Information War wants to be free
to serve the struggle to end bourgeois rule
to serve the struggle to end bourgeois rule
Our war of ideas must be based on the needs of the movement
Posted 2nd April 2010 at 00:15 by Ben Seattle
Updated 28th May 2010 at 19:39 by Ben Seattle (added "timeline of transition" chart)
Updated 28th May 2010 at 19:39 by Ben Seattle (added "timeline of transition" chart)
Hi folks,
This post is my reply to Eric, a supporter of the Communist Voice Organization and the Seattle Anti-Imperialist Committee. I have been engaged in polemics with Eric and his mentor, Joseph Green, for a number of years. An index of exchanges (2000 - 2008) can be found here. My more recent exchanges with Eric took place on page 2 and page 3 of this Kasama thread.
-- Ben
Our war of ideas
must be based on the
needs of the movement
Reply to Eric of the CVO
Hi Eric,
First things first:
you want to act with integrity
I want, first of all, to thank you for replying. A number of my comments below are critical of your thinking and actions, but I want to acknowledge, at the beginning, that your action in replying to me is the right thing to do and demonstrates a striving on your part to act with integrity and to create clarity.
There is an important principle here: as long as activists with experience make a consistent effort over time to calmly explain and clarify thier views in public forums, the tradition of accountability will take deeper root in the revolutionary movement; the experience of activists will shed light on the problems we face; and these problems will eventually be understood and resolved—and the movement will win.
So, in the big picture, Eric, you are doing the right thing and any errors in your thinking and actions are, in comparison to this, relatively minor.
Having said that, I now must get to the point.
You are being evasive
This thread, in which you and I (ie: activists with a combined experience in the movement of 60 years) have supposedly discussed the goal of the revolutionary movement (ie: the “dictatorship of the proletariat”, or “DoP”) is seen by many readers as a boring waste of time. I have tried my level best to make this thread interesting and full of content—but it is unlikely I can make this thread interesting and valuable to readers unless you help me.
The problem, I believe, is that you are being evasive. I will not sugercoat this.
You, and the organizations you support (ie: SAIC and the CVO) and your mentors have done damn little serious thinking about the most important theoretical question of our time: the nature of democratic rights after bourgeois rule is overthrown and the working class runs society.
I believe this is why you are being evasive. I have asked you many times if the working class will have freedom of speech and organization. You refuse to answer.
The little you have said on this topic – is essentially indistinguishable from the standard apologies that so-called “Marxist-Leninists” have made for the last 80 years for the suppression of the independent voice of the working class.
Free speech must be suppressed
to (supposedly) fight “sabotage”
And, for readers who are doing their best to follow this exchange, here is a good example of how Eric argues that the need to combat what he calls “sabotage” will make it necessary for the state to suppress the right to speech and organization. I asked Eric the following question:
This is the closest Eric came to giving me an answer:
Eric will not explain, because he is evasive, what he means by “sabotage” – but this “sabotage” appears to be something that cannot be handled by the use of laws against injuring people or damaging property. I had argued that the workers’ state (like the general practice under capitalism) will protect society with the use of laws that do not restrict the right to free speech and organization. I asked Eric if he agrees or (if not) to give a counter-argument. Eric’s counter-argument claims that such laws will not be enough to “put down actual attempts at sabotage”. In other words, according to Eric’s counter-argument, the fight against what he calls “sabotage” will require the suppression of free speech and organization.
So this adds up to one more flimsy and bankrupt excuse for a view of workers’ rule in which a section of the working class is denied the rights of speech and organization.
A losing struggle against the internet
The problem with Eric’s view of the “dictatorship of the proletariat” is that a state which finds it necessary to suppress the right to speech and organization is a state that is afraid of the free flow of political opinion.
We can see how this works today in countries like Iran, China and North Korea, all of which are engaged in a struggle (hopeless in the long run) against the actions of the masses to make their views known and to organize in defense of their material interests.
Of course, Iran, China and North Korea are repressive societies with corrupt elites while the “DoP” (as Eric imagines it) is (supposedly) a totally different kind of society. But, if so, why must we picture this society (supposedly totally different) as being afraid of the free flow of information?
I have crystalized this contradiction in Eric’s thinking into a question I call the Joseph Green Evasionist Challenge [1]. Here it is:
If the rule of the working class enjoys
the stable support of the majority of
society—then why would it need to
suppress the free flow of information?
