RevLeft - Comments

Information War wants to be free
to serve the struggle to end bourgeois rule

We need the bitter truth (reply to new BOC thread about the attacks of the ISO)

Red Fox on the nature of the ISO

(posted with the permission of Red Fox)

-----Original Message-----
From: Red Fox
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 5:01 PM
To: Ben Seattle
Subject: Re: We need the bitter truth (reply
to new BOC thread about the attacks of the ISO)

Ben

I wanted to tell you that previously, when I was in SAIC,
I remember you calling the ISO social-democratic and basically
de facto supporters of the Democratic Party. Back then, even
though I was opposed to the ISO, I believed it was simply harsh
language you were using against them and I didn't see the basis
for these accusations. However, in the previous years since then,
much engagement with the ISO in the movement has illuminated to
me why you said this and I now agree with you.

In a previous debate with the ISO over May Day, for instance,
the ISO criticized a proposal calling for a General Strike on
the basis that it wouldn't be possible, and in turn would
demoralize or confuse people about the nature of a General
Strike. The proposal was then edited (in response to their
criticism!) to say that we were only calling for people to
come out on May Day to support National and International calls
for General Strikes (in LA and India), but were not calling for
one here - just a day of action. Despite this, the ISO opposed
it and then put forward their own proposal that included language
about supporting El Comite. El Comite is an organization that
directly receives money from the Democratic Party. In this sense,
they are de facto supporting the Democratic Party, and by
opposing attempts by revolutionaries (communists and anarchists
alike) to create the basis for ruptures within the existing
state of affairs -- to pull the movement back into what is safe
and acceptable -- are playing the role of social-democrats.

I also want to point out a video from a few years ago in which
the ISO hosted a rally to celebrate the inauguration of Obama,
yet more evidence that they play directly into the hands of
the Democratic Party's stranglehold over the broader left:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCdFwDlDN5Y

When I recently showed this to an ISO member on Facebook, he
told me that it was good to support peoples' excitement over
Obama in order to build a revolutionary movement. What garbage.

Red Fox

Posted 24th March 2012 at 11:47 by Ben Seattle Ben Seattle is offline

We need an organization, and a goal, that are real

Comrade Red Fox on a problem that needs to be confronted

[I was pleased to receive the following calm and constructive reply
by email, from comrade Red Fox. I will reply within the next week
or so, after I have had time to give this thought. -- Ben]

-----Original Message-----
From: Red Fox
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 4:30 PM
To: Ben Seattle
Subject: Re: We need an organization, and a goal, that are real

Ben,

[I want to preface this reply by giving you permission to post this publicly.]

I don't reply to most of your posts, though I do read most all of them and would like to respond more -- you often have very insightful things to say (I particularly find your arguments about sect-like model vs. open networks and cargo-cult Leninism to be useful, and have often argued them myself).

That being said, I want to reply to this one because you are criticizing my organization in a few ways that I very seriously disagree with. I've heard you make these claims before on a number of occasions, but haven't previously responded.

You say:

"One good example of what happens when 'self-organization' is not appreciated is the paternalistic 'community' centered around the Kasama web site. As a participant in the community, I attempted to create a 'left opposition' with others there--so there could be better coordination of effort to oppose some of the bourgeois and social-democratic ideology that often comes up. My efforts resulted in a series of collisions with Mike Ely, who systematically used one bullshit excuse after another (ie: accusations of 'spamming' and 'attempting to divert discussion', etc) to shut down my participation on "his" forum to zero."

I've talked with Mike and others in Kasama about your posts, and my feeling is that Mike's analysis of your participation is correct.

Your assertion is that because you were either warned, or your posts were deleted, that this means that Kasama is "social-democratic".

You've talked before about the need to have sober discussions with people about serious personal problems -- i.e., your old friend's alcoholism -- and that without having serious and often difficult discussions, people will often continue to act in a way that hurts or alienates them from others. In a similar way, I think there are some very incorrect ways in which you often engage with comrades in other organizations that alienates you from them, and as hard as it is to say, I think this is a personal problem of yours that needs to confronted. For the positives of your work to be seen, I think some of these issues need to be directly confronted.

Mike's criticisms of your participation on the Kasama website were that you were posting things off-topic, that they were overly long, and the responses were often used as a way to pull people off of the forum and onto your own site; you were promoting yourself rather than joining in discussion. Though I haven't seen your specific replies, my previous participation with you in a study group a couple of years ago was indicative of very similar issues, issues that directly led to the collapse of that group.

In our study group, we read a couple of books, one of which was State and Revolution by Lenin. Though you often participated in very thoughtful and positive ways, you would also often come to some study groups and attempt to hijack them by giving presentations on your own work, rather than the book at hand. I don't doubt that you saw it as related, but these interjections were often seen by every other person in the group as off-topic and a diversion to promote your own theories. Though we never talked at length about what led to the demise of the group, I will tell you now that this behavior is what eventually lead 4 different people to quit, and I was chastised for inviting you without getting permission from the rest of the group, first.

At a recent talk given by Loren Goldner at UW that we both attended, you were called on. Rather than speak about the topic at hand (Loren's theories of Fictitious Capital) - you attempted to redirect the conversation into one about your own theories, and were quickly dismissed.

Here's the thing: I do think that your ideas are valuable and worth discussion, but I think that you often are not conscientious of the context in which you are presenting them. From what Mike has told me, you aren't barred from discussion on Kasama, but replies that go off topic, are self-promotional, or graphic-heavy or overly-long, will be deleted. In all honesty, I do not think that this is because your ideas are dangerous to Kasama (as I believe you have asserted), but that they are seen as spamming and trolling, and I think this is true. I think that you should attempt to engage more with Kasama, but stick to the topic as much as possible, shorten your responses (and/or make multiple small responses), and leave graphics and links to your site off. Couldn't you communicate your ideas without doing this?

So if this sole issue is why you are claiming Kasama is social-democratic, I think that you should reconsider. Especially considering that much of our current political work both as a group (Red Spark) and nationally (Kasama) and within the framework of Occupy with various tendencies, I believe, has a lot to do with how you see an open-network of revolutionaries (rather than a sect) operating. And, I think we could use your input.

I've had this criticism about your engagement for a while. You've often encouraged me to communicate my criticism, but like with your old friend, this has been something difficult for me to say, so I hope that you will put some serious consideration into my criticism, as I'm aware that it is shared by others.

If you reply, I'd be interested in continuing this discussion as time permits.

Red Fox

Posted 23rd March 2012 at 06:14 by Ben Seattle Ben Seattle is offline

Updated 24th March 2012 at 11:54 by Ben Seattle

Labor Aristocracy--Friend or Foe?

