Hi Alex, Your exchanges with Frank have been quite fruitful.
Although Frank claims not to understand what you meant when you asked him to focus on the more important issues--in practice he respected your request--and did so. He cut out the crap and focused on the key issues. And Frank also gave his opinion on a key theoretical question: explaining why he believes that the workers' state will supposedly not allow multiple parties. Neither Frank nor the CVO has ever dared to touch this question before in a public statement. So you were successful in drawing Frank out--and he made public what has, up until now, been an argument that was private and internal. It may take a while to discuss and fully digest Frank's comment but it is clear to me that you did an outstanding job. What is urgent and important at this time? ------------------------------------------ At this time, in my view, your outstanding political priority (if you have time and space in your life for it at this time) should be directed at creating and distributing your own independent agitation for the Sept 29 mass action in your area. This is only three weeks from today so you would need to start immediately if you have not already been thinking about this or working on a draft. In terms of the Covey chart that I posted in my May 2007 annual report, creating and distributing independent agitation would be both urgent and important. No other political task is both urgent and important at this time. This would be a good experience for you and also an opportunity to assist the development of the movement. This presupposes that your personal life (ie: job/school/family/relationship/laundry/etc) is in sufficient order that you can afford the time and focus that would be necessary to do this. (Neglect of personal life leads to crisis and demoralization and is not compatible with long-term political work.) If this seems like it might be too much for you at this time--that would be ok also. You are somewhat isolated and it can be difficult to do something like this on your own in relative isolation from people with a lot of experience. But I will write (below) as if this is something that you would be comfortable attempting. I have not yet looked at the MECAWI and TONC websites but may be able to do so later this weekend and post about them sometime tomorrow. My guess, based on experience, is that they are half-hearted about breaking from the Democratic Party and its allies and from the illusions that go along with that. But I should not say more until I look at their website. The best source for examples of powerful agitation, in my view, is the SAIC website http://SeattleAIC.org and the Communist Voice website http://CommunistVoice.org . You may be able to use quite a bit from those leaflets although it is also valuable to have a current analysis and those leaflets are a bit dated. But the basic method is applicable: (1) start with events in the news, (2) sum up with analysis that encourages a break from the Democratic Party and associated "left" political trends and illusions and recognizes the need to base the antiwar movement on the masses and on mass action. One of the best news sources, by the way, is the Wall Street Journal. The bourgeoisie, as a class, has a need to understand what is going on in Iraq and the WSJ is reasonably concise (note: the editorial section of the WSJ is quite distinct from the news section and generally the editorial section is useful only in terms of understanding the world view and priorities of a section of the bourgeoisie). I have also written a number of my own antiwar leaflets (available on my website) but generally my own agitation has not followed the method described above of starting with events in the news and then working toward conclusions. Mainly this was because (1) I had to write my agitation in a hurry, (2) I was writing for activists who had more experience in the movement and (3) the CVO was making use of the news-to-conclusions method and I did not feel it was necessary to duplicate their work since nearly everyone who got a copy of one of my leaflets also got a copy of one of theirs. So the news-to-conclusions method takes a lot of time (ie: because it involves a lot of critical and careful reading and analysis) and produces the most powerful leaflets--but other methods are useful also even if they are not as powerful (ie: because something is often better than nothing). I don't know the expected size of the mass action in your area but if it includes many hundreds of people it may not be unrealistic for you to distribute 100 or even 200 copies of your leaflet. If you reach the point that you have a draft and would like comments--you could post the draft to the pof-200 list and also send a copy to Frank and SAIC. Frank would probably like to see you work on a draft and even if he is busy it is a fair guess that he will make the time to send you some useful suggestions since he has a lot of experience and will want to encourage you. Other SAIC members might have ideas also. I may have some ideas also but I may only be checking my political email on weekends and this would slow down my ability to assist (if you make a decision to write a leaflet) since you would have less that three weeks to write and rewrite drafts and xerox one or two hundreds copies. Politically, the single most important idea in the leaflet is to show (via concrete items in the news, etc) that the Democratic Party is just as imperialist as Bush: that they back the war in Iraq to the hilt and only play at being "antiwar" in order to (1) implement their version of a "smarter" imperialist occupation and (2) co-opt the antiwar movement. If MECAWI and/or TONC are promoting a lot of illusions it may be useful to criticize them by name at one or another point in the leaflet (if you are comfortable doing so) but this would not necessarily be essential to