(forwarded from the pof-200 list)
-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Seattle
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 11:58 AM
To: 'pof-200'
Subject: [pof-200] MF # 50 -- Real organization cannot be built
on a foundation of sand (the need for mass democracy)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Monthly Focus # 50 -- / building a community of information war
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Real organization cannot be built on a foundation of sand
(the need for mass democracy)
(1) My mid-year report will be delayed
(2) What is the source of unity in the antiwar movement?
(reply to Joe Portland)
(3) "conditions" for further aid (reply to Carl Davidson)
(4) How to build our community (reply to Grok)
(5) Developing forms of principled cooperation
(reply to Ulyanovist)
(6) The future of the Seattle Anti-Imperialist Committee:
Real organization cannot be built on a foundation of sand
(the need for mass democracy)
==============================================================
-- Appendix -- Proposal for the kind of anti-imperialist
-- organization that our movement needs:
--
-- The Open and Democratic Anti-Imperialist Network
-- for Mass Action and Information War (ODAINMAIW)
==============================================================
----------------------------------------------------------------
(1) My mid-year report will be delayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Each year, on November 7, I post a mid-year report, which reviews
my work for the current year and compares my work with the goals
that I outline each year in my May 1 annual report (which
describes my plans for the coming year).
I would like to encourage all serious activists to do something
similar. That way -- if you have any questions about some
activist -- you can look at his annual reports and get an idea of
how realistically (or unrealistically) he views the important
tasks of our time.
My annual report for this year will be delayed. I hope to post
it next weekend.
My previous annual reports, and mid-year reports (going back to
1999) are posted here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pof-100/messages
----------------------------------------------------------------
(2) What is the source of unity in the antiwar movement?
(reply to Joe Portland)
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Portland -- Oct 30:
> Can you understand when you are being criticized? [...]
> the greatest gift we can hand the capitalist class is
> our own disunity. [...]
> I can not state these two things forcefully enough: 1) it is
> essential that all communists support the anti-Iraq War
> movement. And this means working with every organization and
> person who opposes the war. The point of the anti-war movement
> is to end this war. Nothing else. And 2) [...]
> I see the divisiveness in Marik and Seattle's positions as
> inappropriate for the anti-war movement
Joe Portland argues that we should "work with" the people like
Tim Dickinson -- the author of the Rolling Stone article which,
in hundreds of thousands of slickly printed magazines, argues
that the antiwar movement should (1) support various US
imperialist generals who have more "realistic" military plans and
(2) support the line of peace through "victory" for US
imperialism.
Bullshit.
The antiwar movement can never become powerful without working to
raise the consciousness of antiwar activists and the masses. If
we give this up in the name of "unity" -- then there will be
nothing to stop the antiwar movement from being turned into a
plaything in the hands of the ruling bourgeoisie: from being
turned into a pro-war movement.
The simple truth is that class struggle exists not only in
society as a whole -- but in the antiwar movement. Some forces
within the antiwar movement support the class interests of the
bourgeoisie and, for this reason, work to weaken and undermine
the antiwar movement. (This is particularly hard to deny when
Rolling Stone prints articles like Dickinson's.) Real unity in
the antiwar movement can only come from the forces which
represent the class interest of the working class -- which is the
only class which has a consistent material interest in opposition
to the war.
And the truth is that we do "work with" people like Dickinson.
We work on this list with Carl Davidson (who has politics which
are far more simlar to those of Dickinson than he cares to
recognize). We work with Davidson to develop clarity on the road
forward. Davidson gives his view and we give ours. Each side
presents its best arguments. And all subscribers have an
opportunity to draw their own conclusions.
----------------------------------------------------------------
(3) "conditions" for further aid (reply to Carl Davidson)
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Davidson -- November 6:
> Ben, I'm going to take your response as a surrender from you.
> You've wimped out. You can't deal my actual position on Iraq
> -- immediate and unconditional withdrawal -- so you're
> manufacturing one from positions you attribute to a handful
> of people or groups I quote. To top it off, you then call
> me 'insincere.'
> My actual position on the substance of this debate is clear
> for all to see. I'll be more than happy to debate it with
> you or anyone.
> But I'm not going to waste my time on tilting at the windmills
> of your imagination and the silliness you try to puff yourself
> up with concerning them. Now I'm getting some insight into why
> someone might want to ban you from a meeting.
Few readers, unfortunately, were moved to add their own comments
to the Davidson discussion -- so this discussion appears to have
stalled for now.
