(forwarded from the pof-200 list)
-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Seattle
Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2005 2:35 PM
To: 'pof-200'; 'pof-300'
Subject: [pof-200] MF # 51 -- The 2nd Axis of Development (the
struggle against sectarianism)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Monthly Focus # 51 -- / building a community of information war
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The 2nd Axis of Development
(the struggle against sectarianism)
(1) Frank's criticism of me and
the struggle against sectarianism
(2) The search for principled cooperation
(reply to Ulyanovist)
(3) Cartoon online: E-Z Guide to the Left in Seattle
============================================================
Appendix --- We need mass democracy (collection of articles)
============================================================
------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Frank's criticism of me and
the struggle against sectarianism
------------------------------------------------------------
Recently Frank, a member of the Communist Voice Organization
(CVO) and the Seattle Anti-Imperialist Committee (SAIC) sent a
series of emails to SAIC members as well as to Marik and me for
forwarding to the pof-200 or pof-300 lists. These emails consist
of criticism of me in response to my recent criticisms of Frank
and of SAIC.
Frank poured a lot of his time and energy (which is very limited
and very precious to him) into these 3 emails, which total more
than 12 thousand words.
I consider this to be very significant.
I have known Frank a long time: thirty years. I have immense
admiration and respect for him: maybe as much as I do for anyone
I have known.
This does not of course mean that I agree with Frank's current
views. It will often be the case that activists whom we deeply
admire are also deeply mistaken.
One of the most important functions of a focused community of
activists -- will be to shed light on the kinds of contradictions
which exist between activists such as Frank and myself: to
illuminate the principles involved; raise the consciousness of
the community; and make possible the resolution of the
contradictions.
This is what oil does in an engine: lubricates the moving parts
so that they can work together smoothly and with a minimum of
friction.
* * * * * *
The first axis of development:
the struggle against reformism
------------------------------
In many of my posts I have presented the view that the main
contradiction in the antiwar movement (and in all the left or
progressive movements considered as a whole) is that between the
reformist and revolutionary orientations.
The reformist orientation is often considered (in particular by
people who are new to political struggle) to be the struggle for
reforms. However this is highly mistaken idea, because the
revolutionary orientation also struggles (far more effectively)
for reforms.
The reformist orientation originates from and is anchored to
social strata (ie: liberal-labor politicians, trade union
bureaucrats, religious misleaders, poverty pimps, "progressive"
media personalities and professional "opinion leaders", etc)
which have relatively comfortable, ideologically-based jobs that
are dependent on the bourgeoisie. The reformist orientation
works to "cool down" and weaken the various mass movements; to
soften the movements up with unrealistic schemes (and, sometimes,
genuine concessions) in order to liquidate the independent and
militant character of these movements.
The revolutionary orientation, on the other hand, works to
strengthen the independent and militant character of the mass
movements so that (a) concessions can be wrested from the
bourgeoisie and also so that (b) the consciousness of the masses
can be raised and the mass movements themselves can be
strengthened and merged into a revolutionary movement capable of
drawing tens of millions into active, conscious struggle to
overthrow the entire system of bourgeois rule.
The contradiction between these two orientations manifests itself
in struggle that takes place everywhere; at all levels, conscious
and unconscious, in all social movements that have a mass
character. Sometimes the struggle takes place in forms which are
relatively clear -- and sometimes in conditions of great
unclarity.
The struggle between the reformist and revolutionary orientations
takes place also on the pof-200 list. The motion that has
developed here against the influence of Carl Davidson and the
"Rolling Stone" article is an example of this struggle.
This struggle is the great motor of the development of all mass
movements and it is the motor of the development of this list as
well.
And we can learn a lot from this struggle.
One of the first things we learn when we participate in the
struggle against reformism -- is that, at the present time, most
activists have only a dim awareness of what this struggle is
about or even that it exists at all.
The section of activists who understand what reformism is (ie:
who understand it as being something different than the struggle
for reforms; who understand reformism as the influence of social
strata whose "job" it is to liquidate the independent character
of the mass movements) is very small in comparison to the
movement as a whole: probably less than one or two percent of
activists are conscious of need to fight the reformist influence.
