Hi Alex,
I may not be able to post again until July so I will attempt to
cover a few topics now.
------------------------------------------------------------
Frank and SAIC
------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your comments on this. Now I can better understand
where you are coming from.
I cetainly agree with your general comments and analysis.
Before going further, however, I should first clear up what may
be a misperception:
The articles on SAIC's website are not written or posted by
"editors". They are leaflets (and sometimes statements) that are
discussed at length and approved by the entire group (via email
and in meetings). I think that if someone in SAIC does not agree
with (or objects to) a formulation in a leaflet or statement --
then the group will not approve it -- and instead there will be
additional discussion to resolve the disagreement and/or put
together an altered formulation. It is possible that in some
cases a vote might be taken but I think that so far (in nearly
two years since SAIC was founded) it has never come to that --
everything printed as a leaflet or posted to the website has been
approved unanimously.
However the general problem with SAIC's website is what you say
it is.
The website reflects a single view. It speaks with a monolithic
voice.
The advantage of doing it this way is that it does serve to help
develop discussion on many topics and resolve many disagreements
-- because the organization can't talk about a topic until it is
discussed enough that everyone has come to agreement.
The disadvantage is that it means that, if a disagreement cannot
be resolved -- then nothing can be publically said about the
topic.
Frank and other SAIC members do not see this disadvantage as
being very significant because they view SAIC as being limited in
its nature: SAIC represents opposition to imperialism and they do
not see any need for SAIC to go beyond that. Frank has his own
organization (the "Communist Voice Organization") which Frank
sees as being able to say and do they things which SAIC cannot.
In my view, there are many problems with restricting the SAIC
website to a single voice.
This is the issue on which Frank has chosen to fight me. And
this is the issue I will make the center of my reply to Frank.
I am still developing my thinking and the arguments that I will
use.
There is no hope that I will be successful, in the short term, of
persuading SAIC to change its policy. But I view this as a
long-term struggle. With each round of struggle the principles
become more clear and my ability to understand and give voice to
these principles is improved. (This is a worthwhile effort
because principles will be the salvation of our movement and
enable our movement to once again stand at the center of society
and be deserving of the respect and attention of millions.)
And, as this struggle develops and the principles become more
clear, these principles will win attention and it will be more
difficult for people like Frank (ie: a "cargo-cult Leninist") to
resist the pressure of these principles.
1. One result of SAIC's policy of monolithism is that SAIC is
unable to address the central question of our time (ie: Is a
world without bourgeois rule possible and necessary?).
SAIC can speak vaguely of "ending imperialism" but can say
_nothing_ to address the views of most readers that we must work
to reform capitalism because there is no alternative (T.I.N.A.)
that would represent an _improvement_ over the capitalist
economic system (ie: because the only "alternative" most readers
can think of -- is a police state in the form of single party
rule).
2. Another result of monolithism is that the website will not be
able to attract as many readers. A multiplicity of views (and
the intelligent interaction of these views) draws an audience,
attracts attention, raises consciousness of key principles and
helps to resolve differences. Indymedia has gotten a lot of
attention from activists because it serves as a source of news
and discussion. SAIC could take a modest step toward creating a
more focused and militant version of indymedia (with a higher
level of discussion, a better signal-to-noise level and no
domination by reformist politics) if it allowed supporters to
post their own articles in a section reserved for this.
By the way, I believe that "K" (the SAIC member who I discussed
in my last post and who helps with the SAIC website) may agree
with me on this. So developing a good reply to Frank, with a
clear and focused discussion of the principles involved, may help
to strengthen K's resolution in this direction.
3. Probably the most important problem with monolithism is that
contradictions tend to get buried rather than resolved.
You hit the nail on the head when you addressed this:
> In short, if, as Frank advocates, an organization
> should "overcome contradictions among themselves,"
> then they must actively seek to do so, and adopt
> a system where non-editors can post their own
> articles instead of just replying to others, and
> adopt a system where each article can be critically
> reviewed and rated. This is the only way to truly
> overcome contradictions. In other words, the content
> of discussion should not be decided by just the
> editors, but by other members and non-members as
> well to ensure that contradiction are really dealt
> with instead of just ignored.
This is really the central issue in terms of building
revolutionary organization. The struggle of opposing views must
be open -- must be fought out in view of friend and foe alike.