If Davidson consistently supported the demand for immediate and
unconditional withdrawal -- then I would have less of a problem
with him. Davidson claims that such a demand is his "actual
position" but cannot appear to provide a credible explanation for
(a) why he promotes an ultra-opportunist like Tom Hayden (one of
the key promoters, lionized in the Rolling Stone "peace through
victory" article, of the phony "exit plan") or (b) why he
promoted (as an example of how to mobilize for the September 24
actions) the religious misleaders who advocate a place for US
troops in Iraq.
However, what we know of Davidson's real priorities, based on the
major articles posted on website -- is that his real focus
revolves around mobilizing activists to support a section of
Democratic Party politicians who "oppose the war". But when we
look more closely -- we find that "oppose the war" is a very
flexible concept.
Davidson, of course, is expert at painting his real agenda (ie:
drawing activists into orbit around a wing of the imperialist
Democratic Party) in innocuous colors. When I earlier studied
his January 2005 article on his website (ie: "The Road Ahead
After 2004: Building a Broad Nonpartisan Alliance Against Bush
and the Far Right") I found this passage (in which Davidson very
enthusiastically quotes Hayden):
> the first step is to build pressure at congressional district
> levels to oppose any further funding or additional troops for
> war. If members of Congress balk at cutting off all assistance
> and want to propose "conditions" for further aid, it is a
> small step toward threatening funding.
To understand what this really means we need a book of political
code phrases. For example, "building pressure" means mobilizing
activists to ring doorbells for politicians. And "conditions for
further aid" include such things as a "realistic assessment of
the situation" and a pledge to "make sure our troops have
everything they need". I found this out by doing a google search
on these phrases to see how these phrases were actually being
used. These phrases and the links to the articles involved are
on my page which deals with this at
http://struggle.net/ben/2005/rcp_cries_wolf.htm (see the section
titled: "How Carl Davidson promotes illusions about the
Democratic Party ...").
As far as I am aware Davidson has done _nothing_ to repudiate his
January article, his support for Hayden or to expose the
fraudulent nature of the "exit plan" which Hayden is promoting.
And what else could we expect? Because when your agenda revolves
around a section of the Democratic Party -- then it becomes
necessary to avoid saying anything that might alienate anyone in
this system of corrupt alliances -- or which might antagonize
these imperialist politicians.
And, yes, Davidson is insincere -- and evasive. Davidson is
acting as if, by happenstance, he simply posted isolated quotes
(that he does not agree with) for people to read:
> You can't deal my actual position on Iraq [...] so you're
> manufacturing one from positions you attribute to a handful
> of people or groups I quote.
Davidson pulled this exact same stunt in his previous email. I
responded, in my October 29 reply to Davidson, by pointing out
the _context_ in which Davidson posted these quotes. Here is
what I said:
> 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.
After I demonstrated that Davidson agrees with Tom Hayden,
Davidson's response is to simple _ignore_ what I said and instead
to simply repeat his line as if he simply happened to quote Tom
Hayden -- in some innocuous context. This is not the way a
sincere person acts. In fact this is not the way that _anyone_
acts who takes responsibility for their actions.
When I quote someone I give a definite indication of my attitude
toward the person I quote. Speficially: I make it clear to
readers whether I agree, disagree, agree partially or whatever.
If Davidson promotes Tom Hayden's politics on his website then he
should not act, here, as if he simply happened to quote Hayden in
some innocuous context.
Of course Davidson could have protested that his web site
promoted Hayden's political agenda before Hayden began to so
heavily promote the phony "exit plan". But this kind of defense
(if true) has several problems for Davidson:
(1) This kind of defense would invite an examination
of the relationship between Hayden's phony
"exit plan" and the common politics that both
Hayden and Davidson support: sucking the energy
of activists into schemes to get Democratic Party
politicians elected. The problem is that the
latter leads to the former. Once you have gotten
sucked into the politics of the imperialist
Democratic Party -- then all kinds of betrayals
inevitably follow.
(2) This kind of defense would raise the question
of why Davidson will not repudiate his January
article and denounce Hayden and the phony
"exit plan"
(3) This kind of defense is undermined by the other
quote from Davidson concerning religious
misleaders who supported the deployment of US
troops to the Iraqi borders. Davidson posted
this as an example of how to mobilize people
for the September 24 actions -- as if it is ok
to promote imperialist ideology if it is done
for the purpose of mobilizing people to an
action.
We are not, of course, putting Davidson on trial. And we will
treat Davidson with respect. But anyone in the antiwar movement
who claims to understand the path forward must be subject to
careful and critical evaluation. Davidson does say a lot of
pretty and interesting things. But so do all the other
charlatans.
