LENIN, TROTSKY, AND FREEDOM FROM THE TYRANNY OF KNOWLEDGE AND REASON

Fabian Pascal writes in LENIN, TROTSKY, AND FREEDOM FROM THE TYRANNY OF KNOWLEDGE AND REASON

... I actually lived in a communist state, and studied politics, I have a better understanding of social systems in general, and of the difference between the Soviet and US systems in particular, than US/western armchair ideologues who have neither my experience, nor my education; who pummel their chests in defense of freedom, without a clue as to what that means; who understand neither capitalism, nor communism; and who, my guess is, never bothered to read Lenin and Trotsky, but nevertheless are quick to throw their books at those with whom they cannot sustain any meaningful intellectual argument.

What struck me after living in the US for a while, was the similarity, at a very fundamental level, between the US and Soviet systems: while the means by which they attain their objectives differ, the objectives themselves are, for all practical purposes, the same: control and exploitation of the public. Both systems indoctrinate with propaganda from childhood. But because the Soviet system had coercion at its disposal, the propaganda did not need to be convincing: if you stepped out of line, the government came hard after you. That’s why propaganda could be blatant and absurd, and the public was fully aware of it and did not believe it, only pretended to. That is also one reason why the Soviet system collapsed.

The US system cannot use coercion (well, not at the Soviet level, at any rate, but the way things are going, give it time), so it must rely solely on propaganda, which must be believed. This means it’s got to be very subtle and psychologically simple and attractive, rather than blatant and absurd, to be at once unobtrusive and effective. It’s no coincidence that the mother of marketing and advertising originates here. If you step out of line, the government does not need to come after you: business, the media, and even the public itself will. They cannot jail, torture, or disappear you (the system is testing the waters, though), but they will try to marginalize you, and make it very difficult to function professionally and socially. And at least insofar as members of the public are concerned, they are enforcers without realizing it. Quite elegant.

Otherwise put, under Soviet "communism", everybody must believe without questioning in the party, which almost nobody did; under US "capitalism", everybody must believe without questioning in "the market", which almost everybody does (I use quotes, because neither system is the true thing, as they pretend).

Emphasis Mine

Dr. Pascal is confusing form with function.

Let's clear up a few definitions. The former USSR was a Socialist state not a Communist one. The ruling class in the USSR was the workers (Proletariat). The oppressed classes were the capitalists (mainly small business people and the rich farmers - Kulaks). The lack of democracy in the USSR consolidated the power and privileges of the bureaucratic caste within the Proletariat. This caste monopolised the positions of power within the Communist Party and within the bureaucracy that ran the Soviet economy. To consolidate their power, the bureaucrats needed an external enemy (the Capitalist world) and a series of threats to erode the rights under the Soviet constitution. This mainly happened under Stalin. When Socialism collapsed, the bureaucratic elite became the new Capitalist class with relative ease.

In the case of the USA, there are two (2) major classes: Capitalists and Proletariat. The vast majority of production facilities and businesses are owned by private individuals either directly or through share-holding. From a Marxist point of view, the USA is a Capitalist country. The government regulation exists to stabilise the Capitalist economy by moderating the effects of the boom and bust cycle.

The form of both of these political and economic systems is to maintain the ruling class. In the Soviet Socialist system, it was the bureaucratic caste who usurped the role of the Proletariat. Whereas in the US Capitalist system, the financiers (esp. the international bankers) have usurped the role of the Capitalists. Even though the ruling class in both systems has been usurped, the structure of the economic system remain unchanged and different. The majority of ownership of the factories and businesses was in the hands of the government in the Soviet system, and the majority of the same is in the hands of individuals or family trusts in the US system.

What Dr. Pascal calls propaganda, Marxists would call spiritual production. This is the output of the economic system that does not add to the economic, but, rather, help to justify its existence. For example, all major newspapers and television shows in the Capitalist West do not question the validity of the Capitalist system - they may criticise aspects of the operation of the system in order to get the system working better for some group of people. Any reference to alternate systems are dismissed as dated or out of touch with reality. Failings of the system are presented as the system working to correct itself. Indeed, the market is always correcting itself. This was no different to the spiritual production under teh Soviet system.

As Engels once wrote, the State is ... a body of armed men. All economic systems other than primitive Communism and scientific Communism have a State to enforce the rule of the ruling class whenever the spiritual production proves to be inadequate. Feudalism had its knights and bishops to keep the rule of the lords safe. Barbarism has its warriors and shamans to keep the great unwashed in line. Slavery had its militia and priests to keep the slaves working away for the benefit of decent people. Socialism has its KGB and agitprops to keep the capitalists and large landowners in their place. Capitalism has its police and intellectuals to keep the workers down.

Here Dr. Pascal is mistaken. The US system does use coercion all the time and they are quite blatant about it. The recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are glaring examples of what the USA does to states that do not toe the line with regards to US policy. On the domestic front, the massacres at Waco and Ruby Ridge along with the Rodney King beating among others serves to remind the US poor of their place in the US Capitalist system. It is only when the State starts getting too close for comfort, that people like Dr. Pascal start to get worried.

But this does not detract from the main point that Dr. Pascal makes: that people are wilfully ignorant of the true state of affairs. They get very angry when anyone tries to reveal the underlying reality of the system that they live in. They would prefer to live in the fantasy world created by the spiritual production.