( forwarded from the pof-200 list )
-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Seattle
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 12:11 AM
To: 'pof-200'
Subject: [pof-200] Democratic Party vs. mass democracy / crisis
of theory (reply to Carl Davidson)
Hi everyone,
Carl Davidson -- April 17:
> Marik: 'I did not suggest the anti-war movement was
> pacified, I stated that, when you let Democratic speakers
> lead them, they become pacified because they do not become
> revolutionary.'
>
> Carl Replies:
>
> Marik, since when is it a question of 'letting' anyone lead
> anybody, just by putting a range of speakers with opposing
> perspectives on a speakers platform? If I put only
> revolutionary speakers with revolutionary speeches on the
> platform, does that mean the crowd is 'lead' into 'becoming
> revolutionary'? Hardly, unless you think people are sheep.
Ben replies:
The speakers at an antiwar rally can be very important. Many
listen to the speakers and trust them (although that trust is
rarely justified). People come to antiwar actions open to new
ideas because they want to change society and are looking for
ideas on how to do so. Activists are not sheep -- but this is
hardly a powerful argument to use to justify promoting illusions
-- instead of telling activists the bitter truth about the nature
of the society they live in.
Carl:
>
> I think people chose their own leaders based on what they
> think and learn, through practice, makes most sense to them
> and will most help them achieve their goals.
Ben replies:
When Carl says that people choose their own leaders he ignores
the fact that we are not dealing with a level playing field.
Imperialist politicians get tons of press coverage. And a wide
range of institutions get 501(c)3 tax status and are funded by
the wealthy and these institutions use their considerable
resouces, media access and connections to promote principles and
policies which create illusions among activists who have not yet
learned, from bitter experience, who their friends and enemies
are.
> And a
> democratic method of work means that, in a mass democratic
> action, like an antiwar rally, the range of speakers should
> reflect the range of antiwar views among the participants,
> and those you would like to participate--reformist,
> religious and revolutionary. Otherwise, how do ALL the
> participants come to view the event as something that they
> want to build and as something that is not alien to them, at
> least in part?
Ben replies:
The problem is that the speeches tends to be overwhelmingly
tilted toward promoting illusions and promoting the influence of
social democracy. Carl talks as if speakers are conforming to
the mood of the crowd. The truth is that speaker selection and
the speeches themselves are aimed at moving the crowd in the
direction of the Democratic Party -- and away from the path of
mobilizing the masses.
If we want to build a powerful antiwar movement -- we must
recognize that our responsibility is to tell activists the truth.
Sure, there will be some who find that alienating - but Carl
exaggerates this factor considerably. The people who will be the
most alienated when they hear the truth about imperialism - are
the social strata (of trade union bureaucrats, religious leaders,
poverty pimps, liberal politicians and other professional opinion
leaders and media personalities) that tend to be in orbit around
imperialist institutions. This social strata is numerically
small and will never be the core that builds the antiwar
movement.
All of Carl's arguments would be correct - if we did not live in
a class-divided society.
However we do live in a class divided society and this simple
fact changes everything.
Carl:
>
> Marik says: 'No current antiwar leadership promotes ending
> Bourgeoisie rule, that I know of.'
>
> Carl replies:
>
> Of course, at least in their vast majority. That's because,
> in your view, there are only a teeny number of folks who are
> really revolutionary and not infected with reformism of one
> sort or another. If you tried to put just one of these true
> revolutionaries in every city of over 50,000 and every
> campus over 5000, there wouldn't be enough to go around,
> would there?
Ben replies:
When the antiwar movement becomes radicalized (something that
people like Carl Davidson will do everything in their power to
prevent) it will generate revolutionary-minded activists in every
city and on every campus. This is what will increase the social
cost, to the bourgeoisie, of the war.
Carl:
>
> As I suggested, you're welcome to organize a revolutionary
> action of workers against war and capitalism that attacks
> and excludes people with reformist views or from other
> classes and strata, and calls for the end of bourgeois rule,
> if you like, but I don't think you'll be very successful.
> Why don't you try it and prove me wrong in practice, where
> it counts?
Ben replies:
This is Carl's main line. We are "excluding" people. Study this
line well. We will see it time and again in a thousand guises.
Carl's basic line is that if we tell people the truth we will
"turn them off". But the fact is that we can't turn some people
on without turning others off - because we live in a
class-divided society. We want to "turn on" the activists who
count -- who want to do something. Naturally this will "turn
off" others who work to defend the current structure of society.