This is the question which Eric will not answer—for the simple reason that he has no answer. If Eric attempts to answer this question he will end up covered with ridicule.
Do we flip a coin to decide?
You have complained many times, Eric, that I am supposedly “misdirecting” this thread. What this means however (translated into the ordinary language that is used by ordinary people) is that instead of discussing what you want to focus on (ie: Lenin’s thinking in 1917 concerning the nature of democratic rights under workers’ rule) I insist on looking at this question in the context of modern conditions: workers’ rule as it will exist in a country like the U.S., where we both live, in this century—in conditions where everyone, for example, has internet access.
Taking a serious look at this question in the context of modern conditions makes you extremely uncomfortable (you act as though you would prefer to roll around naked in broken glass). But this is what life demands.
You want to focus on one topic. I want to focus on a different topic. How do we resolve this contradiction?
Do we flip a coin to decide what to discuss?
No.
I made a practical proposal, two years ago, that we simply agree to answer questions from one another. That way we could explore the topics that either of us believed were worthwhile. Unfortunately, that is not acceptable to you. Either I answer all of your questions while you simply ignore mine—or I am supposedly guilty of “misdirection”. The problem here is obvious: your expectations are unrealistic and you have a dysfunctional understanding of what constitutes principled conduct.
There is only one way to resolve this conflict: we must put the needs of the movement ahead of everything else. We must confront the ideological needs of activists.
Not fit for human consumption
The goal of the revolutionary and progressive movements in a country like the U.S. must be workers’ rule. Not workers’ rule in Russia 90 years ago—but workers’ rule in this country in this century.
This goal belongs at the center of our movement. With this goal, the revolutionary movement will be deserving of the attention of activists everywhere. Without this goal, there can be no revolutionary movement.
And as long as this goal is identified with a society that is afraid of the free flow of information (ie: a police state) it is an idea that is not fit for human consumption.
You, Eric, and the organizations you support, and your mentors, have nothing worthwhile to say about this goal. There is essentially nothing you have said about this goal that the apologists for revisionism have not been saying for decades. This is why the leaflets by SAIC and the CVO say nothing about this goal other than the “same old shit”; contain nothing but cluelessness and hypocrisy.
This was summed up with precision two years ago by Alex G on the ”Party of the Future” email discussion list:
When I make an effort to point out to you, Eric, the urgent and living needs of our movement—you complain (again and again) about “misdirection” as if you (like some Little Lord Faulteroy, aloof from the theoretical needs of the class struggle) have been granted a royal charter to decide what topics are legitimate to discuss.
If I had a magic ability
If I had some magic ability to wake you up, Eric, I would tell you that:
(1) the nature of democratic rights under workers’ rule is
the most important theoretical question of our time and
(2) as a serious activist, you have the ability to contribute
to a decisive resolution to this most important of
all theoretical questions.
If I had this magic ability to rouse you from your slumber, I would draw your attention to two of the principles which are essential to understanding this theoretical question.
(1) The point where everything changes
The first of these essential principles is simple:
Following the overthrow of bourgeois rule, a point will come where everything changes. This will be a point where quantity changes into quality.
We see this in life all around us. When the temperature of water rises, for example, above 212 degrees farenheit, the water changes form from liquid to gas. In physics this is usually called a “phase transition”. In the arcane (and sometimes alienating) jargon of the cargo cults, this is called a “nodal point”. In more current language (related more to competition in the business world) it is often called a “tipping point” (after a recent popular book by that name). It doesn’t make any difference what we call it. It is a point where what comes after is different, in a big way, from what came before.
After the overthrow of bourgeois rule, the point will come when the revolutionary government enjoys the stable support of the majority of the working class and population.
Note 2: The graphic above is essentially a simplified version of the timeline (see below) that I created for my reply to you. You had complained that it was too complex, so made it easier to understand.
(2) Truth is always concrete
The second essential principle is that “truth is always concrete”. This is the most important principle that materialists use to understand anything.
This principle means that when we study anything, we must begin with the most concrete (ie: “lower”) material facts and, only after understanding these facts and factors (and how these factors influence one another; how the development of one factor conditions and determines the development of another, etc) will we be able to understand the more abstract (ie: “higher”) aspects of what we want to understand.
Some examples:
(1) In order to understand an ecosystem—you must understand many of the component species in it—and their interactions (ie: more foxes will lead to fewer rabbits, more rabbits lead to fewer of the plants that rabbits eat, etc).
(2) Similarly, in order to understand the life of a colony of bees, you must understand at least a little about an individual bee.
