The Proto State, Socialist Realism and Situational “Tolerance”

When Lies Become the Standard, Truth Becomes the Enemy


By WILLIAM MAYER

April 5, 2017 - San Francisco, CA - PipeLineNews.org - This year being, the 100th anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution, it might prove useful to examine some of the core theorems that drove that monumental event and which remain relevant as we continue to probe the concept of the Deep State.

It’s an important reference point to keep in mind that the United States and actually the entirety of Western Civilization is in the midst of an undeclared civil war which finds the organized Marxist left pitted against what can generally be identified as the forces of classical liberalism.

To clarify regarding concepts and ideological declarations/tenets, we are not interested in dynamiting silly Marxist notions such as the labor theory of value, or the belief in the historically-driven inevitability of a world-wide communist uprising, but rather three ideas that are central to the perpetuation of the Marxist/progressive revolutionary movement which are so in vogue on today’s college campuses, throughout the legacy media and much of what is normally thought of as the “establishment” - especially as that pertains to the power centers in DC and the I95 corridor.

That said, on April 9, 1917, Vladimir Lenin [an alias, having been born Ulyanov] had the following published, as a sort of official Op-Ed in the ever reliable newspaper, Pravda.

“What is this dual-power? Alongside the Provisional Government, the government of bourgeoisie, another government has arisen, so far weak and incipient, but undoubtedly a government that actually exists and is growing - the Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies. What is the class composition of this other government? It consists of the proletariat and the peasants (in soldiers’ uniforms). What is the political nature of this government? It is a revolutionary dictatorship, i.e., a power directly based on revolutionary seizure, on the direct initiative of the people from below, and not on a law enacted by a centralised state power. It is an entirely different kind of power from the one that generally exists in the parliamentary bourgeois-democratic republics of the usual type still prevailing in the advanced countries of Europe and America.” [V. I. Lenin Pravda No. 28, The Dual-power…” [source, Marxists Internet Archive ]

In such revolutionary settings the need for “dual-power” quickly becomes apparent.

Since the violent seizure of the government itself did not occur until October and there already existed a provisional though floundering governing body [led by PM Kerensky] the edifice or agent of dual-power served as a kind of spring-board of sorts for Lenin’s end-game, a totalitarian dictatorship which was not fully in place until the end of the Russian Civil War [1918-1922].

In Russia, despite Marx, Engels’ and Lenin’s claimed inevitability of a bottom-up worker’s revolution, it was nowhere in evidence. Certainly there was the stoking of general societal unrest with the instigation of labor strikes and their effect was potentiated by the natural dislocation that was a consequence of the earlier abdication of Tsar Nicholas, yet there was no organic communist uprising. Thus was realized the depressing fact that even a people with a very long history of having been victimized by totalitarian regimes could prove resistant to the direction that Marxism-Leninism predicted.

Understood properly this represented a fatal intellectual contradiction to the theoretical basis of the ideology.

Lenin of course realizing this, quickly jumped in proffering that the worker’s revolution had been “temporarily” stymied by capitalism, it having been refined to the point where the “division of labor” had became the norm. The nuance of Lenin’s argument was far more complex but it’s not necessary to further tease it out for the purposes of this essay.

What was important was that though fallacious in nature, it was a defense nonetheless around which could be built a reassuring narrative. However it was not until the 1930s that the whole idea of a “class struggle” based “dictatorship of the proletariat” could again become relevant, this time through its wholesale reinterpretation, morphing a disproven intellectual theory into a very effective process.

The person offering this salvific idea was the Italian Marxist theorist Antonio Gramsci. Though he very much agreed with Lenin and the need for “dual-power” there was a marked differentiation as to the interpretation of its nature if it was going to be effective.

To Lenin, the proto-state was something one built mechanically as political organizing historically had been done, choosing party members to serve in the various directorates of the mechanism but Gramsci’s insight was that unless the alternative state arose organically it would generally be resisted by a traditional culture. Inherent in this idea was the realization that communism could not rise of its own accord as a natural consequence of the inevitable unfolding of history [an idea Marx appropriated from Hegel].

