.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Weekly focus # 30 -- / what's hot (or not) on the pof-200 list / .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ . (1) new moderation guidelines . (2) Our study group for Lenin's "Imperialism" . (3) Project 118 / DJ-Ben discussion on our fundamental tasks . (4) Reply to Ulyanovist . (5) Carl plays for the other team . (6) Reply to an RCYP supporter . (7) Reply to Terry . . Appendix 1 -- Carl plays for the other team . Appendix 2 -- Confronting the problems of our time . (reply to an RCYB supporter) .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. new moderation guidelines ----------------------------------------------------------------- Based on the recent poll and email, 7 subscribers to this list have been to one or more antiwar rallies or marches. This represents approximately 10% of our subscribers. It is very important that this list be centered in "the movement". I created the "one post per week" rule after it became clear that there was no other way to reduce the volume of clueless posts which diluted the focus of this list. I am now modifying this rule. Everyone who indicated that they have been to mass protest actions within the last few years is now allowed to post twice per week. The limit remains one post per week for everyone else. Those who can now post twice per week are: ** DJ ** Ulyanovist ** OneMarxistNebraskan ** Ben Seattle ** Terry ** Les ** Lonnie In general, people who go to protest actions are more committed to the movement and have a better sense of what is going on. The signal-to-noise ratio of the list will not be hurt (in fact it will be helped) if the 7 people listed post twice per week. Hopefully other subscribers will understand that all of us will benefit from this modification. Please, everyone else (especially new subscribers who may not be aware of the one post per week limit) limit your posting to once per week. I know this can be frustrating at times. However I am certain that this limit is necessary and will prove to be worthwhile. At least a couple of time per year, I will ask who has been to protests and add new people to the list. We want to encourage subscribers to go to protests and make contact with the movement. ----------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Our study group for Lenin's "Imperialism" ----------------------------------------------------------------- Last week I was considering recommending that we suspend the study group. Three people is really not enough for this. Since then, 8thfloor has joined the study group. We now have four people. Four people is probably the minimum we need for a successful study group. Six would be even better. The tendency is for ideas to flow between participants in a study group. It takes a certain critical mass of attention and energy to get interesting. If you are not in the study group -- you may want to consider joining. You can find out all about it on the wiki page that DJ is maintaining at: http://mediaweapon.net/mediawiki-phase3/index.php/Projects:study The archives of discussion are posted at: http://www.livejournal.com/community/marxism/195457.html If you feel that there are barriers to becoming involved in the study group -- please let us know what they are. A study group is probably a fairly reasonable way to organize and focus human energy. I believe that it would also be useful to post, here to the pof-200 list, most or all of the archived discussion. I know that there is a one post per week limit -- but we can make an exception to this for some volunteer who would be willing to post installments here, once per day, from the archived posts on LiveJournal. Do we have any volunteers? ----------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Project 118 / DJ-Ben discussion on our fundamental tasks ----------------------------------------------------------------- DJ and I have agreed that we should enter into a period of public discussion of our different views on the fundamental tasks of our movement at this time. DJ made a post outlining his views yesterday. I may not have time to respond this month, as I had hoped. However I have created a wiki page at: http://mediaweapon.net/mediawiki-phase3/index.php/Projects:118 which can help to organize the discussion by linking to and summarizing the posts. The discussion between DJ and me will be successful if this discussion draws attention from subscribers to this list. If you find the discussion interesting, if you have thoughts (or questions) that you would like to share -- please do so. The wiki page may help to overcome the fact that, due to contraints on my time, the discussion must proceed slowly. By the way, I call it project 118 because that is how it is listed on our Media Weapon community projects page at: http://MediaWeapon.com/projects.htm ----------------------------------------------------------------- 4. Reply to Ulyanovist ----------------------------------------------------------------- Last month a new subscriber, Ulyanovist, made his first post. I have not replied to him before now because I am have been very busy. First, I am very glad to have someone on this list who has experience in the revolutionary movement and some familiarity with marxist theory. I hope, Ulyanovist, that you will find this email list, and this emerging community, to be valuable. Ulyanovist has a live journal homepage at: http://www.livejournal.com/users/ulyanovist/ Ulyanovist's post was focused on my leaflet draft for the Janaury 20 actions. (This leaflet can be found on the web at: http://struggle.net/ben/2005/0120-how-to.htm ) Ulyanovist made the following comment (January 18): > I would urge that the leaflet expressly > advocate that demonstrators begin advocating > the hot-cargoing military goods and/or > protests by GIs in Iraq against the war. > I would also urge that the leaflet attempt > to point out that the failure of the > reformists to seriously promote these, when > they have the ear of entire demonstrations, > holds back the potential of demonstrations. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pof-200/message/687 I thought that many of Ulyanovist's comments were very thoughtful but I disagree with his comments above because they appear somewhat detached from the living thoughts of most of the activists who received copies of the leaflet. I don't even know what it means to "hot-cargo" military goods (I can guess that it means steal). More to the point, the majority of activists probably do not have many contacts within the military -- so would not be able to advocate such a course of action to these non-existent contacts. I agree that it is necessary to criticize the reformist attempts to hijack or liquidate the antiwar movement. But figuring out how to do so is a non-trivial matter. The reformists, unfortunately, have a lot of credibility with most activists (because they often are the people who are in a position to organize the large mass actions and inexperienced activists will not understand how someone can organize an action and still be harmful to the movement). If we attack the reformists in a clumsy way (as opposed to an intelligent, well-considered way) -- it will not hurt the reformists -- but will only make it appear that the trends which attack the reformists are detached from reality. It is very important that leaflets make a strong connection with readers. When I worked with the MLP (before it dissolved in 1993) I worked in a factory and our leaflets to the workers there were based on many conversations we had with workers in which we learned what kinds of ideas and arguments had meaning to them and were comprehensible. I would like to see Ulyanovist in our study group on Lenin's "Imperialism" (if he has the time). I would also like to know more about Ulyanovist's political experience and background and priorities and the same for whatever group he is working with. It appears likely that Ulyanovist is a trotskyist of some sort. I am not a trotskyist by any stretch of the imagination. But what is important to me is that Ulyanovist understands that the reformists undermine the antiwar movement and other oppositional movements. Everything else is minor. ----------------------------------------------------------------- 5. Carl plays for the other team ----------------------------------------------------------------- Speaking of reformism, I call everyone's attention to appendix 1 below. As part of my recent "syndication" of my article criticising RCP's campaign of hysteria about supposedly impending fascism -- I had a little run-in with Carl Davidson on Chicago Indymedia. Carl appears to be a reformist honcho in Chicago and is a leader of Chicagoans Against War and Injustice which has (I think) organized some mass protests against the war in Iraq. Carl also defends "progressive" Democratic Party wheeler-dealers who vote for money for the war and vote for additional troops to bomb Iraqi cities and steal Iraqi oil. This is a contradiction and I called Carl on it. People like this are generally as slippery as deer guts on a doorknob and it can be difficult to pin them down on anything. But I may have nailed Carl on this one. I invited him to list so that subscribers can watch if Carl attempts to talk his way out of this kind of treachery. Subscribers might want to know why I would invite to this list someone who, so to speak, "plays for the other team" (ie: serves the imperialist Democratic Party, serves the bourgeoisie). The answer is simple: we need to better understand our enemy. The reformist ideology and social strata work to systematically strip activists of their courage and integrity. I believe that this is what happened to Carl. Carl's problem is that it can be difficult to serve both antiwar movement and imperialism at the same time. DJ and I worked hard to create an anti-reformism wiki page at: http://mediaweapon.net/mediawiki-phase3/index.php/Projects:arwg where we presented examples of how reformists act and think. However having Carl here, in person, might provide a more vivid education for our subscribers. ----------------------------------------------------------------- 6. Reply to an RCYP supporter ----------------------------------------------------------------- The recent distribution of my criticism of RCP's leaflet also brought me into contact with a supporter of the RCYB (ie: Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade, the youth group led by the RCP). My reply can be seen below in appendix 2. ----------------------------------------------------------------- 7. Reply to Terry ----------------------------------------------------------------- > I got a couple of leaflets on J20. > One is from Not in our Name. > The other is titled "March against > the imperialist occupation. US out > of Iraq now!" > > Is that the one you were talking about? Actually no. My leaflet is the one posted at: http://struggle.net/ben/2005/0120-how-to.htm I would be very interested in your opinion of it together with your opinion of the other leaflets you describe above (from NION and the CVO, respectively). Got to go. All the best to everyone. Sincerely and with revolutionary regards, Ben Seattle ----//-// February 13, 2005 http://struggle.net/Ben (my elists / theory / infrastructure) ============================================================ Appendix 1 -- Carl plays for the other team ============================================================ -----Original Message----- From: Ben Seattle Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 8:54 AM To: Carl Davidson Cc: 'pof-300' Subject: [pof-300] RE: Carl works for the other team (reply to Carl Davidson) Hi Carl, Carl Davidson -- Feb 13: > Where in the world did you get this claim, Ben? > I have consistently supported opposing the Iraq war, > opposing any troops there and certainly not adding > more, and voting against any funding for it, let > alone any increases. I can't speak for everything > Hayden has said, since I'm not familar with > everything he has said, but did you get this claim > about me from some third party or just make it up? In your mind, Carl, you are an honest person. But in the actual class struggle your self-image and your actions are worlds apart. I have documented your treachery on my web page (see below). If you want to make an attempt to defend your actions, you are welcome to join the pof-200 email list (subject to the same conditions as all other subscribers: treat everyone with respect and post only once a week). The contrast between your virtuous self-image and your treacherous actions would provide an education for many young activists in how reformist politics systematically strip activists of their courage and integrity. If, after so many decades living and working amidst reformist politics and the reformist social strata, you have a particle of integrity left -- you will accept by offer to join the pof-200 list. You are also welcome to join the pof-300 email list (with far fewer subscribers -- but no limit on how