I do agree that the backwardness of the working class is a threat to our revolutionary potential but not so great that it can't be overcome. I have grown up in a mostly middle class demography and general dislike and distrust of the rich and powerful remains. Rather what I have seen to be more dangerous is the consumer culture that has emerged in advanced nations such as the US. Nearly all of my peers worship one or more pop culture icons (including boys) and are consumed by an alienating activity such as 'tumbling' or 'xbox.' And those who do long for meaning seek it in military or other bodies of bourgiose enforcement. My school's massive rotc program is testament to that. Organizing the working classes depends on our ability to free the people from this cultural machine of oppression.

Posted 20th March 2012 at 00:54 by Positivist Positivist is offline

We need an organization, and a goal, that are real

Let's now return to Ben's network, which he calls an organization, and implies is a party by another name.

First of all, historical motion toward forming new proletarian political parties in the U.S., Egypt, or anywhere else does not fit into the framework. Indeed, since Ben only talks about "disciplined work teams" which he believe(s) will spring forth in considerable number" in the future, BOC, CVO, the Gathering Forces trend, Seasol and others are simply left out of the picture...unless we liquidate into a "work team" under the discipline of his network.

But wait! Ben has yet to tell us who is accountable to who in this imagined network, and how anything gets decided. If it were not to immediately fall apart, logic would say that those doing the actual work should make the decisions, and Ben says those people would be in the work teams. And after first posing these teams against "the kind of ideologically based and mutually isolated fortresses which Frank proposes," Ben now concedes the obvious: his work teams would unite around various conflicting ideologies. Moreover, the more passive members of the network, which little would be required of, would also be divided between conflicting ideologies. (Of course, since they weren't on a work team, they would have more time to opinionize on the internet) So this leaves the problem I previously raised: who decides what "our revolutionary mass organization" does, and how?

In fact, a network like this could only itself agree to the lowest-common-denominator kind of politics, and if were to include most of the anarchists it would have to do so by consensus. Thus, it couldn't be a fighting organization of the proletariat leading it forward.

I think Ben senses this, which is why he spends three paragraphs worrying over how to "_exclude_ social democrats who _pretend_ to be revolutionary" (his bolding) while welcoming activists who "are not hardened social democrats." He spends three more paragraphs worrying that having a "central authority in the network with the power to exclude fake revolutionaries" would end it in toast, then more paragraphs arguing for a technical solution: distributed authority.

But for all the worrying over how his scheme for organizing via the internet would work, Ben's network would just be one leftist network among many, and an attempted reproduction of part of the revolutionary movement in cyberspace.

Posted 14th March 2012 at 09:00 by Frank Arango

We need an organization, and a goal, that are real

I'll start on a light note: Ben's concern about words.

"There are a lot of myths about 'Marxism-Leninism'."

Obviously.

"The biggest myth of all is that 'Marxism-Leninism' is based on the work of Marx and Lenin."

Well, if it's real or true or genuine or anti-revisionist Marxism-Leninism it's certainly based on the pioneering work of Marx and Lenin.

But oh no, says Ben,

"The opposite is true. 'Marxism-Leninism' is a _political religion_ that was invented by Stalin in order to justify the _permanent suppression_ of the independent political voice and independent political life of the proletariat."

Well, that's only true if you accept Ben's definition, which he shouts at us with bold lettering. Moreover, Stalinist revisionism was not (and is not) simply a political religion. It was (and is) based on a set of definite anti-M-L (or anti-proletarian) theories and practices. Furthermore, Stalinist revisionism was not simply "invented" by Stalin, which is a ridiculous idea. Nevertheless, what Ben is apparently referring to is the claim that Stalin either "invented" or first popularized the phrase "Marxism-Leninism" around the mid-20s.

But whether a group or party chooses to conveniently use a hyphen between Marx and Lenin, or says it's based on the scientific socialist ideas of Marx, Lenin and others, or says something else, it still must be judged by its politics, not on how it refers to its theory.

Of course, according to Ben, when we eventually have a revolutionary party in this country we dare not call it a party because that word "has been corrupted, over many decades, to mean a 'prison' for revolutionary aspirations."

Scary, so let's see. Divided between those who think in terms of an electoral party; those who think in terms of a party that backs electoralism with mass actions; those who think in terms of parties like the Workers Communist Parties of Iran, Iraq and Tunisia, or like the Labour Party of Pakistan; those who think in terms of a socialist working-class party that leads the masses in the class struggle; and those who think in still other terms, there are probably millions of people in the U.S. who're already saying they want a new party. Furthermore, as part of transforming themselves during the course of the class struggle many others will come to this conclusion.

And, in fact, that's what happened in the 1960s. The decade started in conditions of virulent bourgeois anti-communist hysteria that is nothing like today, while on the left the practices of the CPUSA and SWP (which were then larger than any group we now have) certainly discredited the idea of a party. But the 60s ended with a national movement of many, many thousands of activists who'd concluded that a new, genuine communist party was necessary. I think those activists were right, and that when a new generation of revolutionary activists reaches this conclusion on a mass scale they'll also be right, and that this will change everything.

The issue isn't that Ben worries too much about the movement being misunderstood because it's associated with the words "party" and "Marxism-Leninism;" it's that he opposes those words' contents.

New political groups have been forming around the country for some time, and there will be more. They're looking into various revolutionary theories and trying to apply them to the class struggle in their locations, and they're investigating the theories and practices of groups in other areas (with aims like learning from the other groups, forging practical collaboration, etc). Marxian revolutionaries are excited about this real world development, and do as much as they can to help its farther development. That's why in this thread I made some modest comments about the labor bureaucrats and raised the issue of having a party perspective even though I know the latter is not presently popular with many. And it's why I used the quotations from Marx:

"In its struggle against the collective power of the possessing classes the proletariat can act as a class only by constituting itself a distinct political party, opposed to all the old parties formed by the possessing classes.

"This constitution of the proletariat into a political party is indispensable to ensure the triumph of the social revolution and of its ultimate goal: the abolition of classes."

Of course, Marx arrived at this conclusion through study of the practical experiences of the proletariat: the revolutions of 1848, but also later. And Marx and Engels' conception of a proletarian party changed with their experiences in building one, as well as with changes in the broader workers' movement. For example, Engels participated in much of the preparatory work for the founding of the Second International, whose parties were organized quite differently than the parties of the First International had been, and were for the first time really mass parties. And after summing up the experiences from the Second International, the parties of the Third International were still different: More centralization and discipline, which fostered a higher level of independent activity from its members, a greater role in mass action, and a higher level of theoretical knowledge and consciousness. More attention to rooting the party in workplaces rather than organizing them by general territory. More attention to the nationally-oppressed workers in the industrial countries, and firmly planting the communist banner in the midst of the national liberation and anti-imperialist movements.

So there is no blueprint for how to precisely organize a proletarian party, and can't be. Nevertheless, today it's valuable to continue summing up the experiences of the Third International, as well as our own experiences in organizing (which for some of us means summing of the rich experience of the MLP-USA).