And this makes it very important that those activists who _do_
understand the need to struggle against reformism -- find ways to
work together.
And this brings us to the 2nd axis of development: against
everything that blocks anti-reformist activists from working
together.
The second axis of development:
the struggle against sectarianism
---------------------------------
There are many different views concerning what is meant by the
term "sectarianism". The most important thing to understand
about sectarianism -- is that it works to ISOLATE activists from
one another. Underline that word: ISOLATE. It is going to come
up again and again. Sectarianism is a political disease that
makes it difficult for activists to work together.
Now, just to reduce potential misunderstandings, I will clarify
that, even in the absence of the sectarian disease, there are
many political obstacles to activists working together. As I
already mentioned, the reformist disease is the main obstacle.
For example Carl Davidson and I are probably never going to be
working closely together -- because our fundamental goals are
incompatible: Carl works at a deep level to strengthen the
influence of the imperialist Democratic Party in the movement --
and I work at a deep level to weaken and undermine the influence
of the Democratic Party.
But there are many examples of activists who recognize the need
to oppose the reformist influence -- and who still find obstacles
on the path to principled cooperation.
And the struggle to overcome these obstacles -- is the struggle
against sectarianism.
Your help is needed:
--------------------
Anti-reformist activists, such as Frank and I (as well as Edward,
Ulyanovist, Marik, Nick, Grok, Lonnie, Jackson, Dean, DJ and a
number of other subscribers to this list) need to find ways to
work together. We have different opinions on many things,
including different opinions concerning what should be our
priorities. We need to work to resolve our differences in the
course of:
(a) practical work together and
(b) calm and open discussion.
And this is where your help is needed.
Frank has made a significant contribution with his recent posts.
He has made a valiant effort to publicly discuss his differences
with me. Frank has also made clear that he pays careful
attention to the views of activists. For example, in October
Frank was presenting arguments for why I should be banned from
SAIC meetings. By November Frank had retreated from this
position. Why? Because Frank realized that such a ban was not
acceptable to a number of other activists -- including activists
who subscribe to this forum.
I have put together web pages where Frank's criticisms, as well
as other recent and related criticisms that I have made of Frank
and SAIC, are indexed and summarized. Nearly all the articles
are now on web pages with a small public forum devoted to each
article. I include the text from the main web page in the
appendix below. The page itself can be found at:
http://struggle.net/ben/2005/mass-democracy
I am asking everyone on this list who is wants to help in the
struggle against sectarianism, to spend a few minutes (or more)
looking at the posts which Frank and I have made. I know that it
is often not practical for someone who is not familiar in depth
with some minor controversy to find the time to read and
understand details of a struggle which has developed over many
years. At the same time I should make clear that the kinds of
obstacles that stand in the way of principled cooperation between
activists -- fall into general patterns that we must train
ourselves to recognize and deal with.
I will reply to Frank, probably sometime in December. What I
need to know before I reply -- is what questions that _you_ would
like me to answer. Frank raises many points in his twelve
thousand plus words. Some points may be obscure and unimportant.
Other points may be deserving of great attention.
I need your help to make my reply to Frank concise and focused.
Let me know: what are his strong points to which you would like
to see me reply?
Aside from the irrelevant material, there are a lot of important
principles at stake. To date, Frank has been the _only_ person
who has commented on my proposal for the kind of organization
which I believe the antiwar movement needs. Such an organization
will have:
(a) democratic rights for minority sections
(b) democratic and accountable decision-making
(c) a program of work that involves
making systematic and repeated contact
with activists on a national scale.
Frank opposes my proposal. I need to know what _you_ think of
it.
More than this, Frank and I have different views concerning
whether or not it must be one of our priorities to build a
community of activists who are focused on our mission and who
have the right and the ability, in a practical sense, to freely
exchange ideas. I believe that, under modern conditions, any
organization which is serious about being deserving of the
attention of the mass of activists -- will work to build such a
community -- and will not simply rely on Indymedia for
interactivity.
And Frank and I have radically different views concerning how to
consummate the marriage between our present-day tasks and our
long-term goals. The truth is that without this marriage we are
lost. Without this marriage we have nothing.
