( forwarded from the pof-200 list )
-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Seattle
Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 4:28 AM
To: 'pof-200'
Subject: [pof-200] WF # 41 -- / gagging party members / telling
the workers not to think
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Weekly focus # 41 -- / what's hot (or not) on the pof-200 list
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ben makes the 3rd and final installment of his discussion
with DJ on the fundamental goals and tasks of our time
(1) Polemical decency and the necessity of hypotheses
(2) Should the party center be able to gag party members?
(3) Should we care if activists can't tell the difference
between workers' rule and a police state ?
(4) Failing to shout "fire" in a burning theater
(5) How to win against sectarianism
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Appendix: the party and the internet (from pof-300)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Happy May Day everyone,
This will be the final installment of my discussion with DJ on
the fundamental goals and tasks of our time.
It has become clear that the discussion has gone about as far as
it can at this time. DJ and I both have limited time.
There have been a number of interesting comments from other
subscribers -- for which I am thankful.
To the degree that DJ and I have touched on the more important
questions -- this discussion has been useful. And I believe that
the topics that have been raised (ie: what will the workers' mass
revolutionary party be like? -- and how will we create it?) will
not go away. On the contrary -- these topics will emerge again
and again and again -- until the working class has such a party
-- and makes use of this party to overthrow the system of
bourgeois rule.
And even then this question will not go away.
Before replying to DJ, I would like to thank, in particular, Les
and Marik and Jackson for their posts.
Les, I think, got a little confused and may have gotten the
impression that I oppose democratic centralism. The problem is
that the phrase "democratic centralism" has been abused to the
point where the phrase itself (as opposed to the principles that
the phrase was originally used to describe) is less useful than
it used to be -- because over many decades it has been used by so
many people to mean something very different from what was meant
by this phrase before 1917. The principles that I support -- are
the same as what Les described:
> any member or group of members could
> publish a factional newspaper and
> discussion of political differences
> was held year round (not limited to
> a few months before a convention.
> The Centralism part of democratic
> centralism referred simply to unity
> in action, not unity on ideas.
It is DJ and LRP (see below) that have a different (and, in my
view, totally dysfunctional) view of "democratic centralism" --
as a method by which the party center has the authority to gag
its critics.
I consider it a significant step for our community that Marik has
taken a broad interest in my discussion with DJ as a whole. The
appendix (see below) contains a post of mine on pof-300 which
replies to him and DJ.
And I also consider it a step forward that Jackson's excellent
criticism (of Bob Herbert's NYT article on FDR) was able to
clearly explain, with a concrete example, how the bourgeois media
promotes illusions in the Democratic Party, pretends the powerful
mass movements of the 1930's never existed -- and presents
history as moving forward on the basis of enlightened
representatives of the ruling class. If any of the discussion on
this list assisted Jackson, even in a small way, to write such an
article -- then this is clear evidence that our community is on
the right track.
And, while it is unlikely that I will ever consider him to be a
comrade, Carl Davidson's comments (April 23) were useful to me
and, I think, to the development of our community as well as a
concise and skillful summary of a number of my basic views.
It is possible that I may not be able to make another "weekly
focus" post here until mid-June. We will see what the future
brings. I believe it is infinitely bright.
-- Ben
------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Polemical decency and the necessity of hypotheses
------------------------------------------------------------
The discussion between DJ and me appears, unfortunately, to have
generated some hard feelings. The discussion here and on the
pof-300 list [note 1] have included opinions to the effect that
aspects of my own conduct have been detrimental to the
development of useful discussion.
I would like to make it as clear as I can that I respect DJ and
value his contributions here. More than this, I understand that
our discussion list will not be able to play a significant role
in destroying the old world -- unless all of us insist that all
participants here treat one another with respect.
So I want to address this topic first -- because it has come up
and it is important. I know that some of our readers may find
this topic boring. If you are one of those readers -- feel free
to skip to topic item 2 below.
DJ believes that I have been less than completely objective in
the way that I have characterized the group that he likes, the
League for the Revolutionary Party (LRP).