Meanwhile, life itself is continually teaching that "constitution of the proletariat into a political party is indispensable to ensure the triumph of the social revolution and of its ultimate goal: the abolition of classes." For example, organized into a few militant trade unions plus networks, last year the Egyptian workers were able to accomplish a great deal, i.e., topple the decades-old tyrant and force a political situation that gives them more room to organize in. But they did not have the ideological and organizational strength to overcome the military in what was only a democratic uprising (where they had many petty-bourgeois allies, as well as big bourgeois allies), not a proletarian revolution. So not surprisingly, a section of the movement therefore concluded from their experience that they needed more organization, and set about organizing not just new trade unions, but also new political parties. One of these is the Workers Democratic Party, which is rooted in the textile workers union, plus other militant sections of the class.

Now I'm in no position to make an overall judgment of the WDP. But all Egyptian workers can certainly get behind its struggle against the neo-liberal class offensive of the bourgeoisie, its struggle to bring down the SCAF, etc. Moreover, this party's founding shows (again) that the modern class struggle inevitably becomes a struggle between political parties. And where the proletariat has a revolutionary party this is the vehicle for its own class liberation, as well as the liberation of all of the oppressed.

But don't think that way, says Ben. And personalizing things he shouts with bold lettering:

"The kind of party that Frank advocates would be a _prison_ because it would be based on a deeply pathological fear of the masses."

"The 'M-L Party' that Frank advocates would be based on the _goal_ of a _single-party state_ with the power to suppress the voice of its critics. And, because this deeply pathological religion cannot defend itself in open, public debate, supporters of this religion are _inevitably_ reduced to people who have systematically trained themselves _not to think_." ("Deeply pathological fear of the masses." I liked that one.--Fk.)

Further personalizing things, Ben makes the baseless and ludicrous charge that

"Frank's efforts have been focused instead on: (1) control, (2) control and (3) control. SAIC, for example, stopped having public meeting because activists who came to these meetings often thought that my criticisms of SAIC might be valid..."

True, SAIC stopped having public meetings for a long while, and I favored that. But my favoring it had nothing to do with considerations about what other activists thought about Ben Seattle's ideas and criticisms---which were usually rejected anyway! (For anyone who cares to look, I dealt more with this in "comment 2" beneath http://www.seattleaic.org/statements/eight-years-after-iraq-invasion-us-empire-in-trouble.)
But for all that, capitalist society is ruled by invisible laws of political economy which result in its being out of the control of anyone, whether capitalist or worker. And based on the system of exploitation of wage-labor by capital, these laws are giving rise to continual economic crises and mass impoverishment, super-exploitation and oppression of national-minority, immigrant and women workers, wars, and destruction of Earth itself. Hence, I and all class-conscious workers fight for control (you God-damned right we do!), and not just to control individual workplaces, but to and control the entire economy through planning. There's no other way of overcoming the laws of the market (and fundamentally, the law of value) without workers control, and this requires proletarian organization.

(Continued)

Posted 14th March 2012 at 08:58 by Frank Arango

Proletarian Organization in the Information Age

First on Ben's ridiculous charges about my views:

I allegedly "underestimate the significance of self-organization, and even admit I do not know what the phrase 'self-organization' means." Never mind that the political organization I'm associated with (CVO) makes repeated calls to the masses to take political matters into their own hands and get organized. In one way or another we've said this in hundreds of leaflets, and also, when possible, made concrete suggestions as to what this meant in various struggles. And Ben knows all that. Thus, when I wrote that "what Ben calls an organization is really only a network which will 'emerge' based on a 'self-organizing community' (whatever that means)," the "whatever that means" was intended to mock Ben's non-class, "self-organizing community" approach. In other words, he didn't approach revolutionary organization from the angle of it being based on the class, or based on a revolutionary political movement representing the class interests, but instead said it would be based on some vague "community."

I allegedly "fail to understand that mass democracy, in relation to a revolutionary mass organization, is something more that the application of a sterile formula." Ben gives no examples coz he can't. And, as a matter of fact, I'm the only one who's given an example of mass democracy, i.e., what happened on December 12.

I allegedly reject how modern communications will shape what we can do. Funny, for years I've everyday used the internet for politics. But one thing I strongly believe (and believe from my own experience) is that the internet and electronic gadgetry are no substitute for face to face organizing, meetings, and so on. And while the internet is a convenient tool for discussing the results of theoretical study, or position papers, or draft leaflets, etc., the actual work must obviously be done off line.

I allegedly assume that "networks cannot give rise to anything that is solid," whereas I in fact think they can. That's why I wrote that "newly active people invariably network, form new groups, work to forge links between groups (network), and usually go on to try to form some kind of national organization out of a national network that they・ve built up." But I obviously do not believe that a network is anything more than a network.

Secondly, although some individual or grouping may be first to suggest "let's have a meeting," or "let's form a group, etc.," self-organization simply means that some group of people in some part of society is getting organized to do something. And this is neither from above or from below. If anything it's sideways (or maybe one could say "from the center out" if a very knowledgeable and strong leader makes the original suggestion). So when Ben writes that "'self-organization' means organization which is initiated from below (ie: from the 'bottom up') than from some central authority (ie: from the 'top down')," he's revealing his own petty-bourgeois/anarchist outlook: top down = bad; bottom up = good, and he's appealing to these prejudices in others ("central authority," horrors!). He refuses to deal with the fact that "from below" and "from above" (or from center outward) can go hand in hand in order to strengthen both.

So, in this regard, what about Ben's network? If it were really a political center in the movement rather than a debating society composed of anarchists, social democrats, anarcho-syndicalists, pseudo-Marxists, part-way Marxists and others (which not far fetched since all "activists will have the RIGHT to be part of this network," and the work teams won't be "ideologically based") then it's in fact going to be advocating analyses and courses of action in the mass movements "from above."

Ben boldly proclaims that the communications of his network "will be PUBLIC," and then turns around to say "of course," there will be private communications, and there's a need for security, etc. Not much different than what I more briefly said about a proletarian party.

And who makes the decisions of his network? Ben evades the issue. Instead he talks about democratic centralism being "generally understood today as a narrow and formalistic conception of democracy under which a majority of the members has the right make all rules and boss around the minority and appropriate the labor of the minority." Well, no doubt there are some people who understand democratic centralism that way, but Ben makes no attempt to clarify that there really is a revolutionary democratic centralism, he only writes of "so called" democratic centralism. Nor does he stand up for the democratic principle of majority rule. All he can see is a majority bossing around a minority and appropriating the labor of a minority. (Again, Ben's petty-bourgeois/anarchist aversion to organization peeks through.)

