~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Weekly focus # 31 -- / what's hot (or not) on the pof-200 list
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(1) Reformism / crisis of the radical left (reply to Jackson)
(2) The need to develop "revolutionary syndication"
(3) What do we change first? (reply to Marik)
(4) One note of caution: don't "drink the kool aid"
(5) Introducing Dave Ewing
(6) Quick question for Terry
(7) The Carl Davidson (Democratic Party) challenge:
Do we have the ability to uncover
any obvious holes in his story?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Appendix -- Carl and Ben discuss role of Democratic Party
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1. Reformism / crisis of the radical left (reply to Jackson)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I would like to welcome Jackson, who just made his first post, to
our list. Jackson (who has marched many times in weather that is
colder than it ever gets here in Seattle) asked me about
reformism following some comments I made last week:
Ben -- Feb 13:
> 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).
Jackson replied -- Feb 17:
> Honestly, certain reformers have considerable credibility with
me. I
> live in Nebraska. Winters here are quasi-arctic. If someone is
willing
> to risk pneumonia to protest the ruling class, I give them some
> credit.
I liked your comments very much, Jackson. Your comments
represent an objective report on what you are seeing and dealing
with in Nebraska. And that makes your comments valuable.
The topic of reformism (ie: what it is as an ideology and as a
social strata, how it sabotages the movement and why militant
activists oppose it, etc) is not easy for most new activists to
understand. It tends to be utterly mystifying. Often it takes
quite a bit of bitter personal experience with treacherous
behavior (by people of whom you expected better) -- for activists
to understand that there is a consistent and predictable pattern
of behavior which is often motivated by unseen alliances.
DJ and I put together a wiki page to try to describe some of the
features of reformism as a political trend and as the ideology
around which is organized a definite social strata (made up of
trade union bureacrats, religious leaders, poverty pimps, liberal
politicians, professional opinion leaders and progressive media
personalities). This page can be found at:
http://mediaweapon.net/mediawiki-phase3/index.php/Projects:arwg
But I am not sure how much meaning this page contains for many
readers. Putting together a page that does a decent job at
helping readers to understand reformism -- appears to be beyond
what DJ and I can do at this moment with the limited time that we
have.
I have also persuaded a reformist activist, Carl Davidson, to
join this list and he will hopefully be willing to stay around
long enough to answer questions (from his perspective) from other
subscribers. (More on that below.)
Ultimately, understanding reformism requires understanding the
nature of the society in which we live. This is the essential
thing to understand.
We live under a political and economic system with a scientific
name: imperialism. Imperialism is the inevitable outcome, under
modern conditions, of bourgeois rule. The imperialist system is
quite well organized with conscious centers that pull all sorts
of levers and more-or-less organize the life of society (or most
of it at any rate). The major (and minor) political parties,
pretty much all institutions, the police, courts, schools, mass
media (and most minor media) are, in essence, components of a
political and economic ecosystem that serves the ruling class --
even if sections of that ecosystem are semi-independent (or at
least on very long leash).
The imperialists control (to a significant degree) certain kinds
of progressive political trends (which are often, for historical
reasons, called "social-democracy") which have developed a very
sophisticated and somewhat seductive ideology that is used to
deliberately channel the energy and militancy of oppositional
movements into various dead ends that eventually demoralize (or
corrupt) activists.
Sometimes, when I attempt to describe how these things work,
younger activists respond that it sounds like I am describing
some kind of conspiracy theory. But it is not a conspiracy. It
is simply how our society works. Economic forces and the class
struggle have shaped all these features. And a study of history
and the class struggle will, in my view, confirm this all. The
Romans lived by the motto "divide and rule" and some of the basic
methods used by the bourgeoisie were described five hundred years
ago, at the dawn of modern capitalism, by Machiavelli (see, for
example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machiavelli ).
But I can't _prove_ any of this by anything that I can say here.
These things can only be confirmed by life experience in the
class struggle. I can only say to all serious activists: "keep
your eyes open" and "keep the lines of communication open" in the
months and years ahead because the revolutionary and progressive
movements include within themselves not only what is _best_ in
society -- but what is _worst_. And often the best and the worst
march together, unnoticed, side-by-side.