It is possible that DJ is correct and that I have been unfair to
the LRP. It is also possible that my comments have been right on
target. These are not always simple questions to sort out.
The most important, tangible goal of our movement is the creation
of a revolutionary organization which is real -- which is
something more than the usual empty bullshit which we hear so
much.
Anytime someone comes to this list and claims to have insight
into how we can make this organization a reality -- it is our
responsibility to both (1) extract what is useful and interesting
from their comments -- and to (2) mercilessly criticize what is
weak or poorly thought out.
Some of my comments about the LRP have been opinion -- and some
of my comments have represented fact. I think that most of
understand the difference between opinion and fact. If I say,
for example, that I do not trust John Smith -- I have given an
opinion. If I have claim that I personally witnessed John Smith
snatch a purse from a little old lady on Sunday afternoon at 1 pm
-- I have asserted what I claim is a fact (which may either be
true or false).
The difference between opinion and fact is related to specificity
or concreteness. Opinions tend to be more abstract. Facts tend
to be more concrete. It is often easier to sort out the truth
about facts since they tend to be either true or untrue; either
black or white. Opinions, on the other hand, can be more
complex, with many different shades and even colors. For example
what does it mean when I say that I do not trust John Smith? It
can mean a thousand different things. But when I explain what I
saw at 1 pm -- we all know what it means.
There is a complex relationship between opinion and fact. There
is really a continuous spectrum between opinion and fact --
between the abstract and the concrete. Both are necessary in
order to understand and change the world. In scientific
practice, opinion is often called by the word "theory" or even
the more fancy word "hypothesis". Individual scientists may
passionately believe in one or another hypothesis. But the
scientific community as a whole will generally not accept a
hypothesis as "proven" until the evidence in its favor is
overwhelming.
Hypotheses are necessary -- because they guide our search for
facts. For example, there may be two competing hypotheses, A and
B -- concerning what goes on inside an atom. Determining the
facts may require an experiment -- that might involve spending
billions of dollars to build a particle collider. But the entire
design of the experiment may be determined, or guided, by the
competing hypotheses. Without the competing hypotheses we would
not know what questions we want our collider experiments to
answer.
This is reflected in the common wisdom that the key to getting
the right answers -- is to first ask the right questions.
So opinions, or hypotheses, help guide our search for knowledge.
They tell us what to look at and which facts, out of the millions
and billions that surround us, may be most deserving of
attention. And then, the hard work of determining the facts will
make clear which (if any) of the competing hypotheses conform to
the way the world really works.
So that is the relationship between opinions and facts. Both are
necessary. Both often involve lots of very hard work. Both are
helped by scientific attitudes -- and by the kind of humility
that helps us to recognize the truth when, by chance, it shows up
in front of our face.
There is a story that illustrates the relationship between
opinion (ie: theory, the abstract, hypothesis) and fact (ie:
practice, the concrete, experiment):
The brilliant and very famous theoretical physicist Richard
Feynman was visiting Europe and decided to visit the particle
accelerator at CERN, on the Swiss-French border. Feynman did not
announce who he was when he visited -- because he did not want to
be mobbed by all the particle physicists who worked there -- who
would have swarmed over him like groupies on a rock star. So
Feynman slipped in, incognito, and took the tour along with all
the other visiting tourists. But of course, he was soon
recognized -- and surrounded. As he was led around by the
excited physicists, Feynman would point to various pieces of
equipment and ask questions. "What is that thing there?" he said
as he pointed to a complicated looking apparatus two hundred feet
in diameter and three stories tall. "That," the physicists who
were guiding him around replied, "is being built to determine if
non-symmetric hadron collisions can violate parity" (or some such
similar scientific jargon -- I am filling in the details here).
"As a matter of fact, Mr. Feynman," his guide continued, "it just
occured to me that the theory we are testing is _your_ theory.
We are doing all this work to determine if your theory is
correct." "That is very interesting," Feynman replied "and how
much did it cost?" After doing a little mental arithmetic, his
guide answered "So far, about two billion dollars." "What's the
matter," Feynman replied, "don't you trust me?"