I want to reach Frank. He is my inspiration. I love the man. I
want to touch Frank's heart and conscience and help Frank to
overcome the errors which effectively undermine and sabotage so
much of his own hard work.
And I can never do this without your help.
So ask yourself: What can you do today to help develop discussion
and focus on the key questions which are deserving of attention?
Ask yourself -- and tell me and other subscribers: what are the
decisive issues which we must work to resolve?
------------------------------------------------------------
(2) The search for principled cooperation
(reply to Ulyanovist)
------------------------------------------------------------
On November 9 Ulyanovist posted to pof-300 a correction to my
Monthly Focus #50:
> In a recent post Ben Seattle wrote regarding
> the AL Collective:
>
> "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."
> -- Ben Seattle
>
> Ben is a very hard-working individual, who sometimes
> has a lot on his mind. From time to time, he may not
> phrase things quite accurately. I think what Ben meant
> to say is something like this.
>
> "The ALC did express interest in work toward developing
> a joint leaflet. They also made contributions to the
> discussion around a joint leaflet. However, after I
> (Ben Seattle) made it clear that I thought there was
> little chance in developing sufficient political
> agreement for a joint leaflet, their interest waned.
> I (Ben Seattle) offered as an alternative that each
> side should put out its own leaflet, but that we should
> work on joint "statements" that could be included in
> those leaflets. I wrote one such statement. Ulyanovist
> did offer some constructive criticism, which I
> incorporated in the statement. And two ALC members
> "signed" the statement. However, the ALC did not
> distribute the statement in their own leaflet, nor did
> they propose any other joint statements, so their
> interest in that project was somewhat mild" --
> imaginary statement of Ben Seattle, written by Ulyanovist
>
> That is what I think Ben meant to say, and that I think
> would have been a fairly accurate account.
It is good to have Ulyanovist on board this list and his
correction is welcome.
I also hope that Ulyanovist and others in his group can find the
time to give thought to some of the larger issues involved in the
cooperation between different political trends which is necessary
in order to overthrow the system of bourgeois rule.
My view is that, for those individuals and trends which oppose
the influence of reformism, our first priority must be to find
ways to work together. All of us. The particulars of how we do
this may not always be clear. However our responsibility must be
to find practical ways of moving this forward. This email list
(which has received posts from supporters of the CVO, the LRP and
the ALC) is one example. SAIC is another example.
I proposed ways of working with the ALC. I suggested that
working together on joint statements on various key issues might
be a practical step towards eventually developing joint
agitation. A leaflet can be considered to be a series of
positions on key issues strung together in such a way as to be
easy to read, together with some kind of news-oriented
introduction that helps to grab and direct the attention of
readers. I originally had in mind joint statements on three key
issues (I do not remember if I ever actually spelled out the
proposed topics). They were:
(a) Opposition to the influence of the Democratic Party
within the antiwar and other progressive movements,
(b) For an orientation of mobilizing the masses
rather than being focused on various corrupt strata
(ie: the hacks, the misleaders, the reformist know-it-all
"progressives" who write articles for "Rolling Stone", etc)
who are in orbit around the Democratic Party, and
(c) support of the Iraqi resistence.
I originally hoped that the ALC might write the first drafts,
just to save myself a few minutes (it often takes less time and
effort to correct or improve an existing draft that to write one
from scratch). These are the same three issues that the local
September 24 committee addressed in their poster as follows:
(a) Oppose Democratic Party hijacking of the anti-war movement!
(b) For mass actions independent of the bourgeoisie
and its allies
(c) The Iraqi people have the right to resist.
Support the revolutionary-democratic struggles
of the Iraqi workers and poor!
There are a number of interesting questions that come up in
developing statements on these issues.
For example, how do we describe the corrupt strata that are in
orbit around the Democratic Party? These social strata are
sometimes called liberal-labor trends and sometimes they are
called social-democracy. I don't know if either of these
formulations is very clear to many activists. Some political
trends call these strata the "labor aristocracy" (a term that,
unfortunately, can be confusing because that term is also often
used in a very different way: to refer to relatively skilled and
well-paid sections of the working class). I often use the
phrase:
> liberal-labor politicians, trade union bureaucrats,
> religious misleaders, poverty pimps, "progressive" media
> personalities and professional "opinion leaders", etc.