I conclude that if Davidson now claims to be for immediate and
unconditional withdrawal -- that this is little more than an
"official position" to be used and traded in manuevers and
negotiations. This is a common tactic used by these kinds of
wheeler-dealers. They will promote one or two mass actions --
which they view as a bargaining chip to be used to "put pressure"
on the imperialist politicians with whom they are negotiating.
Of course as soon as deal is reached -- the mass actions are
called off. This is a very old story.
The solution to this is that we must learn how to organize
ourselves independent of these slippery wheeler-dealers.
There is a struggle of ideas, a struggle for consciousness, in
the antiwar movement. The antiwar movement can only become
powerful by being transformative in its nature: it must change
everything it touches -- it must raise the consciousness of
activists and the masses concerning not only the war itself --
but also concerning the kind of political and economic system
under which we live -- an imperialist system that will inevitably
launch one imperialist war after the other -- until it is
overthrown.
Davidson and I have had several exchanges and at this point have
little to say to one another. I do not believe that I (or
anyone) will be able to get a straight answer from him explaining
his real agenda. And Davidson asserts that I am a wimp because I
evaluate his real politics on the basis of his actions as a whole
-- rather than the words which come out of his mouth on this
list.
Finally, I will add that my quarrel is not with Davidson as a
person. My quarrel is with the political trends which are using
Davidson. There is a real contradiction, a real struggle, in
society and in the antiwar movement, between the material
interests of opposing classes. This contradiction/struggle is
not only real -- it is immense. In comparison to this Davidson
and I, as individuals, are only tiny particles.
----------------------------------------------------------------
(4) How to build our community (reply to Grok)
----------------------------------------------------------------
Grok -- Oct 30:
> We on the revolutionary Left are in a rather dangerous, even
> perilous, situation in North America right now -- all of us
> -- whether we acknowledge this ominous reality or not; and
> so *it behooves us to work in as good a faith as possible
> together, in spite of our _secondary_ and _tertiary_
> differences*. Our very lives depend on this. No joke.
Grok has good sentiment about a lot of things. Grok has a deeply
serious side. I agreed with much of his post and considered it,
on the whole, as useful.
However Grok also has a tendency, at times, to be full of hot
air.
The paragraph above displays both tendencies. When Grok
describes our need to work together in spite of our secondary and
tertiary differences -- he is correct. This was (according to my
best guess) a comment on the position of the LRP which cut off
discussions with the ALC on the excuse that the ALC had different
views concerning how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
But the stuff about our lives being in danger -- is basically
nonsense.
It is not true. Not here and not now.
There are countries where the lives of activists are in danger
every day. And here in the United States and Canada this same
situation may come about in future decades.
But we should avoid moralizing and fear-mongering. I created a
web page where I criticized the RCP for this. It is located at:
http://struggle.net/ben/2005/rcp_cries_wolf.htm . Frightening
activists, especially younger activists who may lack the
experience to know hot air when they see it, often has the
practical effect of driving them into the waiting arms of
social-democracy.
* * * * * *
I believe that there are readers on this list who would like to
help build this community but who do not know what to do to help
make this happen. Some ideas may be found in my posts at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theorist/messages (which reproduces
most of my posts to this list). Articles on the theoretical
front of work can be found in the "recommended reading" section
of the page at: http://MediaWeapon.com . However many readers
here, it appears, have little interest in theoretical issues and
would like to see a practical program of work which they can both
understand and assist. The problem is that this community has
not developed much in the way of a practical program of work. I
would like to see such a program of work get developed. But it
is not necessarily easy to make this happen. Our tasks are
complex and our community has not yet attracted a critical mass
of experienced activists who understand what needs to be done and
who are determined to advance our mission. Until that happens we
are likely to experience a protracted period in which we
gradually accumulate activists and gradually accumulate clarity
concerning our mission.
I put together a proposed program of action at the top of the
Media Weapon web page -- but it appears to be too abstract to be
meaningful to most subscribers. I hope to eventually help make
it a concrete reality.
My guess is that, as far as useful practical work, a good place
to start would be for us to learn how to syndicate articles to
Indymedia and to leftist and antiwar email lists -- and to
develop the ability to reply in a timely way to the discussion
that is stimulated by our posts. Doing this successfully will
require a team effort. But for such a team to emerge -- we need
to (1) recognize that this kind of work is very important and (2)
develop a minimal level of agreement concerning the message that
we want to broadcast and defend. Such a team would also require
great amounts of humility and maturity.
