Homestead mailing list

[Tvoivozhd <tvoivozd AT infionline.net>]

Lev Navrosov, the Marxian Libertarianism, China Hereditary Absolutism



Who rules China — and why?
See the Lev Navrozov Archive
By Lev Navrozov
Lev Navrozov emigrated from the Soviet Union in 1972 He settled in New 
York City where he quickly learned that there was no market for his 
eloquent and powerful English language attacks on the Soviet Union. To 
this day, he writes without fear or favor or the conventions of polite 
society. He chaired the "Alternative to the New York Times Committee" in 
1980, challenged the editors of the New York Times to a debate (which 
they declined) and became a columnist for the New York City Tribune. His 
columns are today read in both English and Russian.

Lev Navrozov


October 3, 2004

To answer this question is no easier than it was to say why Stalin (and 
not Trotsky), or Khrushchev (and not Beria), and so on, ruled Russia 
since 1917 and up to 1991.

Under hereditary absolutism, the power was inherited by the ruler's 
eldest child (primogeniture). It took some eight centuries for the 
post-Roman West to create the alternative: general elections of heads of 
government, with universal suffrage and secret ballot. John Stuart Mill 
drew attention way back in 1859 to the negative side of this 
arrangement: the more voters elect a head of government, the lower is 
their average mental level and hence the mental level of the statesman 
they elect. But even Mill himself could not suggest anything better than 
universal suffrage. In his time women were disenfranchised (deprived of 
the right to vote) as mentally inferior to men. But Mill asserted that 
his wife was more intelligent than he was.

However, for the society envisioned by Marx, ANY government was 
coercive, tyrannical, and obsolete, just as were ANY police, prisons, or 
armed forces. The Communist Party of Russia took power in 1917, and the 
Chinese Communist Party originated in 1921 and took powr in 1949.

At first the solution was easy. Of course, no government or any other 
obsolete coercive institutions! But the population was not ready for 
Communism. No government, no police, no armed forces? My God, the 
country will become a robbers' den. Criminals will rob, rape, and kill 
with impunity—well, everyone will kill not to be killed, and the country 
will consist of gangs or mafias at war with one another.

Fortunately, in contrast to Marx, Lenin and Mao lived in the age of 
“political parties,” and so they were the leaders of Communist parties.

Hence Lenin in post-1917 Russia became the Chairman of the Council of 
People's Commissars, and Mao in post-1949 China, the Chairman of the 
Central People's Council of the People's Republic of China. Before 
Mussolini became the dictator in Italy in 1922, the word “dictator” was 
not bad, and Lenin was not against calling himself a “dictator.”

You see, Marx was against ANY government in a Communist world, but he 
said nothing about a dictator. In fact, he spoke about the need for the 
dictatorship of the proletariat to defeat the dictatorship of the 
bourgeoisie, which called itself democracy. And Lenin argued that it is 
a superfluous hairsplitting to distinguish between the dictatorship of 
the working class and the dictatorship of one individual like Lenin (a 
son of a high-ranking official under Nicholas II and a lawyer by 
education), for he can express the interests of the working class better 
than the class itself.

In 1949 the word “dictator” had become so obnoxious (after Hitler!) that 
Mao never tried to apply it to himself.

So far, so good. The best, most progressive, and strictly Marxist form 
of government without government had been found: here was the dictator, 
who should not, after 1922, be called the dictator.

The trouble was that Lenin became sick (he had been shot at by a 
Social-Revolutionary) and died in 1924, while Mao was 83 years old in 
1976 and also died. True, Marx had claimed that man can become immortal 
under Communism when science, and in particular medicine, will develop 
so tremendously that they will solve this problem as well. Indeed, our 
country house neighbor Olga Lepeshinskaya was expected to obtain a 
medicine ensuring immortality for Stalin. Yet Stalin died. As did Lenin 
and Mao.

The question was: who was to be the dictator (without being called the 
dictator) after Lenin's death in 1924 and Mao's in 1976?

To answer this question was impossible as it is to say who ought to be 
the Godfather of a certain mafia.

Many were sure that the successor to Lenin should and/or would be 
Trotsky. In fact, it was not clear why he had not been the dictator 
instead of Lenin. He was a better public speaker than Lenin, and he was 
versatile, knowledgeable, and even witty, while Lenin was humorless, 
dull, and narrow-minded. But when Lenin became sick, Stalin began to 
intrigue WITH Trotsky to prevent Lenin's return to power and, after 
Lenin's death, Stalin intrigued AGAINST Trotsky to deprive him of his 
succession to Lenin. Then Stalin murdered both Trotsky and all those who 
intrigued with Stalin AGAINST Trotsky.

