(forwarded from the pof-200 list)
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 8:28 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Weekly focus # 39 -- / what's hot (or not) on the pof-200 list
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
How to build the party of the future
------------------------------------
After much delay, Ben begins his discussion with DJ
on the fundamental goals and tasks of our time
(1) Will the party of the future be politically transparent ?
Will it broadcast its internal disagreements -- or
attempt to hide them under the "cone of silence" ?
(2) Is there a crisis of theory?
(a) How, after the overthrow of bourgeois rule,
will bourgeois apologists be prevented from
flooding the airwaves -- without risking
the suppression of the independent political
voice and life of the working class?
(b) How will an economy operate without
either commodity production or
all-powerful central planners ?
(3) How (and from where) will we accumulate
the forces for the party of the future?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(4) this, dear reader, means _you_
(5) "Ben ... is ... trying to make me look ridiculous"
(6) A suggestion -- one post per month ...
(7) Carl Davidson's reformism and Marik's assistance
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Appendix 1: the development of authentic communist organization
Appendix 2: my email to the LRP requesting polemical decency
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hi everyone,
First -- I am glad that DJ has agreed to stay around at least a
little while longer so that discussion of some of the issues that
are part of project # 118 (ie: discussion of the fundamental
goals and tasks of our time) can develop a bit. My hope is that,
in the time he has left here -- that DJ will find that his time
and energy are well spent.
With this post I am beginning my response to DJ. If other
subscribers feel the urge to join in -- that would be great.
I will note that my recent exchanges with DJ have hit a few rough
spots. I know that everyone here who is following the exchanges
understands that DJ and I have a responsibility to discuss these
issues in a calm and comradely way. I know that DJ understands
this. I intend to make clear by my actions that I do also.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Will the party of the future be politically transparent ?
Will it broadcast its internal disagreements -- or
attempt to hide them under the "cone of silence" ?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DJ -- April 11:
> Ben and I agreed--after working on the antireformist webpage
> -- to discuss our differences. My contribution to that was
> made on February 12th and can be found on the wiki here:
http://mediaweapon.net/mediawiki-phase3/index.php/Revolutionary_P
arty
DJ -- February 12:
> Ben's idea of information war -- specifically the organization
> of an online democratic news service -- displaces the central
> need for revolutionary consciousness and its organization in
> a revolutionary party.
Ok -- let's look at the big picture:
The central task of our time is to build revolutionary
organization that is capable of mobilizing the working class for
the overthrow of bourgeois rule.
DJ calls this organization a "revolution party". I often do not
use the word "party" because the meaning of the word "party" is
itself in sharp dispute -- and, for that reason, use of that word
often creates a lot of misunderstandings.
For example, often activists argue over whether or not we need a
"party" -- without even realizing that they mean entirely
different things by the word "party".
However if this word really encapsulates the aspirations of our
class -- then we must examine carefully (so that we can begin to
forge a common language) -- the concrete characteristics of the
organization which is deserving of all of our life energies.
It is not enough to throw around words or phrases like "party" or
"democratic centralism". Many activists who throw around phrases
like this -- do not have a clue what these phrases mean. Other
activists consider "party" and "democratic centralism" to be
synonymous with "mind-control cult".
It is of secondary importance what particular word we use to
describe the kind of revolutionary organization that we need.
What is more important -- is that we can develop an understanding
of, an appreciation of, the concrete characteristics which this
organization must have.
If we can do this (even a tiny bit) then our discussion will be
worthwhile.
If we cannot -- then we are wasting our time.
DJ -- Feb 12:
> His idea boils down to an electronic Soviet/council, but
> the Russian revolution proved that it was the content --
> revolutionary consciousness as organized in the Bolshevik
> party -- that was decisive, not the form -- the councils
> of workers, soldier and peasants.
Both the content and form of the revolutionary organization are
important because each makes possible the development of the
other.
I will give an example:
If the revolutionary organization is organized in such a way --
that the members and supporters at the base and periphery of the
organization are kept in the dark about the contradictions within
the leadership of the organization -- then the members and
supporters will not be able to intervene to assist the
organization to correctly resolve these contradictions. In this
situation the ability of the organization to resist the
considerable pressure of decay will be greatly weakened.