Anyone who is familiar with my work has seen this phrase on many
occasions (I even used it in my cartoon). It is an awkward
phrase but it is concrete enough to be understandable and, at
least so far, I have seen none better.
(Carl Davidson, by the way, objected to this phrase when he first
saw me use it. He sarcastically asked if his yoga instructor
might be considered a "religious misleader". But later Davidson
promoted the work of such misleaders as "Clergy and Laity
Concerned About Iraq" -- who have specific ideas concerning where
"we" (ie: US imperialism) should position "our" troops in or
around Iraq.)
Another issue here concerns the resistance in Iraq. Much of it
is led by highly reactionary political trends (ie: pro-Saddam or
religious fundamentalist) and some trends are committing mass
murder against Iraqi civilians (there are reports that the US and
British are really behind some of the suicide bombings directed
against the Shite masses as part of their effort to incite a
civil war -- but I tend to doubt it).
But the basic thrust of the resistance (and the reason it is
receiving so much support amoung the masses) is against the US
occupation. And this resistance has turned out to be so powerful
that it is beginning to transform all domestic politics within
the US. The bourgeoisie is preparing to shit-can Bush if the war
continues to turn sour. On one front after another the major
bourgeois institutions are blocking Bush's initiatives and making
him look like a fool. Some have even recently "discovered" that
Bush lied to jump-start the war (never mind the fact that they
lied also and knew, just as much as Bush knew, that it was all a
sham to grab the oil and strive to establish permanent
geopolitical domination of the entire planet). Of course, if the
war starts to go better, Bush will be forgiven and will be
restored to his former position as the all-powerful idiot savant
who can do no wrong. But the war is not likely to go better.
The Iraqi masses hate US imperialism and want it out of their
country -- and the military forms of resistance are an important
expression of this. So we must support this. At the same time
we do not support the reactionary leadership which dominates the
resistance and we do not support the many atrocities directed
against Iraqi civilians. And we would need to make this all
clear in a short statement.
Clarity can be very important. The LRP accused the CVO of
failing to support the resistance on the excuse that one of the
formulations in one of the CVO articles was supposedly
incomplete. This was a false accusation and the LRP was forced
to back down when I publicly confronted them on this (if they had
not backed down -- they would have forfeited influence over DJ --
who could clearly see that the LRP had misrepresented the
position of the CVO).
The LRP made these false accusations against the CVO as part of
their counter-attack against the CVO after the CVO nailed the LRP
for the LRP's idiot position in refusing to support the movement
against the draft. This is how politics often works: dirty and
unprincipled. The competition for the warm, living bodies of
activists results in all kinds of false accusations under one or
another excuse. We need to clean this all up. We can't ignore
this kind of unprincipled crap. We need to get a big broom and
sweep all of it away.
It is going to happen.
The development of communities of focused and experienced
activists who have the right to ask questions and demand answers
is going to change everything: we can take all the existing maps
of the left and throw them out.
Everything must change.
Everything will change.
Some accuse me of being dirty and unprincipled also. The
criticisms of me which Frank has posted here have numerous
strengths. But there are also a number of weaknesses. Frank and
the supporters of the CVO argue, to the best of their ability,
that I am being dirty and unprincipled when I calmly and
objectively describe their actions and their objectives. They
are sincere in this in the sense that they really believe what
they say. But the LRP supporters really believed their
unprincipled accusations also. This is how sectarian politics
work. The guiding principle is to shove your head into a place
that can't be reached by sunlight. The guiding tactic is: "fling
shit and flee".
The struggle to find ways that all of us (the CVO, the LRP, the
ALC and the various anti-reformist activists who remain
independent) can combine our energies in a principled way stands
above all these quarrels and all this petty crap.
And this struggle is equivalent to the struggle against
sectarianism. Because that is how we must understand what
sectarianism is. It impacts all of us. Ignoring the
contradiction between Frank and I is equivalent to thanking god
that the leak is not on your end of the boat.
I need your help Ulyanovist. I want to develop joint work with
you and your comrades. I have no blueprint for how this is going
to happen. What I have are a few scattered ideas. But more than
this I have a determination to make this happen.
I understand it is necessary.
