Hi everyone, Well I am pleased that my post drew three excellent responses. I hope it is ok if I deal with all three at the same time. ========================================================== I. Reply to Danielle Ni Dhighe ========================================================== Ben Seattle (3.May.2000): ----------------------------------- > the marxist (or communist) ideology: The complete > bankruptcy of communist theory in offering a vision > of the future. Danielle Ni Dhighe (5.May.2000): ----------------------------------- > What bankruptcy would that be? I certainly can't agree > that statement. I think we can offer a positive yet realistic > vision of the future, unlike much of anarchism which is > uptopian. You think we can offer activists a more realistic vision of the future than the anarchists? My opinion is that you are dreaming. The anarchists' vision of the future is hopelessly vague and useless. And so is ours. Ben Seattle (3.May.2000): ----------------------------------- > The dictatorship of the proletariat is considered > synonomous with a police state. Danielle Ni Dhighe (5.May.2000): ----------------------------------- > Then we should explain what it really means. Exactly. But in order to explain it to others--it is necessary that we understand it ourselves. And we don't. We don't talk about it because we don't understand it. And we can never understand it unless we begin to talk about it. ========================================================== II. Reply to Eric Odell ========================================================== Ben Seattle (3.May.2000): ----------------------------------- > There is a reason that the anarchist ideology (for all its > weaknesses) appeals more to many or most youth than > the marxist (or communist) ideology: The complete > bankruptcy of communist theory in offering a vision > of the future. Eric Odell (4.May.2000): ----------------------------------- > I think there's a major kernel of truth here, but I think > "complete bankruptcy" is somewhat of an overstatement. When we lack the ability to build a solid consensus on the most fundamental principles--that is complete bankruptcy. Will groups of workers have the right to build organizations that are independent of the workers' state? Will such independent groups have the political right to denounce (and mobilize mass opinion against) what they see as the incompetence, hypocrisy and corruption associated with the leaders or policies of the workers' state? If we can't answer this question--then we have _nothing_. We have no vision of the future that can inspire the masses. If we cannot answer this question in a decisive way--then our movement is not deserving of the respect of workers. We can't and it is not. It is not that I enjoy being the one to burst anyone's bubble--but we must deal with the truth. I have seen very little that deals with this question from any group (or individuals) considering themselves to be marxists. What I have seen are the exceptions that prove the rule: (1) Paul Hampton (of www.workersliberty.org ) and José G. Perez (a contributor to this list) discussed proletarian democracy in relation to Cuba. My own views are closer to Paul's than José's. I forwarded here, on April 23, an exchange of theirs from March that took place on the Che-List. I added an introduction in which I asked participants of this list to contribute to building a discussion of what proletarian demoracy would look like in a modern country like the US. Unfortunately this question failed to capture anyone's imagination. (The post can be seen at: www.egroups.com/message/theorist/17 ) (2) The Party of the Proletarian Dictatorship (PPD) ( http://proletarism.org/m1str.shtml ) in Russia deals with this question. I think they are deserving of more attention than they are getting. (3) I have written a fair amount on this question considering that I am working essentially alone. Some of my theoretical posts can be seen at: www.egroups.com/messages/theorist (March 2000 -- current) www.Leninism.org/critical.asp (July 1998 -- May 1999) (4) The FRSO document you refer to (below) represents, in my view, a definite positive contribution. Their view (and mine also) is that the dictatorship of the working class in modern conditions and in a country like the US will require the interplay of more than a single political party. But this document was written in 1991. Have the views in it been developed at all? Has there been any discussion of it that is posted on the web? And even this document, which is far advanced compared to most, fails to give an answer to the decisive question I pose above: WILL WORKERS BE ALLOWED TO FORM INDEPENDENT ORGANIZATIONS? And even a correct answer (ie: "yes") to this question leaves unanswered the companion question: How then will the workers' state prevent the former bourgeoisie from successfully organizing for the return of their former paradise? I have tried to tackle this question by formulating such principles as "the separation of speech of property"--ie: speech (leaflets, websites, newspapers ... and on up) will