At this time it is the reformist trends which have the ability to
organize large antiwar actions. They can do this for several
reasons: (1) they have money, publicity, institutional support
and endorsements - and because of (2) illusions which exist in
society and among activists. The illusions we will deal with by
telling the people the truth and by creating organizations which
tell people the truth (via verbal, printed and electronic means)
in a consistent way and over time. We will defeat the influence
of the institutions and resources which aim to steer the movement
into a ditch by raising the consciousness of activists and of the
masses. This is what happened in the sixties. Hundreds of
thousands of activists saw that the existing institutions were
bankrupt -- were only pretending to be progressive in order to
better defend the old order.
Carl:
>
> Marik says: 'You will notice throughout Carl's reply that he
> always moves away from mass protests (although he pretends
> to support them) and towards working through the system. I
> am saying we need to stand in the forefront as workers
> against this capitalist rule. How do you plan on putting
> pressure on these institutions?'
>
> Carl replies:
>
> For someone who 'always moves away from mass protests', it
> seems a bit strange that I would help organize so many of
> them, over the years and up to today, doesn't it? But I'll
> just leave that with a chuckle...
Ben replies:
I would argue that Carl works to organize mass protests so that
he can have the credibility that he needs to promote his
political agenda - which is in opposition to the needs of the
development of the movement. If this were not a period in which
mass protests are required to maintain credibility -- then I
doubt that Carl would be helping to organize them.
Revolutionary activists make use of the actions which people like
Carl organize to tell other activists the truth. This includes
creating anti-imperialist contingents, leaflets, picket signs and
slogans. We work for the day when the antiwar movement has an
independent character and is not dominated by reformist politics.
Carl:
>
> How do you go about 'putting pressure?' Well, Marik, the
> Constitution says we have the right to peaceably assemble
> for the redress of grievances, bringing out hundreds of
> thousands, even millions, to demand an end to a war while
> it's going on. Does that mean we're 'working through the
> system' when we do it?
Ben replies:
Revolutionary activists work within the system whenever possible.
But we create no illusions about this. Nothing significant
happens in society until there is mass defiance of the
limitations of working within the system. Militant activists
must continually test and push the boundaries of mass actions and
encourage mass defiance of the restrictions imposed by the police
and by capitalist society. One reason the anti-WTO actions in
Seattle in 1999 were so powerful is that many thousands of
activists defied the restrictions of bourgeois legality and
engaged in successful mass blockades.
Carl:
>
> The same Constitution permitted some
> of us, in the 1960s, to walk 250 miles through Mississippi,
> getting tear gassed by police and whupped by the Klan, for
> just walking and demanding the right of Blacks to vote in
> bourgeois elections. Well, I suppose that was 'working
> through the system,' too, by your definition, wasn't it?
> Especially since we weren't doing anything beyond the bounds
> of legality?
Ben replies:
Obviously, the mass movements will do everything possible within
the limits of bourgeois legality. What Carl forgets (he will
always forget unless we continually remind him - his service to
his reformist agenda has reduced his attention span to 15 minutes
on all the key issues) is that eventually it becomes necessary to
engage in mass defiance of bourgeois legality. That is what
happened in Burmingham and many other places. It is a trap to
think that we will be able to accomplish what we need to within
the limits of bourgeois legality.
Carl:
>
> In fact, the local forces of 'law and order'
> were doing illegal things to us! But we certainly helped
> mount a great deal of 'pressure' or social force against the
> bourgeoisie anyway, didn't we?
Ben replies:
Carl implies here that we can rely on the law. The way this
argument usually goes -- is that our great white father in
Washington DC will supposedly protect us from the local redneck
racist cops -- if we rely on the system of bourgeois legality.
The simple truth is that these bourgeois politicians will jump up
and take action - only when the masses threaten to "get out of
control". That is the only time we will see real action.
Carl:
>
> Marik: 'You say you are for 'civil disobedience and other
> forms of opposition beyond the norms of legality' but only
> as a minor threat or a last resort. I say these are our
> only weapons, our being people like me, who work for a
> living in this system of capitalism.'
>
> Carl replies:
>
> 'Minor threat and last resort' are your terms, Marik, not
> mine. I prefer 'a full range of tactics, using what is most
> appropriate to time, place and circumstances,' if you want a
> quote from me on the subject.
Ben replies:
There are many instances in which we can build the movement via
mass actions that are completely legal. But there are also many
instances in which possibilities exist to engage in mass defiance
of bourgeois legality.