So perhaps the decisions of the network will be made by who can shout the loudest? or by who can wear everyone else down with endless internet screeds? or by a minority of one? What's wrong with the framework of majority rule after democratic discussion? (Such a framework can ensure there are ways for minority opinions to be heard, but if an organization is going to fight for the interests of the proletariat it must be able to act.) Oh, wait, there will also be disciplined work teams which Ben "believe(s) will spring forth in considerable number" that organize themselves in ways "that correspond (in a very approximate way) to the positive side of the so-called 'democratic centralism.'" So how will decisions be made when the teams politically disagree with each other, or with the rest of the network? I'm sure Ben will provide a caveat to explain that too. And while he's at it he might explain whether the work teams (who would do the real, sustained revolutionary work in Ben's idealist concoction) are accountable to a network composed of people whose rights and responsibilities "will tend toward the minimal," i.e., include people who were essentially sideline critics.

The last and main point I'll make is that discussion about organization cannot be separated from ideology and politics, which is exactly what Ben does.

The reason why the Russian revolutionaries---first organized as the RSDLP and then as the CPSU(B)---could for more than 25 years lead the Russian proletariat forward, lead the first proletarian revolution that lasted more than a few weeks, and take the first tiny steps in organizing the transition to socialism was because of their ideology and politics, which their organizational form only served. The reason why the CPUSA could for 14-15 years lead the American proletariat the revolutionary way it did was because of its ideology and politics, which its organizational form similarly only served. So for all those years Ben's "the old way of doing things" actually worked! When these parties betrayed (which didn't happen all at once in the USSR, or even in the U.S.), this meant that they'd abandoned Marxism-Leninism for bourgeois ideology masquerading as Marxism-Leninism, i.e., for revisionism. But Ben doesn't use inductive reasoning to conclude that there must therefore be even a harder fight waged to grasp and defend Marxism-Leninism (which is inseparable from applying it to the class struggle) than these parties waged, doesn't conclude that there must be a conscious and consistent struggle to raise the ideological level of each and every party member as well as that of the entire movement, etc. No, according to Ben the problem is the party form of organization itself. And this is an idealist departure from any serious treatment of revolutionary history.

But how is a network composed of anyone who calls them-self revolutionary (and where "rights and responsibilities will tend toward the minimal," no less) going to better fight against revisionism in the course of advancing the class struggle than a M-L party can? Ben doesn't even raise the question, much less answer it. Yet this is the key question.

I don't know how or when a proletarian party is going to again rise in this country. But there are a couple pretty obvious prerequisites:

1) A nation-wide revolutionary movement that is angry at and fighting not only the bourgeoisie and its political parties, but also angry at and fighting against the trade union bureaucrats, social democrats, left communists, anarchists, Trotskyists, Stalinists, and Maoists during the course of fighting the bourgeoisie. If there's not a rejection of the latter trends in the movement that gives rise to the party, with a clear idea of why we must oppose all of them, then the new party will, at best, politically wander and make sectarian errors. (I would add that there will be new trends that arise, e.g., left social-democratic ones, that activists are going to have to carefully analyze and tactically deal with. Today too there are trends like the dissidents in ILWU Local 10, and other trends, that we have to do this with.)

2) Connection/beginning merger with the proletariat, especially its most oppressed sections.

Ben's network proposal (which he's been making for 20 years in various forms) simply skips over such "mundane" issues as these.

Posted 5th March 2012 at 22:56 by Frank Arango

	The Coming Civil War and the Open Network (from the BOC "Longview" thread) My reply to Frank is here: Proletarian Organization in the Information Age http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=6767
	Posted 5th March 2012 at 14:32 by Ben Seattle

Proletarian Organization in the Information Age

6 more graphics related to proletarian organization

Below are 6 related graphics I have created in the past:

(1) How the party of the working class may emerge
.... from a polarized mass organization
(2) Kasama: Paternalistic vs. Open Community (part 1)
(3) Kasama: Paternalistic vs. Open Community (part 2)
(4) The Fortress vs. the Network (part 1)
(5) The Fortress vs. the Network (part 2)
(6) The Fortress vs. the Network (part 3)

(1) How the party of the working class may emerge
..... from a polarized mass organization

(from How to Build the Party of the Working Class, 2008)

(2) Kasama: Paternalistic vs. Open Community (part 1)

(from: Kasama and the Contradictions of the Movement, part 2,
and Ben replies to Mike Ely re: Moderation on the Kasama blog)

(3) Kasama: Paternalistic vs. Open Community (part 2)

(4) The Fortress vs. the Network (part 1)

(from: Letter to Red Spark Collective, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5)

(5) The Fortress vs. the Network (part 2)

(6) The Fortress vs. the Network (part 3)

--[]--

Posted 4th March 2012 at 19:34 by Ben Seattle Ben Seattle is offline

Updated 4th March 2012 at 20:12 by Ben Seattle

The Coming Civil War and the Open Network (from the BOC "Longview" thread)

Hi folks,

Both Frank and I believe that, at this time, it is appropriate
and useful to talk about different ideas concerning the nature
of the national political organization that will be needed to
mobilize and lead the proletariat in its struggle to overthrow
the currently existing system of bourgeois rule.

My response to Frank's most recent post has been, so far, to
jot down a few pages of notes and some ideas for graphics that
might illustrate a few ideas. It may take me a week or more
to work this material into a reply which is focused, easy to
understand and (hopefully) not too boring. Also, of course,
it would be good if what I write is also correct in terms of
corresponding to the need of our movement.

In the meantime, I would like to address those readers who
may still be following this thread:

If you have thoughtful questions, comments or criticisms of
either Frank or me (or both of us) now would be a good time
to post them. This informal discussion/debate will be richer
if it can reflect the experience of others.

Posted 27th February 2012 at 14:20 by Ben Seattle Ben Seattle is offline

The Coming Civil War and the Open Network (from the BOC "Longview" thread)

"OUR revolutionary mass organization will emerge in the form of an open and politically transparent network based on a self-organizing community."

So what Ben calls an organization is really only a network which will "emerge" based on a "self-organizing community" (whatever that means). But in a time of growing mass political ferment (like now) newly active people invariably network, form new groups, work to forge links between groups (network), and usually go on to try to form some kind of national organization out of a national network that they've built up. And neither we nor they confuse a network (or having various small and seperated revolutionary groups) with the kind of political organization it's going to take to lead a proletarian revolution.

On the other hand, Ben says that the CPUSA "was the best-organized and most revolutionary organization that has ever existed in the United States--at least prior to its degeneration in the 1930's." Fine. The CPUSA certainly was NOT a network in its revolutionary days, however. Instead, it networked with others around itself in the workplaces, African American communities, etc. But a few years after its betrayal it indeed became a network for a period of time (the Communist Political Association), and this century it's again nothing but a network. I'd add that it seems to be a pretty transparent one too, e.g., criticisms/debates of the line and leadership from the Houston Branch and others have been on the internet for years.

Nowhere in the history of the last century or this one has a network led a great mass struggle to victory. The victorious national liberation movements were led by parties (or national liberation fronts dominated by parties), as was the October revolution. And I think a weakness of today's movements is that the revolutionaries militating in them often have little more than networks to depend on.