This was my experience with the Marxist-Leninist Party.
Contradictions within the MLP built up over many years. These
contradictions could not be openly or easily discussed.
Supporters of the MLP, like me, only became aware of the
contradictions when they were quite intense -- when the pressures
building up within the organization were becoming explosive. As
a result there was not sufficient time (ie: only a year or so)
for the members and supporters to sort out the contradictions and
understand how to save the party.
This was a formative period of my life and I have studied it well
and drawn conclusions.
I have concluded that the revolutionary organization of the
proletariat will make use of the unfettered flow of information
to broadcast (to the organization's supporters -- and the masses
themselves) the disagreements which exist within the leading
circles of the organization. In this way the organization's
supporters, and the masses, will be able to play more of a role
in correctly resolving these contradictions.
Here is how I put it last week, in weekly focus # 38:
> Such an organization will make public its vigorous
> "internal" debates and will draw the mass of activists,
> and the masses themselves, into these debates -- using
> these debates to raise the consciousness of the masses
> and using the intervention of the masses to assist in
> the life-and-death struggle against the reformist and
> sectarian diseases.
Nearly all of what I call the "cargo-cult Leninist" organizations
(ie: the groups which repeat words by Lenin without having a clue
what these words mean) have a very different view of how the flow
of information will serve the revolutionary organization. The
cargo-cult view of revolutionary organization involves
_restricting_ the flow of information -- in order to hide the
organization's internal contradictions from the class enemy (ie:
the bourgeoisie -- and the innumerable opportunist groups in the
left which serve the bourgeoisie).
This cargo-cultist practice is often successful in keeping the
internal contradiction of an organization secret from the class
enemy. Unfortunately, in this process the internal
contradictions of the organization are also kept secret from the
organization's members and supporters -- and so the
organization's "metabolism of ideas" is greatly slowed down --
and it becomes a dinosaur in a world of fast-moving mammals --
and becomes unable to either defend itself or adapt.
This policy of excessive secrecy is often justified in the name
of "democratic centralism". But a better term would be the "cone
of silence". Older readers may have seen the "cone of silence"
from the old "Get Smart" TV series with Don Adams as "Maxwell
Smart" and Barbara Feldon as the fetchingly beautiful "Agent 99".
In the TV series these goofball secret agents would try to have a
conversation while surrounded by a plastic cone that would
prevent their enemies from eavesdropping on them. But the result
would always be that they could not hear one another -- and they
would always be reduced to shouting at one another: "I can't hear
you -- what did you say?" over and over.
Every time you hear some starry-eyed activist toss around the
phrase "democratic centralism" (as if he understood what it
means) -- you should translate this phrase to what it really
means when it is used by these well-meaning but clueless people.
It really means the cone of silence.
So this concludes the first part of my "debate" (or, if you will,
calm and friendly discussion) with DJ.
Rather than quibble over whether or not we call this
revolutionary organization a "party" -- let's focus instead on
whether DJ and I agree (or disagree) concerning whether this
organization will be characterized by political transparency --
meaning that it will broadcast (ie: make public) its internal
disagreements rather than attempt to hide them (ie: in a cone of
silence).
I will add, as a note of clarification (because this always comes
up when cargo cult Leninists enter the discussion) that when I
assert that the revolutionary organization of the working class
will make its internal disagreements public -- I am not referring
to either (a) issues relating to security from the state (ie:
such as the identities of members or supporters) or (b)
time-sensitive tactical information (ie: we will make use of
such-and-such surprise tactic during the strike tomorrow).
Rather I am referring to differences concerning political
analysis and line (ie: analysis of what is going on within the
left and in the world -- and the fundamental priorities, goals
and strategy of the organization).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Is there a crisis of theory?
(a) How, after the overthrow of bourgeois rule,
will bourgeois apologists be prevented from
flooding the airwaves -- without risking
the suppression of the independent political
voice and life of the working class?
(b) How will an economy operate without either commodity
production or all-powerful central planners ?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DJ -- February
> Further, his crisis of theory results from
> throwing out authentic Bolshevism with Stalinism.