many times you can post per week). Sincerely, Ben Seattle From: http://struggle.net/Ben/2005/rcp_cries_wolf.htm Section titled: How Carl Davidson promotes illusions about the Democratic Party to defend funding the war in Iraq The web version provides links to: http://www.net4dem.org/cyrev/editorials/carl_editorial5.htm http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0120-20.htm Text is below: In a recent essay on the current orientation that activists should take today, "The Road Ahead After 2004: Building a Broad Nonpartisan Alliance Against Bush and the Far Right", Carl Davidson quotes approvingly from Tom Hayden who, Carl says, "recently summed up our tasks as well as anyone": "we need to build a Progressive Democratic movement which will pressure the Democrats to become an anti-war opposition party." The sentence above is the key piece of the puzzle that exposes the nature of this political deception which is designed to suck the life and militancy out of the antiwar movement. The Democratic Party is imperialist to the core. Every bloody war and "intervention", large and small, that U.S. imperialism has waged against the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America has been made possible by the full support of the Democratic Party. Yes, the day may come when the Democratic Party will parade itself as an "antiwar" party. But this will only happen once it is clear that U.S. imperialism has been soundly beaten by the Iraqi people. Then (once it is clear, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the war is a lost cause) the "antiwar Democrats" will swing into action to cut funds for the war and make it appear that a section of the ruling class can be relied on to oppose imperialist war. Activists who fall for this nonsense end up being either brain dead -- or -- treacherous opponents of the antiwar movement. Want proof? Take a look at another sentence from the same passage. I call this the "money shot": "the first step is to build pressure at congressional district levels to oppose any further funding or additional troops for war. If members of Congress balk at cutting off all assistance and want to propose "conditions" for further aid, it is a small step toward threatening funding." Incredibly, Carl Davidson and Tom Hayden are arguing that it is just fine for "progressive" Democrats to vote for money for the war in Iraq or send additional troops as long as meaningless conditions (such as a supposedly "realistic assessment of the situation" and a pledge to "make sure our troops have everything they need") are attached to the blood money! This helps to show how, step by step, these false friends of the antiwar movement work to convert antiwar activism into support for the war. ============================================================ Appendix 2 -- Confronting the problems of our time (reply to an RCYB supporter) ============================================================ from: http://atlanta.indymedia.org/newswire/display/35300/index.php Hi there dig it, Thank you very much for your comments. It is good to hear from someone around the rcyb who is thoughtful. ---------------------------------------------------------------- We cannot evade forever the need to confront the central theoretical issue of our time ---------------------------------------------------------------- The key passage that is deserving of much thought is this gem from your chairman: > if you want to put it crudely -- we can't > promise the intellectuals some of the > same things that the bourgeoisie is able > to afford them now. First, it is important to understand what comrade Avakian is really saying in this passage. Avakian is not simply talking about how much intellectuals will be paid or whether they will keep their position of relative privilege in society. We should be very clear on that. Under bourgeois rule in the U.S., intellectuals have first ammendment (ie: "free speech") rights that are extremely strong. Under bourgeois rule nearly everyone (except prisoners and immigrants -- who face retaliation by the INS) has the legal right to say (or to read) pretty much anything they damn well want. Avakian is hinting about the fact that, under workers' rule (as he sees it), these free speech rights will not exist. Avakian is saying that, on the contrary, the ruling party will have the authority to decide whether some statement by an intellectual will need to be suppressed. Avakian is wrong. This is the heart of the question and there is no way to avoid confronting this issue. Avoiding this issue simply gives support to bourgeois apologists who claim that people will have free speech rights only under bourgeois rule. I found your post to be thoughtful but, unfortunately, you fail to confront this issue -- which is one of the central questions of our time. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Under working class rule in a modern, stable society, everyone (even reactionaries) will have fundamental democratic rights ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the period following the overthrow of bourgeois rule, it will be neither necessary nor practical (nor even desirable) for the working class (in whatever form it is organized) to suppress the free speech rights of reactionaries. Many activists who consider themselves revolutionaries believe otherwise because of the experience of the Soviet revolution -- in which it was very much necessary to suppress, for an extended period of time, the free speech rights of, not only reactionaries, but every form of opposition. However materialists base their conclusions, not on historical analogies, but on a serious study of concrete conditions. And the concrete, material conditions in a modern, economically developed country like the U.S. are considerably different than those of Soviet Russia in the 1920's. In a modern stable society with a developed economy and communications infrastructure the fundamental democratic rights will be: (1) the right of speech (2) the right of independent organization (3) the right to mobilize opposition to incompetence, . hypocrisy or corruption of people or policies . of the ruling workers' state It will not be NECESSARY to suppress the fundamental democratic rights of reactionaries because the overwhelming majority of the population will support the revolutionary government -- and reactionary views will be defeated without the need for the ruling state to decide what opinions cannot be allowed in public discourse. It will not be PRACTICAL to suppress democratic rights because modern digital communications (ie: such as the web, email, IM and numerous technologies which have not even appeared yet) are central to the development of the economy and cannot be suppressed without an ever-growing army of censors that would eventually exceed, in size, the number of people being censored. It will not be DESIRABLE to suppress the democratic rights of reactionaries because the masses can do a better job of sorting out, exposing and defeating reactionary poison. The organizations of the working class (whether these organizations are groups similar to the RCP -- or some other form of organization) will help guide this process by making known their views. But the masses, themselves, will make the final decisions concerning what views to oppose and in what way to oppose them. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Our goal must be the rule of the working class ---------------------------------------------------------------- Especially in light of the experience of the failed Russian and Chinese revolutions (in which revolutionary working class intellectuals were imprisoned and executed by the supposedly "workers' state") revolutionary activists must pay careful attention to all questions related to state censorship of the independent political voice and independent political life of the working class. If we fail to do this then we are not deserving of the attention and respect of the working class. It is really as simple as that. It is not enough to talk, abstractly (as you do), of the need for a class analysis. Rather you must actually make the analysis. Specifically, will it really help the working class to have some paternalistic organization decide for them what views they are allowed to know about? Here is the contradiction which must be considered: If some organization has the authority to censor (ie: remove from public discourse entirely, legally prohibit the publication of leaflets or web pages, etc) certain political views -- then only this organization will understand the full range of views which exist and which are competing with one another for acceptance and support. It would then be this organization which rules society on the basis of being aware of the full range of available information. What this would mean, in practical terms, is that this organization would rule society. That is not what I support. Nor will the working class support such a goal. I assert that our goal, as revolutionaries, must be the rule of the working class as a _class_. Not the rule of an organization which supposedly represents the interests of the class and which has privileged access to information. Rather, the rule of the entire class. It follows from this that the entire working class must have available to it the full range of information. Many revolutionary activists use the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" without having a clue what it really means. It means the rule of a _class_. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Distinction between commercial and non-commercial media sectors ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Also in you comment about the material motivation > of reactionaries to spout their rhetoric. I disagree > that when they are not getting paid that they will > just stop. Actually, I never argued that reactionaries will stop spewing their poison if they don't get paid for it. My argument is entirely different. Without commercial resources to amplify their voice a thousand or a million-fold -- the reactionaries would be on a level playing field, so to speak, with everyone else -- and would then be defeated in millions or billions of encounters with the masses. The workers' revolutionary state will prevent the media sphere from being saturated with reactionary poison by regulating the _commercial_ media sector (ie: media which is created, broadcast or distributed with the assistance of wage labor or the support of commercial resources). There will be _no need_ for the state to regulate the non-commercial media sector (ie: media, such as leaflets or web sites, which are created with volunteer labor). I believe, dig it, that some of my arguments may be new to you. What I am confident about, however, is that these issues are not going to get away. Rather -- as the revolution in communications continues to unfold -- revolutionary activists must struggle to consciously understand all questions related to the flow of information -- and, in particular, how the working class will wield this emerging weapon. --------------------------------------------------------------- Keep in touch! --------------------------------------------------------------- I would like to continue this discussion with you, dig it, in a way that is practical and which can be maintained over an extended period of time without requiring too many of our precious and limited minutes. I am inviting you, dig it, to join the pof-200 email list which I maintain. The pof-200 list is focused on the crisis of theory as well as other tasks which are decisive in the struggle to overthrow bourgeois rule. The pof-200 list allows all subscribers to post once a week. Currently the list includes about 70 subscribers and includes a few anarchists and a few trotskyists. I am sure that people with social-democratic views will eventually be represented. I believe that the addition of a thoughtful maoist to the list would help other subscribers have a better picture of the range of opinion among activists who consider themselves to be revolutionaries. More about the list can be found at: http://MediaWeapon.com Sincerely and revolutionary regards, Ben Seattle http://struggle.net/ben ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> What would our lives be like without music, dance, and theater? Donate or volunteer in the arts today at Network for Good! http://us.click.yahoo.com/TzSHvD/SOnJAA/79vVAA/B140lB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> (This is not a discussion list--the discussion list is pof-200) THEORIST LIST -------------- To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archive: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theorist/messages Info: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theorist/ POF-200 ------- home page:��� http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pof-200/ to subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theorist/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
