Communism is the name of a Party. Socialism is a certain economical policy (which, in its more radical variants, may be naive and preposterous, but not immoral in itself). The real problem we have to speak about is Bolshevism.

Bolshevism – as different from Communism and Socialism - is a political strategy which is grounded in certain assumptions about reality. It is neither restrained to a certain party nor to a certain economical policy, but can be transferred in a lot of ways to other parties and to other political goals

Here are the main features of Bolshevism, such as I would propose to define it by:

  1. Our group and our interests are absolute. There can be no legitimate countergroup or counterinterests.

  2. So there is no base for consensus finding by a debate.

  3. So the only viable path to progress is manipulation of the public opinion, including the suppression of critique and opposition (In a lot of cases the best path to progress is simply to force progress upon the public and allow for no alternatives; in this case they will get used to it on the long run.)

  4. Consequence 1: We are entitled to deceive the public and to be dishonest.

  5. Consequence 2: As an opposition, we are entitled to use physical violence against our enemies. As a government we are entitled to broadscale oppressive measures, which require the threat and, if necessary, the execution of similar violence by the state forces.

  6. Consequence 3: We are entitled to destroy oour enemies' economical base of existence, be it their job or their enterprise.

The epoch Root had to live in was an epoch of „transfer“. The Communist Party became obsolete and socialist economy became unfashionable. Most Bolshevists of the Red Decade turned their attention to other projects (which now are broadly called: „Cultural Marxism“).They worked undercover but they were extremely successful to spread Bolshevist memes, Bolshevist tactics and the Bolshevist way of thinking about poltical strategy. After thirty years the Communist Party was dead, Socialism was marginalized, but the central ideas of Bolshevist strategy had become a normal or even normative position, at least in „liberal“ circles.

Root's generation was somewhat helpless against this development – I think, above all because they first had to learn the distinctions. They felt that something went dangerously wrong, And that's what made them so intense. But their approaches were inevitably clumsy. For example, they took a lot of pain to demonstrate M.L.King's connections with the Communist party. But they did not enough to precisely demonstrate in what way this distorted the thinking of the Civil Rights Movement,- so the adherents of the CRM easily shrugged it off.

But first efforts are often clumsy, and that is no reason to ignore them. I think that it is useful to browse through some heaps of dry and dusty hay in order to find the gold nuggets from which to begin with a new critique of contemporary poltical strategy.

Views: 33

Comment by Sergei Grushko on 5th mo. 24, 2019 at 12:44pm

According to Wikipedia, socialism is characterised by social ownership of the means of production. If this ownership is produced by force it is immoral. If it was reached by free agreement it is moral. In reality all regimes using socialist and communist rethorics - USSR, China, Cuba, etc - were (and are) immoral, as they promote their ideas by force.


You need to be a member of QuakerQuaker to add comments!

Join QuakerQuaker

Support Us

Did you know that QuakerQuaker is 100% reader supported? If you think this kind of outreach and conversation is important, please support it with a monthly subscription or one-time gift.

You can also make a one-time donation.

Latest Activity

Jim Wilson liked Keith Saylor's blog post The Impulse of Immanent Being
7th day (Sat)
Mike Shell posted a discussion

QUF October 2019 Newsletter | Sharing Quaker Worship Online

Friends,Here is a link to the online version of our October 2019 newsletter, just sent out today:…See More
10th month 10
Mackenzie replied to Olivia's discussion 'Hungry for more of the Jesus of the Quaker tradition?'
"Up in Frederick, the Friends Church that meets at Friends School of Baltimore might be a good one…"
10th month 8
Dave Bishop replied to Olivia's discussion 'Hungry for more of the Jesus of the Quaker tradition?'
"That's a wonderful idea.  I have a friend from Kenya who fits that description (i.e. she…"
10th month 8
Olivia replied to Olivia's discussion 'Hungry for more of the Jesus of the Quaker tradition?'
"AS AN  UPDATE:  We are meeting on First Day/Sunday afternoons.   Our upcoming…"
10th month 4
Olivia replied to Olivia's discussion 'Hungry for more of the Jesus of the Quaker tradition?'
"Thanks, Mackenzie.  I've contacted you privately about details.  This sounds great,…"
10th month 4
Mackenzie replied to Olivia's discussion 'Hungry for more of the Jesus of the Quaker tradition?'
"Hi! I live in Maryland and currently am a member of Adelphi Friends. Let's connect, because I…"
10th month 4
Keith Saylor left a comment for Daniel O'Keefe
"Hello Daniel, Your comment is received in love and affection. It sometimes happens in human…"
10th month 3

© 2019   Created by QuakerQuaker.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service