the leaflet. Let me know if you would like to explore the possibility of creating your own independent agitation. There will be other opportunities in the future if you do not feel comfortable creating something in such a short period of time. The existing examples of agitation from SAIC can help you get a feel for what would be involved. Political tasks and priorities ------------------------------ At this time, you have undertaken two kinds of political work distinct from creating and distributing your own agitation (as described above): (1) work to develop a channel via the Red Beacon at http://theredbeacon.blogspot.com (2) exchanges with Frank related to the theoretical struggle I thought it might be helpful if I were to comment on how I see these fronts of work developing over the long run. As I mentioned above, creating independent agitation for the upcoming mass action (should you decide to do so) represents quadrant one activity (ie: important and urgent) using the Covey chart. The other two kinds of projects (creating a channel and work on the theoretical front) represent quadrant two activity (ie: important but not urgent). In the long run it is quadrant two activity that becomes the foundation for everything else (including solid work in the first quadrant). But quadrant two work does not produce immediate return on our investment of our time/labor. Rather, this is something in which we invest for the long term. Building a channel: ------------------- Working to build a channel is the only work that does not require any action from others (ie: writing and distributing a leaflet requires that the more mainstream antiwar organizations organize an action where you can easily distribute a lot of leaflets--and having exchanges with Frank on the theoretical front requires that Frank respond to you). In the long run work to build a channel will be extremely important. But such work will likely produce little immediate result or give you much feedback (ie: few activists will respond to posts on Indymedia or your blog). So the issue on this front is to work out a way where you can conduct a small amount of work each month (ie: an hour or two or thereabouts) and maintain this work over a lengthy period of time (ie: many months) without having many expectations about the results it will bring. During this period (in which the movement is still at a relatively low level in comparison to where it may be once the mass of activists make a decisive break with the Democratic Party and its allies and associated illusions) you can learn a lot of technical tricks and methods that can help you learn how to (1) package and post material to a lot of places (indymedia, revleft, email lists, etc) and (2) track and reply to any worthwhile responses that you may get--without having to either (1) spend a lot of time or (2) invest the kind of emotional energy that goes with having exaggerated expectations concerning what kind of responses you will get. For example: some responses will not be worth replying to because there are many people on the internet who are fairly superficial in terms of their seriousness or political experience. Some people will be mostly sarcastic and cynical. Others will be more sincere and may invest greater time and thought in their responses. Over time it will become easier for you to recognize the responses which are worth your time to respond to. You can also gain experience learning what forums have a higher proportion of "live" people and also what kinds of topics are more likely to attract attention and responses. It is useful to begin learning these things now--while the movement is at a relatively low level compared to where we hope it will be as the mass of activists recognize that the Democratic Party is thoroughly imperialist. Theoretical work: ----------------- Work on the theoretical front is also useful but opportunities for this are not always present. For example, I did not know that Frank would respond to my annual report--and would not have written my ten part series: "Cargo-Cult Leninism vs. Political Transparency" if he had not. Rather I was pressed for time but felt, when Frank replied, that the opportunity to achieve clarity on a number of topics was simply too good to pass up. Your exchanges with Frank have been quite valuable but I should tell you that I consider it unlikely that Frank will give you very many further responses. At a certain point (which may be close) you will have effectively refuted him and (as much as is possible in these kinds of exchanges) proven him mistaken. At that point, Frank will likely decline further exchanges with you. You will have learned valuable theory in the process (and maybe others on this list or in SAIC will also). And I will have had the encouragement of watching yourself (a relatively newcomer) soundly thrash a highly experienced and disciplined comrade who, unfortunately is currently blinded by a political religion. You do not need to reply in a substantial way to Frank any time soon. Rather, you and I can take our time discussing and digesting his reply and its significance and you can reply to Frank after the mass actions this fall. For now you can send him a short note thanking him for his reply and explaining that you intend to take some time studying it before giving it an answer. Frank did respect your request that he put aside the personal attacks on me and focus on what is important. It would be helpful for you to acknowledge that he did so. This will let Frank know that you recognize this and also that you will expect him to similarly keep his act clean in the future (since as this struggle intensifies it is possible that Frank may need further reminders of the necessity of keeping things clean). Having said that I would like to comment on the theoretical bankruptcy of Frank and the CVO (and "X9", the maoist kid that I helped introduce to Frank