(forwarded from the pof-200 list)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Weekly focus # 37 -- / what's hot (or not) on the pof-200 list
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(1) Announcement -- updated list of who can post twice per week
(2) It is not too late to join the anti-imperialist study group
(3) Our community cannot develop without criticism (reply to DJ)
(4) What price do we pay for alliance with the
imperialist Democratic Party? (reply to Carl Davidson)
(5) Is the draft an attack on
the working class -- or not ? (reply to DJ)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Appendix -- Ben replies to Carl (from weekly focus # 33)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hi everyone,
-----------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Announcement -- updated list of who can post twice per week
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the recent poll (and previous polls) the following 8
people now have the right to post twice per week:
. DJ
. Ulyanovist
. Jackson (OneMarxistNebraskan)
. Ben Seattle
. Terry (Keeneyrd)
. Les Evenchick (PirateFish)
. Lonnie (RedMenace74)
. Carl Davidson
For recent subscribers (and for those who have not been paying
attention) I will explain that subscribers who have been to an
antiwar demonstration in the last few years have the right to
post twice per week. Everyone else has the right to post once
per week. The current poll closes on April 4. If you have been
to an antiwar demo recently and want to be added to the list of
those who can post twice per week -- then go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pof-200/surveys?id=1722778
and add your name to the list of those who have gone to recent
antiwar actions. If you do not have a yahoo account (ie: and are
therefore not able to go to the poll page) then you can instead
simply make a public post to this list (ie: pof-200) explaining
that you have been to an antiwar demo. Do so by the April 4
deadline. To get on the growing list of those with the right to
post twice per week -- it is not enough to go to an antiwar
action -- you must also be following the pof-200 list closely
enough to realize that the list of those who can post twice per
week expands only during the polling period.
More about this policy (and related principles) can be found at:
http://mediaweapon.net/mediawiki-phase3/index.php/User::benseattl
e:How_many_times_can_you_post_per_week
-----------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Announcement --
It is not too late to join the anti-imperialist study group
-----------------------------------------------------------------
It is not too late to join the anti-imperialist study group!
DJ (who is leading the group) has agreed to delay the resumption
of the group until mid-April in order to make it possible for me
to rejoin it.
The antiwar movement can never become powerful or effective
without being centered around anti-imperialist politics.
Anti-imperialism requires understanding what imperialism is. The
current study of Lenin's "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of
Capitalism" (IHSC) is a good way to begin to understand what
modern imperialism is -- and how it came into the world in the
period around the year 1900.
More than this -- it is not possible to understand the society we
live in today without understanding what imperialism is.
Imperialism is not a "policy". Imperialism is the political and
economic system which is the only possible form which bourgeois
rule can assume in powerful, developed countries like the United
States. Bourgeois rule in our time means imperialism. All of
our institutions and most of our culture -- are oriented around
serving the needs of imperialism. Imperialism will only be
destroyed when bourgeois rule is overthrown.
At this time we have 4 subscribers committed to the study: DJ,
Terry, Marik and me. It would be good if we could get at least
two more.
The wiki page with the study group info on it can be seen at:
http://mediaweapon.net/mediawiki-phase3/index.php/Projects:study
The wiki page will guide you to where you can find chapters of
IHSC online. I recommend printing chapters out -- they are too
long to read on your computer screen. You can also find copies
of IHSC at your local RCP bookstore. (I have mixed feelings
about the RCP -- but their bookstores are a good place to buy
certains kinds of literature.) I recommend reading in a quiet,
comfortable place with good light and a pencil in hand for margin
notes and questions. Part of learning how to be a revolutionary
is learning how to study.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Our community cannot develop without criticism (reply to DJ)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DJ has again raised the topic of comradely discussion. I have
disagreements with DJ concerning what is meant by the phrase:
"comradely discussion". However I believe that this is a very
important topic and it is useful that DJ is helping to focus
attention on it.
DJ -- March 27:
> Ben ridiculed the LRP by implying that they
> only work with those who allow them to think
> for them--without presenting a single shred
> of evidence or argument. I challenged him
> on this and he disagreed that doing so was
> uncomradely and raised a discussion about
> "respectfull discussion versus ruthless criticism."