Seeing that the extant culture resisted such an abrupt change he devised the methodology of slowly re-engineering the nature of Western society so it became more naturally receptive to the theory of Marxist revolutionary change. He called the process, “marching through the institutions” which envisioned a slow infiltration of the entities that created the prevailing society, the media, entertainment, education, literature and the arts, the political and judicial establishment etc.

In assessing the general nature of today’s society one must grant that the process does indeed work. Thus instead of looking at the evidence: intersex bathrooms and showers, assertions of “white privilege” and the power of deconstructionist/intersectionalist analysis within the various fields of study which comprise the liberal arts as being proof of societal insanity, it must be understood that while still pathological, these ideas more correctly bear the telltale traces of religious fanaticism, one produced by the sacralized ideology of the revised Gramscian influenced Marxism-Leninism.

And it is these same ideologues which have invaded the permanent bureaucracy at the federal, state and even local level. The existence of sanctuary cities is merely evidence of how far down the food chain the contagion has spread.

Within this continuum, the election of Trump was a catastrophe and the reaction including the violence, could be and was predicted.

These people will not go easily into what is now for them a very dark night.

But the left has more tools in its bag of revolutionary tricks, one of them being a concept advanced by Stalin. It’s important not to fall into believing that the Soviet Union is really dead, instead it has been resurrected in a more modern and effective form, much like Islamism; though the prophet is gone the ideas, methods and motivational principles have with great purpose been brought into line with modernity.

There is demonstrable proof of this, when one examines the wide-spread street violence that followed in the wake of November 8 [and even previous to that event going back to 2014 and Ferguson, MO] the hard hand of the Stalinist left was visible. The protests and riots in major American cities were in large part organized by the retrograde Stalinist left. Funded by billionaire globalists such as George Soros and murky sources within Putin’s Russia, the World Workers Party, former Lyndon Johnson AG Ramsey Clark’s “above board” clone, the International Action Committee and its bastard child, International ANSWER/ANSWER Coalition did the streetside heavy lifting.

The Stalinist principle heretofore referenced but not identified is called “socialist realism.” It’s an easy one to grasp. Imagine looking at a still picture of whatever reality one is considering and then removing everything that isn’t consistent with the cultural Marxist/progressive world view.

It’s looking at the world through a totalitarian socialist lens and that becomes in a de-facto manner its reality, despite the disjunctive relationship it has with what truly exists. Thus the struggle consists of constantly expanding this created perception. Naturally that which is at odds with this vision becomes the enemy in one way or another.

Finally we wish to devote a few lines to an idea advanced by a seminal Marxist, a German by the name of Herbert Marcuse who influenced other socialist philosophers such as Max Horkheimer who developed the ideo of “critical theory” as part of the “Frankfurt School,” technically, Goethe University’s Institute for Social Research.

In one of three essays published as a short book, A Critique of Pure Tolerance , Marcuse authored the concluding chapter entitled, Repressive Tolerance. Though the preceding chapters argued to re-define the notion of tolerance, perhaps the cornerstone of Western Civilization, it was Marcuse who ably advanced the closing argument attempting to solidify the idea:

“However, this tolerance cannot be indiscriminate and equal with respect to the contents of expression, neither in word nor in deed; it cannot protect false words and wrong deeds which demonstrate they contradict and counteract the possibilities of liberation…” [source, Herbert Marcuse, A Critique of Pure Tolerance: Repressive Tolerance, p. 88]

The Orwellian nature of Marcuse’s twisting of a very basic and accepted term to the advantage of his belief system should be apparent. We also hope that the reader does not overlook the striking similarity between the left’s definition of “tolerance,” which is used to advance the Marxist revolutionary agenda as being identical in practice to the Islamic concept of “defending Allah's religion” through eternal preemptive warfare directed against all that stands in its way.

All three of these ideas - the alternative proto-state or dual-power in Lenin’s usage. socialist realism, where only that which is ideologically consistent is even granted form and substance and finally Marcuse’s tortured reinvention of the touchstone upon which Western pluralistic, republican democracies are based, tolerance - when combined, should demonstrate the tremendous threat that modern leftist ideology poses.

Belief systems this corrosive cannot be ignored; they will never go away of their own volition. Instead, they must be actively resisted, because when lies become the standard, truth becomes the enemy.

©2017 PipeLineNews.org LLC, William Mayer. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quota