----------------------------------------------------------------
(5) Developing forms of principled cooperation
(reply to Ulyanovist)
----------------------------------------------------------------
First, it was a minor matter that you made public the
correspondence from the LRP without an explicit agreement from
them that this was ok. If I recall correctly, I advised you in
April that it was ok to make their correspondence public.
The issue here is that all genuinely militant individuals and
organizations must get used to public discussion, debate and
negotiation. There is _no other way_ out of the incredibly
putrid swamp in which we find ourselves.
Only by means of public discussion and debate will it be possible
for activists to understand (and intervene and influence) all the
contradictions and political diseases that have led to the
complete paralysis of our movement.
Those individuals and organizations which want to fight -- will
learn to fight in public.
It is as simple as that.
Yes, you could first have asked the LRP if it would be ok to
publish the correspondence. But they had already, in effect,
told you to get lost -- that they had no interest in hearing from
you again.
* * * * * *
I appreciate both your comments and those of Grok which followed.
It can be useful for you to reply to the LRP and to, carefully
and diplomatically, point out their hypocrisy and challenge them
to address the issues you have raised. If nothing else, this may
get the attention of DJ who is enamored of their pomp and
circumstance.
But there is also a need for plain talk.
The LRP cut off discussion with your group, it appears to me,
because you correctly criticized them for failing to distribute
leaflets at the major antiwar actions. All the fancy talk about
the evils of propaganda blocs and the quotes from Trotsky, Cannon
and Shachtman are just smoke.
In a similar way, all the sound and fury (and distortion) of the
LRP against the CVO for supposedly failing to support the Iraqi
resistence -- is likely nothing more than a counterattack against
the CVO after the CVO correctly criticized the LRP for failing to
support the struggle against the draft.
The first rule of these kinds of sectarian organizations is:
Never admit a mistake.
These organizations are loath to admit a mistake because they are
held together with a sectarian glue that is based on a confidence
game. These organizations cannot survive and successfully
compete against other, similar sectarian organizations unless
they have supporters who have confidence that they are the
anointed vanguard organization. If they admit a mistake -- they
risk losing the support of the warm, living bodies of activists
-- and they risk collapse. So to these organziations --
admitting a mistake is difficult -- is often seen as leading to
annihilation.
* * * * * *
In your reply to the LRP, in the section titled: "Willingness to
Fight", you noted:
> In any serious struggle, the contending parties will seek
> to put to good use whatever forces that may be available.
I would like you to recognize that I am here to fight and that we
must think about methods of principled cooperation. I
distributed (counting both the November 2 as well as Sept 24
actions) 200 copies of my leaflet on organization (which also
included your March article) and 1200 copies of other leaflets
(which included our joint statement against the influence of the
Democratic Party in the antiwar movement).
I would have liked to do more. Well before the September actions
I proposed a joint leaflet. You were interested in doing a joint
leaflet with the LRP -- but not with me.
Well -- doing a joint leaflet is sometimes not practical. But
the only way to learn practical methods of collaboration -- is to
make the effort. The LRP has their heads shoved too far into
their rear ends to fight effectively. I removed my head from my
rear end some time ago. It is amazing with how much greater
clarity I can now see.
I hope that you give this consideration. I also hope that you
give consideration to our discussion concerning the principle of
political transparency. Yes, it was important for you to reply
to DJ. I think it was via DJ's blog (before he liquidated it)
that you found this list. But neither DJ nor the LRP appear to
recognize the necessity to work with you. I do.
I do not have any specific proposals for joint work at this
moment (I am too exhausted to sort this out right now). I
recognize that you are as pressed for time as I am and that
developing forms of cooperation that are practical is not
necessarily quick or easy. But my hope is that you will give
thought to this.
----------------------------------------------------------------
(6) The future of the Seattle Anti-Imperialist Committee:
Real organization cannot be built on a foundation of sand
----------------------------------------------------------------
I hope that subscribers have had an opportunity to read Edward's
excellent summation of the Novemebr 2 actions, which he posted
here on Wednesday nite.
There were probably a thousand (or more) high school kids (most
of whom had never been to a demonstration before) who walked out
of school and participated in one of the two events that was
organized here in Seattle. This was a great thing! It was great
to see so many new faces -- which were full of excitement and
enthusiasm.
The trotskyist coalition and the maoist rcp (ie: "world can't
wait") coalition both held rallies at the same place -- but at
different times -- in order to keep their actions separate. This
is an example of naked sectarianism.