Revolutionary activists, like Carl, prefer a full range of
tactics that depend on time, place and circumstance. The
difference is that the tactical choices we would make in many
times, places, and circumstances are not the same as Carl and his
social milieu would make.
Carl:
>
> Marik says: "Why is it that it must be Democrats, supposedly
> caring about the workers, who raise the consciousness? Why
> shouldn't it be workers who refuse to endorse the system?
> Because they don't have 'influence'? We need not influence
> politicians. We need to influence the working-class."
Ben replies:
Exactly. This is a point that Carl will never see. That part of
his brain has been permanently burned out. It is when the
antiwar movement takes this stand that it will become powerful.
> Carl replies:
>
> It's not too hard to figure out, Marik. It's both/and, not
> either/or. Put simply, there are far more workers in Chicago
> that would come to hear both you and Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga)
> denounce the war, than would just come to hear just you, or
> a local worker here with your views, alone. You and McKinney
> each give the other a wider audience, and then all the folks
> in the audience get to decide for themselves who makes sense
> and who doesn't. It's called mass democracy--and no one
> person or group controls it completely; they have to win
> over their potential adherents, which is the point, after
> all, isn't it?
Ben replies:
Bourgeois politicians like Cynthia McKinney will speak at antiwar
rallies until such time as the mass of activists recognize that
she has nothing to offer us. It may be some time (likely several
years at best) before the mass of activists recognize this.
Militant activists work for the day when the movement has this
level of consciousness. We work to make this day happen sooner.
In the meantime, during the present-day period in which the mass
of activists do not yet recognize that Cynthia McKinney has
nothing to offer us - there is a certain logic in Carl's appeal
to mass democracy.
So the position of militant activists, as I see it, should be
two-fold:
(1) Accede (ie: give-in to, temporarily) the demand of those
activists who want to hear Cynthia McKinney speak -- on the
condition that genuinely anti-imperialist views (which tell
activists the truth about Cynthia McKinney - and her promotion of
the illusion that we can move the Democratic Party to the left or
somehow transform it into an antiwar party) appear side-by-side
with the imperialist illusions that Cynthia McKinney promotes.
(Carl, by the way, claims that such anti-imperialist views
already appear side-by-side with Cynthia McKinney. I don't
believe it. What Carl considers "anti-imperialist" and what
militant activists consider to be anti-imperialist -- are
entirely different things.)
(2) Do everything possible to speed up the day when the mass of
activists will turn their backs on Cynthia McKinney and will
insist that no politicians from imperialist parties be allowed to
speak at antiwar actions. This means that -- today -- we tell
the truth to the masses (via verbal, printed and electronic
means) about these imperialist politicians with all of our
energies.
The analogy here is that we welcome the usefulness of Carl
Davidson (ie: an activist who promotes imperialist politics and
imperialist illusions) on this list -- while at the same time we
oppose his influence here via scientific argument (ie: rather
than denying Carl the right to speak here). We work to speed up
the arrival of the day when the overwhelming majority of
participants on this list are as outraged by the views which Carl
is promoting as are Marik and I.
Carl:
>
> Marik says, in relation to getting politicians to oppose the
> war: 'And has all this done anything successful? The U.S.
> is still, as of April 10th, killing Iraqi's opposed to the
> U.S. occupation. The U.S. still has military bases
> throughout the country in order to continue it's Imperialist
> goals in the Middle East. The supposed Iraqi government
> still has yet to formally do a god damn thing. Have they
> even picked a speaker yet? Last I heard they hadn't but I
> digress. The point is, for all your 'successful' letter
> writing, I haven't seen much success in ending 'the war.'
>
> Carl replies:
>
> I went to my first anti-Vietnam war protest in 1964, Marik.
> By, say, 1971, seven years out and millions of protesters
> later, I suppose I could have said, 'What good was it?
> Aren't Vietnamese still being killed? The U.S. still has
> military bases every, etc.' I appreciate your anger and
> impatience, but you just have to 'keep on keepin' on' as the
> old civil rights slogan goes...
Ben replies:
Marik's argument is a bit weak - because he is still new at this
and is getting his first experience at live polemical combat with
a skilled exponent of the imperialist ideology. The core truth
in what Marik is saying could be better phrased a bit
differently: why has the antiwar movement not become more
powerful during two years of a brutal war for oil? The current
weakness of the antiwar movement (ie: weakness in terms of size,
frequency of actions and its saturation with reformist illusions
and focus on useless trivia such as Democratic Party politicians
putting meaningless "conditions" on their votes for war funds)
stands as an indictment of the reformist trends which dominate
the antiwar movement and proves that the movement requires a
different kind of politics in order to shake things up and
increase the social cost of the war.
