(forwarded from pof-200)
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Ben Seattle
Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2005 9:19 PM
To: 'pof-200'
Subject: RE: [pof-200] Reply to Ben and Marik on Reform,
Revoulution and the Antiwar Movement
Carl Davidson:
> You say I should be treated with respect,
> but then say I work for the class enemy.
Davidson is quoting me correctly.
> here's how you get really slick --instead of actually
> taking on my views, you find two quotes, one from
> Hayden, one from Clergy and Laity, that I posted or
> quoted for people to read, attack them, but blame it
> on me and attribute the same view to me.
Davidson is being insincere.
Davidson is acting as if he simply posted isolated quotes (that
he does not agree with) for people to read. The truth is
otherwise. Davidson actively _promotes_ the views of Tom Hayden
and "Clergy and Laity Concerned About Iraq".
Davidson, on his website, tells readers that our most important
task is to build a big alliance with one section of the ruling
class against the other. Davidson quotes from Tom Hayden
concerning the particulars about _how_ to do this -- and says
that Hayden "recently summed up our tasks as well as anyone".
This means that Davidson is not aware of anyone (including
himself -- if we are to understand the English language as it is
normally used by human beings) who has better articulated the
most important tasks of our time -- than Tom Hayden.
This signifies, of course, that Davidson agrees with Hayden.
Davidson also posted an article here from "Clergy and Laity
Concerned About Iraq" that supported the idea of "Deploy
U.S. troops to the borders of Iraq". In a brief introduction to
the post, Davidson said the following:
> Here's a little something clear and to the point
> from the 'liberal reformists' to help with a
> leaflet designed to MOBILIZE for Oct. 24
Davidson is saying that if we want to MOBILIZE (this is
Davidson's capitalization) for Sept 24 (Davidson says, "Oct 24"
in his preface -- but he must have been thinking Sept 24) -- we
should take lessons from the "clear and to the point" talking
points of these religious misleaders. How else can we interpret
Davidson's preface?
Now -- Davidson is protesting that he actually supports "out now"
and that I am supposedly putting words in his mouth.
But if Davidson now says "out now" after posting approving
comments (on his website and here) about the positions of Tom
Hayden and the religious misleaders -- then this only proves that
Davidson is speaking out of both sides of his mouth. One side of
Davidson's mouth support Tom Hayden and the religious misleaders
-- and the other side says something pretty.
Great.
So which side of Davidson's mouth are we supposed to believe?
My view -- is that if anyone is being so inconsistent -- then we
can't really believe _anything_ they say.
Davidson continues:
> But let's say I did slip up somewhere and said
> something myself that was wrong and helped the
> class enemy. Don't you think it would make sense
> to put it in context of, say, the 95 percent of
> things I said that hurt the class enemy?
I would argue that (1) Davidson's percentages are inaccurate and
(2) the things that Davidson says which are correct -- are mainly
for the purpose of building his credibility -- so that he can
sell his slimy nonsense.
No opportunist or charlatan lies 100 percent of the time --
because they would lose all credibility immediately. The trick
to being a skilled imperialist mouthpiece -- is to tell the truth
most of the time so as to earn the trust and confidence of
readers -- and then to exploit this trust and confidence with the
key strategic principles that imperialism needs to promote.
> No, I think your approach is to ferret out these
> supposed slips, then claim they reveal 'the hidden
> truth' while all the other stuff is just trickery
> destined to mislead.
Bingo.
> No matter. That style of argument
> is lighter than a feather.
Davidson is quoting Mao here about being "lighter than a
feather". Every ex-Maoist is familiar with this quote.
Davidson is also correct that some in the movement _do_ use the
sectarian method of pouncing on some mistake (real or imagined)
for the purpose of attempting to paint someone as a "black hat"
and attempting to _isolate_ the black hat.
But Davidson's supposed "mistakes" are part of a consistent and
deliberate pattern.
For example, if Davidson actually _opposed_ Tom Hayden and his
phony "exit plan" -- then why would Davidson not come right out
and say that it was a mistake for him to assert on his website
that it is Hayden who has best summed up the most important tasks
of the movement?
Davidson continues:
> Ben says:
> "There can be only two poles of attraction
> in the antiwar movement because there are
> only two main classes in society:
> the bourgeoisie and the proletariat."
> Why 'only two', Ben? [...] The bourgeoisie
> can't get everyone in its ranks to submit
> to a single point of view, and thus set up
> a unified pole of attraction, any more than
> the working class can at this time.
It's not the points that either of these poles of attraction are
somehow unified. They are not.