Activists and the youth at this event were able to get 3 separate
leaflets which all had similar politics that opposed the
influence of the Democratic Party. The CVO had an excellent
leaflet (I have posted a copy of it to the pof-300 list). I had
my leaflet (which I posted last month). And the Seattle
Anti-Imperialist Committee (SAIC) had its leaflet (which Edward
posted here October 30).
* * * * * *
SAIC represents an effort at joint work by: (a) local CVO
supporters, (b) Edward and (c) me. We all worked together to
discuss and edit the leaflet -- which was focused on explaining
what imperialism is.
SAIC had a meeting yesterday to discuss its future.
* * * * * *
Earlier this month, the leading local supporter of the CVO
proposed that I be banned from attending the public meetings of
SAIC. The reason for this was that I had made clear that (a) I
would not be a member of SAIC but would only work with SAIC in an
informal way and (b) I would not distribute SAIC leaflets unless
they were "interactive" (ie: also posted on SAIC's website along
with a form by which readers could easily post their public
comments or criticisms).
I have taken these positions because this is the only way I can
effectively protest against dysfunctional forms of organization
and dysfunctional (and obsolete) methods of literature
distribution.
At the meeting yesterday, the CVO supporter retreated from his
insistence that I be banned from SAIC public meetings. The
practical effect of this retreat is not clear at this time. If
SAIC develops its activity by means of closed meetings to which
only members are allowed -- then I will be effectively excluded
from playing much of a role in SAIC's development.
I am in favor of all of us working together in an informal way.
If the other comrades insist on creating in haste another
organization of the usual kind -- then I am in favor of making
SAIC's working meetings open to activists such as myself -- so
that I can contribute _without_ endorsing an attempt to create
organization which divorced from the reasons for its existence --
and which is built on a foundation of sand.
But the CVO supporters who hold predominant influence in SAIC see
matters very differently. Instead of taking the necessary time
to discuss and sort out what kind of democratic mass organization
the movement needs -- they have insisted that such a course of
action would be the path of stagnation and "sterile debates".
In other words we don't have time to talk about the direction we
must go (ie: because such talk is supposedly "sterile debate").
Instead we must march (even if it is in the wrong direction, even
if we will end up marching on the road to nowhere).
At yesterday's meeting Edward gave his opinion that I was being
sectarian because: (a) I refused to be a member of (ie: to
effectively endorse) what I consider a dysfunctional organization
and (b) I refused to distribute leaflets that were not
interactive. I asked Edward to make his criticism public here on
the pof-200 list but it is unclear if this will happen.
I am using this opportunity to again ask Edward to make his
criticism public.
If the current differences are significant enough to act as a
_barrier_ that will exclude me from participating in the life or
development of the local anti-imperialist grouping (which I
played a decisive role in creating -- by assisting Edward in
breaking from the pseudo-leftism of the RCP and by encouraging
Edward to make contact with a local CVO supporter) -- then I
believe it would be entirely approporiate and necessary for
Edward to make his criticism public.
We are supposedly working to build a community here. How are
activists like Marik or Ulyanovist or Lonnie to understand this
issue if they cannot know Edward's views on the matter in
Edward's own words?
If this matter is important -- then it deserves public
discussion.
It is as simple as that.
* * * * * *
I have two basic problems with SAIC. The reasons that I consider
it to be a dysfunctional form of organization are:
a) SAIC is not organized in a way that
is consistent with the kind of mass
democratic decision-making and struggle
that our movement needs.
b) SAIC has no commitment to a long-term
program of work to capture the
attention and imagination of serious
activists on a national scale.
* * * * * *
Organization is our fundamental weapon.
Creating organization must be at the center of all of our
activity. As such, we must take it seriously. (That is why I
oppose hasty attempts to slap together an ill-considered
dysfunctional organization that makes it more difficult for us to
understand that we still _lack_ the kind of organization which we
need.)
I want to help put together a _real_ organization -- an
organization with the ability to capture the attention and
imagination of activists everywhere who are struggling to
puncture the reformist stranglehold on the movement.
So I want to review, in the appendix below, the features which I
believe are essential for a real organization of the kind we need
-- an organization which can help set the hearts of antiwar
activists on fire.
And there are two essential features: (a) mass democracy and (b)
a commitment to a long-term program of work that corresponds to
the needs of our time.
* * * * * *
The question of mass democracy is central.
The importance of this question can be expressed simply: if we
can create a mass anti-imperialist organization where decisions
and struggle are based on mass democracy -- then we will capture
the imagination of serious activists everywhere -- and be in a
position to change the dynamics of the entire antiwar movement.