and who, along with Frank, founded SAIC). So I include the appendix A (below) and also appendix B (which I wrote in 1999) which we can take our time discussing and make use of when you eventually give Frank a substantive reply. As far as Frank's (and the CVO's) insistence that I am really an "anarchist" -- the whole issue here is that he has a special religious definition of anarchism. If you do not agree with with Frank's cargo-cultist views--then by his definition you are an anarchist. It is generaly useless to argue with people about definitions of words like this. We are materialists and we restrict our discussion with people to the use of words that have some kind of mutually well-understood meaning. All the best, Ben Seattle http://struggle.net/ben/ ================================================= Appendix A: What does victory look like? ================================================= Frank opposes the existence of multiple parties under worker's rule: Frank, Sept 2: -------------- > You write, however, of multiple workers' > parties eventually springing up and demanding > a role in government. But upon what program > would these parties spring up if there was a > real Marxist party leading the class struggle? Frank is mistaken from several different directions. 1) If there was a real marxist party leading the class struggle it would include within it room for a wide range of views on important questions. This follows from the nature of reality--which is complex. Different schools of thought will have different opinions on all sorts of questions. An organized, public struggle between different schools of thought (ie: political trends) will be the best engine to drive the search for facts and to determine the truth that must guide policy. So even if there is a single party (ie: the best scenario) it would contain multiple parties within it that would openly struggle against one another. This is more-or-less equivalent to a system of parties that are united under an umbrella organization. 2) It is a simple fact that the leading party may (a) become captured by corrupt people or (b) fall victim to sectarianism or other diseases--and undergo a process of degeneration. In such circumstances there will be a need for those who see the need for a genuine revolutionary organization to have the right to create it should the "real marxist party" become a phony revisionist party. No one can guarantee that this cannot happen (since it has happened in every case without exception). 3) If the democratic rights of speech and organization are extended to everyone--then parties will spring up that are not marxist and which will be hostile to the interests of the working class. It is to the benefit of the working class to allow these parties to exist and function--because it is neither practical nor necessary to attempt to suppress them (ie: they cannot be suppressed as long as the entire working class has the democratic rights of speech and organization). But let's continue with Frank: > To even gain power and therefore have democratic rights > like freedom of speech the proletariat is going to have > to deny such freedoms to others. Actually, that is not true. The proletariat, today, in countries such as the US, Western Europe and Japan has democratic rights of speech and organization even though it is not in power (hint: that is the reason we are able to talk about these topics today). These democratic rights will disappear in an acute revolutionary crisis--but they exist for now and the main limitation in our exercise of these rights is our own ignorance and inability to effectively coordinate our actions. But let's hear more from Frank about democratic rights: > And once in power its going to have to deny them to > bourgeois inciters of rebellion, and even inciters > of splits in its own ranks when facing rebellion. > In such conditions multiple workers' parties (splits > and confusion in the workers ranks) would only weaken > the struggle for freedom of speech by the masses. Frank's comments reveal a great deal. Frank is describing the situation that existed in Soviet Russia in 1921. At that time, the Bolshevik party, in order to prevent a return to bourgeois rule, was compelled to undertake a series of emergency measures which greatly limited democratic rights both in society at large and within the Bolshevik party itself. All competing parties were essentially outlawed. And all organizations within the Bolshevik party which were organized on the basis of a common platform of opposition to the policies of the majority faction of the party center--were dissolved. Lenin recognized that these measures carried grave risks (and indeed, it was the lack of democratic rights which meant that no force was available to oppose the corruption of the Bolshevik party which took place after Lenin's death) but at the time there was no other means to avoid a total collapse of Bolshevik rule and a complete restoration of the rule of the bourgeoisie and the hated whiteguard landlords. The Bolsheviks were forced to suspend democratic rights because by 1921 a majority of the population was quite unhappy with the Bolsheviks and would have supported any political trend that claimed that it was possible to get rid of the Bolsheviks without restoring bourgeois-landlord rule. There were many political trends which (if they had not been outlawed) would have made such a claim--but all of these trends would have ended up surrendering power to the bourgeoisie. It was for this reason that Lenin and the Bolsheviks found it necessary to suspend the democratic rights of speech and organization for the entire country until such time as the economy could be restored and the desperate circumstances could be corrected (ie: something that would have taken 10 or 20 years). So the emergency measures which the Bolsheviks took were indeed necessary--but at the same