Principalities & Powersrnby Samuel FrancisrnThe Revolution Two-SteprnThe new century, not to speak of the newrnpseudomillennium, had not even begunrnlast December when one of the scintillatingrndebates typical of the intellectual lifernof our epoch suddenly erupted over thernissue of who was the most important personrnof the old century. Time decided thatrnit was undoubtedly Albert Einstein, neoconservativernguru Charles Krauthammerrninsisted it was really Winston Churchill,rnwhile still other heavy-hitters suggestedrnsuch eminences as Nelson Mandela,rnMahatma Gandhi, Franklin D. Roosevelt,rnJohn F. Kennedy, and MartinrnLuther King, Jr. Obviously, there was arnpattern here.rnThe real Man of the Century, however,rnwas almost totally ignored, if not actuallyrnscorned. Vladimir Lenin, founderrnand first chief executive officer of the totalitarianrnstate, has a far better claim thanrnany of the feel-good impostors and posterboysrnof the New World Order mentionedrnabove. It was Lenin who actually designedrnin theory and then carried out inrnpractice the Total State, although admittedlyrnhe had no small amount of helprnfrom predecessors such as Robespierre,rnCromwell, Calvin, and Savonarola andrnwas soon surpassed in tyrannical achievementrnby Stalin and Mao. Within 30rnyears of his death, not only was the staternLenin created still in power, but it hadrnbeen emulated, copied, and exported tornmore than half the globe. The collapsernof his original version in the last decaderndid little to diminish Lenin’s accomplishmentrnsince, much like another of his predecessors,rnJohn Brown, his soul keepsrnmarching on.rnNot the least of Lenin’s accomplishmentsrnwas to be remembered for variousrnremarks he actually made as well as forrnseveral he didn’t make. Indeed, the latterrnare often more piquant than the former.rnHis best known non-remark is the famousrnquip that the capitalists “will sell us thernrope with which we will hang them.” Hernmight have said it, and then again hernmight not have, though his writings arernfull of passages expressing much thernsame sentiment. Yet another is thernphrase, “Two Steps Forward, One SteprnBack.” In fact, this is exactly the reversernof the phrase Lenin used as the title of arnlengthy essay he published in 1904 aboutrnthe proper structure of an effective revolutionaryrnparty. The essay, “One SteprnForward, Two Steps Back,” containsrnwhat Bertram Wolfe called “the mostrnnaked expression of faith in hierarchyrnand distrust of democracy to be found inrnall of Lenin’s writings.” But whatever thernvirtues of the real product of Lenin’s literaryrnimagination, the distorted version ofrnthe title also has merit.rnAn old-fashioned man who playedrnchess and listened to Beethoven, Leninrnwas also an aposde of the art and sciencernof violent revolution. Forced for most ofrnhis youth to dodge the police spies, firingrnsquads, exile, and prisons of his adversaries,rnhe could hardly have anticipatedrnthat, in the not-too-distant future, revolutionrncould be planned and actually carriedrnout right under the noses of the rulingrnauthorities, almost with their blessingrnand consent. Indeed, the whole strategyrnof the revolution today known as “politicalrncorrechiess” relies on the distorted titlernof Lenin’s pamphlet, although the ultimaterngoal of the revolution remainsrnexactly the same as Lenin’s—the seizurernof total power, in parHcular power overrnculture, the forms and structures of humanrnthought and judgment.rnThe term “political correctness” isrnnow more than ten years old, and nornsooner had it come into vogue than it beganrnto excite the kind of ridicule that itrndeserved. Tales of college classes wherernelementary facts of history, science, literature,rnand philosophy were deliberatelyrnbutchered or silenced in order to suit thernsexual, class, and racial obsessions of blatantlyrnunqualified teachers became commonplace.rnStudents and even facultyrnwere disciplined and sometimes punishedrnwith expulsion or threats of violencernfor the slightest verbal deviationrnfrom the “codes” imposed at distinguishedrnuniversities. For some years afterrnits appearance, the battle against “politicalrncorrectness” served as a major themernof almost all conser’atives, paleo or neo,rnnot a few of whom made their reputationsrnas writers in exposing the p.c. farce.rnToday, most of the more bizarre installmentsrnof polifical correctness seem tornhave vanished—at least, we seldom hearrnabout them anymore in the context ofrncollege campuses. I recall listening tornone prominent neoconservative a fewrnyears ago arguing that the whole phenomenonrnwas bound to be temporaryrnsince it was merely a result of the radicalsrnof the 60’s getting tenure and imposingrntheir nutty ideas on their universities.rnOnce the radicals retired in the next tenrnor twenty years, he predicted, the politicalrncorrectness cult would disappear.rnAs usual, the neoconservatives werernwrong. What has actually happened isrnthat p.c. took its degree and graduated intornthe larger societ)’. Today, not only universitiesrnbut corporations and even townrnand city councils maintain codes ofrnspeech and behavior often far more draconianrnthan anything ever concocted atrnBerkeley or Madison. Wliich brings usrnback to Lenin, or at least to the distortedrntitle of Lenin’s pamphlet.rnThe common response of most conservativesrnand even of most sensible liberalsrnto political correctness has been torntreat it as a joke, a silly excess of ignoramusesrnand intolerant mediocrities unablernto master the tradifional curricula orrnabide by standards of conduct that prevailrnin real schools and universities. Unfortunately,rnthat response largely misses thernlarger point about political correctness,rnwhich is that it represents an actual revolution.rnThe sillier aspects of p.c, thosernthat became notorious and excitedrnridicule, were tiie part of the revolutionrnthat might be called the “Two Steps Forward”rnphase. They didn’t last and perhapsrnwere not intended to last by thosernwho invented them. Instead, having advancedrntwo steps forward, they thenrnquickly fell one step back to less offensivernand bizarre but nonetheless revolutionaryrnand totalitarian measures, measuresrnthat are perfectly consistent with the materialrninterests of the transnational rulingrnclass. That is hov- re’olution imder legalrnconditions operates —not by conspiraciesrnhatched in dark cellars but through plansrndesigned in graduate seminars, fundedrnby mainstream foundations, and discussedrnopenlv in major newspapers. Thernregular dynamic of such revolutionaryrnoperations is that extreme, unpopular,rnand ridiculous measures are proposedrnand even enforced as sorties that probernthe enemy’s defenses. They are met byrnoutrage and scorn and eventually re-rn32/CHRONICLESrnrnrn