(3) A third example comes from biochemistry: before you can understand how a particular protein functions, you must understand key things about the smaller molecular groups or atoms that make up the protein (ie: some groups are attracted to polar molecules like water while some are repelled by polar molecules).
How does this principle apply to our study of democratic rights under workers’ rule?
In order to understand how the working class will run society after the overthrow of bourgeois rule—we must understand (ie: at a more “atomic” or concrete level) the democratic rights of individual workers. Just as their can be no colonies of bees without individual bees nor proteins without atoms—neither can the working class control everything in society if the individual workers do not have the right to free speech and organization.
This principle is more clear if we look at an intermediate level between concrete and abstract: the large number of independent organizations that will exist under workers’ rule.
These independent organizations will be the means by which the workers self-organize and focus public opinion and social resources on problems to be solved in the spheres of politics, economics, culture and technology.
Independent organizations cannot exist
without free speech rights
These independent organizations will not be able to exist if workers do not have the right to create them or if the “revolutionary government” is afraid of the free flow of information and attempts to suppress this free flow.
The reason for this is simple: oppositional politics will always (ie: “automatically”) flow into and find expression through the vehicle of independent organizations in conditions where “political space” does not exist where it can express itself more directly.
It therefore follows from this, as night follows day, that the need to suppress oppositional politics inevitably leads to the need to suppress all independent organizations.
This is why, for example, the Soviet government was compelled to suppress independent organizations in the early 1920’s (ie: after the civil war and in the period in which Lenin was alive). This also appears to be why the corrupt Chinese state was compelled to suppress the Falun Gong (ie: what started as a somewhat apolitical organization centered on healthy exercize became a conduit for oppositional politics because it was one of the few independent organizations that was allowed to exist).
Conclusion: you have a choice
It is time for me, Eric, to wrap this up. The bottom line here is that you have a choice: you can choose to act with greater integrity.
We have had a number of exchanges. It appears to me, however, that you are just “going through the motions”, as if you were following the principle: “Better to look good than to be good”.
In all of our exchanges you have been evasive. You have been encouraged in this evasion, I believe, by Joseph Green—whom I consider a charlatan—who started out with good sentiment, made a few mistakes and became trapped in his own dishonesty.
But you are not Joseph. You have a choice. You can choose to engage me in a more open and straightforward way.
Our actions show what is in our hearts. When the needs of the movement are in our hearts and the center of our consciousness—then all other issues, no matter how complicated, will fall into place.
-- Ben Seattle
http://struggle.net/ben/ -- index to Ben’s work
http://struggle.net/mass-democracy/ -- index to Ben’s polemics with Eric and Joseph
Note
[1] Why do I call this question the ”Joseph Green Evasionist Challenge” ? Because it is the question that Joseph Green (ie: the theoretical leader of the CVO) can never answer and which proves that he is an evasionist.
This post is my reply to Eric, a supporter of the Communist Voice Organization and the Seattle Anti-Imperialist Committee. I have been engaged in polemics with Eric and his mentor, Joseph Green, for a number of years. An index of exchanges (2000 - 2008) can be found here. My more recent exchanges with Eric took place on page 2 and page 3 of this Kasama thread.
-- Ben
Our war of ideas
must be based on the
needs of the movement
Reply to Eric of the CVO
Hi Eric,
First things first:
you want to act with integrity
I want, first of all, to thank you for replying. A number of my comments below are critical of your thinking and actions, but I want to acknowledge, at the beginning, that your action in replying to me is the right thing to do and demonstrates a striving on your part to act with integrity and to create clarity.
There is an important principle here: as long as activists with experience make a consistent effort over time to calmly explain and clarify thier views in public forums, the tradition of accountability will take deeper root in the revolutionary movement; the experience of activists will shed light on the problems we face; and these problems will eventually be understood and resolved—and the movement will win.
So, in the big picture, Eric, you are doing the right thing and any errors in your thinking and actions are, in comparison to this, relatively minor.
Having said that, I now must get to the point.
You are being evasive
This thread, in which you and I (ie: activists with a combined experience in the movement of 60 years) have supposedly discussed the goal of the revolutionary movement (ie: the “dictatorship of the proletariat”, or “DoP”) is seen by many readers as a boring waste of time. I have tried my level best to make this thread interesting and full of content—but it is unlikely I can make this thread interesting and valuable to readers unless you help me.
The problem, I believe, is that you are being evasive. I will not sugercoat this.