Put another way -- if we can understand and implement genuine
mass democracy -- then we will win. On the other hand, if we
fail to take this question seriously, if we fail to understand
what mass democracy is -- then we will end up with a typical
organization that will accomplish relatively little and which
will eventually evaporate. In other words we will lose.
* * * * * *
But what is mass democracy?
The CVO supporters who hold sway in SAIC argue that democracy can
be reduced to a simple mechanical formula. According to this
formula -- democracy is equivalent to "winner take all" majority
rule whereby the majority has effective and exclusive control
over everything the organization does.
Consider an example of how this formula might work: If, in SAIC,
the CVO supporters can secure a 4 to 3 majority by voting as a
bloc -- then the CVO supporters can control every word of every
leaflet the organization creates as well as the entire content of
the organization's website and everything that goes out over the
organization's email list.
Under this view of "democracy" those who vote with the majority
have no need to explain to the activist community (or even to
other members of the organization) the reasons _why_ they vote
the way that they do. The majority has no responsibility to be
accountable to anyone for any reason.
This was my experience with SAIC's predecessor: SAIA (ie: the
Seattle Anti-Imperialist Alliance, which existed from October
2001 to July 2002). The five supporters of the CVO in SAIA were
the majority and could do whatever they wanted. They made at
least one decision that was completely screwball (ie: to
eliminate the webpages which contained copies of all the SAIA
leaflets) and for which, to this day, they have never given me
any explanation of _why_ this screwball decision was made (other
than that they were the majority and could do whatever they damn
well wanted). This same majority prevented me from sending out
to activists on the SAIA email list my criticism of the decision
to liquidate SAIA. This was in glaring contradiction to the SAIA
unity statement: "who we are and what we believe" which made
clear that "we are committed to making serious criticisms of us
public". My criticism was serious -- but it was not made public
-- it was suppressed. I had helped to build SAIA's email list,
collecting email addresses for it as part of my work with the
organization. But when the time came to use the email list in
accord with the "who we are and what we believe" statement that
defined the organization -- tough shit. What was the reason that
the majority voted to toss aside the principles of the unity
statement and suppress my criticism? Your guess is as good as
mine. To this day none of them have told me. They didn't have
to. They were the majority. The majority can do whatever it
wants.
This is the CVO's version of "democracy": bloc voting and no
accountability to activists in the movement -- no accountability
to anyone at any time for any reason.
And what about the rights of the minority under this kind of
democracy? Well the minority has the right to hit the road. End
of story. Love it or leave it.
* * * * * *
Now readers have the right to ask me my view of an organization
that is based on genuine mass democracy. It is one thing for me
to criticize the CVO's mechanical formula for democracy. But for
my criticism to be credible -- I must offer an alternative. And
that is what I sketch out in the appendix below.
I will not attempt to give a precise definition of mass
democracy. I understand the concept well enough to understand
that I am unable to define it with precision. (I have enough
respect for the concept and its importance to recognize my
limitations.) I do understand that mass democracy rests on a
foundation of democratic rights (a concept which is more
concrete, and easier to define than mass democracy). And for
this reason I _do_ sketch out below the democratic rights which
members and supporters of the organization (as well as activists
at large) must have. And I do understand that mass democracy
must also insist on the principle of individual responsibility
and accountability to the wider activist community. More that
this, I recognize that mass democracy is not possible without
open politics (a phrase which means the same thing as "political
transparency"). And this means that a mass democratic
organization must give activists everywhere a window into the
internal struggles which define the future of the organization.
I believe in the need for mass democracy. I may not be able to
define it with precision but I know it when I see it. And, more
to the point, so will hundreds of thousands of activists.
Hundreds of thousands of activists will not be fooled by
mechanical formulas which are a _substitute_ for mass democracy.
If we want the attention of hundreds of thousands of activists --
we must give them the real thing. They will know it when they
see it.
* * * * * *
What follows in the appendix below is in the form of a proposal.
I am making this proposal to the comrades in SAIC. I should make
clear that this proposal does not have the chance of a snowball
in hell of being adopted. If I confined myself to what stood a
chance of being accepted -- then -- well ... I wouldn't propose
anything.
But I have a responsibility to my comrades and former comrades.
