| 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" | ||||
|
| Dear Comrade Science, |
| Just what the heck has been going on with the good comrades of what used to be the fabulous MLP ? The e-mail traffic seems to look like a bunch of evangelists calling each other the servants of Satan. Is there some simple (and short!) explanation of the different groupings in the xmlp ? |
| (signed) Perplexed |
| Dear Perplexed, |
| Thank you for your interest in the fate of the fabulous MLP. What has happened is not complicated at all. The good comrades of the MLP have more or less divided themselves into two somewhat antagonistic groups. Although these groups are often referred to as the "majority" and the "minority" -- a more scientifically accurate description would refer to them as the "passive aggressives" and the "active aggressives". The behavior of each group is conditioned by the other and hence the two groups form what we in the psychological profession call an integral and mutually-supporting dysfunctional system. |
| The "active aggressives" are most notable for their great zeal and energy. They like to "show off" or, as we in the psychological profession like to call it, "act out" their frustrations. The main way that they do this is make a big show of inserting their heads into their anal orifices. This is accompanied by a demand that the "passive aggressives" speak to them and accompanied by the earnest threat that their heads will not come out of their rear-end openings until the passive aggressives give in and talk to them. |
| Complementary to the behavior of the active aggressives is the behavior of the passive aggressives who refuse to speak to the active aggressives until the active aggressives remove their heads from their hindside apertures. |
| In essence we are witness to a classic case of what we in the psychological profession call a "power struggle" in a dysfunctional family system in which neither side has the ability to clearly and consciously negotiate a resolution allowing everyone's needs to be met. |
| ----//-// |
| Dear Comrade Science, |
| Wouldn't the situation you have just described be fairly uncomfortable for the active aggressives ? |
| -- Still Perplexed |
| Dear Still Perplexed, |
| They are used to it. |
| ----//-// |
| Dear Comrade Science, |
| That was very illuminating. What do you recommend might be done to resolve the impasse ? |
| -- Perplexed (but becoming enlightened) |
| Dear Perplexed, |
| I suggest a compromise. The passive aggressives, being presumably the more adult of the two groupings, should make the first move to break the deadlock. They should begin to talk to the active aggressives and in a calm, patient, soothing and yet still firm tone of voice suggest that the active aggressive might obtain a better view of their surroundings should they act to remove the present obstructions to their vision. |
| The passive aggressives should admit that they have erred by waiting so long to speak and should also try to avoid antagonizing the active aggressives via the use of a patronizing tone, although it can be difficult to resist the temptation. But the temptation can be resisted. And it must. Remember: the fate of the world is at stake. |
| ----//-// |
| Dear Comrade Science, |
| In the past year one of the comrades in the majority has been writing about us without deferring to our sense of dignity as proletarian revolutionaries. Don't you think that such vulgar and scatological abuse stinks of Stalinism ? |
| Timmy (Detroit) |
| Dear Timmy, |
| Those who fail to distinguish between ridicule and bullets to the back of the head are probably out of touch with the sensitivities of the masses who generally think that the ridicule of uptight, self-righteous know-it-alls who foam at the mouth is just fine. On the other hand treating ideological disputes with bullets to the back of the head is seriously frowned upon. Anyone unable to distinguish between well- deserved cyberspace taunts aimed at puffed-up martinets and the mass murder of hundreds of thousands (or millions) of workers, peasants and revolutionaries, is probably not in a position to be lecturing anyone about Stalinism and would undoubtedly get their ass kicked real good in any serious debate. Or to put matters more simply: You can't run with the big dogs Tim, if you pee like a puppy. |
| ----//-// |
| Dear Comrade Science, |
| In the past year many of the comrades in the majority have failed to live up to their most solemn responsibilities to read all of the most excellent polemics that I have written against those who are abandoning the class struggle, the working class, the fight against social- democracy, Marxism, dialectical and historical materialism and the struggle of the oppressed of the world against their oppressors. Instead they act as if we are nothing but a joke simply because we give a damn about the purity of our orientation. Doesn't this mean that we have the right to consider them as nothing but renegades ? |
| Mark (Detroit) |
| Dear Mark, |
| The essence of the matter, my friend, is how you feel about the "dictatorship of the proletariat". To the workers and the majority of society, this "dictatorship" will be seen to be the operation of the most democratic system of government to have ever historically evolved. Its operation will be seen and felt to be nothing but the most marvelously efficient 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. |
| To others (those who would like to preserve their privileges and perogatives at the expense of the interests of the workers and the majority of society) this dictatorship will be the most repressive and confining system imaginable in which they will be systematically obstructed and deprived of the possibility of living as parasites at the expense of others. |