I think we can all understand the point of that story.
Most of us, anyway.
A little more than ten years ago, when I was engaged in fairly
hard-core polemics with some of my former comrades in the
Marxist-Leninist Party -- I was attacked for advancing various
hypotheses. How dare I say something, was their line, that I
could not immediately prove.
The people who attacked me for describing a hypothesis went on to
create the Communist Voice Organization (CVO). And my polemic
with them resulted in "The S.O.M.E. Hypthesis" (S.O.M.E. stands
for "Self-Organizing Moneyless Economy") which became a
theoretical breakthough for me and the anchor for all of my
subsequent theoretical work.
More recently (April 27, pof-300), I have presented opinions
about the LRP that I cannot immediately prove. I said, for
example, that I believe that the LRP (1) has a relatively dead
intellectual life and (2) is so similar to the CVO that the two
organizations are essentially twins.
DJ responded (April 28, pof-300):
> So how does he know they're nearly identical?
> And how does he know anything about their
> internal intellectual life? He doesn't. But
> he keeps repeating these things...why? Does
> this represent decency in polemics? I don't
> believe so. Does it represent a sectarian
> tendency? Partially at least.
I cannot explain to DJ how I know what I know any better than I
have already done. I have presented to DJ and to all readers of
the pof-200 and pof-300 lists the facts which support my
opinions.
I asserted that the LRP and CVO are nearly identical twins.
Let's consider this more concretely:
They are both small groups which aspire to lead the working class
in the struggle against bourgeois rule and for "socialism". They
are both characterized by the total inability to explain what
this "socialism" is (other than to use the same stale, empty
expressions which were also used by the Soviet and Chinese
revisionists).
Both the LRP and CVO have cargo-cult Leninist views on:
(1) the nature of the party and what they
mistakenly call "democratic centralism",
(2) a "socialism" in which the party and
the state are merged with one another and
(3) how all the problems of the post-bourgeois
economy will supposedly be solved by
combining mass participation with
the magic of central planning
Both the LRP and CVO believe that activists who criticize their
weaknesses are mainly influenced by petty bourgeois ideology. In
some cases the LRP and CVO are correct in this assessment -- and
in other cases this is simply a rationalization that the LRP and
CVO use to avoid confronting their own weaknesses.
The LRP and CVO are incapable of seeing how similar they are to
one another -- or of recognizing that -- as groups which both
oppose the reformist domination of the mass movements -- they
have a responsibility to work together at a much higher level
than the typical bullshit "united front" coalitions in which, for
a temporary period of time, groups which hate each other agree to
be in the same room with one another and pretend that they don't
hate each other.
The LRP and CVO also have nearly identical views on a host of
similar questions too numerous to mention.
I challenged DJ (Weekly Focus # 39, April 15) to explain a single
significant difference between the LRP and the CVO. In reply DJ
(April 16) could only say that the CVO was "stupid" and not worth
his time. But think about it everyone -- if there really _were_
some significant difference between the LRP and the CVO --
wouldn't it be possible for DJ to explain what it was in a single
sentence? How much time would that take?
Now, let's consider my comments about the internal intellectual
life of the LRP. DJ asserts that I know nothing about it. My
reply is that by the fruit you will know the tree.
We have all seen the LRP's bizarre views (as presented here with
fidelity, I have personally verified, by DJ who has no official
connection with the LRP but who carefully follows their work) in
opposition to the movement against the resumption of the draft.
There is no evidence that anyone in or around the LRP opposes
this nonsense -- which is amazingly detached from the reality of
building a movement against imperialism (it would be difficult,
for example, to write an all-sided antiwar leaflet addressed to
high-school or college students without discussing the threat of
the draft and the need to mobilize against it). How can the LRP
have much of an intellectual life if they have no one around them
capable of understanding that we must oppose the draft as part of
opposing imperialist war?
I have also shown that the LRP fails to understand _any_ of the
key theoretical questions of our time. Let's review:
------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Should the party center be able to gag party members?