be subject to government control and censorship if and only if it is amplified with bourgeois resources (ie: such as comercial resources, money or hired labor). This will filter out 99.99 percent of the crap without setting up conditions which invite an abuse of state power against organizations of workers. Unfortunately the principles such as "the separation of speech of property"--have so far failed to inspire any discussion. Eric Odell (4.May.2000): ----------------------------------- > The fact is that millions upon millions of people around > the world, especially in the Third World, are still inspired > by the communist vision and organizing to achieve it. This is only half true. Millions of people around the world have been inspired by the _actions_ of communists. It is the communists that have been at the core of the most militant struggles for reforms: struggles against neo-colonial and imperialist domination, landlord oppression, grinding poverty and the worst abuses of the bourgeoisie. The communists have been at the core of struggles for trade union rights and for the basic and elementary democratic rights to speech and assembly. By their militant actions and organizing communist have won respect worldwide. But the respect of millions for the _practice_ of communists does not alter in the slightest the fact that communist _theory_ (as it is understood at the present time) is completely bankrupt--has _n_o_ _a_b_i_l_i_t_y_ _w_h_a_t_s_o_e_v_e_r_ to offer a vision of workers running a modern country. What is the proof of this? The _proof_ of this is the inability to form a militant consensus that workers will have the right to form independent organizations and mobilize public opinion to oppose people or policies of their own state. This is a temporary situation I am certain. Dedicated activists will begin to think about, discuss and eventually resolve the theoretical issues decisive to understanding how proletarian democracy will function under modern conditions. Information wants to be free to serve the working class. As the power of this principle is understood a genuine anti-revisionist communist movement will emerge from the ashes, ride the crest of the wave of the communications revolution and begin to wage a determined, aggressive and relentless information war (as a battle of ideas, as a struggle for consciousness) to win the respect and support of millions. But this cannot happen until we have the ability to understand and talk about our supposed goal: workers' rule. The respect of millions that has been won by the immense dedication and sacrifice of communist activists is largely confined to the less industrialized parts of the world where free-market capitalism and ordinary bourgeois democracy are not well-established. In the more economically developed countries, however, (such as the major imperialist powers) the complete bankruptcy of communist theory stands out in sharper relief. We do not _have_ a movement that is deserving of the name marxist or communist. The movement that we have is completely unable to challenge the bourgeois ideology. Margaret Thatcher had it right. There is no alternative. Nor will there be one--until we create it. What we have at present is a movement that, from a theoretical perspective, is on its knees in the presence of its enemies. Eric Odell (4.May.2000): ----------------------------------- > Using the above language dismisses these people unfairly > and incorrectly, in my opinion. I agree that the communist > vision is in a worldwide crisis (c.f. the FRSO statement > "On the Crisis of Socialism" at > http://freedomroad.org/orgdocs/basic/crisisofsocialism.html ) This is an aside--but may be of interest to you. Your organization, like the one I supported (the MLP,USA which dissolved itself in 1993) has roots that are tied in with Mao's "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution". Far and away the best analysis I have seen of the cultural revolution is titled: "The rise and suppression of the 'ultra-left' in the Chinese cultural revolution" and is posted at: www.flash.net/~comvoice/20cChinaLeft.html The author is an opponent of mine and a former supporter the MLP. Eric Odell (4.May.2000): ----------------------------------- > but I think it's also an error to overstate the depth and > extent of the crisis as well as an error to pretent that it > doesn't exist. "overstate the depth and extent of the crisis" ? It is not possible. Ben Seattle (3.May.2000): ----------------------------------- > The dictatorship of the proletariat is considered synonomous > with a police state. Until we have the ability (we certainly > don't at present) to offer youth a vision of the world worth > fighting for--we will not move forward an inch in building > a movement that offers a serious alternative to capitalism. Eric Odell (4.May.2000): ----------------------------------- > [...] middle-class youth always have a strong tendency > to be attracted to anarchism [...] As they get older, > these youth will tend to follow three courses: > > (1) falling into liberalism or out of