forwarded from pof-200
-----Original Message----- From: Ben Seattle Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2006 9:30 PM To: 'pof-200' Subject: [pof-200] information war is central to building the movement (Frank-Ben exchange following CIW #55) hi folks, Frank has replied to my CIW # 55 (see his reply below my signature). For those who have not been following this thread -- I work with Frank in the Seattle Anti-Imperialist Committee (SAIC) and admire him greatly. At the same time I have criticized Frank and other supporters of the Communist Voice Organization (CVO). I believe that, in order to build a powerful movement, and in order to create genuine organization that can confront the decisive tasks of our time -- frank criticism is necessary. Even the best people will make serious errors. Errors cannot be corrected without criticism. At this time I will reply to only two of Frank's comments. If anyone is following this thread and would like to see me reply to any of the other issues that Frank has raised -- I believe it would be very helpful to speak up now. I usually do not reply to something unless there is a chance that someone will read what I write. In this case, Frank has indicated that he will read what I write. Will anyone else? If so -- let me know. The differences that I have with Frank can be used to raise the consciousness of our community concerning important principles. This can be a valuable opportunity. A conversation that is only between Frank and I will be of limited value. If others participate -- this can be more valuable. Frank -- March 24: ------------------ > Was handing out literature that did not > have the address to an interactive website > on it "useless" or "corrupt" work ... or was > this a sectarian slur of Ben's? Ben replies: ------------ Handing out leaflets that help activists understand how to make the antiwar movement more powerful is not by itself either useless or corrupt. Obviously such work is necessary. So why did I call such work useless? When we compare such work (ie: handing out leaflets that have no link to an interactive website and no connection to a campaign of national distribution via electronic media) to what is needed -- we will find that this work is miserably inadequate. An analogy may shed some light on this. Leaflet distribution can be considered a form of information war. And the analogy which might be useful is also from war. Infantry weapons (ie: small arms, automatic weapons and so forth) are useful in conventional war. But if your side only has infantry and your opponent has mechanized armor (ie: tanks) you might lose the battle. (This analogy does not deal with unconventional warfare such as guerilla actions or the use of IED's.) However if your side also has other kinds of weapons (ie: artillery and airpower) then you may have the means the win the battle. In this analogy, however, in order to win the battle -- you must actually _use_ the other weapons that you have (ie: the artillery and airpower). Small arms alone are of limited value against armor. One might even say that, in comparison to the more powerful weapons which are needed to win the battle -- they are useless. And that is how I used the term "useless". I used the word "useless" in a _relative_ rather than an _absolute_ sense. Distributing leaflets that are unconnected to digital media -- is not completely and absolutely useless in and of itself. However _in comparison_ to what we can and must do to build a powerful movement -- this practice is useless. When we make use of digital media to reach activists on a nationwide basis -- and we make use of digital media to build public forums and public communities with activists -- we will greatly expand the size of our audience. If we fail to take these steps -- then we are restricting ourselves in such a way that most of our potential audience will never hear our message -- or find a practical means to interact with us in a meaningful way. My view is that we cannot build a powerful antiwar movement without making systematic and determined use of digital communications. Frank also challenges my use of word "corrupt". I will reply to this only briefly -- and say that my view is that the reasons that Frank and the CVO avoid the actions that are necessary -- is related to a kind of corruption that is common among many organizations that consider themselves to be revolutionary. We cannot build a powerful revolutionary movement without understanding the nature of this corruption and sweeping it out of the way. The good news is that SAIC now has a website where readers can post criticisms of the leaflets they receive (see: http://seattleaic.org/?p=22 ). This is a significant step forward. Because SAIC took this step -- I assisted SAIC and distributed several hundred SAIC leaflets last weekend in Seattle and Portland. Frank: ------ > I allegedly don't recognize that working class rule > cannot exist without workers having fundamental > political rights! Ben replies: ------------ Frank is a supporter of the CVO. Since the time of its creation more than 10 years ago the CVO theoretical journal has never challenged the prevailing "marxist-leninist" view that working class rule requires: (1) the merger of the workers' party and the state, and (2) the suppression of the right of workers to have an independent political voice and an independent political life -- as can only exist on the basis of the democratic rights of speech and organization (ie: including the right to openly voice even counter-revolutionary views and including the right to associate and work even with others who hold such views). So Frank may assert (see above) that he recognizes that workers will have fundamental rights. But the theoretical journal of the organization he supports has _never_ explained that democratic rights (such as the right to speech and the right to organization) will be necessary in order for the working class to exercize its rule as a class. This is hardly a minor or obscure question. Unclarity on this question is the primary reason that hundreds of thousands of activists are extremely suspicious of all talk of "workers' rule". Because the phrase "workers' rule" (or the equivalent phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat") has for many decades (and is still today) used as a way to prettify, and make apologies for, a police state such as emerged in the Soviet Union and still exists today in China, North Korea, etc. Activists are extremely relunctant to endorse anything that appears to be a scheme for the kind of extreme concentration of authority as is repesented by a state in which a single organization has a monopoly of power -- and the right to silence the voice of its opponents. Historically this extreme concentration of authority has invited abuse and, in every instance, led to the suppression of the working class. If we