Universal suffrage? The leaders of Communist parties did not want it 
because they would not be elected by a majority: Lenin's party received 
in free elections only 25percent. of the seats in the Constituent 
Assembly. Ironically, Stalin established in the mid-1930s general 
elections with universal suffrage and secret ballot. He received over 
99.9percent. of the votes cast: so afraid the voters were to vote 
against him. I did, but the desperados like myself accounted for a 
fraction of 0.1 percent.

As of today, China has not yet reached Stalin's general elections with 
universal suffrage and secret ballot. On Sept. 15, 2004, Hu Jintao, 
China's dictator, who is called east or west not the dictator, but the 
President, said on the anniversary of the founding of the People's 
Republic of China that democracy is a “blind alley.” My source? “The 
People's Daily” of the Chinese Communist Party.

In the last 15 years of his dictatorship, Stalin played at democracy, 
and said that his dictatorship was a true democracy, whereas democracy 
in the West was the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Hu is afraid even 
to play at democracy in 2004 as Stalin and his successors in Soviet 
Russia did from 1936 to 1991.

Otherwise, politically, post-1949 China seems to be Stalin's 
Chinese-speaking Russia. No wonder! One example is especially memorable.

I hated the Soviet propaganda-contaminated humanities, and after school 
I joined the Moscow Energy Institute. Studying at the Institute were 
Chinese orthodox Stalinists. One of them, Li Peng, arrived even before 
Mao came to power, graduated from the Institute and left Russia for 
China about the time the Soviet tanks crushed Hungary's attempt at 
independence. Many Russians were enraged by the Soviet invasion—the mood 
that led to the fall of the Soviet dictatorship in 1991.

When the Chinese students were invited to join the protest against the 
Soviet invasion, they said: “Comrade Mao has sent us here to study, and 
not to protest. Besides, why should Hungary be independent if all 
countries are to become under Communism one world?”

Yes, Li Peng was one of those who transferred Stalin's Russia to China.

In 1981 he became in China the minister of the ministry of energy, and 
he climbed to the top of power, where he declared martial law to crush 
the Tiananmen Square movement. What helped his climb to the top was the 
fact that he was the adopted son of “great Zhou Enlai,” Mao's right 
hand. Nepotism is rife at the power top in China—the result is a kind of 
family mafia, aware of its interests, and in particular of the need to 
establish world domination in order to preserve its omnipotence.

Li Peng was instrumental in the dismissal and arrest of Zhao Ziyang, the 
General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party. But about a decade 
later, in 1998, Li Peng was kicked out of his top post, just as he had 
kicked out (and had arrested!) the General Secretary of the Chinese 
Communist Party Zhao Ziyang.

In Communism, there will be no violence, and hence no need for the 
government, the police, or the armed forces. This is why Communism will 
have to be global, according to Marx, or bourgeois countries will 
conquer Communist countries having no armed forces.

When Communists use the word “Communism” they mean “world Communism.” To 
establish it requires a global effort, such as a molecular nano strike. 
This is why the flag is red, the color of blood. And the five-pronged 
star? When it was designed, it was believed that there are five 
continents (Europe, Asia, Africa, and two Americas) to be united under 
Communism. Certainly in world Communism there will be no government or 
police. Only the General Secretary of the World Communist Party and the 
Ministry of World Security.

The cause for which Li Peng lived in Stalin's Russia, studied at the 
Moscow Energy Institute, and later proclaimed martial law to crush the 
Tiananmen movement has not been lost, but, on the contrary, has been 
advancing to its global realization. On December 26, 2003 (the 110th 
anniversary of Mao's birth), the Daily of the People's Liberation Army 
published his effigy against the red banners with the inscription “Mao 
Zedong: Great Forever” and offered his selected military works.

The creed is “Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought.” Yes, Marx, Lenin, 
and Mao envisioned Communism as the future of all mankind.

* * * * *

For more information about Drexler's Foresight Institute and its 
lobbying in Congress, see www.foresight.org

To learn more about the Chris Phoenix report, suggesting a “nano 
Manhattan Project,” go to crnano.org.

For information about the Center for the Survival of Western 
Democracies, Inc., including how you can help, please e-mail me at 
navlev AT cloud9.net.

The link to my book online is www.levnavrozov.com. You can also request 
our webmaster AT levnavrozov.com to send you by e-mail my outline of my book.

It is my pleasant duty to express gratitude to the Rev. Alan Freed, a 
Lutheran pastor by occupation before his retirement and a thinker by 
vocation, for his help in the writing of this column.

Lev Navrozov's (navlev AT cloud9.net] new book is available on-line at 
www.levnavrozov.com. To request an outline of the book, send an e-mail 
to webmaster AT levnavrozov.com.

October 3, 2004