politics altogether > out of disillusionment because reality can't be > made to correspond to their ultra-left ideas; > (2) turning into irrelevant and slightly pathetic > elderly anarchists; or > (3) becoming Marxists of some kind. The overwhelming tendency is generally the first of the three alternatives you present. And we are not in a position to criticise the "ultra-left ideas" of many of these youths when they see (with greater clarity than we do) that we are failing to present an alternative. It is a damn shame that the vast bulk of the sincere and dedicated activists will find their radical convictions step-by-step eroded in the direction of the milktoast liberalism that John Lacny talked about. A powerful factor here is the weight of the bourgeois ideology in society which, of course, is immense. But in the long run--the responsibility for this is _ours_. We don't give these people an alternative. We are trying to fight a war where we are not allowed to even think about, even conceive, of victory. And, again, if we cannot understand and intelligently talk about how a workers state will suppress the bourgeoisie without _also_ suppressing groups of independent workers--then we cannot conceive of workers' rule under modern conditions. Ben Seattle (3.May.2000): ----------------------------------- > The important and decisive questions, in my view, are > being ignored by intelligent and dedicated people who > should be giving them greater attention. What will > workers' rule look like in a modern society? How will > a workers' state suppress the former bourgeoisie > without also suppressing groups of independent > workers? > > Until we stop ignoring this question and give it the > serious attention it deserves--the best and most > dedicated activists will find little about marxism > that is compelling. Eric Odell (4.May.2000): ----------------------------------- > Again, I strongly agree that this is an important task > across the board (with the caveat that to a certain > extent it is more of an issue with some sectors than > others). For our part, FRSO (the real one, anyway) > will definitely continue to engage in constructive > struggle around these important questions, both > internally and with other forces. I appreciate your efforts Eric and find them helpful. Your attitude is calm and purposeful. My opinion is that it would be helpful if you were to give thought to and discuss your opinions (even if tenative) to the following questions: (Q1) Will workers have the right to organize independent groups and mobilize public opinion against people or policies of a workers' state in a modern country (like the US) under stable conditions? (Q2) If so--how then will the ability of the bourgeoisie to organize for restoration be crippled? (Q3) Finally, what do you think of the three principles I have formulated for how bourgeois ideology will be opposed in the mass media and the internet? ----------------------------------------------------------------- How workers rule will restrict the circulation of bourgeois views ----------------------------------------------------------------- (1) Cutting them down to size (separation of speech and property) The bourgeois ideologues will be cut down to size by the principle of "separation of speech and property" (ie: they will not be allowed to use hired labor or commercial resources to amplify their voice). Specifically: all forms of media that are the product of commercial resources (ie: money, hired labor, etc) will be subject to supervision and control by the workers' state (no advertizing of greasy food and greasier ideology by corporations that have not yet been expropriated). All speech (and forms of media) that are _not_ backed by such resources will be subject to the _most minimal_ restrictions (_somewhat_ similar to the legal restrictions under bourgeois democracy) to prohibit incitment of racist attacks, etc. (2) Drowning them out Bourgeois ideologues will then be drowned out by the combined anger, determination and class consciousness reflected in the voice of the masses. (3) Filtering them out Bourgeois ideologues will also find themselves filtered out of the vast majority of the independent forums that will have influence and the respect of workers. ---------------------------------------------------------- I have advanced these principles because I have concluded that it is necessary to smash up a very common misconception concerning how workers' rule will function in a modern society. Many people who consider themselves marxists actually believe that a workers' state would somehow find a way to shut up everybody who wanted to say that things were better under bourgeois rule. The idea that a workers' state (under modern, stable conditions) would try to shut up everyone who opposed it--is not merely wrong. Such ideas are, above all, _symptoms_ of the theoretical crisis that leaves us unable to even _think_ about workers' rule in a realistic way. The opposite is true. A workers' state under modern, stable conditions would have the support of the majority of the population and