For example, in Greece the troika is pushing so hard on the masses of people that it is forcing a decision---starve or rebel. Moreover, while there's anger against the nationalist and reformist KKE for it's constant opposition to a real fight against the exploiters, there's also a lot of illusions about this party, whose mass popularity is growing. So Greek revolutionaries face the task of developing their own program of immediate struggle against the bourgeoisie, their own press, etc. And from the framework of developing the class struggle against the bourgeoisie they must also work to win the masses away from the KKE (which can posture as Marxist-Leninist with the best of them), as well as other parties of the left and right. It will take something much more ideologically and organizationally solid than a network to achieve this.

Well, Ben goes on to talk of organizations that at first sight appear to be real organizations. And he stresses that they need to be democratic and transparent.

Fine. I don't think there's been any controversy here that if these organizations are revolutionary they're going to be democratic. But what about transparency? I (for one) believe a revolutionary organization must be transparent about its politics, policies and program, and that it should publish important internal political debates or controversies. On the other hand, I think there are other things it can not be transparent about. An obvious example would be letting the bourgeoisie, cops, Minutemen, etc., know the plans about a militant action against them. But there are others. Are you going to divulge that you have comrades in a government or other institution where their main task is to gather information? Are you going to publish your membership, and who contributes money? And there are other questions of secrecy that the organization has to decide depending on the situation: If it has comrades in the military, where are they located and who are they? What workplaces does it have comrades in, and who are they? If it's having discussions with another group domestically or internationally, how much about this should initially be public, if anything? Etc. In general, it's better to be cautious than sorry when dealing with these kind of questions.

Returning a little more to Earth, I think Womyn, genderqueer, and POC organizers, Hip Hop Occupies to Decolonize, BOC, and others did an admirable job of organizing the December 12 port blockade, which turned out to be a great action. More, it represented a certain centralization in the movement (represented by these groups) that was able to release mass democracy---as was shown prior to and during the event. That's what organization that is in tune with the masses does. Would have advertised and transparent planning meetings or discussions helped develop an even better plan? Maybe...but also maybe not. Furthermore, some groups or individuals may have decided to stay away in that case.

A couple of other points:

During the past few months a lot has already been said about the social democrats in this piece (and comments beneath it) plus numerous other local threads and meetings. But if Ben Seattle or others want to say more then they should do it. The only thing I would presently add is that social democracy is notorious for its flimsy style of organization: active and reformist-conscious cadres at the top, pretty passive and ideologically confused people making up the mass membership---which is more like a network, which rarely meets, and which is for both reasons is easier to control. Where social democracy gains its strength is from the prevalent bourgeios ideas in society, and particularly those of the left wing of the Democratic Party.

The revolutionary left, the fighting left, must reject social-democratic style organization.

Other than saying that I believe Ben is appealing to backwardness and distrust, I'm not going to reply to his charges that I want to eventually build a "cult based on a political religion," etc.

Posted 25th February 2012 at 07:48 by Frank Arango

The Coming Civil War and the Open Network (from the BOC "Longview" thread)

revolutionary mass organization will emerge from political transparency and community

Our revolutionary mass organization will emerge
in the form of an open and politically transparent
network based on a self-organizing community

It is a useful that Frank has replied to me. Our movement
is growing and developing and we are all beginning to learn
about and know one another. Many of the best activists
know Frank by now. I think everyone respects him.
I certainly do.

Frank has a deep knowledge of radical history. This makes
his comments useful. Frank also makes a number of errors
which are common in the movement. These errors also make
Frank's comments useful--because so many of us have made
(or still make) similar errors.

But my reply to Frank would be a waste of everyone's time if
my main focus was on Frank's errors. Most activists already
understand that we need something that is both deeper and
broader than another cult based on a political religion.

In the recent period a wide range of people and institutions
that we are used to thinking of as "progressive" have worked
to subordinate the militant core of the Occupy movement to
the traditional layer of corrupt trade union bureaucrats
and non-profits. They have demanded that we give up the
right of militant self-defence and instead restrict our
actions to what is acceptable to the so-called "mainstream
public opinion" that is manufactured by the corporate media.

We have seen pressure, lies and attempts at blackmail from:

** The Stranger (spearheaded by Dominic Holden)
** The ISO and SA (voice of the trade union bureaucrats)
** National Occupy activists such as Chris Hedges
** and many others

There is a name for the political trends (and ideology)
which has attempted to tame and liquidate our movement.
That name is "social democracy". Remember that name.

Social democracy is best understood as a trend which
attempts to appear radical but which is largely controlled
the bourgeoisie (ie: the social class which corresponds
to the 1% which controls the corporations, the government,
the media, etc). Most social democrats, of course, do
not view themselves as being controlled by the bourgeoisie.
They view themselves as following their star. It is just
that their perspective is limited: they do not understand
that they are in a box, and that their "star" is a pinhole
at the top, through which the bourgeoisie is shining a
light.

The good thing about many of the recent attacks by social
democracy on the militant core of the Occupy movement is
that these attacks have helped many activists understand
that the movement is polarized and that, in spite of the
many shades of opinion and diverse ideologies, there are
basically only two sides in the internal struggle within
the movement.

Understanding that there are basically only two sides
is quite helpful. This simple fact helps us understand
which people we should consider working with.

It turns out, for example, that whether an activist calls
himself an anarchist or a marxist is less important than
whether the activist takes the side of the militant core
(which works to create an independent and powerful movement)
or the side of the trade union bureaucrats, poverty pimps
and similar misleaders (who work to steadily subordinate
the movement to the system of politics as usual).

We want our movement to be organized in a way that allows
us to be more effective. And, once we understand that our
movement is split into two opposing camps, we can understand
that we need forms of organization that (1) include the
largest possible number of activists on "our side" and
(2) help exclude (or, at the least, greatly reduce the
influence of) those activists who, so to speak, play for
the other team.

It is particularly important that we develop forms of
organization that are based on mass democracy and are
resistant to the corrupting pressure which (from the
perspective of history) has caused nearly all organizations
of the working class and oppressed to eventually betray.

I assert that the principles of political transparency and
mass democracy (in particular as made possible by the
unfolding revolution in communications) will allow the
proletariat to create revolutionary mass organization that
is resistant to the corrupting pressure. The resistance
will emerge because the activists, and the masses, will
know what is going on with the organization and have the
ability to either (1) prevent its degeneration in the first
place or (2) quickly route people, resources and energy to
an alternate organization if degeneration takes hold in the
original organization.

These principles (ie: political transparency, being open,
self-organization, etc) are what allowed the Occupy movement
and its general assemblies to emerge as powerful vehicles
of mass democracy.

We need to understand these principles better, not in the
sense of some kind of silly dictionary definitions, but in
a deeper, living way.