| Exactly how such a dictatorship/anarchy might exist and function will be the focus of a great deal of discussion in the period ahead. There is a great deal of rich historical experience and theoretical contributions which are ripe for summation and the drawing of conclusions. But even at this early stage certain matters may be clearly stated. The dictatorship of the proletariat will involve democracy for the masses and elements of this democracy, even if seemingly tiny and insignificant, are evolving even under the present day rule of capital. One of the most significant avenues of development of this democracy concerns the free flow of information. Increasingly the masses will begin to assert their right to freely circulate their view and opinions and to have access to the views and opinions of others. This tendency will be fueled not only by economic and political development but will also be most closely intertwined with the development of technology as humanity experiences, in the period ahead, what may be the most profound revolution in communications since the advent of written language. |
| Together with the right, which will increasingly be asserted, to express their views to anyone and everyone via computer communications technology -- and the right to have access to all other views from all sources in international society -- will be a parallel right: the right to refuse to have someone else's garbage shoved down one's throat, whether by brute compulsion or by lack of choice in media outlets. Very small but nonetheless significant examples of this right not to have one's inner world polluted by the infotoxins of would-be exploiters are emerging and are worthy of study. Many corporations, for example, are discovering that heavily sexist advertising can frequently backfire on them as their target audience becomes more conscious and sophisticated. Such corporations are having to hire consultants who can give them a clue as to how to avoid offending major sections of the population with their obnoxious and insulting world-view. The magnitude of such phenomena should not be exaggerated because the magnitude is still tiny in the face of what remains and will be for a considerable period a virtual monopoly of the mass media by the bourgeois ideology and the representatives of the bourgeois class interests. But the significance of such phenomena as this should not be underestimated because it represents what is new and emerging. |
| And this right, the right of refusal to have garbage shoved down one's throat -- will be magnified a million-fold under the dictatorship of the workers. The would-be exploiters and disseminators of ignorance and prejudice can rant and rave or even can howl at the moon if they so please but they will be unable to force or to trick others into listening to their garbage once people have caught on to the nature of their game. |
| And this brings us, Mark, to your complaint that many or most comrades are not bothering to read your most brilliant polemics. The essence of the matter is that most comrades have concluded that your writing has a "quality problem". The struggle of the oppressed or the clarifying of the struggle against social-democracy is most fine but if these most fine struggles are used as justifications for charlatanism then charlatans will invariably find that their audience share will plummet. Comrades are just too conscious and sophisticated to tune in to those who have shown themselves to be untrustworthy and who would manipulate them and play with their desire to see the issues in the class struggle clarified. |
| Your complaints, Mark, amount to a belief that you are entitled to a kind of "tenure" in which all are compelled for all time to consume your every sacred byte even after you have been exposed as a would-be purveyor of counterfeit goods. In the last analysis, Mark, your beef is with a principle which will be absolutely fundamental to workers' rule. |
| ----//-// |
| Dear Comrade Science, |
| I am sorry but I still don't seem to get it. Could you explain just one more time why we should bother trying to talk to comrades who have their heads up their butts ? |
| Joe (Boston) |
| Dear Joe, |
| Marxism teaches us that we must attempt to move forward with the assistance of even such distorted and deformed material as has been left to us by capitalist society. Furthermore, and most importantly, the comrades in the minority would not seem nearly so out-of-it except that they are afflicted by the "artificial stupidity" created as a result of the disease of religious sectarianism. Once the disease has been thoroughly diagnosed, talked about and struggled against by everyone there is every reason to believe that the afflicted comrades, sobered by their experience, will once again have their feet on the ground. |
| ----//-// |
| Dear Comrade Science, |
| Artificial What ? |
| Joe (Boston) |
| Dear Joe, |
| Artificial stupidity. Here at the Center for the Study of Assumptron Culture (our motto: "No opportunist argument is too stupid to analyze") we believe that a groundbreaking theoretical breakthrough in the study of sectarianism in the left has emerged in the concept of "artificial stupidity". We have several of our most talented researchers looking into the matter. |
| This conversation sounds like it is becoming artificially stupid. |
| I'm writing the script here. Besides, I am serious. Marxism teaches us how the consciousness of a merchant will generally reflect the needs of his cash register. On a larger scale we have all seen how the consciousness of social-democratic political leaders reflects the class needs of their bourgeois supporters and patrons. |
| How does this relate to sectarianism among the left ? Groups like the Sparts and the RCP are not getting any big material benefits from their sectarian doctrines. |
| This is true but there is a material benefit that relates to a similar kind of corruption as corrupts the consciousness of a merchant: they keep their organization together and the imperative to continue to do so mandates that the organization maintains its belief structures for the sake of its continued existence. |