------------------------------------------------------------
The LRP has a theory of party organization which holds that party
members do not have the right to publicly criticize the decisions
of the party majority -- unless the party majority gives them
permission to do so.
DJ's reply (April 23, pof-200) that "in some tactical situations,
disagreements would not be broadcast" completely misses the
significance of this. First, DJ fails to give a single example
or scenario of such a situation. Apparently, in the abstractland
where DJ spends too much of his time (disclaimer: that's my
opinion -- not a proven fact) it is not necessary to give a
meaningful example or scenario to illustrate an important
principle or argument. More importantly, DJ overlooks the fact
that if the party center had the right to shut up party members
(ie: in a situation it considers "tactical") this would establish
the principle that the party center (ie: whichever faction has
achieved a majority) -- has the authority to control the entire
flow of public information from all party members -- and
therefore has the right to shut up its critics.
If the party center can gag its critics -- this would mean that
party members who are convinced that public exposure is necessary
to correct the mistakes of the party majority -- would need to
leave the party (ie: and lose much of their contact with other
party members) in order to criticize it publically.
Nor is it only DJ who has this cargo-cultist view of party
organization. I looked at the LRP's 2003 "political resolution
of the COFI" (section "G") and confirmed that the LRP has a
similar view: the party minority, according to the LRP -- only
has the right to make its views known "within" the party. Note
this well -- if you only have the right to make your views known
within the party -- this means that you do not have the right to
make your views known outside the party.
Neither I nor any experienced militant activist with a brain
(disclaimer: this is my opinion -- not a proven fact) -- would be
part of an organization which we could not publicly criticize
without permission. No genuinely mass revolutionary party can
posibly emerge in modern conditions without party members having
the right to alert other activists (and mobilize progressive
opinion against) party principles or policies which are mistaken
or which threaten the health or mission of the party.
------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Should we care if activists can't tell the difference
between workers' rule and a police state ?
------------------------------------------------------------
The LRP fails to understand the need for revolutionary activists
today to confront the crisis of theory which has led to the
complete paralysis of the revolutionary movement. The most
blatant example of this is that the LRP has nothing significant
to say about what "socialism" is that has not also been said by
the Soviet and Chinese revisionists who betrayed the working
class, created a religion they called "marxism-leninism" and used
this religion to justify the permanent suppression of the
independent political voice and independent political life of the
working class.
The LRP has _nothing_ to say to address the primary concern which
progressive activists have about workers' rule -- which is that
it could easily degenerate into a police state. The LRP has
_nothing_ to say about the root of problem: the experience of the
Soviet and Chinese revolutions where (a) the party and the state
were merged and (b) workers were denied the fundamental
democratic rights of speech and organization.
DJ attempts (April 28, first of two posts to pof-300) to defend
the LRP's complete failure to recognize or deal with the fact
that not only the masses, but large numbers of progressive
activists -- view workers' rule as only being possible in the
context of a police state:
> The LRP doesn't mention this because the
> real problem is that the Soviet workers'
> state degenerated and was overthrown by
> Stalin and that China never was a workers'
> state. The masses' worries due to the
> confusion around this are legitimate, yes,
> but what we have to tell them is that
> they're wrong--that wasn't socialism.
DJ's views on this question are an accurate reflection of the
views of the LRP. And DJ's comment above crystalizes the
complacency of the LRP on the most important theoretical question
of our time.
It is not enough to say that socialism is not this or is not
that.
If we are serious about building a movement of millions -- then
it is not enought to say what socialism is not. We must be able
to say what socialism _is_.
If we don't tell activists (and the masses) what socialism is --
the bourgeoisie will. And the bourgeoisie does.
The class enemy is not silent on this question. We are. And our
silence is of unimaginable assitance to the class enemy. The
dust is not swept where the broom does not reach. If we don't
tell the masses the truth about what socialism is -- then who
will? Santa Claus?
We need to be able to describe the _principles_ that will guide
economic and political life after bourgeois rule is broken. If
we are unable to describe these principles -- then we have a
problem.