You may find, Jackson, that joining our anti-imperialist study
group (we are reading Lenin's classic work: "Imperialism, the
Highest Stage of Capitalism") may help you to better understand
how the imperialist system works. More info about the chapters,
the schedule and the Live Journal pages where the discussion is
beginning to unfold can be found at:
http://mediaweapon.net/mediawiki-phase3/index.php/Projects:study
Jackson -- Feb 17:
> If I had not been immersed in Marx's brilliant
> theoretical work, I might have ended up a liberal
> and not a communist. Liberals actually seem to be
> politically active. Liberals actually seem to [be]
> accomplishing something. The radical left needs to
> be much more involved in protest movements, if for
> nothing else but to reach out and influence
> progressive-minded people.
I agree, Jackson, that your observations are accurate. The issue
for us is what conclusions we can draw from this.
My view is that the radical left is extremely disorganized. In
fact I often use the word "paralyzed" to describe it. A number
of activists, I should note, believe that I am being too harsh in
my assessment. I am sometimes even accused of being a cop
because I criticize the errors of groups on the left. By I
believe my assessment is completely accurate. Words do not exist
to fully describe how bankrupt, disorganized and helpless the
radical left is.
And we cannot change this reality until we can recognize it for
what it is.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
2. The need to develop "revolutionary syndication"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jackson also made another interesting comment:
Jackson -- Feb 17:
> I used to post heavily, and currently only occasionally,
> at http://www.revolutionaryleft.com (formerly the
> Che-lives forum). Thousands of people from around the
> world have passed through that forum, and I'd estimate
> that there are 50-100 serious, leftist posters there.
> Most of the people who use the forum are very young;
> the age bracket of 15-20 is easily the majority there.
> I say this because I hope some of the people on this
> list will either wish to discuss and debate with the
> serious users, or hopefully offer some teaching for
> the young seeking information.
I would love, Jackson, to post to the Revolutionary Left list.
It is possible that I will be able to do so someday. But my time
is extremely limited. What I would like to see organized
(eventually) is what I call "revolutionary syndication" where an
article or essay (by me or someone else) is posted to a number of
forums such as you have described. The same article could also
be posted to a number of email lists and Indymedia sites. But
this would only be the first step.
The second step is that responses to the essay would be
systematically collected (from the web forums, email lists and
Indymedia sites) and posted in some central place. The third
step would be for the author (and/or those who support the essay)
to put together thoughtful, concise and easy-to-understand
replies to the most serious and thoughtful responses. The fourth
step would be to distribute the replies back to the forums, lists
and sites. The person who responded on a particular forum, list
or site would receive back (within say, ten days or so) a
response to his reply as well as a short list of some of the most
thoughtful or interesting response/reply pairs.
I experimented with this kind of syndication with my essay
criticizing the RCP's recent leaflet (which exaggerates the
danger of fascism and says comparatively little about the
treachery of the Democratic Party). I sent the essay to a dozen
email lists and 17 Indymedia sites. I got a number of
interesting comments in response and, as a result, our list today
has at least two new subscribers (each with decades of political
experience).
But, unfortunately, I lack the time to do this very much. I have
written a fair amount of material which I believe has potential
to be of interest to a significant section of activists. I have
written a number of well-organized, easy-to-read and fairly deep
theoretical articles as part of the anarcho-leninist debate on
the state. I put together the proletarism essay that inspired
you to join this list. And I wrote an article on culture
(dealing with questions of sexuality and beauty that was inspired
by a trip to Burning Man) which has, so far, received little
attention but which I believe has potential for reaching a fairly
wide audience.
I would like to see some of these articles syndicated. I believe
that many of these articles address the need for clarity and
focus within the revolutionary movement. But I cannot do any of
this by myself. I have written the articles. Many would
consider that the hard part. But I do not have time to
distribute these articles (post on web sites, send to email
lists, etc) or to collect the responses. All these things take
time.
If you, Jackson, would like to help me distribute the proletarism
essay (or any of the other essays) to the Revolutionary Left
forum (or any other forum) -- then I think we should make this
happen. I can put together a plaintext version. You could post
it there. You could collect the responses and post them here (in
one big post) or to the pof-300 list (in a number of small
posts). I could then reply to the best and most thoughtful
responses. And you could then post the replies back to the
forum.
