💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › punkerslut-democracy-and-dictatorship.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 13:14:46. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: “Democracy” and Dictatorship Author: Punkerslut Date: February 16, 2006 Language: en Topics: Leninism, critique Source: Retrieved on 22nd April 2021 from http://www.anarchistrevolt.com/critiques/lenin/democracy.html
A true revolutionary carries two solemn pieces of knowledge with him:
the way things are, and the way things could be. The mind of a radical
thinker is sensitive enough to feel the pains of every social stratum.
The philosophy such an individual is broad and open, allowing for all
possibilities and conceiving every potential. The true revolutionary
knows the misery of society and then seeks to abolish the pain with
action. Our moral feelings start and finish with compassion and
sympathy. This is a very modest view of the dark rogue-like character
who threatens the innocent villagers with new ideas. Seeing this
definition of a revolutionary, I feel that it is something that everyone
has done at one point in their life; revolution may very well be defined
as disobedience to an authority figure in order to absolve our pains or
the pains of our fellows. We are not really different types of people,
consumers or revolutionaries or politicians or corporate executives. We
are all revolutionaries, pushing boundaries and barriers, threatening
the system and order, but just to different degrees, or just more
aggressive about it in our earlier years. History confirms the theory
that revolutionary activity is the most natural and justified response
of a social unit, the subjects, when it comes to oppressive and
totalitarian governments.
The Communist revolutionary shares the same zeal and the same sense of
justice as the others of the Humanitarian movement: the Feminists, the
Abolitionists, the Animal Rights activists, the peace workers, among
many others. In the heart of the true Communist, there is greater love
for the prosperity of the community than for personal gain. Since
Communism and Socialism are philosophies that focus around improving the
living and working conditions of all workers, it is natural that its
advocates will be supporters of Democracy. The people should both be
free in an economic sense, enslaved by no one, but the people should
also be free in a political sense: the laws and regulations of society
should reflect the views of society. Just as every person should have
equal control of the economy, so should every person have equal control
of the social order that is established. Communism and Socialism are
simply a Democracy of industry and business. By establishing a
collectivist society, classes are abolished so that every individual
might be able to enjoy the privileges of industrial civilization.
Friedrich Engels, co-author of the Communist Manifesto, wrote, “In all
civilized countries, democracy has as its necessary consequence the
political rule of the proletariat, and the political rule of the
proletariat is the first condition for all communist measures. As long
as democracy has not been achieved, thus long do Communists and
democrats fight side by side, thus long are the interests of the
democrats at the same time those of the Communists.” [1] And Karl Marx
wrote: “Man does not exist because of the law but rather the law exists
for the good of man. Democracy is human existence, while in the other
political forms man has only legal existence. That is the fundamental
difference of democracy.” [2] These were not the only Communists and
Leftists to express a Democratic ideal combined with Socialism. William
Godwin, Emma Goldman, Mikhail Bakunin, Louis Blanc, Jane Addams, Big
Bill Haywood, and a thousand others represent the theorists of Socialism
achieved through Democratic means.
Vladimir Lenin has been the inspiration to many Socialist and Communist
dreams. In 1917, he established the Soviet government in Russia; it was
the first Socialist state that the world ever witnessed. Actually, the
revolution could only be harvested with the collective labors of many
revolutionaries, some of them of Anarchist, Libertarian, Leftist, or
Liberal persuasion. In the end, though, it was Lenin, Leon Trotsky, and
others in the Bolshevik Party who would claim the Russian Revolution as
their golden achievement. When it came for the Bolshevik Party to decide
the fate of Russia, there was the question of who was to give the
orders, who was to make the laws, and who was to interpret and express
the will of the people. Lenin held elections in Russia for the Soviet
Constituent Assembly, but the results were particularly unfavorable: a
significant amount of the majority had voted against the rule of the
Bolshevik Party. The Soviet Constituent Assembly was immediately
dissolved by Lenin and the Bolshevik Party seized power by force,
coercion, and terror. Lenin, speaking of the Capitalist political
system, writes: “...the state even in the most democratic republic, and
not only in a monarchy, is simply a machine for the suppression of one
class by another.” More thoroughly explaining his position, Lenin tells
us...
...the democratic republic, the Constituent Assembly, general elections,
etc., are, in practice, the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, and for the
emancipation of labor from the yoke of capital there is no other way but
to replace this dictatorship with the dictatorship of the proletariat.
[...]
This means replacing what in fact is the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie
(a dictatorship hypocritically cloaked in the forms of the democratic
bourgeois republic) by the dictatorship of the proletariat. This means
replacing democracy for the rich by democracy for the poor. [3]
Vladimir Lenin did something that Communists and Socialists of that day
could never conceive: the abolishment of the Democratic rule of the
people. Marx and Engels both made their opinions on Democracy very
clear. They sought to release the working class from the chains of his
oppressor, whether it is a tyrant of politics or a tyrant of economy. At
that moment, Lenin made a serious break with the program of Marxist
revolution. And, at that moment, the Soviet government started a most
massive propaganda program to convince its people and the world that
what they had created was a genuine Socialist order. Historically, the
Socialist movement has always sought to deliver greater political
autonomy to the working class. With the creation of the Soviet Union,
the entire Russian working class lost their voice in the matters of all
things economic and political. The great government machine became the
new oppressor, replacing the Capitalist system, continuing to deny
people the right to be organize themselves in to a Socialist order of
their own desire. There was once a time when even Lenin talked with a
sincere and reverent tone towards Democracy....