We need to be able to demonstrate to workers that we understand
modern society well enough to present a clear and compelling
vision of how workers can run society _better_ than the
bourgeoisie.
How else can we give workers the confidence they need -- that
this is all not simply some pie-in-the-sky pipedream --
especially after history has witnessed the monstrous hypocrisy
and criminality of the Soviet and Chinese versions of
"socialism".
"No problem", says DJ (and the LRP) with a shrug, "we'll just
tell the workers not to think about any of these things --
because in some way that we can't be bothered to explain --
things will be different the next time the bourgeoisie is
overthrown" (disclaimer: this is not an actual quote -- see above
for the actual quote).
------------------------------------------------------------
(4) Failing to shout "fire" in a burning theater
------------------------------------------------------------
Now I want to get back to the point I raised earlier. I asserted
that the LRP has a dead intellectual life. That is an opinion.
It is not concrete because I could mean many different things by
such a statement. So I should should clarify. I am not claiming
that the intellectual life of the LRP is at a lower level than
the rest of the bankrupt political organizations in imperialist
society. I am only asserting that the LRP's internal
intellectual life has manifested zero evidence of any recognition
that we need to explain to the masses what it is that we want
them to fight for.
DJ believes that I have not read enough of the LRP's writings to
make such a claim.
I disagree.
I will use an analogy to illustrate my opinion on this. (I have
given DJ a hard time about what I consider his considerable
misuse and abuse of analogies -- but I consider analogies as
useful if we invest careful thought into their selection.)
Suppose a building is on fire and the residents of the building
are unaware of the fire and are greatly endangered by the fire.
Suppose further that a man who claims to understand the issues
that are important -- says _nothing_ about the fire that can be
understood without spending many hours paying attention to
meaningless abstract words and sending away for his pamphlets
which supposedly explain everything.
Would it be justified to conclude that this man is really
somewhat clueless?
------------------------------------------------------------
(5) How to win against sectarianism
------------------------------------------------------------
I will add that I consider it mistaken (and potentially confusing
to readers) to label my comments as "polemical indecency" --
since, in my view, it would be better to reserve the phrase
"polemical indecency" for actions for which there is really no
excuse -- stuff which even inexperienced activists can easily see
is corrupt.
On the other hand, I have little objection if DJ wants to assert
that my actions on this list may represent a certain amount of
sectarianism. DJ may be correct (or he may not). But DJ's
opinion about this won't really hurt me or create too much
confusion -- even if DJ were mistaken. I do my best to avoid
sectarianism but there is no way that I can guarantee that I will
always succeed at this. As I see it sectarianism is a disease to
which none of us are immune. We can attempt to keep our actions
free of sectarianism -- but we may not succeed -- because
sectarianism is that kind of disease. It is bigger than any of
us. We can be acting in a sectarian way and not even know it.
Activists who have been around the block will know that what I am
saying about sectarianism is true.
How then can we defeat sectarianism? We can defeat sectarianism
by keeping open the lines of calm, respectful and sincere
communication. As long as we can talk to one another and listen
to one another in a calm, respectful and sincere way -- we can
win against sectarianism. Sectarianism is a disease which is
bigger and more powerful than any of us -- when we are isolated
from one another. However, if are connected to one another -- if
we can recognize the need to remain connected to one another --
then we will win against sectarianism and every other obstacle in
our path.
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---[note 1]---
The pof-300 list is a sister list of the pof-200 list where
subscribers can post as often as they would like. The list,
together with its public archives and info on how to subscribe,
can be seen at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pof-300/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Appendix: the party and the internet (from pof-300)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Seattle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 11:40 AM
To: 'theorist'
Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: FW: [pof-300] Re: clarifying my thoughts on the party
and the internet (reply to DJ)
( forwarded from the pof-300 list )
-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Seattle
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 11:37 AM
To: 'pof-300'
Subject: [pof-300] Re: clarifying my thoughts on the party and
the internet (reply to DJ)
Hi DJ and Marik,
I am replying on pof-300 because I have used up my two posts for
the week on pof-200.