I hope that others will join in this discussion -- since our
community can only play an important role in the development of
the antiwar movement (and the movement for a world without
bourgeois rule) -- if we learn how to combine respectful and
sincere discussion with ruthless criticism. So far only Terry
(March 21) has commented on this topic. Terry's comments are
helpful and very welcome. However I would like to see comments
from more people.
Before going into this deeper, however, I would like to raise a
minor point. In the passage above by DJ, he puts quotes around
the phrase "respectfull discussion versus ruthless criticism".
Some readers may get the impression from this that I used such a
phrase. I did not.
Here is what I said (wf # 35):
> I am interested in the opinions of other subscribers
> concerning how we reconcile these competing imperatives:
> comradely and respectful discussion on the one hand.
> And, on the other hand, ruthless criticism
> of all that exists.
In general it is important that we be careful about the use of
quote marks. In the left it is sometimes common that quote marks
are used to describe or summarize someone's views. But outside
the left such a usage of quote marks is much less common. This
can sometimes result in confusion. The distinction between the
phrase put in quotes by DJ and what I actually said -- is that
the phrase in quotes may imply (to some readers) that I believe
we must choose either one or the other: respectful discussion
_or_ ruthless criticism. My actual words, however, put forth a
different perspective: we must strive to reconcile these two
things: ie: we need _both_ respectful discussion _and_ ruthless
criticism. We must figure out how to combine these two things to
go forward -- just like we need the action of both of our legs in
order to walk.
Now -- back to the topic at hand:
I should start by making clear that it is true that I implied
that the LRP only works closely with those who allow the LRP to
do their thinking for them. I did not mention the LRP by name --
but those who were closely following the discussion would have
been able to figure out that I was criticizing the LRP.
DJ also says that I did not present "a single shred of evidence
or argument" to support my view. I do not believe that is
completely accurate. I did present a line of argument although
my line of argument was subtle enough that some readers may have
missed it.
But the real point here is that I believe we need to view this
from a somewhat different direction: What is the difference
between principled and unprincipled criticism?
An unprincipled criticism, in my view, would include a
misrepresentation (either deliberate -- such as word twisting or
tearing a statement out of context -- or a result of inadequate
diligence) of the views of someone else. For example if a person
says (or believes) one thing and you claim that he said (or
believes) something quite different -- that would be
unprincipled. Unfortunately, this kind of unprincipled conduct
is extremely common on discussion lists. There are other forms
of unprincipled behavior -- but misrepresentation is by far the
most common kind.
Another unprincipled form of discussion is evasion. Someone asks
you a question that is highly relevant to a disagreement -- and
you repeatedly refuse to acknowledge the question -- or make some
peripheral comment that pretends to address the question but
actually avoids the substance of the question. That may be the
2nd most common form of unprincipled behavior.
Another common form of unprincipled behavior is to attack the
person (or the person's ideology -- or the views of another
person with a similar ideology) rather than to honestly address
his or her particular argument. I think it is likely that most
readers have seen this a lot.
However -- we must ask -- is it really "unprincipled" to make a
criticism if evidence (or an argument) is not provided to back up
the criticism?
Not necessarily.
Often there are issues of time, practicality and the attention
span of readers.
Let's consider this question more closely.
The overwhelming majority of comments posted to this list are in
the form of opinions.
Most of these opinions are not backed up by real evidence or
solid argument. Nor is it possible to create a lively discussion
list if we insist that all opinions (or all criticisms) be backed
up by evidence or argument.
DJ himself has offered opinions that are not backed up by very
much evidence or argument.
For example DJ has argued that the LRP works closely with people
who think independently. The evidence/arguments that DJ has
advanced to support this opinion are thin and unconvincing (at
least to me).
DJ has also also criticised my work (March 9) with very little in
the way of evidence or argument. DJ argued, essentially, that my
work to help build a community of activists around the pof-200
list is "dissipating, rather than congealing".
Now in response to this -- I did not accuse DJ of "uncomradely
discussion" or "unprincipled criticism". On the contrary I
consider criticism to be helpful. Even criticism which is not
backed up by very much evidence or argument is useful. Criticism
that is supported by evidence or argument is better than
criticism without such support. However even unsupported
criticism is better than no criticism at all.
If we were to insist that no one here make criticisms unless they
back up their views with evidence or arguments -- we would get
much less discussion -- and possibly create an atmosphere in
which many subscribers would be hesitant to say much of anything
at all.