That gets into the problem with Frank's views. Frank's
proposed orientation (ie: eventually building a party based
on _his_ political religion--whatever he chooses to call it
--or _any_ political religion) fails to help us understand
the principles of political transparency and mass democracy
which we need.

My problem is not with having great respect for the work
of Marx or Lenin. Rather, the problem is that attempting
to build a revolutionary mass organization on the basis of
a pre-defined _ideology_ (ie: something that would
inevitably be defined by a caste of priests who would tell
everyone who to clap for and who to boo) goes against what
we need--which is activists who study life and learn to
think for themselves.

I believe that, as the movement develops, the best
activists, from different schools of thought, will learn
to work with one another and learn from one another. And
the political religions (of which there are many) will be
tossed out, whether quickly or slowly. As this lengthy
process takes place, political leaders of the past, such
as Marx and Lenin, will be seen in their rightful place,
as determined by activists who have learned how to think
for themselves.

My personal opinion is that, as this process deepens,
Marx and Lenin will end up standing pretty much without
peer. But that is only my view. What will count will
not be my view, but the views of many tens of thousands
of activists who will learn, in struggle, what is real
and what is not.

And, in the meantime, there are no shortcuts to this
process. All kinds of idiocy (and all kinds of crimes)
have been done by people who called themselves Marxists
and Leninists. So shouting about "Marxist-Leninism"
(ie: a term _coined_ by Stalin himself in order to justify
the permanent suppression of the independent political
voice and independent political life of the proletariat)
accomplishes very little.

If we want activists to study life and learn to think for
themselves--then we can help them--by giving then concrete
analysis of the class struggle as it is unfolding around
them.

That is why I have asked Frank (and others) to help in the
process of putting together a joint statement that would
explain, in a clear and concise way, on the basis of class
politics:

(1) Why the social democrats (ie: the trade union
.... bureaucrats, the Stranger, Chris Hedges,
.... the die-hard pacifists and religious misleaders,
.... and the phony "socialist" organizations) are
.... attacking the militant core of our movement
.... and working to tame our movement and channel our
.... movement into the Democratic party

(2) The nature of our tactics toward the social democrats
.... and how we can work to defend the independent character
.... of our movement and how we, instead of working for
.... them, can force them to work for the movement.

I have no doubt that Frank has the ability to help put
together a joint statement. Frank closely follows events
in the life of the movement from the perspective of class
politics. For example, in November, I discussed Chris
Hedges with Frank and gave my opinion that it was only
a matter of time before Hedges would betray. Frank had
independently reached the same conclusion.

It is clear that there is great interest (a thirst for
knowledge) on topics such as this. There is a lot of
confusion and activists would like clarity. If Frank
would like to talk about Lenin, I believe it would be
more helpful to talk of Lenin in the context of the
development of united front tactics (UTF) since these
tactics (applied or misapplied in one way or another)
have been the basis of every great victory (and every
great betrayal!) in our revolutionary history. So we
need to understand united front tactics. And the way
to do so--is with the help of lively and colorful examples
from our current struggles--now that our movement is
finally strong enough (and enough of a threat to bourgeois
class interests) for the bourgeoisie to send their social
democratic flunkies at us from every direction like an
army of cockroaches.

So I would like to encourage Frank to help from this
direction, as he has already started doing. The two links
Frank provided, in my view, were both helpful. I would
encourage activists to take a look at them and see what
they may (or may not) be able to understand from them--and
to ask questions or make criticisms

We can understand the past on the basis of our experience
today and, of course, we can better understand our struggles
today on the basis of understanding the past.

For our common victory
against the bourgeoisie

Ben Seattle

Posted 23rd February 2012 at 14:53 by Ben Seattle Ben Seattle is offline

The Coming Civil War and the Open Network (from the BOC "Longview" thread)

"The masses at the base of the organization must be aware of the struggles within the organization for its direction and destiny…..The masses at the base of this organization must participate, and be completely engaged, in these struggles. This is the only way that the disorientation or betrayal by the leadership can be successfully opposed."

Taken by itself, there’s little wrong with this. But it’s also superficial, i.e., successfully opposing disorientation or betrayal by leaders (or others) of a revolutionary organization requires that the cadre be well grounded in revolutionary theory because that’s the grounds upon which the fight is going to take place. And, indeed, if it’s truly a revolutionary Marxist organization it strives to raise the theoretical level of all members (as well as of the masses) to the highest level possible.

While it was still revolutionary, however, the CPUSA had its ups and downs on this question. For example, in some areas it had labor schools where workers from the factories and cadres studied basic Marxist works side by side, in other areas it had party schools, and in other areas it recruited people with little knowledge of Marxist theory and doesn’t seem to have done much at all to raise their level. And, as a whole, I think history shows that the party didn’t go far enough on this front.

But since all that is a little tangential to the main content of the BOC piece, let me tie it back together.

Although the local Trotskyist groups (ISO, FSP, SA, PSL, WWP and SWP) have their differences, they all rely on making unprincipled alliances with the labor bureacrats at the expense of the proletariat. When they do this they’re in fact following the revisionist united front tactics formalized by the Comintern in 1935, and taken up by the CPUSA when it went bankrupt.

But since they’re Trotskyists they don’t say this. In fact, they scream against the "popular frontism" of the Seventh CI Congress while relying on Trotsky’s "entryism," "French turn" (join the social democrats) and other theories to justify the same rotten activity. (This is another example of how Stalinism and Trotskyism are often twins, with both being anti-Leninist.)

I agree with the comrade who said "we gotta take Marxism back from the ISO," and I’d add: "plus all of them!" And there’s no way to do this outside studying and applying Marxism to the living movements of today---which requires Marxist organization if the work is to go far.

Cheers

Posted 23rd February 2012 at 04:52 by Frank Arango

The Coming Civil War and the Open Network (from the BOC "Longview" thread)

Returning to the CPUSA, which Ben says we should be conscious of the history of, it too had problems with democratic centralism. In the 20s there was a factional struggle which undermined militant unity, and which took years to figure out and resolve. (This wasn't because the various sides didn't put forward their positions in the party press and journals, but because the factions weren't always straight-forward in giving their real positions.) O.K., those things happen, and it looked like the CPUSA was summing up this experience pretty well. But then around 1932 the party leadership began putting forward impatient and really unrealistic plans for party growth. This indicated that it wasn't democratically soliciting what was really going on at the base, and then devising plans that conformed to the realities there. And with the mid-30s departure from a revolutionary line, democratic centralism became total history. (Ex-CPers who lived through this period used to complain to we young revolutionaries that "you didn't know what the party line was from one day to the next...they kept changing it!" This shows that bureaucracy was then in control.)

When Ben says we should be conscious of the CPUSA's history he actually demands that we not think too much about it. According to him, "if you live by imported consciousness [from the Bolshevik revolution], then you may die by imported consciousness. And this is what happened." So, you see, it's all simple...and there's little more to think about.