-- DJ -- April 26:
> Thank you Marik for your email. I wasn't clear
> enough on the role of the internet in building
> the revolutionary party. I agree with many aspects
> of Ben's idea, but the central disagreement is that
> I think the primary goal should be to build the
> revolutionary party, whereas he thinks the primary
> goal should be to build a democratical online news
> site and to create a community of activists.
Ben replies:
I will clarify also: like DJ, my primary goal is also the
creation of a mass revolutionary party.
My difference with DJ concerns how we will create this party.
How will we gather the activists who will be part of this
organization? How will we train and test these activists? My
difference with DJ (I think) is as follows:
DJ appears to think we can best gather activists by being part of
a small, tightly focused organization that tends to keep secret
the disagreements between its members.
I believe that we can best gather activists by casting a much
wider net -- and creating an open and politically transparent
community focused on key projects that are focused around the
concept of "information war".
The most important of these projects will be a democratic online
news service fueled by the energy of the masses. Specific
working groups (and the masses themselves) will gather
information from many sources -- and filter and sort articles and
comments -- to create a powerful and compelling news site with
systematic coverage of everything that is important (ie: as
opposed to the anemic collection of articles and posts
contributed mostly at random on the mostly reformist-controlled
Indymedia sites).
The analogy that comes most strongly to mind is the creation of
stars. Stars condense out of vast clouds of dust and gas. But
this process cannot take place until there is a sufficient amount
of material in sufficiently close proximity (ie: sufficent matter
at sufficent density).
I believe that the mass revolutionary party of the future will
condense out of a community of activists who have many
opportunities to know one another and work with one another in
self-organizing ways. This means that, within this community,
different projects and philosophies will need to openly compete
with one another -- without this work necessarily being directed
by a single controlling center that believes it knows everything
and which completely controls the flow of information and
attention.
DJ argues that his small, closed organization will "intervene in
the class struggle". And DJ is correct that this is necessary.
But it is not enough. In the period since the founding of the
Communist Party USA in 1919 there have been many dozens, if not
hundreds, of organizations that have intervened in the class
struggle with the idea that they would help create a mass
revolutionary party capable of effectively leading and organizing
the struggle of the working class. Out of all of these
organizations -- few are left -- and the few that are left are
infected by the reformist and sectarian diseases and are badly
disoriented.
The community that we create will also intervene in the class
struggle -- but it will do so in a more open and transparent way
than that which DJ advocates. For example: when we distribute
leaflets -- we will place them on the web and encourage activists
to post public comments, questions and criticisms. And just as
we will intervene in the struggle of the masses -- the mass of
activists will also intervene in our intervention -- by
challenging or questioning us publicly. The discussion and
debate that results will speed up the metabolism of ideas -- will
help us to effectively combat the reformist and sectarian
diseases -- and will draw the attention of increasing numbers of
activists to our work.
> I agree that the Internet is an awesome tool, and
> that a democratic online news site could possible
> do a lot for the development of a revolutionary
> organization. For one, I think it's most likely that
> a revolutionary party will be the one to create such
> a site, as every other party's interest is to hinder
> the site in some way for their own gain. (This is
> just an extension of the principle that only
> revolutionaries consistenly fight for reforms--and
> that site is a democratic reform.) A smaller group,
> such as this one, will be unable to technologically
> create the site probably, and if that hurdle is passed,
> such a site faces various other obstacles such as
> not being known or being sabotaged by bourgeois
> forces. What will catapult the site past these
> hurdles? An upsurge in the class struggle.
I believe that conditions exist _today_ for the victory of such a
site. There are certainly technological and political obstacles.
But these obstacles can all be overcome given the existence of a
community of activists which is focused on victory and determined
to make this happen.
If we study the successes and failures of the various Indymedia
projects -- we can conclude that a large amount of "raw material"
(ie: technical geeks who want to help out -- and activists who
would like to find or write articles and help rate and filter the
mass of articles and comments) is avaialable.