> The "crisis of theory" on the left stems from the
> degeneration of Bolshevism into Stalinism and the material
> defeats of the working class related to that. In other words,
> there is no crisis of theory, but a crisis of leadership.
The crisis of theory is real.
And it is as serious as a heart attack.
It is true that this crisis is a result of the defeat of Lenin's
revolution. But that does not make the crisis any less real.
Nor can revolutionary activists -- who aspire to organize and
lead the revolt of the working class -- avoid directly
confronting this crisis. This is because the crisis of theory
makes it extremely difficult (if not essentially impossible) for
even the most theoretically advanced and militant activists to
conceive of a world without bourgeois rule in the context of
modern, stable conditions.
I have written extensively about the crisis of theory -- and
about the principles which will guide working class rule once the
bourgeoisie has been overthrown and (in the aftermath of a
struggle may include a lot of violence, destruction and chaos)
stability has returned to society. I assert that one of the key
principles that will guide working class rule in a modern stable
society will be what I call "the separation of speech and
property". An equivalent formulation of this principle is that
"free speech wil not be for sale". This principle is important
to understand because it strikes at the heart of the most common
cargo-cultist view -- namely that the "dictatorship of the
proletariat" must necessarily assume the form of a workers' state
which controls all media and suppresses all opposition.
I assert, on the contrary, that the workers' state will only
control media which is created with paid labor. For example,
even reactionaries and bourgeois apologists (including those who
slander the workers' state and openly advocate a return to
bourgeois rule) will have the right to create leaflets and web
sites with volunteer labor. The key dividing line in the media
sphere will be between volunteer labor and paid labor. The
workers' state will regulate and control media that is created
with paid labor. On the other hand, media that is created with
volunteer labor will be treated very differently. Reactionary
views within the sphere of this "free" media will not be
suppressed by the workers' state -- but rather will be exposed
and defeated in the course of millions and billions of
confrontations with the masses.
Further -- once we recognize that a sphere of free media will
exist that is (for most practical purposes) beyond state
regulation -- we must also recognize that organizations of all
kinds will exist without the need for permission from the state.
This follows from the fact that as long as a sphere of free,
unregulated media exists -- that independent organizations will
inevitably follow. And the existence of a large number of
independent (and interdependent) organizations -- will bring
about political competition concerning the political, cultural
and economic policies, principles and people which will guide
society and be implemented by the state.
These are very important considerations -- because the operation
of these principles will greatly reduce the potential for abuse
of power by the workers' state -- and make it possible for the
masses to organize independently to effectively expose and smash
up the incompetence, hypocrisy and corruption which will
inevitably emerge within the workers' state.
Now, again (because this always comes up when cargo cult
Leninists enter the discussion), I will add a note of
clarification -- that I do not assert, for example, that anyone
would have the right to incite a physical racist attack. Even
the "free speech", first amendment rights under bourgeois rule
have certain restrictions. But the point is that these legal
restrictions play a relatively insignificant role in restricting
what people can say (at least in the US -- libel law is different
in Britain, for example, and is used there to chill the speech of
activists). Similarly, under workers' rule in a modern society
under stable conditions -- anyone who wants to volunteer their
own labor to create a leaflet or a website (or to combine with
others to do the same on a larger scale) -- will find that
(except for relatively rare and extreme cases -- such as the
incitement of violent racist attacks) there will be little
restriction (from the legal point of view -- from the perspective
of suppression by the state) on what you are allowed to say or
advocate. I will also note that I am discussing a period (as I
noted above) in which a certain basic stability exists in society
and the economy is functioning and people are not starving and
hundreds of thousands are not being killed in war and so on.
Cargo-cultists sometimes object that such stable conditions may
not exist in the immediate aftermath of a violent civil war
(which may be launched by the bourgeoisie once they face defeat
by legal means). This is of course true. But what is important,
from the point of view of theory -- is that our _goal_ involves
stable conditions -- and our need is to understand the principles
which will guide society once stability is achieved.
Until principles similar to what I have outlined above (ie: the
separation of speech and property) are widely understood among
activists -- I do not believe it will be possible for activists
to have a realistic idea of what a workers' state will look like
or how it will function under modern conditions.
