hi everyone, I have heard from Frank that he will probably reply to me, relatively soon, as part of our informal "debate" on organizational principles that serve the antiwar and revolutionary movements.
If anyone who has read my reply to Frank would like to see Frank address any particular issues -- now would be the time to spell out any questions you may have for Frank. (I will forward these to Frank.) I am certain that Frank will carefully read and consider any and all thoughtful questions or comments which anyone on these lists posts. I should add, however, that if you would like Frank to consider your questions and comments -- that you should make it clear in your comments that you have read his May 24 letter (a link to it is posted at: http://struggle.net/mass-democracy/ along with a link to my reply and earlier discussion). So -- those of you who have been following this debate (or would like to follow it) -- now is your chance. ---------------------------------------- What is this debate about? ---------------------------------------- Frank and I are opposed on key principles. I insist on the principle of political transparency. I believe in the power of information war and open community. I believe in the necessity of open, public discussion and debate of the struggles inside the kinds of mass organizations which we need. Frank is deeply skeptical about all of these things. The discussion is public and is unfolding before your very eyes. Now is the time to get involved in this debate. ---------------------------------------- Who is in this debate? ---------------------------------------- Frank is (in my opinion, anyhow) one of the best, most experienced and dedicated activists in the damn country. He is certainly the most dedicated and experienced of any person I personally know. On the other hand, I have spent some time studying the principles which I believe must guide organizations which will effectively mobilize the masses against the war in Iraq and for the overthrow of the political and economic system of imperialism (ie: the modern form of bourgeois rule). But the debate is not limited to Frank and me. Any subscriber to these lists is welcome to participate. In fact your thoughtful participation is very much needed. ---------------------------------------- Why is your help needed? ---------------------------------------- In my experience, nothing helps a debate (and helps debaters keep themselves honest) more than an _active audience_ that proves, by its comments and questions, that it takes these issues seriously and is closely following the action. What is most useful and needed are comments and/or questions about these kinds of things: 1) What are the points made (by either Frank or me or anyone else who has commented) that strike you as being particularly insightful or important? 2) What are the principles that are most important? 3) Are the posts focused on the most important principles? 4) What direct experience do you have (in the movement and/or in organizations) that may shed light on any of these questions? 5) What things could be done to increase the quality of the debate and make the key issues more clear? 6) What questions do you have that you would like to see Frank or me answer? So take a serious attitude: read Frank's May 24 letter and my June 30 reply. And then make your voice heard! Everything you need to get started is at: http://struggle.net/mass-democracy/ Don't delay! The time for action is today! Also, to give readers a better idea of the nature of the debate and the kinds of topics covered, I include (see below) two more of the short "sidebar" articles and the table of contents from my June 30 reply to Frank. sincerely and revolutionary regards, Ben Seattle http://struggle.net/ben/ ----------------------------------------------------------------- ------ The problem with pragmatism ----------------------------------------------------------------- ------ Frank's main argument is that readers need only look at the fruit of his work and compare it to the fruit of Ben's work - and that is all you really need to know about our respective principles. In other words, Frank points to the success of SAIC and compares this to the lack of success (so far) of our community-in-embryo. On this basis, Frank argues that his views must be correct and that the "information war" and "community" principles which I advocate must be worthless. The problem with this argument is that it amounts to what is sometimes called "pragmatism". It is true that, by its fruit, we can know the tree (ie: we can judge the effectiveness of competing principles by looking at the practical results of these principles when applied to the real world). This is the basis of the scientific method: you determine truth by experiment. But "pragmatism" tends to take this principle too far. Some experiments may only produce results when there is: (1) a critical mass of talented and dedicated people (2) sufficient time and (3) favorable circumstances So Frank may be deceiving himself when he claims that the "information war" and "community" principles are worthless. We have not yet proven that these principles are powerful but neither has Frank proven that they are not. So this question is not yet settled. [1] Attempts to create light bulbs and airplanes were not successful except after many repeated attempts. Nor has there ever been a revolution that put the working class firmly into power. But we do not conclude from this that light bulbs, airplanes or