time the fact that they were necessary shows that, by 1921, it was not the Soviet working class which ruled Russia--but a single organization. This single organization hoped to bring about a state of affairs in which the working class as a whole would rule by means of the democratic rights that would allow the class to have access to all relevant information and to select or reject leaders and policies. And maybe this might have happened if Lenin had lived another ten years. But that is not what happened. Instead the whole thing went to shit. I think most readers know the rest of the story. The party degenerated before democratic rights could be restored--and before long a new class of rulers exploited the workers. And I believe that this shows that, in Russia, by 1921, it was not the working class that ruled as a class. If the working class had ruled--the workers would have had countless ways to prevent this kind of degeneration. What existed in 1921 was not the dictatorship of the proletariat (DP) but the dictatorship of the proletariat in embryo (DP-embryo). Under more favorable circumstances the DP-embryo might have matured into the real thing. But it did not. And this has been a double tragedy. It was a tragedy firstly because the revolution failed. The glorious October revolution became a vehicle for a new ruling class. It was also a tragedy for a second reason: it created (and still creates) confusion today concerning what the dictatorship of the proletariat is. Confusion still exists, today, in distinguishing between the dictatorship of the proletariat (DP) and the dictatorship of the proletariat in embryo (DP-embryo). Frank (and the CVO and X9) remain confused about this. Frank's comments (above) prove that he is confused. And Frank is fighting tooth and nail to keep matters confused. It has required years of work and confrontation in numerous instances for Frank to actually make public his views (as he has above) which argue that the working class would be _endangered_ by democratic rights (ie: that would inevitably lead to multiple parties). Activists who want to see an end to bourgeois rule and who believe that an alternative is possible that would be more than a police state--will sweep away the kind of theoretical bullshit and mumbo-jumbo which Frank preaches. We can do our share of this today. I have prepared (see below) a chart comparing the Dictatorship of the Proletariat (dp) to the Dictatorship of the Proletariat in Embryo (dp-embryo) across 8 major dimensions: ------------------------------------------------------------ The DP vs. the DP-embryo ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. Who rules? 2. Majority support? 3. Weak or strong? 4. Democratic rights of speech and organization? 5. Multiple organizations? 6. Separation of party and state? 7. Development of immune system against corruption? 8. Relationship to our goal? ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. Who rules? ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------- dp-embryo: ---------- society is ruled by a single organization ---------- dp: ---------- society is ruled by the working class as a class ------------------------------------------------------------ 2. Majority support? ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------- dp-embryo: ---------- sometimes supported by a majority, sometimes opposed by a majority ---------- dp: ---------- supported by a stable majority of the population ------------------------------------------------------------ 3. Weak or strong? ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------- dp-embryo: ---------- fragile, weak (ie: relatively easy to overthrow when opposed by the majority of the population) and inherently unstable ---------- dp: ---------- robust, powerful, strong, stable ------------------------------------------------------------ 4. Democratic rights of speech and organization? ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------- dp-embryo: ---------- compelled to suppress all organized opposition and exercise a monopoly of political power in order to survive ---------- dp: ---------- not threatened by opposition, extends democratic rights of speech and organization to those who advocate the overthrow of workers' rule and a return to bourgeois rule. The state will regulate and restrict only "commercial speech" (ie: media created by wage labor as opposed to volunteer labor) which will not be allowed to drown out, in political, cultural or economic arenas, the voices of the non-commercial speech of the masses. ------------------------------------------------------------ 5. Multiple organizations? ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------- dp-embryo: ---------- Political organizations will not be able to exist and carry out work independent of the ruling party/state without permission of the ruling party/state ---------- dp: ---------- Political organizations will not need permission from anyone to exist or carry out independent work ------------------------------------------------------------ 6. Separation of party and state? ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------- dp-embryo: ---------- The Party and State are essentially merged. Only party members may have positions of authority in the state. Elections, if they exist at all, are pro forma. There is no real opposition nor real campaigns and the real issues are buried and kept secret. ---------- dp: ---------- Party and state are separate. Many party members will be in the state, but the state will also include non-party people and members of different parties. Elections of one or another kind will take place in which candidates from different parties (or individuals not associated with a party) will campaign and be elected to positions of authority The state will rule (ie: have the power of coercion: police and prison) The party will not rule (ie: its influence will be based on voluntary actions) ------------------------------------------------------------ 7. Development of immune system against corruption? ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------- dp-embryo: ---------- effective criticism from outside the ruling party/state can easily be shut down by the ruling party/state If the ruling party/state feels itself to be threatened, then external criticism will be shut down and critics will face threats of job loss, imprisonment and execution ---------- dp: ---------- organizations outside the ruling state will openly criticize and organize the masses against the inevitable incompetence, hypocrisy and corruption which will emerge in the people and policies of the state ------------------------------------------------------------ 8. Relationship to our goal? ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------- dp-embryo: ---------- This is not our goal. This is a form of martial law -- representing a transition period extending from the aftermath of possible civil war to the period in which the economy is restored and society can function in a stable way where everyone has enough food to eat, etc. During this period, being crushed from outside (ie: by the external military or economic forces of imperialism) of suffocated from within (ie: by the corrupt internal elements which emerge and thrive when there is a lack of internal democracy) is an extreme danger (resulting in a return to bourgeois rule, or the rule of a new exploiting class) and this is what has happened, historically, in every case without exception. In modern conditions, any workers' revolution that found itself to be so weak and to have such little popular support that it was compelled to suppress democratic rights and retreat to conditions of DP-Embryo for a lengthy period (ie: much longer than a year or so) would probably be doomed (ie: would be likely to be crushed from outside or suffocated from within). The period of DP-embryo would not be necessary if working class forces can come to power in a scenario where there is no external war or civil war of the kind which destroys much of the basic infrastructure needed for the economy to function. The working class has never come to power in such a scenario. ---------- dp: ---------- This is what victory looks like! No revolution in human history has reached this stage. But this is highly likely to happen in the 21st century. There is little danger that the DP will return to bourgeois rule (or the rule of a new exploiting class) because the masses are armed with democratic rights and will be able to effectively oppose all corruption. If the leading workers' party becomes corrupt, the masses will be able create other parties to take its place. The DP will itself be a transition period in which, over several decades, the moneyless gift economy gradually replaces the economy based on commodity production and exchange (ie: the capitalist and state-capitalist sectors) ------------------------------------------------------------ end of chart ------------------------------------------------------------ The principles in the chart above must eventually be known (in one or another form) to hundreds of thousands of activists in order to rescue the concept of workers' rule from the ocean of shit in which it has been buried for more than 80 years. Cargo Cult Leninists (such as X9) with whom I have discussed these principles often resort to a verbal argument that is rarely made public. "We cannot guarantee", this argument goes, "that we will not need to pass through a period of DP-embryo". "And we must tell people the truth or they will, when the going gets tough, conclude that we deceived them." But this is a bankrupt argument. It is true that no one can predict the circumstances by which the working class can come to power. And it is possible that a short period of DP-embryo may be necessary in any country in which a civil war effectively destroys the economy. But, I have argued that, first, if conditions of DP-embryo (ie: suspension of democratic rights) were required for a lengthy period--then the revolution would probably be doomed: it would not be able to defend itself against both external threat and internal threat at the same time for more than a short period. And I have made a second argument that is far more important. We must be able to talk to people about our goal. Our goal is not DP-embryo. Our goal is the full DP. Our goal is workers' rule. If a period of hardship and emergency may become necessary to get there--that does not make this period of hardship and emergency our goal. The cargo-cultists oppose making our goal clear because they are not clear themselves on the distinction between the DP and the DP-embryo. For example, if your son is being bullied at school and you tell him that he should stand up for himself and defend himself against bullies and offer to teach him how to fight: you don't tell your son that his goal is to get a bloody nose (even if that is a possibility). Instead you motivate your son with the goal that bullies will learn that he is too much trouble to mess with. Or consider another example: In 1917 Lenin and the Bolsheviks promoted the slogan: "Peace, Bread and Land" to sum up the program of the Bolshevik party to the workers and peasants. Do our champions of "telling people the truth" believe that Lenin should have instead promoted the slogan: "Civil war, famine and typhoid"? No. We must be honest with everyone about the difficulties we may face. But it is also our responsibility to make clear to everyone that victory is possible and necessary--and to show what victory looks like. We do not need to know all the details of victory to know that it involves a situation where the working class rules as a _class_ and uses the full range of _democratic rights_ to do so and to prevent the emergence of a new