You, and the organizations you support (ie: SAIC and the CVO) and your mentors have done damn little serious thinking about the most important theoretical question of our time: the nature of democratic rights after bourgeois rule is overthrown and the working class runs society.
I believe this is why you are being evasive. I have asked you many times if the working class will have freedom of speech and organization. You refuse to answer.
The little you have said on this topic – is essentially indistinguishable from the standard apologies that so-called “Marxist-Leninists” have made for the last 80 years for the suppression of the independent voice of the working class.
Free speech must be suppressed
to (supposedly) fight “sabotage”
And, for readers who are doing their best to follow this exchange, here is a good example of how Eric argues that the need to combat what he calls “sabotage” will make it necessary for the state to suppress the right to speech and organization. I asked Eric the following question:
Quote:
If someone murders people or bombs property--there are laws for that in capitalist society. These laws do not (generally) restrict free speech or organizing. Similarly, I have concluded that the "normal" dictatorship of the proletariat (ie: as it will be understood as something distinct from any relatively short period of revolutionary martial law in which emergency undemocratic measures may be necessary) will be based on (and will require) that the democratic rights of speech and organization to be extended to essentially everyone.
What I want from you is simple: I want you to recognize, here and now, without caveats about "disruption" or "sabotage", that this is a correct position.
If you believe it is not a correct position--I would like you to advance calm and clear arguments why you believe it is not.
What I want from you is simple: I want you to recognize, here and now, without caveats about "disruption" or "sabotage", that this is a correct position.
If you believe it is not a correct position--I would like you to advance calm and clear arguments why you believe it is not.
Quote:
Are you really going to argue that the proletarian state, during the period when there are still bourgeois, and therefore still the need for a state, will not put down actual attempts at sabotage against society?
So this adds up to one more flimsy and bankrupt excuse for a view of workers’ rule in which a section of the working class is denied the rights of speech and organization.
A losing struggle against the internet
The problem with Eric’s view of the “dictatorship of the proletariat” is that a state which finds it necessary to suppress the right to speech and organization is a state that is afraid of the free flow of political opinion.
We can see how this works today in countries like Iran, China and North Korea, all of which are engaged in a struggle (hopeless in the long run) against the actions of the masses to make their views known and to organize in defense of their material interests.
Of course, Iran, China and North Korea are repressive societies with corrupt elites while the “DoP” (as Eric imagines it) is (supposedly) a totally different kind of society. But, if so, why must we picture this society (supposedly totally different) as being afraid of the free flow of information?
I have crystalized this contradiction in Eric’s thinking into a question I call the Joseph Green Evasionist Challenge [1]. Here it is:
If the rule of the working class enjoys
the stable support of the majority of
society—then why would it need to
suppress the free flow of information?
This is the question which Eric will not answer—for the simple reason that he has no answer. If Eric attempts to answer this question he will end up covered with ridicule.
Do we flip a coin to decide?
You have complained many times, Eric, that I am supposedly “misdirecting” this thread. What this means however (translated into the ordinary language that is used by ordinary people) is that instead of discussing what you want to focus on (ie: Lenin’s thinking in 1917 concerning the nature of democratic rights under workers’ rule) I insist on looking at this question in the context of modern conditions: workers’ rule as it will exist in a country like the U.S., where we both live, in this century—in conditions where everyone, for example, has internet access.
Taking a serious look at this question in the context of modern conditions makes you extremely uncomfortable (you act as though you would prefer to roll around naked in broken glass). But this is what life demands.
You want to focus on one topic. I want to focus on a different topic. How do we resolve this contradiction?
Do we flip a coin to decide what to discuss?
No.
I made a practical proposal, two years ago, that we simply agree to answer questions from one another. That way we could explore the topics that either of us believed were worthwhile. Unfortunately, that is not acceptable to you. Either I answer all of your questions while you simply ignore mine—or I am supposedly guilty of “misdirection”. The problem here is obvious: your expectations are unrealistic and you have a dysfunctional understanding of what constitutes principled conduct.
There is only one way to resolve this conflict: we must put the needs of the movement ahead of everything else. We must confront the ideological needs of activists.
Not fit for human consumption
The goal of the revolutionary and progressive movements in a country like the U.S. must be workers’ rule. Not workers’ rule in Russia 90 years ago—but workers’ rule in this country in this century.
This goal belongs at the center of our movement. With this goal, the revolutionary movement will be deserving of the attention of activists everywhere. Without this goal, there can be no revolutionary movement.