proletarian revolutions are impossible. Further, sometimes the results of an experiment can be misleading. The RCP, for example, has been able to put together a national organization and organize actions of various kinds. However this does not prove that the RCP's orientation is correct. On a larger scale, the Soviet people, under Stalin's leadership, defeated Hitler. However this does not prove that Stalin's principles were all correct either. [Footnote 1]: The sentence "So this question is not yet settled" was added, for clarity, on July 14 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ------ What is revolutionary theory? ----------------------------------------------------------------- ------ - Is it GLUE to hold an organization together? - or a STICK we use to beat heretics? - or is it a LIGHT that helps us see? Organizations based on cargo-cult Leninism often see revolutionary theory as a kind of "glue" (ie: a set of tribal totems and taboos) that holds their organization together. Frank appears to uphold this view in his description of the real "crisis of theory" faced by the MLP [ie: Marxist-Leninist Party] as it disintegrated [in 1993]. In his reply to me, Frank noted that at this time a number of weird and wrong views sprouted among supporters of the party. In Frank's view the most important priority was to mobilize people around the party to condemn the heretics. Frank explains that this was "the only way to salvage anything from the situation". This was not my view. I dealt very heavily with theory during this period but, for the most part, I ignored most of these weird (and obviously wrong) views because it was clear that other theoretical issues were more important. Frank hints at one of these issues when he describes one of the wrong views: > "Stalinism, it was implied by some, was > merely the logical product of Leninism." Now I am not in agreement with this particular wrong view that Frank cites - but I did consider this an important issue to investigate - and I have done so (see sidebar: "The Foundations of Modern Revisionism"). The suppression of democratic rights for which Stalin is well known did not begin with Stalin. This suppression began under Lenin's leadership. The difference between Lenin and Stalin was that Lenin made clear that these measures were temporary emergency measures - while Stalin (without even waiting for Lenin's body to get cold) proclaimed these measures as eternal principles of working class rule. But you can't oppose the wrong view that Frank describes in a very clear way unless you understand this difference. And this difference was never understood by the MLP - and has never been written about by Frank's organization, the CVO. This is a key difference in how Frank and I view the role of revolutionary theory. Revolutionary theory is not a stick we use to beat or humiliate heretics. We use theory to answer questions - and to guide our work by helping us see the vital connection between our work in the day-to-day struggles today and our revolutionary goal tomorrow. If someone is hesitant to work for a future society that he thinks may be a police state - we can make use of this doubt to help us understand the theoretical questions for which the entire revolutionary movement needs answers. ------------------------------------------------------------ contents of Ben's June 30 reply to Frank ------------------------------------------------------------ "Cargo-Cult Leninism" vs. Political Transparency: What principles of organization will serve the antiwar and revolutionary movements? ---------------------------------------- Our weapon is mass democracy ---------------------------------------- The revolutionary mass organization that we need will rely on the energy and experience of activists in open struggle to resolve opposing views on the way forward Part 1 ** Introduction ** Ben's "Information War" Program for SAIC ** Where is my organization? ** Is helping to distribute SAIC's agitation parasitism - or principled cooperation? ** Is Ben sufficiently "political"? Part 2 ** What is political transparency? (It means that activists can see what goes on behind the curtain) ** The opposite of transparency (Stonewalling: the easy answer to all criticism) ** The relationship of the revolutionary mass organization to the mass of activists Part 3 ** The problem with pragmatism ** Is Ben a "black hat" ? ** What is the "rate of information metabolism" ? Part 4 ** Cargo cults and cargo-cult Leninism ** Join our group - We can do your thinking for you (Why do supporters of left-wing groups so often drink the kool-aid ?) Part 5 ** What is revolutionary theory? (GLUE to hold us together? - a STICK to beat heretics? - or a LIGHT that helps us see?) ** The Spectre of Endless Discussion (We don't need to live in fear of talking about our goal) ** What is Ben's idea of a "trend of trends"? Part 6 ** Is Ben an anarchist ? (Watch out for his Trojan Horse!) Part 7 ** Did Ben attempt to bury debate? (The showdown at the final congress of the MLP) ** Right-wing demagoguery - or materialism? ** Ben corrects himself Part 8 ** Confronting a refugee from the theoretical needs of the class struggle (Ben Seattle talks to Joseph Green) Part 9 ** The foundations of modern revisionism ("Marxism-Leninism" is anti-Marxist, anti-Leninist and revisionist) Part 10 ** Proletarism is anti-revisionist Marxism for the 21st century ------------------------------------------------------------ (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/