want to make the concept of workers' rule a living idea in the hearts of hundreds of thousands of activists -- then we must be able to explain, in clear and simple language -- that workers rule in the context of modern, stable conditions (ie: a modern and functioning economy and infrastructure, a working class majority, etc) does not require such an extreme concentration and centralization of authority. Until we can clearly and openly address the legitimate concerns of hundreds of thousands of activists -- we cannot have "idea superiority" in information war (ie: the concept of "idea superiority" in information war is analogous to "air superiority" in conventional war). Until the revolutionary movement achieves clarity on this question -- it can never achieve "idea superiority" -- can never become a mass movement -- and hence can never overthrow the system of bourgeois rule. Finally, Frank asserts that my comments are, essentially, nothing more than sectarian abuse and slander. I believe that, on the contrary, I am raising important issues of principle that are vital to the development of a revolutionary mass movement. What do you think? Ben Seattle http://struggle.net/ben Frank's reply to: CIW # 55 -- Ben replies to Frank: spontaneity / meatspace / my 3 point program for SAIC http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pof-200/message/1069 is below: ________________________________________ Regarding Ben's M.F. #55 (by Frank) After 4 1/2 months Ben has not replied to any substantive question I raised in my comments on M.F. #51: Was handing out literature that did not have the address to an interactive website on it "useless" or "corrupt" work.or was this a sectarian slur of Ben's? Silence. How about my exposure of Ben's myth-making about why SAIA was dissolved? Silence. Were Ben's proposed organizational rules for the SAIC bureaucratic rules that would act against democracy? Silence Was Ben sowing division in SAIC ranks, as well as division between the SAIC and activists outside of it with gutter-incitements against the CVO members, i.e., (1) our attitude regarding democracy is "Well the minority has the right to hit the road. End of story. Love it or leave it." (2) CVO people are only "paying lip service to the goal of building an anti-imperialist pole of attraction and that their actual agenda is (a) to use SAIC to recruit into their group and consolidate those activists who are new on the scene and looking for some trend to hook up with and (b) to then liquidate SAIC once it has served this purpose."? More silence. Instead, in M.F. #55 he just pours on more abuse and slander: the CVO people are a bunch of "cargo-cultists" who fear spontaneity. Furthermore, I'm a "complete hypocrite" when I talk about doing theoretical work. Why? I allegedly don't recognize that working class rule cannot exist without workers having fundamental political rights! It's a bitter joke. I'm an anti-revisionist Marxist, Ben, not a would-be elitist bureaucrat. Who can take away political rights from a working class that succeeded in smashing the bourgeois state and is consciously embarked on the path of attaining a classless (communist) society? (And, if the country or region is large enough, I would like to see some elitists try!) But history has shown that if the proletariat is not conscious and organized enough (especially if it exists in a country with a huge peasant population producing for a market), and it's party abandons allegiance to Marxism and the working class for allegiance to the interests of a new bourgeoisie arising on the basis of private interests in ministries, state-capitalist enterprises, trusts, etc., then this new bourgeoisie and revisionist party can. No rules, no oaths of fidelity to fundamental political rights for the working masses can prevent this. Only a more organized and theoretically conscious class can. Hence the necessity of laying the basis for this: theoretical study of the real Marxist views on communism and the transition to it, study of the achievements but ultimate failure of the Great October Socialist Revolution, study of what Stalinist state-capitalism was, etc. Communist theory has to go beyond the original formulations of the early '20s, and draw a clearer picture of the transitional period. This is necessary in order to distinguish between a transitional economy and the Stalinist economies, and it is needed in order to help strengthen actual working class control during the transitional period, so as to avoid the tragedy of the Russian attempt. So, since the 90s the CVO has been engaged in advancing work on this front, popularizing it, trying to inspire other into it. (See, for example, the articles under http://home.flash.net/~comvoice/00LeninistTransition.html, and http://home.flash.net/~comvoice/00Stalinism.html, as well as several of the articles against Trotskyism on the same site.) We say that "through this work, the Communist Voice seeks to pave the way for communism to once again become the red, fighting banner of the revolutionary working class movement. Only the influence of the real communist theory can help the goal of a classless, communist society again spread among the workers and oppressed here and around the globe." But Ben sneers at our work by placing "theoretical work" inside quotation marks. From his narrow framework, it allegedly has nothing to do with giving activists confidence that a better world is possible. Why, it allegedly doesn't disprove "that the only alternative to bourgeois rule is a police state" (another form of bourgeois rule). From mine, understanding what the Marxist socialist theory is, examining the world-historic experience of the Bolsheviks in applying it, understanding how and why the revisionists departed from this theory and turned it into a travesty does this, among many other things. Ben says we fear spontaneity, and yet, strangely enough, in all our literature we encourage the masses to take matters into their own hands---be it in economic, political, or theoretical struggles. We repeatedly agitate for serious study of the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin and others, with particular attention to their method. (I would add that among the "others" is early Plekhanov, particularly his "Development of the Monist View of History".) We agitate for forming study groups, setting up anti-imperialist groups all over the place, etc. This is pretty strange behavior for people living in fear of the working class, fear of scientific truth, fear of having dogmas disintegrated. Why, it might even be interpreted as meaning that we a lot of faith in the basic masses being able to grasp and apply Marxist-Leninist theory for themselves. It might mean that rather than fearing ordinary activists doing this, we welcome it with all our hearts. Yahoo! Groups Links (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/