would not be afraid of opposition whether organized or unorganized. It would be neither necessary nor (with the internet rapidly becoming the heart of all modern economies) practical for the workers' state to silence opposing voices. What the workers' state _would_ do--is find ways to prevent the former bourgeoisie (with all their considerable resources and their allies and lackies) from dominating the mass media and shoving their garbage into everyone's face. Backward and reactionary ideology will still circulate under future workers' rule. But such ideology will not be _amplified_ by commercial resources--will not be omnipresent--will not stare at you from the magazine covers in the supermarket check-out line or appear on your TV or computer screen--unless you want to see it. What I would like to see, Eric, is activists like yourself (and others on this forum) comment on the principles I have formulated above. What are the principal strengths? What are the principal weaknesses? I would like to see everyone take a greater interest in these questions. I have tried to instigate some interest but my time is sharply limited. If others do not work to build interest and focus on these decisive questions--then progress on these questions will continue to be delayed until other activists with greater perception or dedication come to the conclusion that until we can give clear and decisive answers--we really are naked in the presence of our enemies. ========================================================== III. Reply to John Lacny ========================================================== John Lacny (4.May.2000): ----------------------------------- > To return to Ben Seattle's questions, however, I'm not sure > how much any of us can do to answer them. To be sure, > in day-to-day activism we often don't discuss the big > questions, and that is why fora like this listserv exist -- so > people like us can talk about the big questions, and indeed, > even map out our vision of a future society. But what does > Ben have to say about the familiar Marxist warning against > blueprints and utopias? How much detail should we map > out of what a future society -- a future society of workers' > rule, as Ben points out -- should look like? So the plural of forums is fora? I never knew that ;-) What can we do to answer these questions? I think we can start by just talking about them in a calm way. The thoughts of one person may stimulate the thinking of another. Once we realize that these questions are important as well as interesting we may be able to sharpen our thinking. One possible place to start is to discuss whether these questions really are important and really do need answers. Eighty percent of doing anything is understanding _why_ it needs to get done. If we can grasp the poverty of our movement in terms of its inability to form a militant and powerful consensus around such principles as the right of workers to form independent organizations--we will be off to a good start. Blueprints and utopias ? Well we should be careful in this respect. I have seen people get carried away and speculate on details way beyond anyone's ability to know what things may be like (and have often been accused of this myself). On the other hand it can be useful to sketch out scenarios. We have to start somewhere. Speculation has its limits--but, particularly if every effort is made to place it on a scientific footing, can be useful in freeing up our thinking. Above all we need to understand the important distinction between blueprints and principles. Blueprints are usually deserving of ridicule. But principles, on the other hand, can be extremely powerful. The principle that it will be neither necessary nor practical for a future workers' state (under modern, stable conditions) to censor from the internet every wrong (or even reactionary) idea is--by itself--a powerful one. Once we grasp something as simple and powerful as this--we are on the road to applying marxist theory to conditions of modern life. Sincerely and with revolutionary regards, Ben Seattle ----//-// 6.May.2000 www.Leninism.org ======================================================== Read "Notes of an Information Theorist" -------------------------------------------------------- Watch Ben apply the tactics of "information war" (characterized by intelligent listening and calm, scientific argument) to help transform the marxism space into a powerful weapon against bourgeois rule. -------------------------------------------------------- Archive: http://www.egroups.com/group/theorist/ To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] "[C]apital comes dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt." --Marx, Capital, Vol. 1, Chapter 31 Community email addresses: Post message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] List owner: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Shortcut URL to this page: http://www.onelist.com/community/marxist Also take our one-question survey at http://www.onelist.com/polls/marxist --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