Please let me know what you think about this. I am confident
that some of my theoretical work will be of interest to a section
of serious, militant activists who believe there is a need for
answers to the deeper questions. And I believe that some of
these activists would be interesting in joining us here on the
pof-200 list. That is what we want here -- the most serious and
dedicated.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
3. What do we change first? (reply to Marik)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marik -- Feb 13:
> how many of you out there have had actual success
> explaining any of your beliefs to someone who is a
> common worker? I myself have had very little. [...]
> Those who are in aggreance quickly become
> disilussioned by the overwhelming power and
> ferocity of the bourgeoise. Or my opinions are
> met with fanatical devotion to money, and struck
> down. How do we get past this? If we are the
> vanguard of the socialist revolution, then where
> are our cadres? Who would stand up and be the
> figure in front of the movement, and actually
> be able to sway the working masses? And of
> course, not be struck down by the bourgeouise
> media machine. [...]
> But on the other hand, we have massive amounts
> of Americans who are too disillusioned with
> their government to even go out and vote.
> People turning out in droves to protest the
> Capitalist government and its Imperial war.
> Independant media sites spring up like weeds
> and find success in the fertile soil of the
> angry and pissed off proletariat.
Your comments, Marik, seem to have struck a chord with a number
of subscribers here.
In my view, it is important to undertand, as I noted above, that
the radical left is currently paralyzed. We are weak because we
are paralysed. At the present time, militant activists are
extremely disorganized and are _only beginning_ to sort out and
understand their real strengths and real priorities.
We are up against forces that are far more organized and powerful
than most us can imagine. At the same time, we represent the
objective material interest of the overwhelming majority of the
population and we are struggling in a period where, with help
from the emerging revolution in digital communications, the truth
about everything will increasingly be emerging.
What do we change first?
------------------------
Materialists usually use the phrase "objective factor" to
describe the objective material conditions of the life of
society. If we are describing the strengths of our enemies
(including the might of their military machine or the might of
their media propaganda machine and the widespread saturation of
their ideology) this would all be included in the phrase
"objective factor".
On the other hand the term "subjective factor" is usually used to
describe the consciousness of activists and the ideas and
principles which are widespread in the movement.
The "subjective factor" is the part of the equation that it is
the easiest for us to change. For example it will be easier to
raise the consciousness of ten or a hundred thousand activists
concerning the need to eliminate the system of imperialism (ie:
changing the subjective factor) than to actually overthrow the
system of imperialism (ie: changing the objective factor).
[] <--> [] <--> [] <--> [] <--> [] <--> [] <--> []
Of course there are actually many levels to this all -- an entire
spectrum ranging from subjective to objective. For example an
idea may start with a few brain cells and be amplified by the
action of your arm which reaches out to switch a lever which
starts the motor of a bulldozer which then moves tons of rocks.
This is a process of movement from the subjective to objective
spheres in which the initial impulse is amplified at each level.
Similarly, raising the consciousness of activists on this small
email list is part of the "subjective factor" in comparison to
the objective task of raising the consciousness of all the most
serious and dedicated activists in the antiwar movement.
I have made this brief excursion into philosophy in order to
explain that our movement is weak because of the subjective
factor. When the radical left understands what is going on,
understands why it is so weak and disorganized, understands the
unlimited source of power which we have the ability to harness --
then everything else will change.
This is, I guess, just a fancy way to explain that the radical
left will find itself with immense power once it, so to speak,
places its head in a place that can be reached by sunlight. (I
actually have a more vulgar expression in mind, but I think
readers will be able to follow my line of reasoning.)
Or, in other words, we cannot change the ideas of millions of
people until we first change the ideas of the advanced section of
activists -- until we first change our own ideas.
Put more simply -- how can we fight when we can't see what is
going on and can't even think?
The crisis of theory is what prevents us from having a clear
understanding of our goal or how we will achieve it. Sooner or
later the radical left will need to confront the existing crisis
of theory. Until then we will exist in a state of paralysis and
imperialism will rule the world -- bringing misery to billions
and launching one war after another.