It isn't that simple, however. Of course, the founders of the CPUSA were inspired by the Bolshevik revolution and the writings of Lenin. Who wouldn't have been? But they also had their own history. From the time of the 1900 defeat of De Leon's sectarianism large numbers of them were already disseminating and trying to apply Marxism to the problems of the revolution in this country. By 1912 a left wing had developed in the S.P. that for the next few years fought many battles against the betraying right wing. And also in the teens, Foster, Johnstone and others split from the IWW and anarcho-syndicalism, while the African Americans who united around The Crusader newspaper had split from The Messenger over the latter's support for entry into WW I.

This history, which many thousands of workers had been involved in, and which had its own leftward motion prior to 1917, is the real basis upon which the party was founded. (If it had been an "imported" party it would have very soon collapsed.) And this history is why during the lull that set in during the 20s that the party could continue to consolidate itself, work out lines on what to do on various fronts of the class struggle, and make progress.

So this view actually makes it a harder task to explain what happened to the CPUSA in the mid-30s than if we adopted Ben's simple formula. But if we're to learn anything, "be conscious of our history," then we must use this materialist approach.

"The masses at the base of the organization must be aware of the struggles within the organization for its direction and destiny.....The masses at the base of this organization must participate, and be completely engaged, in these struggles. This is the only way that the disorientation or betrayal by the leadership can be successfully opposed.

Ben says "this is the primary lesson" of the rich CPUSA experience, and it's very easy to agree with that because it leaves out the real primary thing, politics! And, in particular it leaves out the question of what ideological method and theory an organization is following, and whether the cadres at the base of the party are studying and assimilating the classic works of Marx, Engels, Lenin and others.

For example, all through the 20s the CPUSA made strides toward overcoming the social-democratic tradition of having a party where the mass of the membership was not very theoretical and not required to do much practical organizing. And this was within the context of the long-standing international criticism of the American communist and workers movements for having disdain for seriously studying revolutionary theory. But history shows that this struggle didn't go far enough. Around 1928 the Communist International started using one-sided/mechanical/rigid/formulaic (subjective idealist) approaches in sorting out what should be done in various of the global movements, yet very few in the U.S. (or elsewhere) caught them on this. This had a corrupting ideological influence, and further disarmed people when faced with dealing with the huge betrayal that was formalized by the 7th C.I. Congress of 1935. However, I would again add that in the mid-30s the question of "imported consciousness" was only one factor. The main thing was capitulation to the pressure of Roosevelt's shift to the "left," and his activation of social democracy.

Since the activists at the base of the party were under the same ideological pressures as the leaders, we can't say how many would have stood up if they had been better grounded in Marxist-Leninist theory---particularly Lenin's conception of united front tactics, the role of social democracy and the labor bureaucrats, etc. But without this grounding they had no chance. It was only a decade later that a weak anti-revisionist current briefly flared against the (by then) hardened revisionist bureaucrats.*

Ben, however, just passes over the question of the entire party being schooled in Marxist-Leninist theory, including its newest members. Yet without this the masses of members have little firm grounds upon which to stand when fighting disorientation or betrayal by the leadership. Moreover, I would submit that Ben "forgets" about the need to study the Marxist classics because he doesn't agree with them.

"We need to tell the truth (to everyone) about the nature of these trends [social democratic ones] while we work for a resolution in which we do not work for them--but rather force them to work for the movement.

"The good news is that these questions were worked out (and solved) 90, 100 and 110 years ago. The solutions have been forgotten.

"But the solutions are written, large, in history. If we have a clear focus, they are easy to find."

Really? Was everything "solved" then? The truth is that the parties of the Second International had no consistent conception of united front tactics (which is what Ben is referring to) in either 1902 or 1912. And as a consequence they had big problems with both "left" sectarianism and right opportunism. Moreover, even though by 1922 the Bolsheviks were beginning to lay out the basic principles of the revolutionary united front tactics they'd used, this elaboration could only be refined with summation of further practical experience in the class struggle, a process which must continue as long as there are classes and struggle between them.

At any rate, Ben tells us that if we have a clear focus the answers to the questions he raises are easy to find. But he doesn't tell us anywhere we might look. So I'll help him by pointing to http://communistvoice.org/WAS8503-7CINotes.html, which he knows all about. These useful articles deal with basic principles, and could be taken farther today...as could Lenin's book at http://www.marxists.org/archive/leni.../lwc/index.htm.)

Frank
*http://communistvoice.org/WAS8803Anti-Revisionists.html

Posted 21st February 2012 at 03:32 by Frank Arango
Updated 21st February 2012 at 22:48 by Frank Arango (Changed font and added space between paragraphs so Frank's comments are easier to read--Ben)

The Coming Civil War and the Open Network (from the BOC "Longview" thread)

Ben says "The CIO was created by many thousands of militant workers. The political force that was at the _core_ of this effort was the
Communist Party (CPUSA). We should be conscious of our history."

This is true, but it leaves out the key issue that prior to the late-1935 founding of the CIO the CPUSA had already abandoned the struggle for proletarian independence. In 1934 it was already having difficulties in dealing with new trends coming up among the workers, which could have been worked out had it stuck to a revolutionary line. But it didn't. It increasingly began to flinch in face of AFL pressure, and then capitulated to the pressure of the bourgeoisie as a whole. As our old MLP research showed:

"Starting perhaps at the end of 1933, but certainly in 1934, [the CPUSA's] work among the auto workers began to degenerate. It liquidated the red union, the Auto Workers Union, and it sought to build up the AFL union. It worked in the AFL not with the perspective of winning the workers over to red unionism, but to build 'a strong AFL'. It no longer encouraged rank-and-file revolt against the pro-capitalist bureaucrats, but instead subordinated everything to deals with them. By the time of the massive upsurge of sit-down strikes, the CP was restricting its framework to the pro-capitalist trade union structure."

Ben goes on to ask, "what happened? How did this all fall apart?".....but then leaps to say that "Frank has argued, on this thread, that the solution is to create a 'M-L' party (ie: a religious cult based on the sacred principle of cemocratic dentralism)."

Well, I certainly argued for having the perspective of preparing conditions for at some point re founding the M-L party of the American proletariat. And while none of my comments have dealt with democratic centralism, it's pretty obvious that any revolutionary group of any size is going to have to use this principle. You can't have unity of action against the class enemy without thorough democratic discussion and decision making. Furthermore, certain bodies must be elected and charged with carrying out specific tasks between meetings, which include leading the fight against the class enemy in circumstances where you can't say, "time out, let's have a meeting!" Hence, democracy and centralism.

