government. Ben Seattle: I suspect that there may be a misunderstanding arising from an imprecise formulation of mine. When I said that one-party rule was necessary during the period that Lenin was alive--I am refering to 1921 and later, when popular dissatisfaction with the Bolsheviks had reached a level that, in all fairness, could be called very severe. Similarly, I suspect that your description, above, is refering to an earlier period, possibly shortly after the October Revolution. The Mensheviks and S-Rs were expelled from the Soviets around the middle of 1918, as the Civil War began to unfold. There were some smaller parties that were less hostile to the Bolsheviks than the Mensheviks and S-Rs, but their existence as independent organizations had to be cut short in the following years. I am by no means an expert on the early history of Lenin's revolution. I would be hard-pressed to give a date when the necessity of single-party rule asserted itself. Many complex events and stages followed one another during the five years that Lenin was in power. Nonetheless, it seems clear to me that (at least by the time of the 10th Congress in March 1921) it had become necessary for the Bolsheviks to suppress all rival trends. It is unclear to me whether you really in disagreement with me--because language is sometimes clumsy or imprecise and also because, as I say, you may be refering to an earlier period. My view, however, is that whether or not we agree on this question of Soviet history--is relatively unimportant. What is more important is that it appears likely that we _do agree_ on the most decisive question--that the rule of a single party would _not_ be necessary as part of a system of workers' rule in a modern, stable society. If so, then I am hopeful that you can assist me in helping to focus the attention of readers on this issue. I believe this issue is certainly worth the attention. Allow me to explain why. What happens is that if attention is _not_ focused on this issue--then the _default_ conception which will predominate--is that the "dictatorship of the proletariat" must always be equivalent to the rule of a single party. Such a conception is profoundly mistaken. But readers _need to know_ that such a conception is mistaken. If readers believe that the "DotP" is equivalent to the rule of a single party--then in their minds, the necessity for a system of workers rule is undermined. This is because most progressive people (whether developed in theory or not) understand (instinctively and correctly) that the measures of harsh repression used by Lenin in his last years--cannot be accepted as permanent features of a society that is supposedly run by the working class. But if the necessity for a system of workers' rule (ie: the "DotP") is undermined--then so is the concept of overthrowing bourgeois rule. Because the _essence_ of the DotP is the suppression of the bourgeosie. Without a system capable of suppressing attempts by the bourgeoisie at restoration--the concept of overthrowing bourgeois rule loses all meaning. And then we are left only with reformism--and without a clear picture of the decisive task which will unite the working class. I don't know how much of this is clear. I believe it probably is very unclear to most readers of this forum. But what I am trying to say may be clear to you. And if it is--maybe you will understand the request for assistance that I am making and why I believe this issue is central to the further development of marxist theory. Sincerely, Ben Seattle 3.Jun.98 ----//-// www.Leninism.org