Similarly -- until the progressive movement can develop a
consensus on at least the outline of an understanding of how a
modern economy can function which does not rely on either (a)
commodity production or (b) excessively powerful bureaucrats and
central planners -- there can be no mass movement for the
overthrow of bourgeois rule. This, also, is part of the crisis
of theory.
I have written extensively about this and have presented my own
views on humanity's transition to a gift economy in the period
after bourgeois rule has been broken. I consider my work to be a
contribution to the resolution of the crisis of theory.
On the other hand, those who deny that a crisis of theory exists
-- or who attempt to answer all questions by waving their hands
about "Stalinism" -- or who _imagine_ that they understand what
is meant by "socialism" or the "dictatorship of the proletariat"
-- are, in effect, simply standing aloof from the need for
theoretical work and clarification -- at a time when most
activists conceive of workers' rule as being characterized by a
ruling party with a monopoly of power and a command economy (ie:
a society that, in the context of modern conditions, would be
likely to have worse conditions than those currently existing
under bourgeois rule).
DJ may assert that the crisis of theory does not exist or has
been solved or is really a crisis of "leadership". But I have
seen very little in the way of a solution from those he
apparently considers to be leaders.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
(3) How (and from where) will we accumulate
the forces for the party of the future?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ben -- weekly focus # 38:
> I am not sure what DJ's vision is of how the left will
> be radically transformed and a mass revolutionary
> organization will emerge (or even if he has given much
> thought to the matter). So I will put the matter to DJ:
> I have presented my vision. What is yours?"
DJ -- April 10:
> A decent take on my vision would be the book
> "A History of the Bolshevik Party" by Alan Woods
> http://www.marxist.com/bolshevism
> Less in depth versions, but ones I consider better
> than "decent" I have linked to numerous times on
> the LRP site, especially "The Leninist Concept
> of the Revolutionary Vanguard Party"
> http://lrp-cofi.org/archive/Leninist.html
> To be very brief, the working class is objectively
> revolutionary but it is not spontaneously conscious of
> the need for social revolution and how to achieve it.
> So it is necessary for the consciously communist workers
> to fight for revolutionary consciousness among the
> workers. This fight is not typically a one-on-one
> conversation, but occurs is part and parcel of the class
> struggle and is primarily carried out by political
> combat against reformist and centrist (mis)leaderships.
Ben -- weekly focus # 38:
> I have noted, for example, the inability of the LRP and
> the CVO (ie: two very similar radical organizations with
> anti-reformist convictions) to work together (or even to
> link to one another's websites -- in spite of the fact
> that they have time to write polemics against one another).
DJ -- April 10:
> Nonsense, again--the same nonsense.
> *When has the LRP refused to work with the CVO?*
> [...]
> Also, for other readers out there, fyi I don't
> consider the LRP and CVO similar at all.
It would appear likely that DJ considers the CVO to part of the
centrist misleadership against which the LRP wages political
combat. It also appears that DJ fails to recognize that the LRP
has a responsibility to _initiate_ efforts to work with the CVO
as part of an effort to specifically unite anti-reformist forces
in the left around (a) joint actions to puncture the influence of
reformism and (b) an effort to develop focus on the development
of a mass revolutionary organization (or, per DJ's preferred
vocabulary: "party") which includes militants from all
anti-reformist trends.
DJ sees _no_ similarity between the CVO and the LRP -- but he has
not raised _any_ important differences between these two
organizations that are so nearly identical -- that they are
essentially twins.
The only significant difference that DJ has mentioned -- is when
DJ mistakenly asserts (April 11) that "the CVO opposes the Iraqi
military resistance to the US occupation". This is an amazing
claim and appears to have no basis in fact that I have been able
to find. DJ's views are in alignment with an LRP article which
ripped out of context a fragment of a sentence that the CVO had
written. I found the complete sentence courtesy of google (since
the LRP failed to link this sentence fragment to any specific
article) and verified that the CVO opposes only the leadership of
the resistance -- not the resistance itself. Claiming that the
CVO opposes the Iraqi resistance is a bit like claiming that some
group opposes a strike -- when they really oppose only the trade
union bureaucrats who mislead the strike. I emailed the LRP (see
Appendix 2 below) and asked them to correct this
mischaracterization.