How we will win the attention of millions
-----------------------------------------
The radical left will win millions to its side by fighting for
genuine reforms while offering a clear and compellng vision of
the future. This will be activists acting in an organized way to
implement a marriage of present day struggles with our future
goals. Workers will only listen to us when we demonstrate (by
helping to lead practical struggles and by creating a popular
press that tells the truth about everything) that we understand
what we are doing. Once we gain the attention and respect of
workers -- then they will find our ideas of a future society
without exploitation to be worth fighting for.
Practical projects
------------------
I have put together a small list of projects that may be
practical to carry out today. This list can be found at:
http://MediaWeapon.com/projects.htm . I believe that projects of
this kinds can help us develop our consciousness and gain skills
and attract talented and dedicated people to our community. Of
course there are many other kinds of projects, some of which may
be more useful than others. But it is good to be doing
_something_ because that is usually how we learn what works and
what does not.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
4. One note of caution: don't "drink the kool aid"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
(For our younger subscribers, the reference to "kool-aid"
concerns the Jim Jones cult which committed mass suicide in
Guyana in 1978.)
DJ -- Feb 14:
> we must concentrate on those roads which will most
> likely lead us to the advanced workers, who are the
> ones that with a rising tide of class struggle will
> be able to correctly lead the masses). I believe
> that the League for the Revolutionary Party
> (http://www.lrp-cofi.org) is striving to fulfill
> these tasks, and revolutionaries are duty bound to
> work with them to achieve those tasks if they agree
> (or to find or build an organization that does).
I liked DJ's reply to Marik and agreed with nearly all of it.
And I think that it can be very useful to check out and learn
from the practice and experience of all the trends within the
revolutionary left. And I would like to see the day when we have
supporters of twenty, or a hundred, different groups on this
email list all promoting their organization (and asking hard
questions of the supporters of rival organizations).
But I will add one note of caution. All the groups of the
radical left, in my view, are deeply flawed -- and often act to
shield themselves from criticism. I will discuss my perception
of some of the flaws of the LRP (and some of the flaws of their
rival, the CVO, with which I have had much personal contact and
experience) when DJ and I develop "Project 118" (ie: our
discussion of the fundamental tasks of our movement).
In the meantime, here is my caution:
I consider it important not to get so deeply involved with any
group that effective, regular, open and principled communication
with other progressive activists (such as represented by our
community of activists) is cut off or severely restricted.
Many of these groups work to isolate activists from one another
using one or another excuse. Sometimes these excuses take the
form of a bullshit version of "democratic centralism". Other
times the excuse takes the form of arguments that participation
in public forums (or replying to the questions or criticisms of
other activists) is a "waste of time". (Of course public forums
often _are_ a waste of time -- if the forum is not set up with a
clear focus on calm and serious discussion.) Sometimes others
form of manipulation are used.
Many of these groups have a line that can be very seductive.
Activists who are hooked up with these groups may find that the
supportive emotional and intellectual atmosphere around the group
helps to relieve the intense anxiety that we all feel when we
watch imperialism murder people around the world and feel
helpless about doing anything to effectively oppose it. But this
can be a trap -- and lead to eventual demoralization, cynicism or
passivity.
Many groups regard young activists as "turf" and will do
everything they can to retain control over "their" resources --
including shielding "their" supporters from genuine and
thoughtful interaction with other trends in the left. I should
probably add that I have no first-hand knowledge of the practice
of the LRP -- but this kind of manipulation is so common that it
is nearly universal.
My other comment concerns DJ's post informing everyone that his
summary of chapter two of Lenin's "Imperialism" is now posted at:
http://www.livejournal.com/community/marxism/205775.html
I believe it would be useful, in this kind of email, to go ahead
and post the entire summary in the email itself (as well as the
Live journal page). We have 75 subscribers to this email list.
Probably more than 60 of our subscribers are subscribed in the
form of email (the remainder read our list via the web). I
believe it would be better if these 60 subscribers got the
summary delivered right to their email inbox -- because they
would then be far more likely to look at it (ie: because it is
easier and more natural and instinctive to move the elevator bar
then to click on a link) -- and, possibly, decide that they are
missing out by not being part of the anti-imperialism study
group.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
5. Introducing Dave Ewing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
One of our new subscribers, Dave Ewing, learned of this list via
my email distribution of my criticism of RCP's recent leaflet.
Dave agreed with me that the RCP has exaggerated the danger of
fascism and also agreed with my criticism of Carl Davidson and
the strata around the Democratic Party. Dave wrote to me and
gave me encouragement. I told him that he belonged on this list.