I want you, also, to understand that this is necessary.
I also need your help, Ulyanovist, to help cut the knot that
entangles the good comrades of the CVO. Frank backed off from
his attempt to ban me from SAIC meetings because he recognized
the need to take into account the desires of people like Edward,
Lonnie, Marik and you.
You are aware of the CVO. You have some idea of their remarkable
strengths. Your correspondence was printed in their journal not
just because they wanted to rub the LRP's nose into its idiot
mistakes -- but because they are paying very careful attention to
your group.
I would like to see you take a look at the mass democracy page I
put up. I would like to see your comments on my proposal for the
kind of organization which I believe we need. I would like to
hear your comments on my criticism of the LRP's concept of a
party of the working class where party members and supporteres do
not have the right to know about the internal conflicts and
contradictions in their own party. (I link to that post, also,
from the mass democracy page.) I would like to hear about your
considered views on the need for political transparency in terms
of the need, _today_, to create an organizing center that has the
ability to command the attention of the best activists
everywhere.
It may seem like I am asking for a lot.
I am.
I am asking more of you than I ask of others because you have
greater abilities. Karl Marx summed it up: "from each according
to his abilities".
If you have greater abilities -- then you also have greater
responsibilities. The world is burning. What are we going to do
about it?
I am not ashamed to ask for what is needed because it is not a
personal request. I have come to conclusions concerning what our
movement needs. And I believe that I understand what is at
stake.
If you believe that I am mistaken or full of hot air -- then
please say so. This is not the time to be coy.
Everything must be on the table.
I criticized the way you responded to the LRP. The LRP pretended
that they cut off contact with your group because of some
bullshit related to what Trotsky, Cannon and Shachtman said
several decades ago. This was smoke. The LRP cut off contact
with your group because you made a correct criticism of them --
and, like many groups, they do not have the ability to admit
mistakes without losing credibility among a base of supporters
that is essential for the survival of their organization.
Your reply to the LRP went along with this fiction and politely
told them that they were mistaken concerning the conclusions of
Trotsky, Cannon and Shachtman. Maybe this was for tactical
reasons. Or maybe you really believed it. But what does this
kind of conduct on your part tell activists -- who need to know
what is really going on?
The LRP has their head shoved into their rear end at this time.
They are beyond our reach -- for now.
If we want LRP supporters such as DJ to struggle to find
practical forms of work with us -- then we must prove to people
like DJ -- by our actions -- that we are successfully combining
the energies of various anti-reformist trends into something that
is of genuine use to the antiwar movement and the working class.
DJ issued a challenge to the list on May 14. He said:
> if our conversation on the fundamental tasks of
> the movement hasn't provoked more discussion, then
> I consider that pretty solid evidence that this
> community is not on track.
Regretfully, I must side with DJ on this one. I believe our
community is on track. But I cannot prove it. I want to see
_evidence_. But I cannot create evidence of a community by
myself -- because everything I do is by definition the work of an
individual.
If you want DJ to re-consider his position -- and invest a
fraction of him time here with us in this community -- then you
must work to provide some evidence.
You want a draft leaflet that is the basis for a joint leaflet?
Fine.
Start with my lead article for September 24. I am submitting
that for consideration to the ALC. Read it and tell me what, if
anything, about it is unacceptable. Tell me what it contains
that is unaceptable. Tell me what it is missing that is
required. If necessary, repeat your criticisms of my earlier
leaflets (some of these criticisms were accurate). Send me
(privately) your snail mail address and I will send to you and
your supporters a dozen copies of the combined 8 page leaflet
that I distributed.
We need to start somewhere. There is a name for the place where
we must start. That name is necessity.
------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Cartoon online: E-Z Guide to the Left in Seattle
------------------------------------------------------------
For those who have not seen it, my recent antiwar agitation
is indexed at:
http://struggle.net/ben/2005/924.htm
Included is a cleaned-up (I got rid of smudges and added some
color to two panels) version of my popular cartoon "Politics as
Usual: an E-Z Guide to the Left in Seattle" at:
http://struggle.net/Ben/2005/cartoon.htm
As with many of my online articles, there is a small forum for
you to post public comments and criticisms.