Of course, just because the ISO and other revisionists claim to be democratic centralist doesn't mean that they are. In reality they practice bureaucratic centralism. But even in an organization filled with good revolutionaries it takes time to build up a revolutionary democratic centralism. Devotion to the revolution and correctness of the political line are part of this, but Lenin emphasized that the organization's "ability to link itself with, to keep in close touch with, and to a certain extent, if you like, to merge with the broadest masses of the toilers--primarily with the proletariat, but also with the non-proletarian toiling masses" was also needed. And I think it's notable that when the party Lenin belonged to went over to being bureaucratic centralist this coincided with it's becoming divorced from the proletariat and non-proletarian toiling masses (partially due to the decline in the mass movements that took place in the 20s) AND it's abandonment of revolutionary positions on one issue after another. (continued below)

Posted 21st February 2012 at 03:31 by Frank Arango
Updated 21st February 2012 at 14:39 by Ben Seattle (Changed font and added space between paragraphs for readability--Ben)

Chris Hedges proves our movement is dead if we do not fight back

Labor Aristocracy--Friend or Foe?

Quote:

I believe that this internal stratification, as well as the ignorance and backwardness
is holding us back; so it is important to acknowledge it, but it is not the only thing
holding us back. I think we hold ourselves back as well. Ben suggests that we should
first target Social Democracy, then address the ignorance and backwardness
of the working class, but the stratification of the working class is promoted
by Social Democracy is it not?

I need to better understand this question. It would be difficult for me to reply to it
if I have to guess at what it means.

Posted 15th February 2012 at 14:54 by Ben Seattle Ben Seattle is offline

Labor Aristocracy--Friend or Foe?

Thank you for your reply, I asked for your criticism because it is the easiest way for us to learn quickly how others view our work. I value it, and I think you make a valid point with the semantics of the term, “labor aristocracy.” The term is problematic for the points Ben listed,

If this were a term in the dictionary it would have two meanings,

[1] Original meaning: Trade union bureaucrats who sold out the workers in exchange for their own comfortable lifestyle

[2] Contemporary popular meaning: To refer to the section of the workforce that has better pay and conditions.
The problem that this term creates:

This can be problematic because it has two meanings and can thus sow confusion when used. I think that was the point made the other night. Also, I think Ben stated that it was important as it defined the role of the trade union bureaucrats and as the word evolved (as all words do) it left a void.

Moreover, Ben stated that the problem that comes up with usage [2] is that it supports the view that sections of the working class in countries like the U.S. have been bribed and “bought off” SO THEREFORE these sections are not revolutionary in their character or potential.

Furthermore, Ben argues that this is supported by Social Democracy because it insinuates: people in third world countries are revolutionary but people here are, supposedly, hopeless.

Ben elaborates on why he thinks the theory (Third Worldism) is wrong: because it tends to place the blame for the crisis of the revolutionary movement on: the backwardness of the working class and oppressed instead of the faults of so called revolutionary elements.

Points of Agreeement

Ben acknowledges that he agrees there is an issue of the ignorance and backwardness of the working class and oppressed in the US.
My opinion

The ignorance and backwardness of the working class and oppressed must be addressed. The stratification of the working class has traditionally been used by the bourgeoisie as a means of divide and conquer, nevertheless it is real. Case in point: The stratification is similar to that of Bacon’s rebellion in Jamestown, Virginia. When the white farmers, peasants, indentured servants and African slaves brought by the Portuguese united to overthrow the aristocrats the British fleet was sent to crush the rebellion. The result of this rebellion was the near exclusive use of Africans as slaves to prevent another uprising.

I believe that this internal stratification, as well as the ignorance and backwardness is holding us back; so it is important to acknowledge it, but it is not the only thing holding us back. I think we hold ourselves back as well. Ben suggests that we should first target Social Democracy, then address the ignorance and backwardness of the working class, but the stratification of the working class is promoted by Social Democracy is it not?

Originally posted as a comment at artfrancisco.wordpress.com

Posted 14th February 2012 at 13:21 by Art Francisco

	Political Resolution--I will make a post every morning I also made a lengthy comment on Art's blog. You can read it here: http://artfrancisco.wordpress.com/2012/02/13/33/
	Posted 14th February 2012 at 13:17 by Ben Seattle

Chris Hedges proves our movement is dead if we do not fight back

Peter Gelderloos replies to Chris Hedges:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/02/...ons-of-occupy/
(thanks to Art for finding this article)

(-- excerpts --)

Ironically, Hedges refers to the famous Birmingham campaign
attributed with achieving the end of segregation. What Hedges
and pacifist ideologues like him fail to mention is that
Birmingham was a repeat of King’s Albany campaign, which
ended a total failure, all its participants locked up, and
no one slightly moved by the supposed dignity of victimhood.
The difference? In Birmingham, the local youths got fed up,
rioted and kicked police out of large parts of the city for
several days. The authorities chose to negotiate with King
and replace de jure segregation with de facto segregation in
order to avoid losing control entirely. [...]

It’s election year. Those who still have faith in the system,
or those whose paychecks are signed by the major unions, the
Democratic Party, progressive NGOs, or the left wing of the
corporate media, know it’s their job to forcibly convert any
popular movement into a pathetic plea to be made at the ballot
box. The unmediated, experimental politics of the Occupy
movement must give way to symbolic protest and dialogue with
the existing “structures of power” whose members must be brought
“to our side”. For the Occupy movement to be sanitized and
converted into a recruiting tool for the Democratic Party, it
will have to be neutralized as a space for real debate,
experimentation, and conflict with authority. Its more
revolutionary elements will have to be surgically removed.
It is an operation the police, the media, and some careerist
progressives have been engaged in for months, and Hedges’
contribution is just the latest drop in the bucket.

This form of co-optation and manipulation is nothing new for
a movement that cynically harvested a few images from Tahrir
Square–an unfinished popular uprising in which hundreds of
thousands of people defended themselves forcefully from the
cops, ultimately torching dozens of police stations–to declare
a victory for nonviolence.

Around the world, people are fighting for their freedom and
resisting the depredations of the rich and powerful. In the
United States, there is plenty of cause to join this fight,
but as long as people continue enact a fear-driven,
Not-In-My-Backyard pacifism, and to pander to the corporate
media as though they would ever show us in a positive light,
the rich and the powerful will have nothing to worry about.

Posted 13th February 2012 at 18:50 by Ben Seattle Ben Seattle is offline

	Report on Feb 9 meeting of the Open Network of Revolutionary Activists Covey Charts For readers unfamilar with the Covey quadrant charts discussed above, here are a few. They were originally posted in a lengthy essay with the title "Relaxation is the Road to Victory":
	Posted 10th February 2012 at 06:06 by Ben Seattle

Page 1 of 7

Last »

Archive
< May 2013
Su	Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Sa
21	22	23	24	25	26	27
28	29	30	1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30	31	1

Red Fox on the nature of the ISO

Comrade Red Fox on a problem that needs to be confronted

6 more graphics related to proletarian organization

revolutionary mass organization will emerge from political transparency and community

More links

Covey Charts