Dave and I are of the same generation and are both former
maoists. I was a left-maoist and Dave may have been (it appears)
a right-maoist. Today, Dave and I have opposite views concerning
what is going on in China (he supports the current bourgeois
government there and considers it to be "socialism" and I support
the struggle of the Chinese workers against their bourgeois
masters and consider it important to make the clearest possible
distinction between genuine workers rule and corrupt police state
that is modern China).
Dave has one view of the world. I have another.
More of our differences can be seen in my post to the pof-300
list:
Telling the workers the truth about China
and the alternative to bourgeois rule
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pof-300/message/45
In spite of our differences, I am glad to have Dave on this list.
I believe it is important for activists on this list to have live
access to representatives of different political trends -- to
watch us interact with one another and to be able to ask us
questions and to draw their own conclusions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
6. Quick question for Terry
-----------------------------------------------------------------
You asked me on February 6 if I had seen the leaflet that you
handed out at the January 20 demo about Bush stealing the
election. I actually saw (I think) several similar leaflets on
that topic.
Bush may have stolen the election in Ohio -- which means that
otherwise Kerry would have gotten the majority of electoral
votes. However, to be honest with you, I do not think that this
is much of an issue for the progressive movement. Our time and
energy is limited and I believe that we need to focus on the most
important issues that will do the most to raise the consciousness
of activists, the masses and our movement. These issues revolve
around the war in Iraq, the increasing repression at home and
other attacks on the working class.
I did discuss this issue in an Indymedia thread. You can read
more about my views here:
http://seattle.indymedia.org/en/2004/12/243707.shtml
I still remain very interested in your opinions on my leaflet (if
you have read it yet).
Also, I noted that earlier you had indicated that you might have
found out about our community via the anarcho-leninist debate on
the state. Have you seen part 7 (ie: the concluding installment
-- posted in March of last year) ? That essay discusses how many
anarchists believe that it is possible to go back to an earlier,
more "innocent" form of capitalism (ie: capitalism as it existed
before the robber barons of the late 1800's and the consolidation
that led to the development of the modern imperialist system
around 1900) and ties this together with thinkers like Noam
Chomsky, Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson (the latter of whom you
mentioned).
It is on the web at:
http://struggle.net/ALDS/part_7.htm
Appendix C of this essay (ie: my criticism of the CVO's criticism
of Noam Chomsky) deals with these topics in a little more depth.
Appendix C is posted at:
http://struggle.net/ALDS/part_7_C.htm
Joe Licentia corrected me, by the way, in his criticism of my
essay. Much of what Joe has to say is mistaken. But Joe
correctly criticised my essay for implying that most anarchists
have the line described above. It may be more accurate to say
that, while many anarchist have this view, many other (and maybe
most others) do not.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
7. The Carl Davidson (Democratic Party) challenge: Do we
have the ability to uncover any obvious holes in his story?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I have asked Carl Davidson to join us on this list.
I should be clear that, in my view, Carl "plays for the other
team".
In other words, Carl promotes the social-democratic ideology that
weakens the movement and disorients activists -- so that
activists will not understand that we are living in an
imperialist economic and political system -- and so that
activists are less likely to create independent anti-imperialist
organization -- and more likely to get sucked into demoralizing
activity like doorbell ringing for "progressive" Democratic Party
candidates.
In view of this, some might ask why I asked Carl to join us on
this list.
My response is that we must know our enemy.
If a representative of the social-democratic viewpoint (Carl does
not consider himself a social-democrat -- but I consider him to
be one) agrees to appear on our list -- I believe that we should
welcome the opportunity to better study how he thinks. This can
assist us in better understanding the reformist ideology. We
have a live one here. We can ask him questions and study what he
says.
We can also ask Carl to defend his views and see if we have the
ability to uncover any obvious holes in his story. I should note
that Carl is experienced in "polemical warfare" and most
subscribers to our list are not -- so it is possible that Carl
may "outfence" some anti-reformist critics on this list. So I
advise those anti-reformists who may appreciate the opportunity
to challenge Carl -- to be avoid being overconfident, to have
humility and to measure your words with care.
This guy is as slick as deer guts on a doorknob.
