| document id: |
author: |
archive link |
publisher id: |
date written: |
| (notes for this file:) this document is part of "Anti-Joseph and the S.O.M.E. Hypothesis" | ||||
|
| Let's see if I've got this right. Ben wants "information to be free." But he cannot release his epoch-making documents because the rest of the world is too stupid to appreciate them. But if the world is so unworthy, how can Ben scream that others should put their views on e-mail? Ben has two standards, one for Ben, one for the rest of the world. Actually Ben has three standards. One for himself where he can use the excuse of an alleged bad atmosphere to hide his views. (By bad atmosphere, Ben means his opponents do terrible things like disagree with Ben, characterize his views and worst of all, ask him to prove his assertions.) One for his "majority" friends, who he admits are the one's failing to speak up, but are forgiven because of the above-mentioned "bad atmosphere" and a third, for his opponents in the "minority" who are "cowards" even though Ben admits they are the ones who have been active in the debate. |
| Coherence is not Ben's strong suit. Ben admits he has dodged the bulk of controversial political issues. Only Ben could justify avoiding the issues with the plea that he has been concentrating on the free exchange of ideas! Of course while Ben pretends that he has discovered the notion of exchanging ideas, it is the minority, not his friends, who have actually provided a journal that has included the views of the "majority." Now look at Ben's track record on "free exchange of ideas." He is all for it -- except when he wants to hide his views. Except when he gets answers to his diatribes he doesn't want to hear. Except when he relegates his opponents to a segregated second-tier of his beloved "free" e-mail system. Except if someone gives a political characterization of someone else's views. (You are not allowed to accuse anyone's views as being social-democratic, that's "labeling" people. But Ben can label anyone as an enemy of thought or a "religious bigot" and threaten to "kick their ass." Once again, the double standard.) |
| Ben boasts of his prowess in dealing with organizational matters. But how can one seriously talk of organizational matters apart from politics? Ben, who is in terminal denial about the significance of the last year or so of debate, still holds to this day that everyone could be united if only they calmed down a bit. He actually argues that for him to take a stand on the bulk of the political controversies would be a diversion. But if politics is not to be the criterion of unity, what is? |
| Well, Ben answers, we need the unity of those who are for the scientific method. But this is indeed a strange scientific method which refuses to examine the subject matter at hand, in this case, politics. And what scientific method are we talking about? Is it based on a Marxist world-view? Ben has been tap dancing around this issue for the better part of a year while asserting that agnosticism is the real scientific method. Meanwhile he brags that just because he hasn't proven most of his assertions, that doesn't mean they're not true, it just means they will be shown to be true in the future. Now there's "science"! Just accept things on Ben's say-so. This isn't even agnosticism, it's blind faith. |
| Now let's see what Ben's organization divorced from political considerations looks like. Well, for him, everything would be just dandy if organizations were less "top down" and more "bottom up". That is, of course unless "bottom up" doesn't work, then, he says, you should be "top down." I must admit, Ben's organizational theories have gone bottoms up! |
| Further insight into Ben's organizational genius can be culled from his analysis that the dictatorship of the proletariat should be based on "cooperative anarchy in which the actions of many independent, conflicting and parallel processes will somehow be coordinated to create fantastic amounts of material and social wealth without the necessity for any clumsy, burdensome and inefficient bureaucracy." Let's see, a society of independent producers who, despite conflicting with one another, "somehow" produce a heaven on earth. Ben's "cooperative anarchy" is just another way of describing capitalism, another way of praising the "invisible hand" which unites the independent, conflicting entities. Socialism must overcome anarchy of production, it must overcome independent processes that are somehow coordinated. Ben is right to be upset about the bureaucracy that developed in the former Soviet Union. But opposing bureaucracy without opposing anarchy of production is fitting for the Chamber of Commerce, not a socialist. And no matter what Ben imagines, his anarchy will, like in all other capitalist societies, give rise to a repressive bureaucracy -- no matter how many computers exist in that society! |
| Ben is lashing out mindlessly in all directions. He mocks Tim for correctly noting that the methods of political discourse by Ben and his friends was reminiscent of Stalinism. "Ha!" Ben retorts. Stupid old Tim can't raise the issue of Stalinism unless he can show that the accused have murdered people as Stalin did. But Ben, if the charge of Stalinism is valid only if the crime is murder, then why did you wait until now to complain? Tim was replying to your majority friends' accusations that the minority was Stalinist. Everyone following the debate knows that, among others, Jim and Jason had raised the charge of Stalinism against the minority months ago. Who has the minority murdered? Such is Ben's serious treatment of the issue Tim raised. |
| Then there is Ben's accusation that I think everyone must read everything I write. What Ben is upset about is that I pointed out that while he falsely accuses the minority comrades of failing to reply to Ben, it is the heroes of the minority who have been silent and encouraged silence. Now, Ben admits that the majority has been "passive" while the minority has been "active" in the debate. Yet he still mocks me for pointing this out to him months ago. |
| Since Ben favors psychological rather than political explanations of the debate, let me put Ben's method in terms he can understand. He is guilty of "projection," that is, he attributes his own crimes to his opponents. [] |