The mass revolutionary organization that will organize and lead
the working class -- will include activists such as those in the
LRP as well as those in the CVO. It will include activists like
many of those around the RCP and their youth group. It will
include activists similar to those around a number of other
groups, including some anarchist trends. It will include
activists such as DJ and Ulyanovist and me. It will also include
a large number of activists similar to many activists that at the
present time are independent simply because they have found no
suitable group to work with.
Nor is this all. The great majority of activists in the mass
revolutionary party of the future -- will be people who, at
present, are not even political -- because at present the
left/progressive movement is too bankrupt and too paralyzed to
reach out to them with the message that an alternative to
bourgeois rule is both possible and necessary.
But -- we must ask -- how will activists of this kind get
together -- get experience working together -- develop trust in
one another -- and sort out the many practical and theoretical
problems which currently act as obstacles to the development of
the party of the future?
It is around _this_ question that all serious militant activists
must be focused.
DJ (again) February 12:
> Ben's idea of information war -- specifically the organization
> of an online democratic news service -- displaces the central
> need for revolutionary consciousness and its organization in
> a revolutionary party.
I have given consistent answers to this question. DJ is aware of
my answer (see above). All roads to the mass revolutionary party
of the future lead through the development of an online
democratic news service that is fueled by the energy of the
masses.
Empty talk about the need for a revolutionary party is no
substitute for the recognition of the practical steps which will
help bring activists into proximity to one another -- and help to
make this party a reality.
Here is how I summed this up last week (weekly focus # 38):
> activists who want to see the development of a powerful
> revolutionary movement must work to build a community
> which is centered around revolutionary politics. Such
> a community would be relatively loose (with a variety
> of projects which compete with one another for attention
> and support) but might prove valuable to (or give birth
> to) more tightly-knit "democratic centralist"
> organizations. Such a community would be organized
> around a number of long-term projects (such as an
> interactive news service) to which activists of all
> trends would contribute. This would facilitate
> communication and collaboration between activists of
> different trends and accelerate the "metabolism of
> ideas". The result would be to assist all
> organizations to overcome their mistakes and their
> insularity.
> From a political perspective -- such a community would
> make transparent the nature of the biggest struggle
> which dominates the left -- the struggle between
> (a) the reformist trends which seek to bind the movement
> to bourgeois-liberal leadership and (b) the trends which
> seek to build a movement independent of bourgeois
> influence. As the nature of this struggle becomes clear
> to hundreds of thousands of activists -- the entire left
> will be transformed in a radical direction.
> Out of all this, out of our community and similar
> communities and a radicalized left as a whole -- will
> emerge a revolutionary organization (or, equivalently,
> a system of revolutionary organizations which will have
> the ability to act in unison and to, so to speak, strike
> with a single fist during key campaigns or in relation
> to key issues).
And that is how we will build the mass revolutionary party of the
future.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
(4) this, dear reader, means _you_
-----------------------------------------------------------------
My comments above conclude the most important part of my reply to
DJ. I know that it is difficult for many subscribers to slog
through so much reading and so many ideas. So if you, dear
reader, are tired -- you can quit here.
But please give thought to posting a comment. If you really want
to see an organization which is capable of serving the needs of
the working class -- instead of kissing the rear end of the
Democratic Party -- or shoving its head in a place that can't be
reached by sunlight -- then now is the time to talk about it.
Never forget that this means _you_. None of this is going to
happen without _you_.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
(5) "Ben ... is ... trying to make me look ridiculous"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hopefully at this point the focus of my discussion with DJ can
begin to shift to the topics above. However I do not want to
leave too many loose ends. So I will also reply to DJ's recent
criticisms of me.