I work to address the fact that the anti-imperialist pole of
attraction is so weak and disunited that it is, unfortunately,
extremely close to being non-existent: there is no political
trend which carries out the tasks which are necessary to make
this pole of attraction a reality with the ability to change the
dynamics of the antiwar movement.
> But let's say we want to designate two trends in
> the antiwar movement. (I think three would be more
> useful, but never mind.) Why make the cut between
> reform and revolution, between the reformist antiwar
> movement and the anti-reformist antiwar movement?
> Drawing it that way is not dictated by external
> events at this time; rather it's a choice that Ben
> Seattle and friends have made. You could draw it
> between anti-imperialist and just antiwar, or
> anti-chauvinist and pro-chavinist (Pat Buchanan's
> nationalist antiwar guys), single-issue and
> multi-issue, anti-capitalist or just anti-right, etc.
> Any of those are more useful than reform vs. revolution.
Yes -- we could also draw a distinction between those in the
antiwar movement who are vegetarians and those who eat meat. Or
we could designate trends in a hundred other equally meaningless
ways.
> [...] Moreover, it's a poor choice in that the matter
> of revolution is not on the agenda of the mass democratic
> struggles currently. [...] we are decidedly NOT in a
> revolutionary situation. [...]
> When these conditions obtain, or at least a good
> and decisive part of them, that's when it's not only
> correct, but absolutely essential to draw the line
> in the mass movement between reform and revolution.
Davidson is subtly assigning to me a view which I do not hold.
This issue is deserving of careful attention.
I promote an anti-imperialist orientation for the antiwar
movement because this is what will make the antiwar movement more
powerful. I oppose the orientation for the antiwar movement that
the reformists promote -- because this orientation is being used
to weaken, undermine and liquidate the antiwar movement.
An anti-imperialist direction for the antiwar movement requires
recognition that:
(1) we live in a class-divided society ruled by
the bourgeoisie and our work must be oriented
toward raising the consciousness of the masses
and organizing the masses rather than
raising the consciousness of the politicians
and organizing (or getting elected) the politicians.
This means our work must be independent of
bourgeois influence and control.
(2) the political and economic system of imperialism
must be eliminated.
The reformist orientation for the antiwar movement, on the
contrary, promotes the view that:
(3) we live in a democracy and "our" government ultimately
reflects (or can be made to reflect if only we believe
in it and try hard enough) the will of the majority
of the population
(4) the existing institutions can be used to eliminate war
and transform our country into a peaceful nation
Our work today must be guided by the concrete circumstances which
exist: if we want the antiwar movement to become powerful -- we
must work to raise the consciousness of activists within it
concerning the two points I list above (ie: we live in a
class-divided society ruled by the bourgeoisie -- and to end war
we must eliminate imperialism). All other questions: ideas,
tactics and forms of organization -- will flow from these two
points.
So the issue, as I present it to activists, is not: Are you for
reform or revolution? Rather it is: Do want the antiwar movement
to be weak and crippled -- or to be powerful?
The question of what is a "revolutionary situation" has a history
in the movement which includes a lot of word-twisting and name
calling and not everyone means the same thing by this phrase.
What is important to understand is that revolutionary work in the
antiwar movement is both possible and necessary today.
Revolutionary work in the antiwar movement does not consist of
writing off or refusing to speak to those who are not for
"revolution" -- but rather works to raise the consciousness of
the masses concerning the kind of society we live in and draws
the masses into struggle.
Davidson continues:
> why is getting a City Council to pass a resolution
> 'relying on bourgeois politicians to speak for us'?
Because they are bourgeois politicians. And you are using them
to get your message out to the workers.
Now it can be a good thing that this message gets out (although
usually when it does it is typically distorted in various ways).
But we also have to consider the fact that the time and energy
which is absorbed into campaigns to get the city council to make
a statement (which is typically heavily watered down) could also
be used to address the masses directly via leaflets or mass
actions. It is action which is directly oriented toward the
masses (without reliance on bourgeoisie politicians to transmit
our message) that represents the direction that our movement must
grow if it is to become powerful. This means that we need to
build networks and organizations and our own media machines.
> So this reply doesn't get too long, I'll take up
> one more point, Marik. That's your notion of
> political independence. You say: "I will define
> here what I mean by independent; independent of
> bourgeois control and influence."
> I think you may have over-generalized and
> bitten off more than you can chew here. For
> the antiwar movement, I've limited my scope
> to having our own money, bank accounts, lists,
> and grassroots members (independent of 'control')
> and a break with the Bush line on the war: 'Out
> Now' rather than 'Out When We Win' or 'Out When
> Certain of Our Conditions Are Met'(independent
> of influence).