This is because backing up opinions can take an incredible amount
of time and effort (both by writers and by readers).
We must keep in mind that we need to build the kind of list where
anyone has the right to call "bullshit" when they are confident
that they see it.
It is also possible that our list could degenerate into a lot of
mindless name-calling. But there are many measures we could take
if (or when) this becomes a problem (ie: creating a system of
lists rather than using a single list -- and encouraging the more
advanced subscribers to spend a minimal amount of time addressing
the contradictions raised by the less advanced subscribers).
I had a difference of opinion with an anarchist named Daniel
concerning the need, after bourgeois rule was broken, of a state
machine controlled by the working class. The discussion of this
topic assumed the form of a debate which unfolded over a period
of 18 months and in which I wrote more than 60 thousand carefully
researched and edited words in a popular style (see
http://struggle.net/ALDS ). However we will have lots of
different opinions on a list in which we want activists with
different views to participate. Not everyone will have time to
do research (or write tens of thousands of words) every time they
disagree about something.
Now I should also make clear that DJ is making a number of useful
points.
If we intend to win people over to our views -- then facts and
arguments are necessary. Opinions which are unsupported by facts
and arguments can still play a valuable _secondary_ role. But,
particularly on the most important topics -- if we want our views
to have credibility -- then we must back them up.
And hopefully our community will develop along these lines --
opinions which are unsupported will be considered to have very
little weight.
However, to an extent, frankly, the weight of unsupported
opinions is related also to the reputation of the person who
presents the unsupported opinion. No one is infallible. But
some will have greater credibility than others on the basis of
the general strength of their conduct and reasoning ability on
past issues. And each reader decides for himself (or herself)
who has credibility (and how much supporting evidence/argument is
required to make an opinion credible).
As far as the LRP -- and whether they only work closely with
those who allow the LRP to do their thinking for them -- I
believe that we should recognize that DJ and I have different
opinions. Neither DJ nor I have (so far) presented compelling
evidence or arguments. However as discussion develops gradually
and over time (the discussion is on our community projects list
as project # 118) -- then those readers who are following this
discussion may find greater substance.
In particular -- what I want at this time, most of all -- is for
DJ to conclude that it is worthwhile remaining committed to this
list -- even if he and I have different opinions on the LRP and
on the nature of comradely discussion. My concern is that DJ may
conclude that his activity on this list is too expensive, in
terms of his limited time, to be worth continuing. My primary
criticism of the LRP -- is that they isolate themselves from the
kinds of activists who post here. If the LRP felt that
discussion here was not developing in the direction which they
believed was useful -- they might be able to persuade DJ that his
continued participation here represented a dissipation of his
revolutionary energy that must be ended. This would represent a
big loss for our community.
Before opening up discussion on the LRP and my differences with
DJ on the fundamental tasks of our movement (ie: project 118) --
I worked with DJ on a wiki page focused on reformism. This was
done to build confidence in the value of working with those who
have different views. I am still looking forward to some
positive indication from DJ that he recognizes the value of
staying here with us in spite of our existing differences.
I would like to hear comments from other readers on the topic of
comradely discussion. In particular -- I want DJ to know that
other readers (not just me) consider his participation on this
email list to be essential.
Now -- as far as evidence/argument that the LRP only works
closely with activists who let the LRP do their thinking for them
-- my main argument concerns the LRP's line on the struggle
against the reinstatement of the draft.
The LRP's opposition to (or, equivalently, lack of support for)
the struggle against the draft -- is a position that cannot
withstand serious examination. It is somewhat like arguing that
the earth is flat. Arguments and evidence exist to support the
idea that the earth is flat. The problem with these
arguments/evidence -- is that they are extremely weak. And the
same thing goes with the LRP's arguments/evidence which oppose
the struggle against the draft.
DJ has shown little ability to grasp or deal with arguments that
we must support the struggle against the draft. This is evidence
(to me, anyhow) that activists who get into orbit around the LRP
lose the ability to think independently. On the contrary -- such
activists learn to focus on the (extremely weak) arguments of the
LRP and to filter out of their thinking the arguments which go in
the opposite direction. This is like the Simon and Garfunkel
lyric: "he hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest".
DJ has posted his lastest views (March 27) on why the struggle
against the draft is misguided. The ball is now in my court to
reply to DJ and carefully explain where DJ is mistaken and why he
is not thinking concretely -- to explain how DJ is avoiding a
concrete analysis of conditions in the modern world -- and is
instead relying on a leaky analogy and an out-of-context quote by
Lenin.