Carl:
>
> Marik says: 'I get the feeling, Carl, that you would lead
> the masses through deception. You do not want to mention
> 'workers-rule' to them, although that is, supposedly, what
> you want.'
>
> Carl replies: No, Marik, there's no deception here. It's
> what's appropriate to the situation.
Ben replies:
Marik is right. Carl is wrong. Carl's work is saturated with
deception.
The only situation in which Carl would tell the masses about the
need for workers' rule - would be when the masses are already
learning about this (in an effective way and on a large scale)
from other trends - and Carl finds that he needs to "radicalize"
his act in order to maintain his credibility in the movement.
Carl:
>
> I talk about socialism,
> or my version of it anyway, to workers and others all the
> time, but in the context of theoretical work and propaganda
> circles with the advanced elements among both workers and
> intellectuals. You can raise the slogan of socialism, or
> sell socialist newspapers and books, at antiwar protests if
> you want. There are at least a dozen groups who do, and they
> wave red flags as well. It just that I don't think
> socialism is a matter of MASS AGITATION at this time. It's
> not that I want to hide anything; it's just a waste of time
> in this venue.
>
> That's what I meant when I asked if you though we were
> living in a revolutionary or non-revolutionary situation
> right now.
Ben replies:
Translation: Carl doesn't want to tell the truth to the masses at
this time because at this time it is not necessary that he do so
in order to maintain his credibility.
Carl:
>
> It's also why I asked you some pertinent
> questions--'Where does the locus of sovereignty reside in
> your workers' state? In the governmental bodies? In the
> mass assemblies? Or in the people themselves? Is there a
> 'general will' that the individual is subordinate to, and if
> so, how is it determined? Is the punitive power of the
> state restricted or unrestricted in any way? Are rights
> natural and self-evident, or derived in some other way?'--on
> what a worker's state actually might be, to which you said
> you didn't know the answers.
>
> That's fine and also honest, not knowing the answers.
> Neither do a lot of other people calling themselves
> revolutionary socialists these days. That's what a crisis in
> theory means, and we haven't even touched on the economic
> issues yet. That's also why none of the revolutionary
> groups--on this list or outside it--has a revolutionary
> program that answers these questions, or gives us any
> convincing outline of strategy and tactics appropriate to
> today's world.
Ben replies:
Carl is of course correct when he says that we are in a period
characterized by a crisis of theory. I have addressed this
crisis in my theoretical work. I have not created a fully
developed program -- but I believe that I have (at least in
outline form) sketched out the most basic principles that will be
used when such a program is developed.
If Carl believes he can find any holes in my theoretical work -
he should give it a shot. Go ahead Carl, make my day. You have
helped to raise our consciousness on the bankruptcy of your
promotion of the influence of the Democratic Party within the
antiwar movement. Maybe you can do a similar favor for us in
terms of the crisis of theory?
Here is the ALDS essay where I suggest you start:
Politics, Economics and the Mass Media
when the working class runs the show (essay # 153)
* Will there be elections?
* The three economic sectors
(private capitalist, state capitalist, gift economy)
* The evolution of the mass media
(commercial media, state media, free media)
The above essay is somewhat short but can serve as a useful
introduction. Somewhat deeper work can be found in these ALDS
essays:
Finding the Confidence to Build the Future (Part 5)
How will the working class keep supply chains running
and bourgeois apologists from flooding the airwaves
on the morning after bourgeois rule is broken?
The Future Transparent Workers' State (essay # 160)
Will a workers' state be a brutal police state
or a machine controlled by workers?
The World for which We Fight (part 7)
All of these can be found at: http://struggle.net/ALDS
Carl:
>
> Take the poor LRP: they call for 'Resurrecting Marxism.' The
> last thing we need is a resurrection of our program from the
> dead past. One thing I'll grant to Ben: At least he
> understands that there has been a revolution in the
> productive forces--cybernetics--and that something new has
> to be born, not the resurrection of old dogma.
> Unfortunately, he understands this in terms of media, but
> not much else.
Ben replies:
Hey Carl - if you're so smart - take up my offer. Tell us all
what is missing in my essays above.
Sincerely,
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
--------------------~-->
Take a look at donorschoose.org, an excellent charitable web site
for
anyone who cares about public education!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/_OLuKD/8WnJAA/cUmLAA/XgSolB/TM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---~->
Yahoo! Groups Links
------------------------ 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/