And as long as this goal is identified with a society that is afraid of the free flow of information (ie: a police state) it is an idea that is not fit for human consumption.
You, Eric, and the organizations you support, and your mentors, have nothing worthwhile to say about this goal. There is essentially nothing you have said about this goal that the apologists for revisionism have not been saying for decades. This is why the leaflets by SAIC and the CVO say nothing about this goal other than the “same old shit”; contain nothing but cluelessness and hypocrisy.
This was summed up with precision two years ago by Alex G on the ”Party of the Future” email discussion list:
Quote:
The problem is not that the CVO really wants a world where democratic rights are suppressed or that they directly promote such a thing.
The problem is that:
a) their descriptions of future society
... can be confusing and/or misleading, and
b) they fail to confront the question of democratic rights
... during workers' rule in their agitation.
The bottom line is that their agitation does nothing to add clarity to these important issues, and thus, while it may not promote illusions directly, by not confronting them, the CVO allows these illusions to flourish.
The problem is that:
a) their descriptions of future society
... can be confusing and/or misleading, and
b) they fail to confront the question of democratic rights
... during workers' rule in their agitation.
The bottom line is that their agitation does nothing to add clarity to these important issues, and thus, while it may not promote illusions directly, by not confronting them, the CVO allows these illusions to flourish.
If I had a magic ability
If I had some magic ability to wake you up, Eric, I would tell you that:
(1) the nature of democratic rights under workers’ rule is
the most important theoretical question of our time and
(2) as a serious activist, you have the ability to contribute
to a decisive resolution to this most important of
all theoretical questions.
If I had this magic ability to rouse you from your slumber, I would draw your attention to two of the principles which are essential to understanding this theoretical question.
(1) The point where everything changes
The first of these essential principles is simple:
Following the overthrow of bourgeois rule, a point will come where everything changes. This will be a point where quantity changes into quality.
We see this in life all around us. When the temperature of water rises, for example, above 212 degrees farenheit, the water changes form from liquid to gas. In physics this is usually called a “phase transition”. In the arcane (and sometimes alienating) jargon of the cargo cults, this is called a “nodal point”. In more current language (related more to competition in the business world) it is often called a “tipping point” (after a recent popular book by that name). It doesn’t make any difference what we call it. It is a point where what comes after is different, in a big way, from what came before.
After the overthrow of bourgeois rule, the point will come when the revolutionary government enjoys the stable support of the majority of the working class and population.
- Before this point is reached, the revolutionary government is likely to be focused mainly on its survival.
- After this point is reached, the rule of the working class will be secure and the focus will be on things like economic and social development and international assistance.
- Before this point is reached, the revolutionary government will be in danger of being overthrown and may need to suppress (or limit) the basic democratic rights of speech and organization.
- After this is point is reached, workers’ rule will be secure and there will be no need to suppress the free flow of information that will be essential for both: (1) economic development and (2) the process of drawing the working class and masses into running every sphere of public life (ie: culture, politics, economics, etc).
Note 2: The graphic above is essentially a simplified version of the timeline (see below) that I created for my reply to you. You had complained that it was too complex, so made it easier to understand.
(2) Truth is always concrete
The second essential principle is that “truth is always concrete”. This is the most important principle that materialists use to understand anything.
This principle means that when we study anything, we must begin with the most concrete (ie: “lower”) material facts and, only after understanding these facts and factors (and how these factors influence one another; how the development of one factor conditions and determines the development of another, etc) will we be able to understand the more abstract (ie: “higher”) aspects of what we want to understand.
Some examples:
(1) In order to understand an ecosystem—you must understand many of the component species in it—and their interactions (ie: more foxes will lead to fewer rabbits, more rabbits lead to fewer of the plants that rabbits eat, etc).
(2) Similarly, in order to understand the life of a colony of bees, you must understand at least a little about an individual bee.
(3) A third example comes from biochemistry: before you can understand how a particular protein functions, you must understand key things about the smaller molecular groups or atoms that make up the protein (ie: some groups are attracted to polar molecules like water while some are repelled by polar molecules).
How does this principle apply to our study of democratic rights under workers’ rule?
In order to understand how the working class will run society after the overthrow of bourgeois rule—we must understand (ie: at a more “atomic” or concrete level) the democratic rights of individual workers. Just as their can be no colonies of bees without individual bees nor proteins without atoms—neither can the working class control everything in society if the individual workers do not have the right to free speech and organization.