I will do this after I first reply to Carl "win friends and
influence people" Davidson.
And then DJ will not be forced to argue (in the abstract) that
supporters of the LRP have the ability to think for themselves.
Rather DJ will be able, by his own conduct on the question of the
draft -- to prove it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
(4) What price do we pay for alliance with the
imperialist Democratic Party? (reply to Carl Davidson)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Davidson -- March 27:
> Ben Says: "...those here who promote the influence of
> the imperialist Democratic Party may be considered by some
> to be our allies. But not by me. I consider these people
> to be opponents more than anything else. It is possible
> that some may be allies in certain ways. I consider Carl
> Davidson, for example, to be a political opponent -- but
> to the extent that he has defended his views on this list
> -- he has helped clarify the bankruptcy of his own views
> -- and in that way has served as an ally. There may also
> be other ways that our opponents can assist us."
> Ben also says: "Parish argues that we should avoid
> the use of "alienating rhetoric" like the use of
> the word "imperialism". This is the same line as we
> have heard from Carl Davidson: if we want to "win friends
> and influence people" we must not tell the masses the
> truth about the fact that they live under an imperialist
> economic and political system -- which launches one
> imperialist war after another."
> Well, Ben, I'm sure that 'in your own mind' I've
> demonstrated the bankruptcy of my views, but, IMHO,
> you haven't done it on this list. I raised a good number
> of points and questions to you and, save deconstructing
> a quote from Tom Hayden in a strange fashion, you haven't
> made much of a reply other than to continue to claim,
> falsely, that I'm trying to defend or reform the
> Democratic party, rather than to sharpen the divisions
> in it over the war, break it up, and replace it with
> something new and progressive.
Carl claims (above) that he is not promoting the illusion that
the Democratic Party can be reformed or moved to the left.
On his website, however, Carl sings a different tune. 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."
http://www.net4dem.org/cyrev/editorials/carl_editorial5.htm
Most activists will interpret this statement as meaning that the
Democratic Party can be reformed or changed in some meaningful or
fundamental way.
Carl wants to have it both ways. He tells us he wants to break
up the Democratic Party. He tells the rest of the world that we
must put all our energy into pressuring the Democratic Party to
become an antiwar party. When I ask Carl to explain this
contradiction -- he becomes evasive.
Carl Davidson -- March 27:
> I've also had a longer
> discussion here on reformism and reforms, especially
> in the case of Walmart, with DJ, but I haven't heard
> much from you on that either.
I make the time, Carl, to answer the most important questions.
For example you asked me what it means to be "independent of
bourgeois influence". I answered this one (see the appendix
below with excerpts from wf # 33). I also asked you one
important question -- which you refuse to answer (see the same
appendix below).
My stand on Walmart is that the left needs a mass organization
which effectively opposes both reformism and sectarianism. Once
such an organization exists -- it will have the resources to
study the struggle against Walmart and oppose the
social-democratic sabotage of this struggle.
> Perhaps you should poll
> the list on whether or not
> I'm exposed as bankrupt.
A poll would be a good idea -- just to see where things stand.
But I am too exhausted right now to create one. Anyone here can
create a poll. A good poll should include at least one category
called "other" so that readers who consider all the questions
biased will have at least one option that fits. You now have the
right to post here twice per week Carl. One of these posts can
be a poll. Go ahead. Knock yourself out. (Please, as a
courtesy to readers, include your name and the expiration date of
the poll in parentheses at the end of the text so that readers
will understand you are the author of the poll and how long they
have before the poll closes.)
My guess is that half of our subscribers are barely aware of our
differences.
Of the half which may have been following our exchanges -- maybe
half understand that you are basically a promoter of the
influence of the Democratic Party. And maybe half of those
understand that promotion of the influence of the Democratic
Party weakens the antiwar movement.
All of the estimates above are probably highly optimistic.
So yes, Carl, you are probably correct that most subscribers to
this list do not understand that you are basically a promoter of
the influence of imperialist politics and ideology within the
antiwar movement.
But everytime you open your mouth, so to speak, the balance
shifts (even if slightly) in my direction. This is why you are
welcome to stay here and promote your illusions.