class of exploiters. This is something that Frank and the cargo-cultists cannot see. They can see only the past--not the future. Humanity has never gone beyond the stage of DP-embryo and this is why our cargo-cultists denounce discussion of the genuine rule of the working class as "utopian" and are fundamentally conservative on this topic. Our cargo cultists do not want to talk about workers' rule because they consider the entire topic to be a "bummer". It will "turn people off", they think. And it is true that the goal of a police state is a pretty dismal goal and hardly one to inspire a lifetime of sacrifice from potential revolutionaries. So our cargo-cultists shut their mouths about the most important question of our time--the need to create a society that is not run by the bourgeoisie--because they see this issue as a liability rather than an asset--because they understand so little about this topic that they cannot see that this goal is the most powerful unifying concept of the 21st century--capable, once it is understood by hundreds of thousands of activists, of giving life to a revolutionary movement deserving of the respect, admiration and loyalty of the working class. ================================================= Appendix B: from: Leninism.org\stream\99\zhang\wr_mmedia.asp ================================================= [I wrote the comments below in 1999. In this section, Lenin describes a transition step that could have unfolded to help mitigate the problems of single party rule in the period before democratic rights could have been extended to the entire population. Ben -- Sept 2007] I will introduce my reply [...] with a "secondhand" interview with Lenin described by George Seldes in his 1988 book "Witness to a Century". Seldes went on to become the publisher of a one-person social-democratic newsletter (1940-50) that became the inspiration for "I.F. Stone's Weekly". In late 1922, as a reporter, he was sent to Russia to gather intelligence for the US government as a condition for US famine relief. Stone interviewed many key figures in Russia and was personally debriefed by US president Warren G. Harding when he returned. ======================================= Lenin on a Bolshevik "two-party system" ======================================= (from "Witness to a Century" by George Seldes, 1988) "For many weeks Oscar Cesare, the noted artist of The New York Times, was privileged to sit in Lenin's office daily and make sketches. Sometimes Lenin talked. When Spewack of the World and I heard of these conversations, we primed Cesare with questions--and thus had a secondhand running interview. "To our questions, 'Will you ever permit another political party to exist in Soviet Russia?' Lenin replied: "'The two-party system is a luxury which only long-established and secure nations can afford. However, eventually we will have a two-party system such as the British have--a left party and a right party--but two Bolshevik parties, of course.' "Cesare said that Lenin's eyes twinkled when he said 'two-party system,' and that he finished his talk with a knowing laugh." Such an "interview" certainly contradicts the notion of our "Cargo Cult Leninists" that Lenin stood for the rule of a single monolithic party (ie: without factions) thruout the entire period of the D of P. These people (and others) may question whether Seldes' account can be considered reliable. I am personally confident that Seldes' account is accurate. How do I know? I believe we can know it is accurate the same way we can know that Phoenician claims to have circumnavigated Africa in a three-year voyage before 500 B.C. are accurate. The Greek historian Herodotus, considering these claims fifty years later, doubted their validity because the Phoenicians reported that in the far south the Sun [at noon] was in the northern half of the sky. Herodotus felt this to be impossible. Issac Asimov notes that we moderns know that the [noon] Sun _is_ always in the northern half of the sky when seen from that latitude. "The Phoenicians would not have made up such a ridiculous story if they had not actually witnessed it, so the very item that caused Herodotus to doubt the story convinces us that it must be true." In a loosely analogous way, I believe that Seldes account is accurate because Lenin's remarks are _theoretically correct_ and I believe it was beyond the power of someone with Seldes' ideology to make up such a formulation. (Note again, potential opponents--I do _not_ claim the formulations are correct _because_ Lenin said them. On the contrary, I claim that Lenin said them because they are correct. ;-) I present the "interview" here as food for thought. This interview is characteristic of how Lenin thought: Lenin was able to see phenomena in the _process of development_. Lenin clearly saw that the _form_ of working class rule would certainly change as it developed, as conditions developed and experience was accumulated--just as the form of capitalist rule developed from the stern Oliver Cromwell to the modern bourgeois democracy. We can't know, from Seldes' description, the exact words that Lenin might have used nor what he really had in mind when he said "two-party system" and his eyes twinkled. But the "interview" helps us to grasp that the period of workers' rule will have _stages of development_ within it. The necessity of overcoming the extreme problems that inevitably accompany such highly centralized power (ie: the ease with which officials at all levels would be able to silence the press to cover-up their incompetence, hypocrisy or corruption) would probably find expression _first_ in a system which permits a "loyal opposition". As experience is accumulated--the boundaries of oppositional behavior that serve the interest of workers (and the workers' state) would be determined experimentally. --<>-- (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/