> A democratic online news site could be a great
> tool for revolutionary activists to use, but it is one
> that I don't think will be created (or become more
> well known and used outside the current circle of
> mostly middle class activists) before an upsurge
> in the class struggle comes.
I disagree. I believe that the time is fully ripe today. We
don't need to wait for an upsurge. Hundreds of thousands of
activists are thirsty for something better than Indymedia or
Infoshop. Thousands of activists would like to help make this a
reality. Millions of activists and potential activists need to
know that reformist politics are a dead end and that a world
without bourgeois rule is both possible and necessary.
The time to work on this -- is today.
> Further, even if such a site could be created, it
> would only facilitate the tasks of the revolutionary
> party, not displace them.
This is half true. The work of Lenin's Bolshevik party might
have possible without printed leaflets, newspapers and pamphlets
-- but it would certainly have been much slower. The modern
equivalent of that is a democratic online news service.
> A revolutionary party is the organizational
> embodiement of advanced consciousness that
> consciously intervenes in the class struggle.
True.
> Consciousness is key here.
Also true.
> An online news site can be a tool for
> developing consciousness, but that is all.
Didn't you just say that consciousness is key?
> To place the building of an online news site
> (and a community of activists around it)
> either obfuscates or denigrates the fight for
> revolutionary consciousness.
Not true. An online news site and a community of activists which
is centered around revolutionary politics will raise the
consciousness of hundreds of thousands of activists and speed up
the day when they create a mass revolutionary party.
> Class consciousness is not gained by step
> by step movements to the left, but by a decisive
> break from reformist consciousness, by a process
> of abstraction that sees throws the various
> mystifications of capitalism--it is a conscious act.
> This conscious act is achieved by the fight for
> revolutionary consciousness, by counterposing
> revolutionary consciousness to spontaneous militancy:
> by the means of the fight for the revolutionary program
> by the revolutionary party. The most democratic
> organization in the world--including an online
> encompassing millions--can only facilitate this
> process, it cannot achieve it spontaneously, as it is
> a conscious process that is necessary. The Soviets
> --being mass organizations of workers--are superior
> in some ways to Ben's idea, yet they did not
> spontaneously come over to revolutionary
> consciousness and the revolutionary party--that
> had to be consciously fought for by the Bolsheviks.
> By placing the need to create an e-soviet before
> creating a revolutionary party, Ben sets up the
> working class for defeat.
DJ's comments above are mostly just words. DJ appears to oppose,
today, the conscious acts which are decisive to raise the
consciousness of hundreds of thousands of activists. DJ appears
to be convinced that a community of activists which is (a)
focused on the overthrow of bourgeois rule and (b) creating a
democratic online news service for this purpose -- will not be
able to break from reformist ideas or to overcome the limitations
of spontaneous, individual actions.
It is true that breaking from reformist ideas is a very complex
and protracted process that requires the intervention of
activists who are organized and armed with advanced revolutionary
theory. My argument is that this process will be accelerated by
the development of a community focused as descibed above. There
are many activists who understand the need to fight reformism
(such as, for example, the supporters of the nearly identical CVO
and LRP organizations). Many of these activists are isolated
from the rest of the movement and from one another (because their
organizations are barely on speaking terms with one another --
and typically only see one another as bitter opponents). The
development of a focused community will help to change all this.
As militant activists gather and create open projects that are
deserving of attention -- the small anti-reformist groups (which
all imagine that they are the reincarnation of Lenin's
bolsheviks) will be compelled to become involved (in order to
assist the struggle against reformism -- and also to recruit --
and also to maintain credibility with their own supporters). In
this process many of the sectarian barriers between these
organizations will be broken down. In an information-rich
environment characterized by the rapid metabolism of ideas -- the
energy and enthusiams of these activists will find much greater
outlet for expression.
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
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
--------------------~-->
DonorsChoose. A simple way to provide underprivileged children
resources
often lacking in public schools. Fund a student project in NYC/NC
today!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/EHLuJD/.WnJAA/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/