> There's a real discussion going on in the left on how
> best to do these things, but it's not the one you
> are engaged in.
> For instance, at our March 19-20 actions in Chicago,
> we had Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga) speak to 3000 or so on
> the 19th, where she demanded US 'Out Now' from Iraq
> and every other country in the world, and used her
> participation to lambast the pro-war officials of
> the Democratic Party along with Bush and the GOP.
> On the 20th, we had Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) speak at
> a church, followed by a march and vigil, with about
> 1000 folks. She is one of 25 Reps who introduced a
> House Bill calling for immediate withdrawal from Iraq,
> and one of the 44 in the House who voted 'No' on
> the $83 Billion to pay for the war last week, and
> she put the heat on her fellow Dems to break with
> Bush and the DLC over the war and called for people
> to take to the streets.
> Obviously, this grouping is relatively small and at odds
> with the DP leadership, but, as someone opposed to the
> war, do you want them to grow in size and clout or not?
Yes, it is of benefit to the antiwar movement, for many reasons,
if a section of the imperialist political machine concludes that
the war in Iraq is a lost cause and, as a consequence, makes it
possible for the masses to get more information via the
institutions and mass media that they control. When the ruling
bourgeoisie is split on an important political question -- then
each section of the bourgeoisie may, to a certain extent,
mobilize the masses to support its own positions.
But Carl is making a rather huge assumption here which we must
examine.
Carl is assuming that a section of the imperialist political
machine will conclude that the war is a lost cause -- if we
invite some of them to speak at mass antiwar rallies and greet
their spokemen and spokeswomen with hugs and kisses.
The truth is the opposite.
If we turn our backs on these enemies of the working class --
they will have to go back to their masters -- to the people who
are holding their leash -- and say: "master, we are losing
influence with activists and are no longer able to prevent them
from coming to revolutionary conclusions and forming
revolutionary organizations -- we need permission from you to
mouth-off more and act like we oppose imperialism". And then
their masters will say "yeah -- it is time -- go ahead and act
more radical -- you can even tell a tiny bit of the truth more
often -- it is essential that activists have faith in at least a
section of the establishment -- we can't afford to allow hundreds
of thousands of activists to draw revolutionary conclusions".
They don't use these exact words, of course. The political
discourse will use various code phrases. But it all boils down
to something like this.
Carl might argue that Cynthia McKinney and Jan Schakowsky are not
really enemies of the working class. But if they are not -- then
why are they representatives of the imperialist Democratic Party
-- which has the blood of millions of people on its hands? Why
are they promoting one of the most blood-soaked lies of all time
-- that the imperialist Democratic Party can change its nature?
Their speaking at antiwar rallies is used to promote the idea
among activists -- that the system works -- that imperialism can
change its nature if only we "work within the system". The
result is that many activists will choose to spend their limited
time and energy time writing letters to politicians (or trying to
get politicians elected) instead of building organizations that
write and distribute leaflets that tell the _masses_ the full
truth about the war in Iraq and about the imperialist society we
live in that launches one imperialist war after another.
This is the essence of the issue -- is the antiwar movement
oriented toward a layer of incredibly corrupt and cynical
politicans -- or toward the _masses_ ?
> If we kept these two antiwar Congresswomen off our
> speakers' platforms, who would we really being hurting
> or helping? It's not like anyone else speaking had
> to hold their tongues. On the 19th, we had at least
> a dozen speakers denounce imperialism, Dems and the GOP
> every which way, on the same platform.
Maybe this is true. Maybe it is not. I have little faith in
Carl Davidson's assessment that a dozen speakers denounced
imperialism and the Democratic Party in the ways that count.
After all, Carl Davidson denounces the Democratic Party to us
here -- but promotes, on his website, the idea that activists
should focus their work and life energy on it.
> On the 20th,
> Lilah Lipscomb, the mother from Flint MI in Michael
> Moore's Fahrenheit 911, who's son was killed in Iraq
> and who just launched Gold Star Mothers for Peace,
> followed Schakowsky on the platform, and denounced
> the war as caused by 'the greed of the rich' and
> paid for by the suffering of the people in Iraq and
> 'the working class' at home. Then added that the key
> was organizing soldiers to stand up against the war.
We had similar people speak here in Seattle. They said that
soldiers should oppose the war. But the same people also
emphasized that soldiers must always obey orders. This is the
kind of ideology which weakens the antiwar movement.