What is a “popular Constituent” Assembly? It is an assembly which, in
the first place, really expresses the will of the people. To this end we
must have universal suffrage in all of its democratic aspects, and a
full guarantee of freedom to conduct the election campaign. It is an
assembly which, in the second place, really has the power and authority
to “inaugurate” a political order which will ensure the sovereignty of
the people. [4]
Perhaps it was safer for Lenin to speak of Democracy and the rights of
the oppressed minorities when he was persecuted. Once Lenin had achieved
the power of the state, it was no longer safe to his personal goals to
allow the will of the people to determine the course of the state or the
economy. It was a politician’s ploy, to speak to the heart of the
people, and once supported, to betray their wishes and oppress them. The
Communists and Socialists have all been calling for the proletariat to
be in control of the means of production. This meant that the working
class owned the means of production. Lenin’s first effect was to abolish
any chance for Socialism, by creating a new class-based system, with a
powerless working class and powerful, wealthy government class. No
chains were lifted. The whipdrivers are still there. They’re just
different people. What did Democracy mean to the working class of
Russia? For them, it meant that they would be the ones in control of
their own social system. The greatest way to abolish the exploitation of
the working class is to abolish the system which places them at the
mercy of a powerful tyrant. So long as there is an authority who can
determine whether they get bread or housing, the working class will be
enslaved by Capitalism. Soviet Russia did not establish a Socialist or
Communist order. It only recreated and redefined the roles of
Imperialist Capitalism, cutting off ties to any genuinely collectivist
ideology. Vladimir Lenin has made his decision for himself. What has his
choice meant for the people of Russia? Alexander Berkman, while touring
the newly formed USSR, writes...
More hated even than in Kiev is the Tcheka in Odessa. Ghastly stories
are told of its methods and the ruthlessness of the predsedatel, a
former immigrant from Detroit. The personnel of the institution consists
mostly of old gendarme officers and criminals whose lives had been
spared “for services to be rendered in fighting counter-revolution and
speculation.” The latter is particularly proscribed, the “highest form
of punishment” — shooting — being meted out to offenders. Executions
take place daily. The doomed are piled into automobile trucks, face
downward, and driven to the outskirts of the city. The long line of the
death-vehicles is escorted by mounted men riding wildly and firing into
the air — a warning to close the windows. At the appointed place the
procession halts. The victims are made to undress and to take their
places at the edge of the already prepared common grave. Shots resound —
the bodies, some lifeless, some merely wounded, fall into the hole and
are hastily covered with sod. [5]
The same author details the revolutionary struggle of Anarchists in the
city of Kronstadt against the Soviet machine. The workers organized in
to a union and went on strike against the government. “The government
replied to the demands of the strikers by making numerous arrests and
suppressing several labor organizations. The action resulted in popular
temper growing more anti-Bolshevik; reactionary slogans began to be
heard.” [6] The workers weren’t very much freed from oppressors. Emma
Goldman, during her tour of the Soviet Union, wrote...
The great flour mill oil Petrograd, visited next, looked as if it were
in a state of siege, with armed soldiers everywhere even inside the
workrooms. The explanation given was that large quantities of precious
flour had been vanishing. The soldiers watched the millmen as if they
were galley slaves, and the workers naturally resented such humiliating
treatment. They hardly dared to speak. One young chap a fine-looking
fellow, complained to me of the conditions. “We are here virtual
prisoners,” lie said; “we cannot make a step without permission. We are
kept hard at work eight hours with only ten minutes for our kipyatok
[boiled water] and we are searched on leaving the mill.” “Is not the
theft of flour the cause of the strict surveillance?” I asked. “Not at
all,” replied the boy; “the Commissars of the mill and the soldiers know
quite well where the flour goes to.” I suggested that the workers might
protest against such a state of affairs. “Protest, to whom?” the boy
exclaimed; “we’d be called speculators and counter-revolutionists and
we’d be arrested.” “Has the Revolution given you nothing?” I asked. “Ah,
the Revolution! But that is no more. Finished,” he said bitterly.
[...]