DJ -- April 11:
> While Ben is very sincere and fervent in his desire for
> a social revolution, his theoretical understanding of
> this is extremely limited. This may be simply because
> of the constant and harsh demands on his time as well
> as being relatively isolated, or it may be that he has
> not truly broken from a petty bourgeoisie political
> outlook, however radical it may be. So while I
> appreciate Ben's passion, I must warn other militants
> that I do not believe he has a good grasp of
> revolutionary theory. For instance, he focuses on the
> issues of sectarianism and opportunism as being
> important. That is correct. But he understands them
> as a left and right deviation, rather than seeing
> sectarianism as a method of hiding opportunism, for
> a true revolutionary--a non-opportunist--has no need
> of sectarianism.
It is quite true that true revolutionaries have no need for
sectarianism. But none of us are immune from the sectarian
disease. It can (and it does) strike the best of us. We all
need help from one another in order to struggle against this
disease -- which can be understood in terms of its materialist
basis.
What is the materialist basis for sectarianism?
The various groups in the left are engaged in a life-and-death
competition for survival against one another. The competition is
for "warm living bodies" (ie: labor or money from young activists
who are new on the scene and looking around for some group to
hook up with). This is a very Darwinian struggle in which
unprincipled manipulation and dishonesty often wins the day.
Fortunately, with the emergence of the revolution in
communications, the nature of this struggle is beginning to
change.
As the progressive movement becomes politically transparent --
those groups which habitually engage in manipulation and
dishonesty will increasingly be seen for what they are -- and
they will find that they need to clean up their act in order to
maintain the respect of activists.
> Coming to grips with what happened to the Russian revolution
> and what Stalinism did must be a central task for today's
> revolutionaries. It may seem like historical nitpicking, but
> the Russian revolution is the only example of a socialist
> revolution (other than the Paris Commune) that we have--and
> understanding it and what happened to it and what affects
> those things had on the world are central to the creation
> of revolutionary theory.
> But Ben has ignored this issue.
I have written tens of thousands of words analyzing the Russian
revolution and how and why it was suffocated. My analysis is
relatively unique and grew out of my study of Lenin's comments in
his last major address to the party (in March 1922) where he said
that "history knows all sorts of metamorphoses" and that "the
real and main danger" was that the party might degenerate along
bourgeois lines but retain "communist flags inscribed with
catchwords stuck all over the place".
It is unclear to me if DJ is even aware of what I have written or
if he simply disagrees with me so much that he believes I have
not devoted attention to this issue.
Just last week Marik reported that he read part 7 of the
anarcho-leninist debate on the state and found it interesting and
valuable. I have seen other similar comments from time to time.
DJ -- have you ever looked at this?
> Why? Because he has no theory on it
> that can stand up to public scrutiny
DJ is welcome to believe whatever he wants.
My work has been extensive and has been public for a long time.
I have seen no challenge to it that I consider effective. If DJ
believes that my work will not withstand public scrutiny -- he is
certainly welcome to give it a try. Part 7 is probably a good
place to start. It links to other work of mine on which it is
based.
> (his former group broke up largely over this
> theoretical question and their ability to
> surmount it).
This is quite true. This was a valuable experience for me. It
made the importance of confronting the crisis of theory extremely
clear.
DJ -- April 11:
> [Ben is] engaging in sectarian behavior to keep and
> recruit "warm living bodies" as he says and keep them
> away from the LRP. He's not doing this consciously of
> course, but there is always a sectarian tendency
> in an organization and it must be actively fought.
It is true that we all must struggle against sectarian
tendencies. No one is immune from this.
One of the reasons I want DJ to stay with us on this list is
because I consider his criticism of me to be useful and necessary
regardless of whether he is right or wrong. Criticism is good.
It helps to keep us all alive and honest.
I believe that, in spite of the weaknesses of the LRP, it is good
for activists to contact the LRP and read their literature and,
if possible, to work with them -- because the LRP has a lot of
valuable experience they have gained in the class struggle.
At the same time I have cautioned against "drinking the
kool-aid". In weekly focus # 31 (February 19) I said:
> 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.
Now, having reviewed all that -- let's get back to DJ:
> Another example is that [Ben] had this to say to me
> in his last email: "Am I supposed to bite my tongue
> forever and say nothing for "diplomatic" reasons?
> We can't build anything real here based on that
> kind of principle -- because we end up being able
> to say nothing about anything for fear of
> offending some 'ally'."