> Not bad for an 'interfaith service' that also
> featured an Inmam, a Rabbi and a bunch of Christian
> pasters, too, wouldn't you think? We need more of
> this kind of 'reformist strata' in the antiwar movement,
> not less, but perhaps you think otherwise.
I don't mind more of the reformist strata in the antiwar
movement. What I oppose is the influence of their ideas. If we
must accept their political views as the price for their being in
the movement -- then the movement will be far weaker.
The struggle of different ideas in the antiwar movement is a
legitimate and necessary struggle. You and yours promote one set
of ideas -- and militant activists promote another set of ideas.
Carl Davidson -- February 16:
> We certainly want
> to widen, through education, the numbers of those
> who what to get rid of imperialism, but the antiwar
> movement itself shouldn't be force to define itself
> as anti-imperialist. That would make it too narrow
> in the eyes of those just opposed to the war, but
> who know little about imperialism.
from: Deconstructing Ben Seattle -- A critical
examination of one of Ben Seattle's antiwar leaflets.
http://seattle.indymedia.org/en/2005/02/244743.shtml
This is really the essence of Carl's view. Carl speaks against
"forcing" the antiwar movement to adhere to a set of ideas -- as
if anti-imperialist activists intended to put bamboo splints
under the fingernails of reformist bigshots and "force" them to
do something that they don't want to do. So Carl positions
himself as a defender against "force".
Hey -- I am against this kind of "force" also. I think that all
political trends should promote the ideas that they believe in.
Those who believe in imperialist politics and imperialist parties
should promote these politics and parties. And those of us who
oppose imperialism (ie: rather than using the word on occastion
for the purpose of gaining credibility) will promote a different
set of ideas -- ideas will make the antiwar movement more
powerful rather than weakening it.
Note also Carl's code phrase: "those just opposed to the war, but
who know little about imperialism". What people is Carl refering
to? If we write and distribute leaflets against imperialism --
then the masses who read the leaflets have an opportunity to
learn about imperialism. One might think that would be a good
thing. But some people get _really_ pissed off when they see
agitation against imperialism -- especially representatives of
the Democratic Party and their flunkies.
Carl Davidson -- March 27:
> And I use the word 'imperialism' to describe our system
> and its two major parties all the time, especially
> when I'm trying to win friends and influence people.
I'm sure, Carl, you use the word in private discussion -- as you
use it here with us. But the word "imperialism" does not appear
in your "Road Ahead" document. It doesn't appear anywhere that
counts. So "all the time" does not include "ever" in your major
document for activists to read on the fundamental path forward.
You only use the word to try to gain credibility -- so that you
can better promote imperialist influence within the antiwar
movement -- and turn activists into cheerleaders for a section of
the Democratic Party.
> There's no problem for me, Ben, with speakers explaining
> or denouncing imperialism or the Democrats from our
> platforms. I've been to every antiwar action in the
> last three years, not to mention earlier decades, and
> the anti-imperialist people have done it--sometimes well,
> sometimes poorly--at all of them.
Things must be better in Chicago than in Seattle.
> But there is a BIG problem if you want to say ONLY
> self-declared anti-imperialist, anti-Dems can speak,
> or that a group must declare itself not just against
> the war, but also against imperialism generally and
> the Democratic Party in particular, before they can
> join our antiwar coalition, take part in our leadership
> and help plan our activities. Even ANSWER doesn't go
> that far, but you're welcome to that path if you want
> it. Just don't think you'll get very far trying to
> drag the rest of us into that cul-de-sac.
> Our work, Chicagoans Against War & Injustice, is out
> there for all to see, 'transparent' as you like to put
> it, warts and all. Just go to www.noiraqwar-chicago.org
> and check it out. I'm sure you'll find that we're not
> suitable allies for your approach, Ben, but a good many
> others will think we're doing OK and do want to see us
> as allies in ending the war--and delivering a body
> blow to imperialism in the process.
The problem with "allies" of this kind is the price that is paid
for the alliance. The problem is that this price is often a lot
higher than most activists realize. The price is the influence
of imperialist ideology among activists.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
(5) Is the draft an attack on
the working class -- or not ? (reply to DJ)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DJ -- March 27:
> I ask Ben again: Have you actually read
> the articles in question by the LRP?
