On Sat, Sep 19, 2026, at 01:38 PM, Ben Seattle wrote: > > > > *An independent and democratic* > > > > *information platform is necessary* > > > > *for the recovery of our movement* > > > > (Reply to Anthony Teso) > > > > > > > > Hi Tony, > > > > > > > > *-- 1 --* > > > > ** > > > > The theoretical discussion on Bonapartism concerns how a ruling class > makes decisions. At the level of individuals--such decision involve > *instinct* > , *calculation* and *ideology*. At a class level the decisions also > include a 4th factor: *organization*. Organizations can be *public* (such > as congress) or *private* (such as informal social networks). > Organizations can be *large* or *small* , powerful or minor. > > > > > > > > (1) It is unhelpful to imply that any of these things are somehow *mutually > exclusive* (ie: "both can't bear weight at once") -- or that we must choose > one or another and *disregard* the others. > > > > > > > > (2) It is similarly unhelpful to assert that we must view our ruling class > as *either* a "population" or a "subject" -- because our ruling class is > *both* > . In the context of the discussion of bourgeois class rule it is natural > that we emphasize "subject". But this does not mean that other aspects of > our ruling class are somehow unimportant. Bourgeois political leaders, > for example, are *restricted* by the limits of the support they can > command. > > > > > > > > What is important to consider is the *weight* of the class, the center of > *gravity* > , the *balance* of power within it. > > > > > > > > (3) It is unhelpful to create an *artificial distinction* between *passive* > and *active support.* The lack of a clear boundary between active and > passive support is captured in the phrase "a wink is as good as a nod", > where one represents tacit approval and the other active support. > > > > Furthermore--my assertion that it is a *waste of time* for me to discuss > boundaries with you--does not mean that I claim that no boundaries exist. > Rather, I was simply attempting to steer the discussion in a productive > direction and away from nitpicking nonsense. > > > > > > > > (4) Finally, it is unhelpful to misrepresent or create confusion about my > views or what I have said. John asked you to exercise greater care in > representing his views, and also to use *fewer fancy words* and employ *better > focus* , and you agreed. I ask that you extend the same courtesy to me. > > > > > > > > We owe, to readers (and to ourselves) recognition that *words can be clumsy > instruments*. Words are generalizations, and generalizations will always > be *imperfect* because truth is always *concrete*. When we argue on the > basis of some dictionary that we must choose X and disregard Y--we risk > wasting the time of readers and ourselves--and *undermine confidence* that > discussion of theory is valuable and necessary. > > > > > > > > There will always be topics (and rabbit holes) that lead us away from what > is important. Our ability to (so to speak) *keep our eye on the donut and > not on the hole* , reflects our recognition of the need to *forge a common > language* and our devotion to the needs of our class. > > > > > > > > *--2 --* > > > > ** > > > > The key part of your reply concerns my conclusion that the *long-term > response* of our class to the rising danger of repression must be to > develop *independent digital infrastructure* that could eventually grow to > become the *digital nervous system* that allows our class to become > self-aware, flex its muscles and sweep away the rule of capital. > > > > > > > > I said (Sept 13): > > > > > > > > > People (activists as well as non-activists) > > > > > have no place to go where they can get > > > > > the reliable knowledge they need to > > > > > understand the world and take effective > > > > > action to change it. This is what must change. > > > > > > > > You replied that there is a place where people can go: the MIA, journals, > radical news sites and pirate libraries. > > > > > > > > I probably could have been more clear. When I discuss the growing crisis > with activists and non-activists, they sometimes ask me *where they can go* > to find out, objectively (without all the *bullshit* and *confusion* ) what > is actually going on. I reply that *if such a place existed* --the crisis > would not exist in its present severity. > > > > > > > > You continued: > > > > > > > > > An activist in 2026 can reach more of the historical > > > > > experience of our movement in one afternoon than > > > > > Draper could reach in a year with a Berkeley library > > > > > card and a mimeograph machine. Access rose by > > > > > orders of magnitude. Clarity did not rise with it. > > > > > > > > You are overlooking *key principles* central to the *recovery of our > movement*. > > > > > > > > *(1) Information must be collected and refined to be useful* > > > > > > > > Information being available in *scattered* form is not the same thing as > information being available in *concentrated* form. > > > > > > > > Yes, the knowledge that activists need is available--but not in the way it > is most needed. Yes, someone, could "access" hundreds of thousands of > documents--but extracting the necessary information from them would > require taking the time to *read* and *understand* them all. That would > require more than an afternoon--especially as these documents all *contradict* > one another. > > > > > > > > There is a hundred times more *gold* dissolved in the world's oceans than > has been mined in all of human history--but no one can use this > gold--since it is *diluted* at a level of 13 parts per trillion. Something > similar is going on with the info people need to understand the world. > Every bit of useful and necessary information is surrounded by thousands > or millions of bits of *"negative knowledge"* (ie: things that are widely > known--but *misleading* or simply *wrong* ). > > > > > > > > What we need is *a place* where the necessary information can be collected, > correlated, refined, corrected and finally, so to speak, broadcast. That > place is an independent and democratic information platform. > > > > > > > > *(2) An information platform will give birth to organizations* > > > > ** > > > > You continue: > > > > > > > > > If anything the curve runs backwards, and the periods > > > > > when American socialists argued most fruitfully > > > > > about strategy were periods of worse > > > > > communication and better organization. > > > > > > > > An independent and democratic information platform would also greatly > accelerate the development and evolution of radical political > organizations. > > > > > > > > *(3) Can we learn from the past or not?* > > > > ** > > > > You said: > > > > > > > > > Now the crisis of theory . . . My explanation is > > > > > that theory is not settled by circulation. It is settled > > > > > by consequence. Questions get answered when > > > > > a body of people has to decide something and pays > > > > > a price for deciding wrong > > > > > > > > Yes, obviously, *theory* is settled by consequence--or in simpler > language--by *practice*. The problem with your argument is that you are > using the term "theory" to mean "ideas". This usage is common in science, > where the term "theory" is often used to mean "hypothesis" (or, in simpler > language, a "guess" as to how nature works). > > > > > > > > But there is also a *different way* in which the term "theory" is used (in > both science and politics). For example--Darwin's "theory of evolution" > is more than an idea--it is considered *proven* --supported by millions of > observations. > > > > > > > > In political language, the term "theory" is often used to refer to *lessons > learned in practice*. For example, John Reimann is fond of saying that > *"theory > is a concentrated form of history"* and John is completely correct in this. > > > > > > > > > The term *"crisis of theory"* refers to the fact that the lessons of the > history of the struggles of the working class and oppressed have become > *scattered* > --and are *not available* to the people who need them. This is what we > must overcome. > > > > > > > > Ideas must be tested in practice--as you note--but this does not mean that > we must *throw out the lessons of the past* and start over with a clean > slate--again and again and again--like the *brain-damaged* character in the > movie " Memento " who cannot form new memories or remember anything that > happened more than 5 minutes before the present. > > > > > > > > *(4) The recovery of our movement requires a "journal of record"* > > > > ** > > > > John Reimann kicked off this thread with posts about Trump's plans to > hijack the mid-terms, and noted that *leftist online journals* , such as > Jacobin > , Tempest and CounterPunch were *failing to sound the alarm*. > > > > > > > > Activists and non-activists read articles in journals like the above > because they want to be informed. That is also probably the reason most > people subscribe to MarxMail. > > > > > > > > You said: > > > > > > > > > This list is your platform in miniature. Serious > > > > > people, no gatekeeper, open discussion, > > > > > a signal ratio most journals would envy. > > > > > . . . > > > > > Multiply the subscribers by ten, and what you get > > > > > is ten times the discussion. . . . It is the only > > > > > evidence available about your proposal > > > > > > > > You have the right to believe what you want--and to look at the evidence > you want. I remember when this listserv had a lot more energy and talent > than it does now. This was not only a difference in quantity--but also a > difference in quality. You may be right that this listserv is not capable > of evolving to be much more than it is now. What is necessary is a > critical mass of active people who have a relatively clear idea of what is > necessary for the recovery of our movement. If that is not present > here--then nothing is likely to happen. > > > > > > > > I have suggested many times that the recovery of our movement would be > assisted by a "journal of record" where activists could post and > publically discuss articles. The DSA/ Jacobin does not do this (the DSA > discussion forums are not public). Counterpunch does not do this. Last I > checked, neither does