...in Social’ Russia the sight of pregnant women working in suffocating
tobacco air and saturating themselves and their unborn with the poison
Impressed me as a fundamental evil. I spoke to Lisa Zorin to see whether
something could not be done to ameliorate the evil. Lisa claimed that
piece work” was the only way to induce the girls to work. As to rest
rooms, the women themselves had already made a fight for them, but so
far nothing could be done because no space could be spared in the
factory. “But if even such small improvements had not resulted from the
Revolution,” I argued, “what purpose has it served?” “The workers have
achieved control,” Lisa replied; “they are now in power, power, and they
have more important things to attend to than rest rooms--they have the
Revolution to defend.” Lisa Zorin had remained very much the
proletarian, but she reasoned like a nun dedicated to the service of the
Church. [7]
The Soviet system only re-established the slavery it had claimed to
abolish. One of the first orders of state was to negotiate for an
armistice for a long-term solution to the war between Russia and
Germany. In the Second All-Russia Congress of Soviets of Workers’ and
Soldiers’ Deputies, Stalin said in a speech, “At the same time the
government declares that it does not regard the above-mentioned peace
terms as an ultimatum; in other words, it is prepared to consider any
other peace terms...” [8] The first treaty signed between Russia and the
Central Powers, which consists of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the
Ottoman Empire, was the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. The territory
surrendered to the Central Powers included Finland, Poland, Belarus,
Ukraine, parts of Turkey, and the future Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia,
and Lithuania). Many of the original working-class soldiers of the
Russian Revolution went to these countries in order to defend the
territory from the oppressive, Statist government of Germany. This
territory was simply handed over to Anton Ivanovich Denikin, a
counter-revolutionary and known for anti-Semitic pogroms. When
self-organized, Anarchist militias started to cause problems with the
treaty, the USSR sent in some troops who were also discovered to be
committing these anti-Semitic pogroms. Nestor Makhno recalls some of his
time in this part of the history of Ukraine...
From inhabitants of Elizavetgrad and neighboring villages, as well as
from some partisans from Grogoriev’s units, I learned that every time he
had occupied the town Jews had been massacred. In his presence and on
his orders, his partisans had murdered nearly two thousand Jews,
including the flower of the Jewish youth: many members of the anarchist,
Bolshevik and socialist youth organizations. Some of these had even been
taken from prison for slaughter.
Upon learning all this, I promptly declared Grigoriev, the ataman of
Kherson — a “Socialist Revolutionary” (sic) — a Denikinist agent and
open pogromist, directly culpable for the actions of his supporters
against Jews.
At the Sentovo meeting on 27 July 1919, Grigoriev was denounced for what
he was and executed on the spot for all to see. That execution and the
reasons for it were announced thus: “The pogromist Grigoriev has been
executed by Makhnovist leaders: Batko Mahkno, Semyon Karetnik and Alexis
Chebunko. The Makhnovist movement accepts full responsibility before
History for this action.” That declaration was endorsed by the members
of the Soviet of the Insurgent Army and the Socialist Revolutionary
Party members present, including Nikolai Kopornitsky. [9]
Lenin had erected a system where the working class was completely
powerless, politically and economically. His system did not improve the
lives of the working class, but only made them victim to countless
violations of their civil liberties. The people could not vote, nor
could they organize themselves in to associations that might question
the absolute authority of the Bolshevik Communist Party. It can only be
assumed that the rule of Lenin, full of secret police and spies to watch
the people, was responsible for producing the rule of Joseph Stalin. The
Wikipedia entry of Joseph Stalin, which relies on over ten different
source documents, estimates the amount of unnatural deaths caused by the
Soviets to be around twenty million. The principle of Socialism has
always been to give more autonomy to the most common individual. In a
system where you can only feed yourself based on what wages a capitalist
decides to give you, the worker has very little choice over his
existence. Similarly, in the Soviet system, the worker had no
decision-making ability over their economic or political situation,
which is why, at best, the Leninist model of Communism is just a
Fascist, state-run Capitalism. The idea of dictatorship is, and always
has been, meant for the oppression of the major class by a minor class.
And, it is oppression which we Communists universally seek abolish.
Oppression itself naturally implies that it is the exploitation of one
class by another. Genuine Communism has sought to abolish all classes,
so that all economic exploitation of any type would cease. And
ultimately, the record shows Lenin’s revolution to be a dismal failure.
[1] Deutsche-Brüsseler-Zeitung No. 80, October 7, 1847.
[2] Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right Karl Marx, 1843, Part 2,
section C.
[3] “‘Democracy’ and Dictatorship,” by Vladimir Lenin, Written: December
23, 1918, First Published: January 3, 1919 in Pravda No. 2, Source:
Lenin Collected Works, Volume 28 (p. 368–72).
[4] “Democratic Tasks of the Revolutionary Proletariat,” Lenin,
Proletary, No. 4, June 17 (4), 1906.
[5] “The Bolshevik Myth,” by Alexander Berkman, Chapter 32: September 2,
1920.
[6] “The Kronstadt Rebellion,” by Alexander Berkman, Berlin: Der
Sindikalist, 1922.
[7] “My Disillusionment in Russia,” by Emma Goldman, New York Doubleday,
Page & Company, 1923, chapter 9.
[8] Second All-Russia Congress of Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’
Deputies, Report on Peace, October 26 (November 8).
[9] “The Makhnovshchina and Anti-Semitism,” by Nestor Makhno, Dyelo
Truda, No. 30–31, November-December 1927, pp. 15–18.