I reviewed a number of the LRP articles on this topic. I may not
have read every single word. I did read them well enough to
confirm that: (1) yes -- the LRP really does oppose the struggle
against the draft (because I did not take the word of the CVO on
this) and (2) that the LRP had no arguments that held water.
DJ -- March 27:
> As Lenin said in The Military Program of the
> Proletarian Revolution:
>
> "The bourgeoisie makes it its business to
> promote trusts, drive women and children
> into the factories, subject them to
> corruption and suffering, condemn them to
> extreme poverty. We do not "demand" such
> development, we do not "support" it. We
> fight it. But how do we fight? We explain
> that trusts and the employment of women in
> industry are progressive. We do not want
> a return to the handicraft system,
> pre-monopoly capitalism, domestic drudgery
> for women. Forward through the trusts, etc.,
> and beyond them to socialism!"
>
> "With the necessary changes that argument
> is applicable also to the present militarization
> of the population. Today the imperialist
> bourgeoisie militarizes the youth as well as
> the adults; tomorrow, it may begin militarizing
> the women. Our attitude should be:
> All the better! Full speed ahead!"
The study of the past can be extremely valuable because we can
learn the methods that were used by revolutionaries to understand
the conditions and tasks of their time. However many groups in
the left substitute out-of-context quotes from the past for a
concrete analysis of concrete conditions today. This is called
quote-mongering. It tends to deaden thought and is often a very
poor use of our time.
The above quotation from Lenin, for example, proves nothing. The
analogy that Lenin used (ie: comparing the employment of women in
industry with the militarization of the population) was a much
more useful analogy in Europe in 1916 than the U.S. in 2005.
One year after Lenin wrote the words above -- revolution broke
out in Russia. Not long afterword revolution broke out in
Germany and in Hungary. So the military skills that sections of
the population learned were useful -- particularly in Russia.
However no one (that I am aware of) considers it likely that an
armed revolution is going to develop in the U.S. anytime soon.
So the supposed benefits of giving military skill to a section of
the population here in the US is not really significant. Things
of course could be different in twenty or thirty years. But our
actions must be based on analysis of conditions which exist here
and now. This should be elementary to all materialists.
On the other hand -- the anti-draft movement has proven itself to
be a powerful mobilizing force in a country like the US in the
1960's and 70's. One factor in this may be the fact that a large
percentage of the youth is enrolled in colleges (or junior
colleges) which tend to emerge as centers of the antiwar
movement. For example here in Seattle some military recruiters
were run off the Seattle Central Community College campus by
hundreds of students on January 20. This action received
wipespread press coverage locally and even nationally.
The fact that a large section of the population is enrolled in
colleges (where ideas can circulate more easily and it is easier
to organize) has important significance in relation to the kinds
of struggles which may emerge. Materialists must consider these
kinds of factors.
Another example is that the MLP (ie: the organization that
trained me in revolutionary theory and practice) evolved
step-by-step from the Cleveland Draft Resistance Union (founded,
I think, in 1967) -- which mobilized students and members of the
working class to antidraft demonstrations and had numerous fights
with the police. So all of my work (including this email list)
was made possible by the movement against the draft.
> So no, I do not characterize the opposing the draft
> per se as a partial demand as it is not a benefit for
> the working class for there to be a mercenary army as
> opposed to a drafted one.
There are two benefits:
(1) Fewer members of the working class are
forced to gun down workers of other nations
(2) The shortage of troops makes it more difficult
for imperialism to wage wars of aggression
-- such as invading Iran.
I would really hope that readers of this email list could assist
me in helping DJ to see that he is mistaken on a fairly basic and
fundamental question that is really not that complicated.
> As Lenin said, that is
> like saying we should campaign against women entering
> production because then they are exploited by
> the capitalists in their jobs. This can appear as
> a "partial demand" because it looks like a "benefit"
> to the class in a crass way, just as the anti-draft
> position does.
DJ -- you are assuming that which you are trying to prove.
Yes -- if it were really true that the suspension of the draft
was not really of benefit to the working class -- then, of
course, you would be correct.
But is it really a "crass" demand that young workers not be
press-ganged to kill workers of other lands?
I am unable to understand how with so many people on this email
list -- so few have come forward to help set DJ straight on this.
I would like DJ to understand that his opposition to the struggle
against the draft does not conform to the needs of the antiwar
movement.