> But you put it in an unlimited way. The bourgeoisie
> controls a lot, Marik, and influences even more.
> That's what it means to be the ruling class. Now
> take, say, religion. Most Americans, including most
> workers, go to church and believe in God, or at least
> say they do. Now some might say this is not only
> bourgeois influence, but influence from past feudal
> classes as well. Should we draw a line with or
> exclude religious-minded people as not sufficiently
> independent of the ruling class? Should we even make
> it a bone of contention at this time?
There are a hundred ways that sections of the movement are
dependent on bourgeois influence and control. The Cindy Sheehan
"phenomena" became widely known because it was used by a section
of the ruling class which wants to promote a more liberal form of
imperialism and which heavily promoted Cindy for a short while.
This does not mean that Cindy Sheehan is insincere or is
promoting imperialist influence, etc. Rather this means that her
work is not necessarily a model for how to reach the masses --
because many of her actions relied on the bourgeois media
machine. But there will certainly be times when all sections of
the ruling class will do their best to deny us publicity. So
building organization and tactics that rely on the bourgeois
media machine often leads to a dead end.
We can't build our house on a foundation of sand. We must build
our own, independent organizations and machines.
On the other hand, if you "play ball" with the various
liberal-opportunist power-brokers and gate-keepers -- then you
will find it far easier to get publicity for your actions. Ditto
for donations and endorsements and the network of
behind-the-scenes approval.
But let's pick an example which is closer to home:
If you promote Tom Hayden _or_ his phony "exit plan" -- then you
are _not_ independent of bourgeois influence. In this case you
are _promoting_ bourgeois influence.
So it is really quite simple. You may have your own bank account
and lists of supporters and so forth -- but if you promote
imperialist politics or personalities within the antiwar movement
-- then you are not independent of bourgeois influence.
Davidson says that Tom Hayden is a valuable part of the antiwar
movement. I would put matters differently. Hayden is valuable
to the degree that he helps activists to develop a healthy hatred
of the kind of opportunism that he represents. The same goes for
Davidson. Our hatred is not directed at Davidson personally --
but at the politics and ideology which command his actions. It
would be nice if we could win Davidson to our side -- but this is
simply not going to happen under the present circumstances. Our
world is not made that way.
Davidson promotes the idea that there is no clear dividing line
in our society between "us" and "them". There is no "class
enemy", if we follow Davidson's line: it is all a gradual mush
that goes from those who fight imperialism -- to those who are
imperialism.
> That's enough for now. I'll
> wait to see some replies.
I agree with Davidson on this point. It would be very useful to
hear more comments and questions from the 95 percent of our
community which has been silent on these topics.
At this time probably 80 or 90 percent of our subscribers may not
see any need to "take sides" in the "argument" between Davidson
and Marik and I. I would like to hear more from these people.
The contradiction between Davidson, on one side, and Marik and I,
on the other, -- is immensely larger than any of us. As
individuals we are all simply doing our best to represent the
interests of class forces which exist outside of this list. As
individuals our arguments may be strong or weak, skilled or
unskilled. The current "argument" would be more interesting and
more developed if there were more people on this list who would
take each side -- and also if there were more who would ask
questions of each side. Maybe our emerging community may be able
to do more in this direction in the next few years.
In the meantime -- Davidson is on this list now. If you have
questions and want to confront him (or even support him) -- now
is the time. This is an opportunity. In particular (speaking to
that section of our subscribers who are closer to the
anti-imperialist position) the experience you may get in opposing
Davidson could prove to be very valuable. The same basic
principles and arguments will emerge in different forms in a
hundred variations.
The revolution in communications is still beginning. Five or ten
years from now political discussions and debates will be heard by
people as they drive their cars. These political discussions and
debates will not be as they are now: selected mostly by
right-wing ideologues -- they will be drawn from the internet
because car radios will be hooked up in various ways to the
internet. The ability to argue skillfully and to understand what
it is you want to say -- will eventually become very valuable.
If you want to serve your class -- then now is the time to get
experience -- while the audience is small and your mistakes are
less important -- and your mind is focused on the principles that
are 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
Hit them where it Hurts! and related articles ...
Agitation for the Sept 24, 2005 antiwar march
http://struggle.net/ben/2005/924.htm
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
--------------------~-->
Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/VpgUKB/pzNLAA/cUmLAA/XgSolB/TM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---~->
Yahoo! Groups Links
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/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/