That way other activists can see what is going on -- and join in
on the struggle and lend the weight of their experience and
convictions. This is what will allow activists to know that the
organization is _theirs_ -- that they have the right (and the
practical ability) to determine the fate and direction of the
organization.
This may be the central organizing principle of revolutionary
organization. In any event, it will be the central organzing
principle of my reply to Frank. I appreciate the opportunity to
exchange views with you on this, Alex. As an individual my
ability to think about these principles becomes stronger when I
can talk to others about them.
Two other issues I should bring up.
1. The lopsidedness you describe in many organizations (ie: a few
people are serious and know a lot but most are far less serious
and know much less) is probably inevitable in any organization
which is growing at a time when the general level of knowledge
and experience in the movement is low. SAIC is doing far more to
overcome this than most organizations and the general level of
political consciousness of SAIC members is _far_ above the level
of most members of groups like the ISO or RCP. However SAIC's
ability to politicize its members remains limited in many ways.
Most SAIC members attend a political study group -- but the study
group is not organized by SAIC but by the CVO -- which excludes
people like me because (basically) I know too much and I am not
into going along with their self-deception.
2. About Frank's description of me as an anarchist and a
"renegade from marxism-leninism":
You are correct that Frank has a different definition of
"anarchist" than most activists. For Frank (and the CVO) this is
tied in with my being a "renegade". Yes, Frank and the CVO make
a fetish out of central planning and "democratic centralism" and
other magic words and phrases that they often repeat but which
they are unable to understand. Basically, they have created a
little religion out of their experience. There is a name for the
kind of religion that is formed when people encounter an advanced
technology which they are unable to understand: it is called a
"cargo cult" (named after the South Pacific islanders who
encountered American military logistics teams during WW2 and who,
as a result, attemped, on their own, to contact the gods of cargo
by carving microphones out of wood and repeating the magic phrase
"Roger, over and out" in hopes that the big silver birds would
land with their bellies full of precious cargo).
But this did not start with the CVO. The term "marxism-leninism"
was coined by Stalin as part of his work to transform marxism
into a political religion used to justify the permanent
suppression of the independent political voice and independent
political life of the working class. There were a whole series
of political beliefs and practices that went along with this. I
have broken with "marxism-leninism" (which I generally use with
quotes because I consider it to be a political religion that
stands opposed to the lifework and principles of Marx and Lenin).
I have broken with the idea that the Dictatorship of the
Proletariat (also known as: "DoP" -- or more simply as workers'
rule) must assume the form of the rule of a single organization
that has the right to suppress the voices of its opponents. More
specifically, I assert that such a form is not suited to the
modern conditions of an economically developed society with an
advanced communications infrastructure -- and that the democratic
rights of speech and organization must be extended even to
opponents of workers' rule in order for the working class to
exercize its rule and overcome the danger involved in giving too
much power to any organization.
But the CVO is not the only political trend which has accused me
of being an anarchist. I have had a number of anarchists become
upset with me because they _also_ believe that I am advocating
anarchist principles in the name of Leninism -- and this disturbs
them. I had one guy get all upset during the anarcho-leninist
debate because I did not attempt to defend the usual idiocies
that parade as "Leninism" and instead based my conclusions on a
study of material conditions in modern society.
The anarchists do not want to see a society where a single
organization has the ability to shut them all up. And I have
asserted that this desire of the anarchists is correct and
conforms to the material interest of the working class and
conforms to the stability of workers rule.
This makes me all the more "dangerous" in the eyes of a few
anarchists (generally a small section of inexperienced, emotional
and sectarian ones) because they are certain that it is all a
trick on my part -- that I am really plotting to grab "power" and
then have them all lined up against a wall and shot. So the CVO
is not alone in asserting that I am promoting anarchist
principles.
In my reply to Frank, however, I will likely not go into
discussion of what is "anarchism" or "marxism". It will be
important to keep my reply as concise and focused as possible.
The key principle is that the SAIC website will better serve the
movement when it allows SAIC supporters to post their own
articles. This will speed up the "metabolism" by which opposing
ideas self-develop and interact with one another and find
resolution. I must have short and powerful arguments based on
conditions in 2007 which support this.
Ultimately we want SAIC to be the kind of organization which
experienced, level-headed activists who may have anarchist
leanings can still see as a useful organization that they believe
serves the movement and want to build and be part of.