I should add that Carl is quite intelligent and may deny or
dispute my characterizations of him and his views and actions.
But that can be useful also. Revolutionary activists will
encounter many clever people who are skilled in spin and evasion.
We need experience in challenging them on public forums.
Please note -- except for the 7 people whom I listed last week as
being allowed two posts per week -- everyone here is limited to
one post per week. I don't want anyone to get excited and start
a flame war. This discussion may take a little time to develop.
We need time to think about these issues and to carefully read
the posts.
We should treat Carl, as a person, with respect even if we have
comtempt for his ideas -- which keep the radical left in a state
of paralysis and make it possible for imperialism to kill
millions around the world. Carl is not the originator of these
ideas. He is simply a former radical activist who lost his way
and got sucked into this ideology in the context of the
theoretical bankruptcy of the revolutionary movement.
And, if you find yourself agreeing with Carl, feel free to say
so. The reformist ideology saturates our society and culture
and, to a large degree, the progressive movement. In the long
run, the truth about everything will tend to come out. In the
short run, this email list may find itself subject to
considerable influence from the reformist ideology. However it
would be a mistake to try to shield ourselves from this ideology
by banning reformists from posting here or being part of our
community. We are not a "bubble boy" that must be afraid of
germs. Rather -- the road forward is to work to gradually create
here a core of anti-reformist activists and to raise our
consciousness of what reformism is and how it works.
Those who have the time to do some "homework" are encouraged to
read (1) the section titled: "How Carl Davidson promotes
illusions about the Democratic Party to defend funding the war in
Iraq" on my page criticizing the RCP leaflet at:
http://struggle.net/Ben/2005/rcp_cries_wolf.htm
and (2) the two Indymedia threads where Carl and I have
challenged one another:
http://chicago.indymedia.org/newswire/display/52350/index.php
http://seattle.indymedia.org/en/2005/02/244743.shtml
For those who lack the time to do this I have excerpted some of
the more useful passages from the Seattle thread in the appendix
below.
I will start matters off by asking Carl to clarify the apparent
contradiction (see the appendix below) between (1) his promotion
of the idea that it is possible to transform the Democratic Party
into an antiwar party and (2) his statement that we should work
to "break up" the Democratic Party.
Sincerely and with revolutionary regards,
Ben Seattle
----//-// February 19, 2005
http://struggle.net/Ben (my elists / theory / infrastructure)
============================================================
Appendix -- Carl and Ben discuss role of Democratic Party
============================================================
Excerpts from the thread at:
http://seattle.indymedia.org/en/2005/02/244743.shtml
------------------------------------------------------------
Deconstructing Ben Seattle
author: Carl Davidson Feb 16, 2005 11:36
------------------------------------------------------------
A critical examination of one of Ben Seattle's antiwar leaflets.
Deconstructing Ben Seattle's Antiwar Leadership
By Carl Davidson
Following is the text of Ben's latest antiwar leaflet. I'll
comment in square brackets [...] in the text.
{Carl's comments can be seen on the original Indymedia thread --
Ben}
------------------------------------------------------------
Carl plays for the other team
Posted by: Ben Seattle at Feb 17, 2005 09:07
------------------------------------------------------------
Hi everyone,
The real topic of Carl's post is not me -- it is the role of the
Democratic Party in the antiwar movement.
Is the Democratic Party an imperialist party that specializes in
sucking the lifeblood and militancy out of the antiwar movement?
Or can the Democratic Party be somehow transformed into a servant
of the antiwar movement?
Will the antiwar movement become more powerful if it sacrifices
certain principles for the sake of an alliance with the
Democratic Party? Or Will the antiwar movement become more
powerful if it turns its back on this treacherous imperialist
party -- and becomes more independent of bourgeois influence?
I have one view. Carl Davidson has another.
How to turn the antiwar movement into harmless doorbell ringers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carl's boundless faith in the Democratic Party has led him to
publicly endorse [1] the enthusiasm of Tom Hayden (another former
radical sellout) for meaningless "conditions" (such as a
supposedly "realistic assessment of the situation" and a pledge
to "make sure our troops have everything they need" [2]) that
some congressmen might insist on in exchange for voting to fund
the war or send addition troops. Tom Hayden and Carl Davidson are
enthusiastic about these meaningless conditions because they view
such empty, hypocritical gestures as a "small step toward
threatening funding" of the war.
