Several months ago I recently engaged in an initially slightly cheeky (FB) response to an IS (International Socialists) advocate on Facebook. The article itself was a rather idealistic perspective that Lenin's approach to party organisation is what led the Bolsheviks not to fall into line (as other social democratic parties) into supporting their national capitalist classes in the First World War and lead a succesful revolution. Those particular topics can be reviewed at another time (the first thing to realise is that the political conditions of contemporary post-industrial society are somewhat different to the 1917 Russian Empire at the brink of invasion). What is of immediate interest was the response as an example of selection bias and groupthink.
The question was intitally proposed: What, if anything, do modern day socialists have to learn from Lenin? and my response was Don't set up a single-party state and engage in a 'Red Terror'. Oh, and end grain requisitions (prodrazvyorstka). Seriously, you don't want to have to do Kronstadt again.
The initial argument was that extreme measures were justified under the circumstances. That grain requisitions were justified because people in the cities would have starved otherwise and that the "White Terror" was worse than what was described as the "so-called" Red Terror.
These claims are, unfortunately for this particular breed of Leninists, is contrary to the facts.
If the peasants were allowed to sell surplus grain rather than having it confiscated they would have produced more. Which is actually what happened when the food requisitions (prodrazvyorstka) was replaced with a "food tax" (prodnalog) in 1924.
As for the Red Terror there was nothing "so-called" about it. It was official Soviet policy and, ironically enough, was a direct result of the policy of grain requisitions. Despite unsubstantiated claims to the contrary, in terms of sheer number of terrorist deaths, the Red Terror was indeed much worse than the White. c.f.,
Nicolas Werth, Crimes and Mass Violence of the Russian Civil Wars (1918-1921), Online Encyclopedia of Mass Violence, [online], published on 21 March 2008, URL : http://www.massviolence.org/Crimes-and-mass-violence-of-the-Russian-civi...
But here is where things became very strange. One participant, when confronted by the Werth article simple responded: Sorry still not convinced & i contest these 'facts'. So I inquired Please explain what would convince you then, and what your contests actually are. Would *anything* convince you?. There was no response to this.
On the matter of the grain requisitions it was suggested that cities couldn't buy any grain because they had no money; thus they had to take it by force. But if there was an allowance to sell grain, then the productivity would have increased. Simplfying, the grain requisition method was 'war communism' and the 'food tax' method was 'N.E.P.'. Lenin's comments on the N.E.P. are interesting: He also considered it a "strategic retreat", "a severe defeat" and "reverting to capitalism", compared to the "direct communist approach"(!) of food appropriation.
These sorts of arguments would be raised by Stalin as he instituted the system of food quotas, the criminalisation of gleaning, and eventually the that all food was social property - with the results of millions of deaths of the holodomor. The possibility that one could have democratic ownership and market relations seemed rather foreign to both minds.
It was pointed out that Trostky, in a rather intelligent piece, the fallacy of attempting to plan everything, albeit without taking into account incentives to production.
If a universal mind existed, of the kind that projected itself into the scientific fancy of Laplace – a mind that could register simultaneously all the processes of nature and society, that could measure the dynamics of their motion, that could forecast the results of their inter-reactions – such a mind, of course, could a priori draw up a faultless and exhaustive economic plan, beginning with the number of acres of wheat down to the last button for a vest. The bureaucracy often imagines that just such a mind is at its disposal; that is why it so easily frees itself from the control of the market and of Soviet democracy. But, in reality, the bureaucracy errs frightfully in its estimate of its spiritual resources...
Economic accounting is unthinkable without market relations.
Would the advocates from the International Socialists, an apparently Troksyist organisation, agree with this over Lenin's argument that direct appropriation is the better method?
Apparently not. Lenin's "strategic retreat" was another sign ofhis genius!
"It shows that Lenin was prepared to make good decisions even when they went against his original idea. That's good leadership."
This isn't an example of political analysis, it's theology. The possibility that Lenin was actually wrong on the matter of grain requisitions is an alien notion to such individuals. Which raises the question of whether they actually think he was wrong on anything?
Groupthink and selection bias are well known limitations in human reason. The former helps us establish bonds with others. We like to say thinks which our friends and colleagues agree with regardless of their veracity. As the bond is established we prefer to select those articles and arguments which agree with such ideas - and exclude those who offer alternatives.
Which is why that a unwavering commitment to truth and justice is a difficult path to take. It requires being prepared to face a degree of social exclusion when presenting unpopular ideas to others. Yet it is this very commitment and preparedness that differentiates an organisation which is able to accept diversity within its own ranks and develop policy positions that genuinely evolve through the best possible evidence - and organisation which, regardless of any good intentions, have the mindset that will lead to cultic sectarianism.