My responsibility is to tell my comrades the truth. My comrades
want to change the world. My comrades want to tell activists the
truth about how the bourgeoisie and its reformist allies have a
stranglehold on the antiwar movement. My comrades want to break
this stranglehold. My comrades want to arm themselves -- and
activists -- with the weapon of organization. My comrades have
armed themselves with a form of organization which is crippled
from birth and which can only fizzle out. My comrades have need
of a real organization. And so, I will say to my comrades: this
is closer to what a real organization would look like.
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
============================================================
--- Appendix ---
Proposal for the kind of anti-imperialist organization
that our movement needs:
-- The Open and Democratic Anti-Imperialist Network
-- for Mass Action and Information War (ODAINMAIW)
============================================================
mission statement:
------------------
I don't have a worked out mission statement but I believe we need
one. It must be short (preferably a single sentence) and printed
on every leaflet and at the top of every web page. The mission
statement should reflect the ideas in the proposed name of the
organization (see above) and also describe our goal as "the
creation of an anti-imperialist pole of attraction within the
antiwar movement".
Why use the phrase "pole of attraction" rather than "trend" or
"organization"?
Because we want to convey the idea that we want to put something
together that includes multiple trends that will compete with and
struggle against one another as well as cooperate. This is what
happens in any movement or organization which has a genuinely
mass character. As the movement polarizes, various trends (and
parts of trends -- as some trends break apart as the field
strength, so to speak, increases) will be drawn to the
anti-imperialist pole. The contradictions between the trends
which gravitate to the anti-imperialist pole will not disappear
-- but rather will become more concentrated and will likely
manifest themselves in more visible ways. It will be necessary
that we recognize the inevitability of the struggle between
trends and take steps to assist the development of this struggle
so that it takes place in conditions most suitable to the
development and raising of consciousness.
The phrase "pole of attraction" also embodies another key idea:
there can be only two main poles of attraction in the antiwar
movement because there are only two main contending classes in
society. One pole of attraction in the movement, the liberal,
so-called "lesser evil" pole, represents the interests and the
influence of bourgeois, pro-imperialist politics within the
antiwar movement. The anti-imperialist pole of attraction
represents the material interests of the working class.
This liberal, "lesser evil" pole of attraction today dominates
the antiwar movement. It is not seen today as a pole of
attraction mainly because it is has such overwhelming dominance
and also because the anti-imperialist pole of attraction is so
weakly developed, so paralyzed and ill-formed, that it remains on
the margins of visibility and awareness.
As the anti-imperialist pole of attraction develops, so will the
antiwar movement as a whole -- as hundreds of thousands of
activists, for the first time, have an opportunity to see, and
participate in, a relatively clear-cut struggle between two
opposing sets of ideas, ideologies, tactics -- and class
interests.
We must also recognize that no one (including ourselves) "owns"
the anti-imperialist pole of attraction or has exclusive rights
to it. Our responsibility is to help create a pole of attraction
that is open to participation, in various ways, from _all_
activists who recognize and participate in the struggle between
the two poles in the antiwar movement. We must recognize that it
would be unprincipled, and a fundamental betrayal of the working
class, for us to misuse or abuse our position as "first-movers"
to attempt to lock out or shut out, for sectarian reasons, our
political opponents who also have anti-imperialist politics.
1) democratic rights:
---------------------
a) READERS will have the right to post comments,
questions and criticisms on every web page
which contains a copy of printed agitation
(and on every web page which reports on
a formal vote within the organization).
Readers will be able to make comments without
the need for registration and the comments
will be public immediately without the need
for prior review. All serious comments will
remain permanently posted. We will only
delete comments which contain threats,
promote neo-nazi views or websites, include
racist or homophobic abuse, personal or
apolitical insults or which are obviously
insincere, apolitical or commercial spam.
All printed agitation (and all copies posted
to internet forums such as Indymedia or email
lists) will include a notice: (1) giving the
web page where the agitation is posted and
(2) explaining that criticisms by readers
can be posted and read there.
b) MEMBERS of the organization will have the
right to a defined space on the organization's
web site -- including space on a "member's
page" where they can present their views on
whatever they like -- including their views
on the future direction of the organization
and their criticisms of others in the
organization; and also including a defined
space on each web page which reports on a
formal vote (see below for more on that)
Members will have the right to post replies
to all comments posted by readers on any page.
