|
|||||||||||||
|
By Punkerslut, Addressed to the Freedom Road Socialist Organization
To: Designated E-mail Forms and Addresses for the Site [All are undeliverable.] Document Location: http://www.frso.org/docs/2006/2006maydayfrso.htm Greetings, Through searching online for information on communism, socialism, collectivism, and Leninism, I came to the website of the Freedom Road Socialist Organization. In particular, I was interested by the statements titled "May 1 and the Fight for Equality and Self-Determination." If there is one thing in the theory of Communism that other ideologies can never compare, it is the idea of racial equality. If you understand that the forces of society reorganize and rearrange according to economic struggles, then it is not a battle of race or nation, but one of class. What seems incompatible, though, are the theories of Vladimir Lenin and those of the Civil Rights movement. Thus, it would seem a bit implausible that a self-described Marxist-Leninist organization would support Civil Rights. As every Communist is well-aware, Vladimir Lenin's most feared enemy was liberty. On what motive do you think he was moved to abolish the national vote? What intent did he have in mind when he abolished the right to organize and unionization? In 1917, he wrote, "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." ["'Democracy' and Dictatorship," Lenin.] The matter of politics, as far as war, civil rights, and liberty, is not a concern to the worker. It is not whether the citizen has the right to vote, to speak, or to free association, that determines their freedom. It is a matter of whether the state is founded for the interests of the working class, or if it was founded for the interests of the capitalist class. Is government made for the worker, or for the boss? That is the primary question for the campaigner of political parties when it comes to the matter of economic justice. Directing your interests to establish something that Lenin abolished doesn't seem very Leninist, does it? Even Karl Marx himself wouldn't have supported Lenin. To quote one of his works, "The first socialists (Fourier, Owen, Saint-Simon, etc.), since social conditions were not sufficiently developed to allow the working class to constitute itself as a militant class, were necessarily obliged to limit themselves to dreams about the model society of the future and were led thus to condemn all the attempts such as strikes, combinations or political movements set in train by the workers to improve their lot. But while we cannot repudiate these patriarchs of socialism, just as chemists cannot repudiate their forebears the alchemists, we must at least avoid falling back into their mistakes, which, if we were to commit them, would be inexcusable." ["Political Indifferentism," 1873, from the French by Bignami, source: The Plebs, Vol. XIV, London 1922.] Those who led the struggle for Civil Rights and government for and by the people would never condone any of the actions of Lenin. He is the perfect politician: Russia's pregnant women were working 12 hour shifts in filthy, soot-filled, cigarette factories, and at the same time, he declared an International Women's Day. This type of doublespeak isn't unheard of, at least when we're looking to authority. Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, Cesar Chavez -- not one single, significant member of the American Civil Rights movement suggested that the best way to protect the African people was to deny them the right to vote. Lenin's policy, contrary to all who have sacrificed and suffered for social and economic equality, was to abolish the rights of the individual. If Democratic revolutions can only be accomplished by the support of the masses, then on what grounds could a Leninist organization hope to accomplish Communist revolution in direct opposition to the will of the people? The government of Lenin was only polishing the to-be throne of Joseph Stalin. The workers will never be free from economic suffering unless they are also free from the impositions inflicted on them from any authority. If we are to achieve a truly collectivist, egalitarian society, it will come from the workers gaining economic and social control; their activity in politics, whether it is gaining elected seats or territorial warfare, will naturally result in the re-establishment of a new authority, a new entity to disperse and distribute the wealth of society according to its own ideas. And since there was no right to vote, the Russian people had no way to participate in the decision-making process of their nation. With a union, workers can recall their leaders, making them true representatives; they are a blank slate, carrying the demands, the interests, and the concerns of the workers. Capitalists are much more afraid of a massive strike or a massive boycott, than they could ever be of a massive vote. The Labor Party of Britain, a so-called Socialist organization, is responsible for providing support for an internationally illegal war; to save the people of the United Kingdom, was all that was needed was just a political party with the interests of the workers? Well, unless war and poverty work, what a dismal and failed attempt. Vladimir Lenin cannot be accepted. His actions, his philosophy, his ideals... The one idea he has been praised for was Collectivism. And surrounding that, you will find nothing but a defense of Totalitarianism, Authoritarianism, Militarism, Censorship, and finally, a defense of a class-separated society. Thank you for listening. Punkerslut,
|