| So why should we talk to comrades so afflicted with this so-called artificial stupidity ? We would not try to talk a merchant into changing his class viewpoint because it would be as useless as trying to carry on a conversation with his cash register. Similarly the sectarian left groups have shown themselves to be stable over a prolonged period of time and proven to be remarkably resistant to any kind of reasoned argument. Why should we behave any differently towards the religious sectarians that emerged from the MLP than we would towards the RCP or the Sparts ? |
| There are three reasons and they are interrelated. |
| 1) First we have a common history with our own religious wing. In between all the mistaken theoretical stands we shared with these people we also shared a substantial body of practice that was right on the mark. We fought to build the workers' movement independent of bourgeois politics. We fought the influence of social-democracy in difficult conditions. We worked in all the social and political movements to build the independent politics of the working class. Our theoretical shortcomings were of course quite serious and there is no doubt that this has hurt us severely but in spite of this we grasped in practice the need to build politics along class lines and we drew into this work everyone who was in any way associated with our party. |
| So what this means is that the comrades who are presently afflicted with artificial stupidity still, underneath it all, share a lot of common values with us that are quite rare in society or, for that matter, in the left. |
| 2) The second reason is related to the first. Because we share such a common history and practice and because of the circumstances of the separation of the xmlp into two principal groupings, our religious sectarians are by no means immune to what we have to say. Their very zeal for distorting everything we say is proof by itself of their intense need to deal with every nuance which we utter. They have defined themselves as opposition to ourselves and are very much "locked in" to ourselves and in orbit around us. |
| This raises the interesting prospect of how they would fare in sustained interactive polemical combat with a body of thought that had its shit halfway together. Their need to fraudulently present themselves as fundamentally in touch with the real needs of the class struggle means that every interaction with us will further multiply the contradictions within their own midst and drive them into a deep enough paralysis that they will eventually be compelled to actually listen to and think about what we have to say. |
| In the meantime each interaction with ourselves, where we are on a correct footing, hits them like a sledgehammer and forces them into further conflict with a reality which becomes increasingly more difficult to deny. For example their LA contingent was even forced to come out against quotes by Shakespeare. But this means that we can reply to them: "Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive." |
| It appears most likely that their unity (based upon their common self- delusion that they know what they are doing) would break up as all the contradictions were intensified. And this is probably the likely course that events will follow, regardless of anyone's subjective wishes. |
| What's your third reason ? |
| 3) The third point is that we are not as free from their religious methodology as we would sometimes like to pretend. If we do not more openly oppose and clarify the tendencies they exhibit that would leave any would-be revolutionaries foundering in quicksand -- we will not be in a position to better oppose these same tendencies in ourselves. |
| This all sounds fine Dr. Sympul but we in the majority have our hands full with doing things in the world that are real. How could anyone expect us to address details of the line of religiously oriented fanatics who (despite what you say) do not listen to us and are not burdened with addressing the issues that are real ? |
| Good question. The "information war" I am recommending must be waged with an economy of time and effort. We who are doing things in the real world must make every precious second of ours count. And because my own time is sharply limited, I will have to defer the answer to that question until the next installment. But know for now: necessity will assert itself. |
| ----//-// |
| Dear Comrade Science, |
| I think the comrades of the majority have shown their craven subservience to lifestyles of the rich and famous by their demoralized failure to write agitation, report on their activity (or lack of it) and their general failure to prove that they are still dedicated to the class struggle. I think this shows that only the minority is truly dedicated to the class struggle and that it is disrespectful and scandalous for you to speak of us as having our heads up our umphhgggg eeiggggh huumpphh [editor's note: the rest of the sentence has been muffled by some obstruction which has prevented the speaker's voice from being clearly audible.] |
| Joseph (Detroit) |
| Dear Joseph, |
| Well Joseph it is certainly true that most sections of the majority have failed to inform everybody else of what they are doing. And they should. A year has passed and all sections of our former party should at least e-mail a brief report on their activity, how often they meet, how many attend their study groups, what kind of things they are reading and studying, and what their plans and thoughts are of the future. And also, as you say, it would be useful were they to report on their dreams. Also, I think it cannot be denied that there must be a certain amount of demoralization in a situation where virtually nothing has been heard from most comrades for a year now. |