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 --- We need mass democracy (collection of articles)
============================================================
from: "We need mass democracy"
A collection of articles indexed and summarized at:
http://struggle.net/ben/2005/mass-democracy
Real organization cannot be built
on a foundation of sand
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. In other words: we will win.
On the other hand, 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.
The essays linked to from this page each have
their own forum where you can post your comments,
questions and criticisms.
------------------------------------------------------------
Proposal for:
the Open and Democratic Anti-Imperialist Network
for Mass Action and Information War
Ben Seattle . November 7 . 1800 words
------------------------------------------------------------
** mission statement
1. democratic rights
2. democratic (and accountable) decision-making
3. program of work to build a revolutionary channel
------------------------------------------------------------
Activists have the right to know
what the fuck is going on
Ben Seattle . November 9 . 820 words
------------------------------------------------------------
Ben's main criticism of the
Seattle Anti-Imperialist Committee (SAIC)
-- is that it is not sufficiently open politically.
Ben would like SAIC to have a page on its website
where activists could go to learn about the various
political currents in and around the organization
(ie: so that they can find this out without having
to read an Indymedia post). And Ben would like the
group to give readers the ability to post comments
on its website about its agitation (ie: so that
readers could do so there as easily as they can
do so on Indymedia).
Ben thinks that Indymedia is great. But any
organization that is serious about mass democracy
will send a clear signal to activists everywhere
that they do not need to google ancient indymedia
archives in order to know what the fuck is going on.
------------------------------------------------------------
The future of SAIC
Ben Seattle . November 7 . 2400 words
------------------------------------------------------------
Ben has two basic problems with SAIC.
The reasons Ben considers SAIC 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.
------------------------------------------------------------
Frank retreats from
his attempt to ban Ben
Frank . November 13 & 18 . 9300 words
------------------------------------------------------------
Frank replies to Ben's public criticism and
to Ben's proposal for an open and democratic
anti-imperialist network.
Frank also explains why he proposed
that Ben be banned from meetings of the
Seattle Anti-Imperialist Committee (SAIC).
And Frank explains why he retreated from
his proposal: It would have been too difficult
to provide activists with a "convincing
explanation" for the need to ban Ben
------------------------------------------------------------
Frank on the
Media Weapon community
and the Crisis of Theory
Frank . November 24 . 3300 words
------------------------------------------------------------
Frank explains why he believes that
Ben's focus on the potential of the internet
represents the worship of spontaneity.
Frank also describes some of the circumstances
surrounding the breakup of the MLP in 1993 and
the theoretical confrontation between Ben and
the CVO.
Ben's theoretical views on future classless
society, according to Frank, represent
"an anarchist vision" because Ben
refuses to recognize the need for
a "central economic-planning apparatus"
and instead believes that commodity
production and the market place can be
overcome by an economy made up
of independent economic units
in competition with one another.
------------------------------------------------------------
What kind of Organization
does the antiwar movement need?
Ben Seattle . Sept 20 . 2500 words
------------------------------------------------------------
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 course forward to a world without
imperialist war or capitalist exploitation
------------------------------------------------------------
Are anti-imperialists
afraid of open politics?
Ben Seattle . Oct 15 . 2200 words
------------------------------------------------------------
The development of an anti-imperialist pole
of attraction within the antiwar movement
requires an "open politics" organizational model
that will allow activists to "see inside"
our organization and participate and intervene
in the struggles that determine our direction.
This essay also criticizes Frank's proposal
to ban Ben from SAIC meetings.
------------------------------------------------------------
Real organization requires a commitment to transparency
Ben Seattle . Sept 6 . 2000 words
------------------------------------------------------------
This is an open letter from Ben Seattle
to Edward, a member of SAIC and
the pof-200 discussion list.
(Edward has since stated that
a number of his views are incorrectly
described by Ben in this letter.)
------------------------------------------------------------
Should the party center
be able to gag party members?
Ben Seattle . May 1 . 480 words
------------------------------------------------------------
Ben criticizes the commonly held cargo-cultist view
(using the example of the League for a Revolutionary
Party (LRP)), that the leadership of the party of
the working class will be able to use "democratic
centralism" to prevent its internal party critics
from making their criticisms public.
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/