>
> If Ben or anyone can find a single comment of mine
> that says he shouldn't say something for
> "diplomatic" reasons or for fear of "offending" an
> ally, I would love to see it. Since such a comment
> wasn't made and can't be found (though perhaps
> something I said can be ripped out of context) --
> and since I've said exactly the opposite (that
> principled criticisms must be made, even if it
> offends), then I ask what purpose that comment
> serves. Again, I think it's an example of the
> pressures of building his group manifesting as a
> sectarian tendency -- making an indirect personal
> attack on me to discredit me and my criticisms of
> him. I said Ben shouldn't have used ridicule to
> slander a group when he didn't know what he was
> talking about, not that he shouldn't say something
> because it offends--and I've already said that as
> well!
>
> Ben said something ridiculous, and is now trying
> to make me look ridiculous. He trying to defend
> the fact that he made a response without having
> any evidence by saying I asked his opinion. This
> is not true. I suggested that his very limited
> time was better spent "learning and working with
> those with more advanced consciousness [rather]
> than trying to lead and to teach others in your
> spare moments". To which he said: "In particular
> I would like to link up with some group of
> dedicated activists who could spare me the
> difficult work of thinking for myself." (He was
> clearly making fun of the LRP, as he's admitted
> since.) So Ben, how do you know that the LRP
> only works with those who don't think for
> themselves?
I think this part of my discussion with DJ is winding down.
There are a number of issues here that DJ and I see differently
and it is unlikely that this will change in the near future.
DJ recognizes that I have a right to criticize the LRP. However
DJ only considers such criticism to be principled -- if I know
what I am talking about. Since DJ does not believe I know what I
am talking about -- he appears to believe that I should keep my
mouth shut.
For example if I were to say that the good comrades of the LRP,
in spite of their advanced consciousness and extensive
experience, sometimes act like a bunch of children with wooden
swords and paper hats -- DJ might consider my comments to be
unprincipled slander. On the other hand I would think that I am
simply telling the obvious truth in plain language.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
(6) A suggestion -- one post per month ...
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Since DJ will soon be winding down his work on this list -- my
suggestion is that he consider reducing the frequency of his
posts from once or twice a week -- to once or twice a month or
(after the current discussion on our fundamental goals and tasks
is complete) to several times a year. My hope is that, if DJ's
activity on this list takes less of his time -- then maybe DJ
will feel that it interferes less with his other activity -- and
he may be able to continue his activity on this list for a longer
period of time.
It may be a year or two (or more) before the activity of this
list picks ups sufficiently that DJ might consider the potential
of this list to be significant. It would be good, in my view, if
DJ were able to maintain at least some kind of minimal connection
with the list during this period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
(7) Carl Davidson's reformism and Marik's assistance
-----------------------------------------------------------------
If I have time, I will write more about this next week. Marik
has done a very good job, overall, in opposing the reformist
views of Carl Davidson. This is an important task and it is
necessary that activists like Marik gain experience with this --
because the entire development of the antiwar movement and the
revolutionary movement is inseparable from the struggle against
reformism.
I have observed both strong and weak points in Marik's comments
and, as soon I have a bit more time, I will see if I can make it
clear that I appreciate Marik's strengths as well as having some
ideas on how to overcome certain weaknesses that are typical of
activists who are getting their first taste of serious polemical
combat. I will just add here that sometimes the best and easiest
way to learn something -- is by doing it. Marik is gaining
valuable experience that I believe will eventually turn out to be
very important.
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 1: the development of authentic communist organization
=================================================================
From: http://struggle.net/ben
(section: "An overview of the work of Ben Seattle")
> I am also studying and popularizing the methods
> by which the unfettered flow of information will
> be essential for the creation of authentic communist
> organization (characterized by transparency,
> accountability and internal democracy) -- and for
> making it possible (and easy) for serious activists
> (and the masses themselves) to intervene in the
> struggle to preserve and defend the revolutionary
> character of such organization.
> The great problem of the present time is that there
> exists no genuinely revolutionary organization that
> commands respect; that is deserving of the trust of
> activists; that has its feet on the ground and, to
> continue this analogy, does not have its head shoved
> into a place that can't be reached by sunlight.