Members will have the right to send out email
to everyone on the organization's email list
at least once per month.
c) ACTIVISTS will have the right to have a
clear window into the internal contradictions
of the organization by means of point (b)
above and will have the right to intervene in
these struggles by means of point (a) above
2) democratic (and accountable) decision-making
-----------------------------------------------
Decisions will be made, whenever possible, by consensus or
unanimous agreement -- with all sides making efforts to present
their best arguments and thinking. In the event that a decision
cannot be made by this means -- then a formal vote will become
necessary. In order to discourage the common practice of bloc
voting in which individuals are not accountable for their votes
-- we will make use of the following principles:
a) A vote will not become valid unless supported
by two-thirds of the membership.
b) Each issue on which a formal vote becomes
necessary will be recorded on a separate
"voting issue" page on the organization's
website. All members will have a defined
space (ie: such as a floating window) in
which they can present their views on the
issue. All readers will have the right
to post comments, questions and criticisms
on each "voting issue" page.
c) No vote will be valid except when the voter
explains, using at least 25 words on the
"vote issue" page, the reasons for his or
her vote.
Members who vote will not be required to post their reasons using
their normal pseudonyms. They can use "X1247" or anything else
they want. However, we will encourage them to use their normal
pseudonyms. The security considerations here are outweighed by
the value of encouraging everyone to establish their individual
reputation for careful, principled decision-making.
These principles will strongly encourage decision-making by
consensus whenever possible. When not possible, these principles
will help to enforce a minimal level of individual accountability
by organization members and will give activists in the community
a window into (and an opportunity to comment on) our
decision-making process.
In addition, we should have public working meetings at least once
a month. (Our aim should be to build up enough energy and
interest from activists to eventually be able to sustain weekly
meetings.) Anyone who opposes the war must be welcome to come
and observe and have their say. Membership will be open to
everyone who demonstrates, by their practice, that they agree
with our mission statement. Decisions on who qualifies, and is
accepted or expelled from membership, will be the same as any
other decision: by unanimous decision -- or by formal vote.
3) program of work to build a revolutionary channel
---------------------------------------------------
In addition to distributing agitation locally by printed means --
we will be committed to distributing on a national (and,
eventually, international) scale by digital means.
This means that we will work to systematically build up a
syndication channel that makes use of Indymedia sites, leftist or
antiwar email lists and other internet-based forums.
We will build this channel in an interactive way -- where we
develop the ability to systematically respond to serious
comments, questions and criticisms that respond to our posted
agitation.
We would probably start modestly -- for example, posting to three
Indymedia sites and three email lists. Each posting would
include notice of our "Service Level Agreement" (ie: SLA, a
commonly used term in the business community) that might be
something similar to the following:
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Our "Service Level Agreement" to other activists:
> -----------------------------------------------------
> This is being posted at 8 pm on Tuesday.
> We will check this email list or Indymedia site
> on 8 pm Wednesday for replies -- and will do
> our best to have at least a short response by
> 8 pm Thursday to all serious questions or
> criticisms which include:
> "RR" (ie: response requested) in the title.
> -----------------------------------------------------
The details of the SLA, as far as what is practical, will be
determined as we gain experience. We will need to have an SLA
both in order to (a) avoid the apperance that we are simply
"spamming" (ie: doing a one-way broadcast) indymedia sites and
email lists and (b) actually develop the channel and our ability
to respond quickly and respond well. This will prepare us for
the future as we expand the channel.
Responses will be by individuals. Each member of the
organization will commit to a certain number of minutes per week
or per month (for example: 45 minutes per week) in order to help
achieve our SLA. We may, at times, fail to achieve our SLA. As
we gain experience, we will learn what is realistic. More than
this, we will gain valuable experience in live interaction with
friendly and hostile trends in a wide variety of forums.
I believe that we should start with a modest goal: send our
anti-imperialist leaflet to 3 indymedia sites and 3 email lists.
I believe that we should set a two-year goal of developing our
channel to the point where we can post something of high quality
(and respond within a reasonable SLA) to 50 Indymedia sites and
50 email lists -- and do this on a monthly (if not weekly) basis.
Once we do this -- we will be on our way toward capturing the
attention and imagination of a new generation of activists.
Further reading:
----------------
-- What kind of organization
-- does the antiwar movement need?
An organization capable of overthrowing the system
of imperialist rule cannot be built on a foundation of sand.
Only principled, transparent and long-term collaboration
between serious activists can:
(1) organize a decisive break from the
confinement of liberal-imperialist politics,
(2) mobilize the masses in their millions and
(3) chart the couse forward to a world without
imperialist war or capitalist exploitation
http://struggle.net/Ben/2005/organization.htm
My suppressed criticism of SAIA: "The liquidation
of SAIA and the struggle to create a revolutionary
channel" (July 2002)
http://Leninism.org/stream/2002/saia-recoils.htm
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
--------------------~-->
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your
home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/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/