Frank is an extraordinary individual who is caught up in
something a little bit bigger than he is. It is our
responsibility to play the role of the emotional anchor: be calm
and consistent with a long-term view and a focus on the decisive
principles which represent the salvation of our movement.
------------------------------------------------------------
The Attention Refinery
------------------------------------------------------------
> REGARDING A WEB SITE AS WAS DESCRIBED IN "RED NODE:"
Please remind me, what is "red node"?
This rings a bell but I forget.
> Specifically, I'd like to address the potential
> effectiveness of a site like the mockup on "Attention
> Refinery." The idea is good. Everything is there that
> would make the page useful. However, the layout is
> extremely cluttered and confusing. With so much
> information, it is going to be difficult to make such
> a mess look clean, but with a LOT of effort, it can be
> done. I understand that you don't necessarily have the
> time to clean it up. However, we need to find someone
> who does.
>
> In short, the idea is great, but it needs a cleanup.
> What I can do is mess with some code myself and get
> back to you on this one.
The third column could be removed entirely (or made optional for
readers who select it) to reduce visual clutter and distraction.
The main issue, as I see it, is to recognize that it is
worthwhile to start from scratch (rather than use existing wiki
code) because we need:
(1) individuals to have control over the content
of their own pages (or at least the main column)
(2) pages can compete for attention with one another
in such a way that critics have access to a side column
for their criticism or their competing pages
(3) simpler markup language and ease of use in doing things
like creating tables for systematic display of lists
of things like: people, organizations, events and so on
------------------------------------------------------------
The mainstream media censorship of Ron Paul
------------------------------------------------------------
Alex - June 13 (on pof-200):
> On an unrelated note, I'd like your opinion on the media's
> censorship of Ron Paul. I posted on pof-300 about this,
> although a member there didn't understand its relevance to
> the movement (perhaps it doesn't have any). If you would
> be interested in reading that post, I'd be interested in
> hearing what you think.
I took a look at the posts.
Alex - May 20 (on pof-300):
> if that can be shown to the American people, it
> could be the catalyst necessary to spark something
> The fact that we are never given a real choice
> because the only contenders are the people that
> the corporate media wants to contend seems common
> knowledge to us, but it is seen as a bullshit
> conspiracy theory in the eyes of many. This could
> be a chance to correct that misconception.
Briefly:
1) This has some value as far as exposing the fraud of
"democracy" and how the mainstream media serves bourgeois
interests but its value is very limited. If we had a
revolutionary news service with the ability to create and
distribute 20 original articles a day -- then this story would
probably be deserving of one of those articles. Not much more.
2) The mainstream media is simply doing what it does all the time
as a servant of bourgeois interests: Ron Paul said a few things
about the war in Iraq that made clear that he is not a
trustworthy guardian of bourgeois interests -- and therefore
there is no way that he will receive the kind of massive campaign
contributions from wealthy donors he would need to get the
Republican nomination. Yes, he was first in the polls -- but he
did that by "cheating" (ie: he let the truth slip out) and is
therefore not a "serious" candidate. You don't play by the rules
then you are not serious. It is their game and those are their
rules. Countless millions of people already understand this.
There is no point in promoting the idea that the election circus
is different than it really is. The bourgeois political system
always has room for a few clowns on the sidelines but they are
nothing more than that.
3) my main point (and I don't have time right now to explain this
very well):
There will be countless thousands of opportunities to correct
such misconceptions and illusions. And a revolutionary movement
will work energetically to do so.
But it is important also to understand that a great many millions
already understand that they "are never given a real choice" and
that it is the very rich (ie: the bourgeoisie) who run society.
This is probably the main reason that the majority of people do
not bother to vote. It is probably safe to say that in the
sixties the majority of people in American society understood
that the rich run society. Possibly a majority understand that
now (if a majority do not understand it now -- then they will as
soon as there is a serious crisis). The real issue is what to do
about it (ie: for the millions of people who understand this --
they generally feel that they can't do anything about it -- and
are therefor trapped in passivity).
A revolutionary movement (or revolutionary organization) will
reach people in the course of assisting them in their own
spontaneous mass struggles of all kinds -- and in this process
will earn their attention in order to give them a deeper,
scientific analysis of society as a whole and the road forward.
Sincerely and revolutionary regards,
Ben Seattle
http://struggle.net/ben
(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/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theorist/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> 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/