This principle is more clear if we look at an intermediate level between concrete and abstract: the large number of independent organizations that will exist under workers’ rule.
These independent organizations will be the means by which the workers self-organize and focus public opinion and social resources on problems to be solved in the spheres of politics, economics, culture and technology.
Independent organizations cannot exist
without free speech rights
These independent organizations will not be able to exist if workers do not have the right to create them or if the “revolutionary government” is afraid of the free flow of information and attempts to suppress this free flow.
The reason for this is simple: oppositional politics will always (ie: “automatically”) flow into and find expression through the vehicle of independent organizations in conditions where “political space” does not exist where it can express itself more directly.
It therefore follows from this, as night follows day, that the need to suppress oppositional politics inevitably leads to the need to suppress all independent organizations.
This is why, for example, the Soviet government was compelled to suppress independent organizations in the early 1920’s (ie: after the civil war and in the period in which Lenin was alive). This also appears to be why the corrupt Chinese state was compelled to suppress the Falun Gong (ie: what started as a somewhat apolitical organization centered on healthy exercize became a conduit for oppositional politics because it was one of the few independent organizations that was allowed to exist).
Conclusion: you have a choice
It is time for me, Eric, to wrap this up. The bottom line here is that you have a choice: you can choose to act with greater integrity.
We have had a number of exchanges. It appears to me, however, that you are just “going through the motions”, as if you were following the principle: “Better to look good than to be good”.
In all of our exchanges you have been evasive. You have been encouraged in this evasion, I believe, by Joseph Green—whom I consider a charlatan—who started out with good sentiment, made a few mistakes and became trapped in his own dishonesty.
But you are not Joseph. You have a choice. You can choose to engage me in a more open and straightforward way.
Our actions show what is in our hearts. When the needs of the movement are in our hearts and the center of our consciousness—then all other issues, no matter how complicated, will fall into place.
-- Ben Seattle
http://struggle.net/ben/ -- index to Ben’s work
http://struggle.net/mass-democracy/ -- index to Ben’s polemics with Eric and Joseph
Note
[1] Why do I call this question the ”Joseph Green Evasionist Challenge” ? Because it is the question that Joseph Green (ie: the theoretical leader of the CVO) can never answer and which proves that he is an evasionist.
Total Comments 4
Comments
-
I copied most of this to a post in the theory section of RevLeft
I have copied the majority of this post (with some of the graphics reduced) to the theory section of RevLeft. It can be seen here:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/workers-ru...354/index.htmlPosted 2nd April 2010 at 16:01 by Ben Seattle 
-
Update from Kasama (activity on this thead)
Following are posts from the Kasama thread:
(1) from me to Eric (notifying him about this RevLeft blog posting) and
(2) Eric's reply
Quote:Ben to Eric -- Apr 2 2010, 05:20 PM (GMT)
Hi Eric,
Thank you for replying.
I never claimed that you had a slavish attitude because you care what Lenin meant. I said it was because you do not regard anything else (ie: such as the study of material conditions in the modern world) as important. If you go back and read what I actually said I believe you will see that you have replied in excessive haste. I believe it would be helpful if you were to acknowledge this.Quote:So now you claim that, because I care what Lenin really meant when he wrote something,
therefore I must be a “slavish” follower of Lenin, refusing to think for myself.
This is pure and simple misdirection.
I am skeptical that you are being completely sincere. I have repeatedly proposed a discussion of the views Lenin expressed on this topic in "State and Revolution". I assert that Lenin's views from that work are inadequate as far as giving revolutionary activists today the solid foundation on this topic they badly need. However you are not interested in this.Quote:I am indeed interested in determining what Lenin meant, as a basis for understanding
the conditions Lenin was describing, as well as whether Lenin was right or wrong
on a given question.
Lenin's work on this topic is extremely valuable. But, in my view, his most valuable writings on this topic are from the period after the civil war: the period leading up to Kronstadt in March 1921 and including his last major address to the party where he warned the 11th Congress, in March 1922, that the real and main danger was the "metamorphoses" (ie: degeneration) of the party.
The force that was needed to prevent this degeneration was the independent voice and actions of the masses. But there was no way to release this force without the certainty that events would spiral out of control.
This is shown by Lenin's letter to Myasnikov, in August 1921, which crystalized the problem that the Bolsheviks faced: they needed freedom of political organisation in order to expose "weaknesses, mistakes, misfortunes and maladies" but were so weak in relation to their enemies that this democratic right would have certainly resulted in their overthrow.