If US imperialism dared to reinstitute the draft -- and if
revolutionary activists failed to speak out against the draft --
then we would be giving a gift to the reformists -- who would
promote themselves as opponents of the draft -- and gain a
following with the many young activists who -- by the threat of
the draft -- would be impelled into political motion.
If more readers spoke out on this topic -- maybe we could help DJ
to understand the need to deal with conditions in the country and
the year in which he lives. And maybe this would help DJ to
understand the value of an open list -- where questions can be
asked -- and where everyone who seeks credibility and influence
is compelled to answer questions and be accountable for their
actions.
Sincerely and revolutionary regards,
Ben Seattle
http://struggle.net/ben
Isolated from one another we are easily defeated.
Connected to one another no force on earth can stop us
http://MediaWeapon.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Join Ben and other activists in the Media Weapon community.
With an email list, wiki, competing projects and a community of
activists who engage one another with sincerity and respect.
Open to all activists who want to see the development of
a mass movement for the elimination of bourgeois rule
-----------------------------------------------------------------
============================================================
Appendix -- Ben replies to Carl (from weekly focus # 33)
============================================================
Carl Davidson -- February 21:
> And just what does it mean to be "independent
> of bourgeois influence?" [...]
> if you think there is some list of universally
> agreed upon set of a dozen or so ML 'principles'
> out there that will somehow inoculate us
> to bourgeois influence, then I would challenge
> you to produce them
Actually it all boils down to a single basic principle:
Do we build the struggle in such a way
that we _raise_ the consciousness
and fighting ability of the working class
and activists -- or do we act to _degrade_
this consciousness and fighting ability?
We _raise_ the consciousness of antiwar activists -- by telling
them the truth about the society they live in -- the political
and economic system of imperialism -- which launches one
imperialist war after another -- and which will continue to
launch imperialist wars until the entire corrupt system of
bourgeois rule is done away with. We raise the fighting ability
of activists by helping them to understand the power of mass
action and of the need to orient the entire antiwar movement
_away_ from the corrupt imperialist parties and _toward_ the
working class and masses
On the other hand, Carl works to _degrade_ the consciousness of
activists -- by telling them sweet lies about how our society and
its imperialist institutions function -- telling activists that
they should dedicate their life energy and precious hours to the
hopeless task of transforming the Democratic Party (as much of an
imperialist institution as has ever existed since the days of the
Roman Empire) into a "antiwar party". Carl works to degrade the
fighting ability of activists by advising them to channel their
energy into "independent grassroots electoral organizations" that
are supposedly independent of the Democratic Party but which are
overwhelmingly ruled by a small (but highly influential) social
strata (of trade union bureaucrats, religious leaders, poverty
pimps, liberal politicians and other professional "opinion
leaders" and media personalities) which exists in political orbit
around the Democratic Party.
Carl challenges me to create a definitive and irrefutable
definition of who is (and who is not) in this social strata. I
don't have time for nonsense. I can't tell you if Carl (or
Carl's Zen teacher) have perks or cushy jobs as a result of their
ideology because the world is a complex place and not all
phenomenon can be reduced to black to white. What should be
clear to militant activists in the movement (who have all had
contact with this social strata -- because there is not room to
turn around without bumping into one of them) -- is that this
social strata exists in the orbit of the Democratic Party -- and
can often be counted on to advise whatever forms of action will
be the least effective and the most demoralizing to activists.
Carl himself is the perfect example of this: the article on his
web page: "The Road Ahead After 2004: Building a Broad
Nonpartisan Alliance Against Bush and the Far Right" is the
perfect example of the road to nowhere. Carl's article
culminates in enthusiasm about the brave Democrats who attach
meaningless "conditions" (ie: such as making sure that our troops
have everything they need) to their votes for money to support
this imperialist war.
I challenged Carl to explain the contradiction between, on the
one hand, his telling us that the Democratic Party cannot be
reformed and must be broken up -- and, on the other hand,
promoting (in his "Road Ahead" article on his website) the idea
that the main task of activists is to work to transform the
character of the Democratic Party.
Carl's reply attempts to simply evade the question.
If Carl refuses to honestly address this question -- well how can
we blame him? Who would want to try to explain the promotion of
one of the most bloodstained lies of our time -- the idea that
the imperialist Democratic Party can be "pressured" into changing
its nature?
------------------------ 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/