Tempest. > > > > > > > > An independent and democratic information platform would do this. It > would attract talent--because it would eventually be able to function as a > place where people could go to get reliable answers to their questions. > > > > > > > > You said: > > > > > > > > > So build it. I mean that straight. I would rather > > > > > it existed than not, and I would argue in it. > > > > > > > > Cool. Except I do not have the ability to create it on my own. I have > certainly tried. Such a project would require help from others. > > > > > > > > *-- 5 --* > > > > > > > > My impression is that developments in the past week (ie: the Supreme Court > ruling, the US Post Office announcement that it was giving up on its > proposal, and a recent judicial order that Todd Blanche must turn over FBI > notes of an interview of one of Epstein's victims who claimed Trump raped > her when she was 13 years old) suggest that the bulk of our ruling class > is pulling the plug on Trump. > > > > > > > > But whatever happens at this moment--there will be other crises down the > road. The old world is dying. Activists need a place to gather and sort > out the direction forward. If we fail to work in this direction--this > work will be done by a new generation. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > *Ben Seattle* > http://communism.org/ben > Our *century of information war* will lead to a *public domain information > platform* > that will (1) bring the *truth* about everything important to everyone and > > (2) catalyze the *self-organization* of the struggle to overthrow the rule > of capital > >
Ben, Section 1 first and quickly. Fair hit. I turned a couple of your both/and points into either/or, and I'll give you the same courtesy I agreed to give John. I'll quote you when I disagree. "Center of gravity" is also closer to what I was after than what I actually wrote, so I'll take it. I still think the active/passive line matters, though. A wink may be as good as a nod to whoever gets it. It matters a lot more when you ask who can take it back and what that costs them. Your section 5 turns on that question, so I'll come back to it at the end. On the gold in the ocean. Nobody mines it because refining it costs more than the gold is worth. That's the part of the image I keep getting stuck on. Collecting documents is cheap now. Correlating, refining, and correcting them all means someone deciding. Which history of the CIO is right? Was the Popular Front a lesson or a disaster? Is working inside the Democratic Party class collaboration? We have been fighting about those on this list for years. Whoever does the refining is taking a side on them, and at that point you have an editorial line. If nobody takes a side, the documents stay scattered and the concentration doesn't happen. I can't find a third option in what you've written. Maybe there is one. If so, I'd like to see it, because I think the whole proposal hangs on it. On the theory, I'm happy with John's line that theory is concentrated history. I don't think anyone has to start from zero, and I didn't say so. My point was smaller. The documents from Draper's time mostly survived. What didn't survive was the people who had argued those questions out together inside an organization and lived with the results. Leonard in Memento has all his notes and tattoos and still gets used, because he can't tell which note to trust. That was my point, and I think it lands on your side of the ledger more than mine. You say the platform would give birth to organizations. How? I really want you to argue this one. Everything I know about how organizations start says they form when people have to decide something together and take a risk on it. I don't see where that happens on a platform. The journal of record I'm mostly with you on. Post articles publicly, argue about them in the open, and keep the arguments. That's doable, and nobody's doing it well. I'd back it, and I'd write in it. Where I get off is the claim that it grows into the nervous system of the class. That's a big promise to put on a modest project, and it's the promise I keep arguing with, not the project. What would the smallest working version need? Tell me, and I'll say straight out what I can help with. Last thing, and probably the most important. If most of the ruling class is really dropping Trump, that's a problem for my argument, and I should say so now. I'm not convinced yet. Your examples are two courts and an agency, which tells me some institutions still aren't under his thumb. That's different from the class deciding. I'd expect a real decision to show up in donors, business groups, and Republican senators who have to face voters. That's also where passive support comes in, because people quietly pulling back is hard to see until it adds up. I don't know which way this goes. If those people move, I'll post about it here. Tony -- Tony -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#43461): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/43461 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/121053097/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