Here is the rose, now dance:Quote:As for supposedly "lower" and "higher" democratic rights, you are asserting
a hierarchy which I don't believe exists. As I said before, I will wait until you reply
in our polemic and see if there is anything there worth replying to.
Our war of ideas must be based on the needs of the movement
http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=884My reply to Eric is in the comment below:Quote:Eric to Ben -- Apr 6 2010, 05:46 AM (GMT)
Ben --
I stepped into this discussion to criticize your assertion that Lenin meant a period of only a few months or a few years, when he wrote the phrase: “the necessary suppression of the exploiters”. Thus far, you still have said nothing to back up that assertion. Instead, you continue to stir up mud (and now to accuse me of evasion) in the hopes that readers won't see that you haven't answered. And I do not intend to be distracted from that topic by your name-calling and childish drawings. This is getting repetitive, and until you answer the issue I raised here initially, I don't think there is anything more I have to say here.
Your last post here, and the long supplementary material you linked to at revleft, continue to try to turn the discussion here to the topic of our other polemic, which is linked to several times from this thread. As I said above, I stand by what I have written there. I also said that I'll read what you write if you do reply, and decide then whether there is anything in it worth replying to at that time. But until you reply to my latest in that thread there is nothing more for me to say in that polemic either.Posted 15th April 2010 at 19:29 by Ben Seattle
Updated 15th April 2010 at 20:46 by Ben Seattle -
The elephant in the room -- (part 1 of 2)
Hi everyone,
I know exactly what you're thinking.
You are wondering why Eric and I, as two adults, are not able to engage with one another in a more productive way.
Believe me, I have tried.
Eric, it is important to understand, is a very focused man. Until I can prove to his satisfaction that my opinion (of what was in Lenin's mind when he wrote a particular sentence) is correct—Eric has made clear that he will not talk about anything else.
In particular, Eric will not talk about his least favorite topic: whether or not, when the working class runs society, people will have the right to speak their minds.
What Eric overlooks
There are two problems that Eric is overlooking.
(1) It is not possible to prove what was in Lenin’s mind when he wrote a particular passage.
(2) Revolutionary activists need to learn how to work together to solve the theoretical problems which are decisive for the revolutionary movement.
We need a decisive resolution
to the “crisis of theory”
The background here is that the revolutionary movement of the working class is paralyzed (ie: totally helpless, essentially non-existent) because of the “crisis of theory” that exists because nearly everyone equates the goal of this movement (ie: the rule of society by the working class) with a police state that is afraid of the free flow of information.
We will not witness the healthy recovery of the revolutionary movement—so that it is, once again, deserving of the respect of the working class—until revolutionary activists confront and resolve the crisis of theory.
Do we serve the movement—
or an agenda of inflated prestige?
Eric and I cannot engage with one another in a productive way to discuss the crisis of theory or its resolution—because our agendas are in irreconcilable contradiction.
I want to focus, above all else, on the problems that are decisive for the recovery of the revolutionary movement.
Eric wants, above all else, to avoid discussion of these problems.
It is as simple as that.
I believe this explains Eric’s studied and deliberate refusal to engage in any substantive way with the question of what workers’ rule will be like under modern conditions.
Eric supports an organization, the Communist Voice Organization (CVO), which has made errors on this question and appears to be concerned, above all else, with concealing its errors in order to maintain its prestige and the confidence of its supporters that the thousands of words it has written on this topic have some kind of profound meaning.
The cat jumps out of the bag:
Free flow of information will allow “sabotage”
The trap Eric fell into (a trap entirely of his own making) is that when he entered this thread, it became difficult for him to avoid discussion concerning the decisive topic: how the working class will run society under modern conditions.
Eric’s views did not make a lot of sense and, after I asked him a question, he felt compelled to attempt to explain himself and inadvertently revealed his view (and the view of the CVO) that the society run by the working class will fear the free flow of information—and will feel compelled to shut down this flow (ie: restrict free speech and end up, like China or Iran, in a long-term losing battle against the internet) in order to (supposedly) prevent what they call “sabotage”.
This appears to be the real reason that neither the CVO nor the Seattle Anti-Imperialist Committee (SAIC—a united front group where the CVO has majority influence) are able, in their agitation, to say anything meaningful to address the concerns of activists that (based on the experience of the former Soviet Union and China) the overthrow of capitalism could lead to a police state and a worse situation for nearly everyone.