The apologists for the Democratic Party dream of "step by step"
turning the Democratic Party into an antiwar party. But if we
follow their advice we will instead "step by step" turn the
antiwar movement into nothing more than harmless doorbell ringers
for these sleazy, lying bastards. Hayden even admits this [3]
although he sees it as a good thing:
> Beginning with marches of 100,000 or more in fall 2002,
> and millions in February 2003, the anti-war forces
> inevitably flowed into electoral politics through
> the Dean and Kucinich campaigns, just as many went
> "clean for Gene" McCarthy and Robert Kennedy in 1968.
The problem with these kinds of supposedly "realistic" electoral
politics and the reason that they hurt the antiwar movement -- is
that they represent an attack on the consciousness of antiwar
activists -- and give antiwar activists an utterly false
understanding of how our society really works. For example, the
Democratic party is not really "a political party confused about
its soul" as Hayden proclaims [4] but a machine that has been
consciously created by the bourgeoisie to suck the life energy
and militancy out of the mass oppositional movements (such as the
antiwar movement) and channel the energy of these movements into
harmless directions.
The antiwar movement can only become truly powerful by becoming
oriented toward the working class and masses. The opposite path
is to become oriented toward the Democratic Party and the social
strata (of trade union bureaucrats, religious leaders, poverty
pimps, liberal politicians and other professional opinion leaders
and media personalities) around the Democratic Party.
If the antiwar movement is oriented toward the working class and
masses -- then we will tell them the truth about the economic and
political system of imperialism which we live under and which
launches one brutal war after another. On the other hand, if we
are oriented toward the Democratic Party and the social strata
that surrounds it -- then we must hide the truth about
imperialism -- because this will alienate our powerful "allies"
and will make our movement (in Carl's words) "too narrow".
This is the basic choice that our movement faces. Around this
basic question revolve a thousand other questions and attitudes
toward strategy, tactics and everything else.
How to move the Democratic Party to the left
--------------------------------------------
If we really want to move the Democratic Party to the left -- we
should turn our backs on _all_ the sleazy Democratic Party
politicians -- and make it clear that they are not welcome to
sing their lullabies at our antiwar rallies. Then these false
friends of the antiwar movement will be forced to report back to
the mothership that the Democratic Party is losing credibility --
is losing its ability to mislead and restrain the antiwar
movement. And then their bourgeois masters will add some slack to
their leash -- and give them permission to mouth a few more
meaningless leftist phrases.
------------------------------------------------------------
I doubt Carl could defend his views ...
Posted by: Ben Seattle at Feb 17, 2005 23:29
------------------------------------------------------------
The beginning of all wisdom:
> Ben, the beginning of wisdom for progressives
> is that the Democratic Party, as an alliance
> of a section of capital and the masses, has
> to be broken up. It has to be replaced, not
> reformed or realigned, with a party of popular,
> participatory democracy, based on the
> insurgencies, most important working-class
> insurgencies, that can help bring a
> progressive electoral majority into being.
The beginning of wisdom for the working class is the hatred of
opportunism.
The Democratic Party is supposedly "an alliance of a section of
capital and the masses"? Only if you count the corrupt social
strata (of trade union bureaucrats, religious leaders, poverty
pimps, liberal politicians and other professional "opinion
leaders" and media personalities) as "the masses". I don't.
Also -- note this:
Carl, in his comments on my leaflet, pleads guilty to promoting
the idea that the imperialist Democratic Party can be turned into
a vehicle for the antiwar movement. This bloodstained lie is also
promoted on Carl's web page -- where he enthusiastically quotes
Tom Hayden saying:
> "we need to build a Progressive Democratic movement
> which will pressure the Democrats to become an
> anti-war opposition party."
http://www.net4dem.org/cyrev/editorials/carl_editorial5.htm
Now, the very next day, Carl tells us that the Democratic Party
must be broken up and "not reformed". But then why lie to readers
and tell them that this imperialist party can become an antiwar
party -- if it really needs to be broken up?
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
In low income neighborhoods, 84% do not own computers.
At Network for Good, help bridge the Digital Divide!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/EA3HyD/3MnJAA/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/