> Such an organization (or network of organizations)
> will eventually emerge. Such an organization will
> take up the revolutionary tasks which are decisive.
> These tasks will include leveraging the work of
> (and giving activists an analysis of) the work of
> all progressive groups. These tasks will include
> bringing a decisive resolution to the crisis of
> theory and making use of information war to bring
> news of this resolution to activists everywhere
> -- and to the masses.
=================================================================
Appendix 2: my email to the LRP requesting polemical decency
=================================================================
-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Seattle
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 9:13 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; pof-300
Subject: [pof-300] A request for polemical decency and
a correction re: characterization of CVO postiion
on Iraqi resistance
To: The League for the Revolutionary Party
Hi there comrades,
In a discussion on the pof-200 email list I was directed to some
of your articles by DJ, who likes your grouping. I reviewed
these articles in the course of criticizing DJ's views concerning
the draft.
Aside from the opposition of your group to the struggle against
the draft (which, naturally, I find to be absurd) I noticed your
assertion that the CVO denounced the Iraqi resistance. I have
had my own disagreements with the CVO but I found it hard to
believe that such an assertion could be accurate. With
assistance from google I located the article from which you had
extracted what appeared to be a damning quotation -- and was able
to verify that it had been torn from its context -- and its
meaning greatly distorted.
I verified (see the complete paragraphs -- theirs and yours --
below my signature) that the CVO opposes only the leadership of
the Iraqi resistance -- not the resistance itself. Claiming that
the CVO opposes the resistance is like claiming that some group
opposes a strike -- when they really oppose only the trade union
bureaucrats who mislead the strike. I would assume, based on
your experience in the class struggle -- that this is a
distinction with which you are exquisitely familiar.
I am writing to ask you, in the name of polemical decency, to
publicly correct your mischaracterization of the CVO's position.
I will post your reply to me to the pof-300 list (a sister list
to the pof-200 list) where it will available on public archives
alongside this email (which I am also posting to pof-300).
DJ has indicated to me that your grouping consists of activists
with advanced consciousness and suggested that I contact you with
a view to working with and learning from you group. It appears
to me that DJ's lack of experience as a revolutionary activist
has led him to overestimate the ability of your group to give
advice and direction to an independent activist like me.
But maybe DJ knows something that I don't.
So this is the other reason I am writing to you. The proof of
the pudding is in the eating. I would like to see you correct
your error. Then I will be in a better position to evaluate, on
the basis of your practice, the nature of your organization.
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
---- Communist Voice Organization (CVO) ----
Fake 'sovereignty' in Iraq can't hide
continued U.S. occupation (August 2004)
http://home.flash.net/~comvoice/DWV41.html
The Iraqi workers and poor are boiling with rage at the U.S.
occupation and the more the occupation has tried to crush their
opposition, the stronger the revolt has grown. With
anti-occupation sentiment so high, the U.S. military's attempts
to wipe out the guerrilla movement has been a debacle, as
evidenced in their abandoning attempts to control the city of
Fallujah. But in their struggle for liberation and democracy, the
Iraqi workers not only face the U.S. military occupation but
their Iraqi class oppressors. Part of the Iraqi elite has thrown
in their lot with the occupation and its "sovereignty" scheme. As
well, there are those ex-Baathists and Islamic fundamentalists
trends who, unfortunately, dominate the leadership of the armed
resistance. They fight the occupation to impose their own brutal
rule. The bombings of civilians and similar atrocities are
indefensible and a sign of the reactionary nature of such trends.
---- League for the Revolutionary Party (LRP) ----
Why "No Draft" Is No Answer (Winter 2005)
Military Crisis Triggers Talk of Conscription
http://lrp-cofi.org/PR/draftPR73.html
When the Iraq war was looming in 2002, Communist Voice ran the
headline "Opposing both sides in the war crisis" -- that is, both
the imperialist invaders and the Iraqi forces. And under the
current occupation they denounce both the imperialists and the
armed resistance, who "fight the occupation to impose their own
brutal rule." (CV, August 25.)
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Has someone you know been affected by illness or disease?
Network for Good is THE place to support health awareness efforts!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/RzSHvD/UOnJAA/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/