(see part 2 for conclusion)Posted 15th April 2010 at 20:45 by Ben Seattle
-
The elephant in the room -- (part 2 of 2)
(part 2 of 2)
Attempting to dig their way out of a hole
If the CVO was a different kind of organization, which put the interests of the revolutionary movement ahead of its narrow concerns about losing prestige—then it would be possible for Eric and I to engage with one another in a productive way as two intelligent adults. It is no big deal if the CVO or Eric have some wrong ideas concerning the nature of future workers’ rule. (We are, after all, living in a period dominated by the crisis of theory and wrong ideas will exist everywhere.) Wrong ideas can be discussed and, over time, understood, corrected and replaced with correct ideas. This is a victory for the movement. This is how things are supposed to work.
But when concerns for prestige lead an organization (and its supporters, like Eric) to make up all kinds of “the dog ate my homework” style excuses (ie: the supposed reason Eric will not confront the crisis of theory is because of me—because I refuse to get side-tracked on a useless discussion concerning what was in the mind of Lenin when he wrote “State and Revolution”) to avoid substantive discussion or engagement concerning the theoretical question which is decisive to the revolutionary movement—then the revolutionary experience, talent and dedication in the organization (and the CVO certainly has its fair share of these) will be mainly wasted—because the organization has committed itself to a doomed attempt to dig its way out of a hole.
We all know how that ends.
It ends in eventual collapse, demoralization and passivity.
The elephant in the room
Eric claims that, when I explain the reasons that he and his organizations avoid confronting the crisis of theory, that I am (supposedly) “stirring up mud”. But if my explanations are accurate and allow readers to understand why Eric and his comrades act the way they do—then what I am describing is not mud—but the elephant in the room that no one else will talk about.
Eric and his comrades, some of whom I have known for 35 years, want to pretend there is no elephant in the room.
But we cannot build the movement by pretending there is no elephant. If our movement (and our organizations) are not built on the truth—they will be washed away in the first storm.
Our ability to build the movement and change the world
is proportional to the intensity of our struggle against self-deception
and for the uncompromised integrity
of our actions.
There is an alternative
A guy in my apartment building had a drinking problem. He would be intoxicated nearly every time I saw him, even early in the morning. He would regularly invite me into his apartment for a drink. And I would just as regularly respond by offering to go with him to an Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meeting. My response generally irritated him—but I was consistent. One day, after he returned from the hospital after a fight with one of his drinking buddies, I again made my offer. This time he accepted, and I took him to a meeting.
It pays to be consistent.
In the political movements sectarian intoxication is a disease that has a number of similarities to alcoholism. We have all seen it. Activists become so used to thinking of their organization as the solution to the problems of the movement—that the prestige of the organization and its ability to recruit and their defense of the line of the organization—becomes more important than seriously considering the possibility that the line they are defending might be mistaken. This kind of intoxication is a common disease. But it is not hopeless.
It really works
The political movements do not have meetings, like those run by AA, to deal with the experience of sectarian intoxication and the road to sobriety. But something is emerging which I believe will prove to be similar, in many ways, to the meetings run by AA. What is emerging is online forums of various kinds, where problems, and solutions, can be freely discussed.
As long as activists understand the value, and the necessity, of openly discussing problems and solutions—then we will find ways to work together and solve the problem of the revolutionary movement.
It is really as simple as that.
Eric, for now, has retreated from the idea of engaging me in any substantive way. The excuses he gives are simply another way of expressing the fact that his determination to fight for the movement is, at this moment, not so strong. I believe that Eric’s determination, in the future, will be stronger. I know the comrade. Sometimes it takes heat and pressure to forge steel.
A question for readers
In the meantime, I have a question for readers:
Eric is not the only activist who has recoiled, in one way or another, from confronting the “crisis of theory” and working for a resolution to this crisis. Every activist who has ever wondered how things will work when the working class runs society under modern conditions—has the ability to contribute to the resolution we need—even if only by asking intelligent questions.
So my question for readers is this:
What is holding you back?
Further reading:
(1) What is the "Crisis of Theory" ? (includes the sentences that could not appear in SAIC's leaflet)
(2) SAIC and the struggle for sobriety
SAIC and the struggle for sobriety (and a high productivity of labor) in the antiwar and revolutionary movements
(3) We need mass democracy! (my polemics with Eric and others)Posted 15th April 2010 at 20:56 by Ben Seattle
Total Trackbacks 0