| But I think you are a little too quick to come to conclusions from all this. For one thing many or most comrades probably do not realize the harm that results from their failure to more openly use our e-mail system. Further, before comrades begin to use e-mail to communicate ideas, plans and dreams there may be various obstacles to overcome. The first obstacle is the failure to recognize that this is necessary. Another obstacle may lie in a mistaken desire to avoid kicking up what would seem to be needless and pointless (but is actually inevitable) controversy. This is why it has not (in the short run) been helpful that your grouping has made such a practice of distorting everyone's views. This is also why you and your grouping, to the extent it is founded on fraud and deception (ie: to a considerable extent), will get your collective butts kicked as the debate becomes more intense and better organized. |
| Most likely the most important obstacle to greater activity and communication from the majority is that unlike your grouping which takes as its model of activity: |
|
| the comrades of the majority are faced with the far more difficult tasks of sorting out what are the real tasks most decisive in moving forward revolutionary working class politics in 1995 and the rest of the decade and in the next century. Sorting out such an immense task is not at all so simple as the agenda being followed by your grouping which is based on shallow complacency and mind-numbing self-deception. |
| But it is true that all comrades should use the e-mail system more. Failure to do so is harmful and is a vestige of the mistaken organizational ideas which have hampered us for a good many years. As our failure to communicate our experiences, plans and dreams causes more damage the tendency to learn from this failure will increasingly manifest itself. |
| Seattle will soon present some reports on its activity and a number of comrades in Seattle have an interest in and would like to know what other sections of our former party are up to. |
| It is also true that many sections in the majority seem to be burdened by a failure to appreciate the significance of the subjective factor in our common efforts. In fact, the world is presenting us with countless excellent opportunities to develop our abilities and will eventually be presenting us with immense opportunities to leverage our considerable experience and have a profound and lasting influence on the class struggle in this country and the world. But I will not go into this at this time because various comrades tell me that I sound too grandiose. |
| At any event Joseph, your alternative to the present lack of visible activity amounts in practice to preaching that all will be fine if comrades simply allow you to do their thinking for them. "You won't have to worry about a thing" you are in effect telling comrades. This is shown by how you and your loyal lackey Mark attempt to be the arbiters of the limits of expression and debate. Some of these things may not be clear to everyone now but they can only get more clear with time. |
| Comrade Ben has an alternate plan to getting things moving along better. Ben's plan exists only in outline but all the same is better than yours. What is Ben's plan ? |
| I have obtained a copy of comrade Ben's secret plan to get things moving along better. Here it is in its entirety: |
| "Everyone should communicate their experiences, their successes, their failures, their thoughts, feelings, emotions, plans, wishes, hopes and dreams. They should freely talk about and/or criticize the strengths and weaknesses of themselves, their workmates, their political opponents and allies both local and nationally. Everyone should discuss what they think about both current affairs and major theoretical issues: what they know, what they don't know and what they wish they knew. Everyone should do this as often as they can until the habit of doing so becomes automatic and as normal and natural as breathing. Everyone should do this in the conviction that this will provide the most rapid route for the summation of our considerable experience and its application to the needs of the world in the period ahead." |
| Of course it must be said that many or most comrades do not seem to share Ben's conviction on the most rapid route forward but Ben seems to be utterly undeterred. |
| Why is Ben's plan superior to Joseph's ? Because Ben is concentrating on reality and Joseph is concentrating on appearance. "Looking good is better than being good" is Joseph's motto while Ben's motto is the opposite. Joseph believes that his motto is best because of considerations of pragmatic trend-building. If everyone believes that progress is being made then they are less likely to become demoralized and more likely to continue their activity. This kind of logic might seem to some to be the superior logic in the short term. But in the long term it leads to sectarianism, opportunism, despondency, despair, demoralization, passivity and collapse. This is what wrecked the MLP. This is as simple as it is profound. If we do not address the issues that are decisive and are real then we inevitably fall prey to one or another kind of political death or hypocrisy. We fail to be what we claim to be. There is a saying which helps to sums this up: "In the absence of clearly defined goals we are forced to concentrate on activity and ultimately become enslaved by it." Comrades who are tired of being enslaved by the maintenance of the appearance of progress and yearn for the real thing, comrades who have begun to appreciate the damage done by Joseph's brand of self-deception to our belief in ourselves and our ability to address the needs of the struggle of the working class will eventually help to develop clarity on this. |
| ----//-// |
| Dear Comrade Science, |
| You haven't yet replied to all of your critics. You haven't proven most of your points. How dare you say these things without proving them ? How can they possibly be true if you haven't proven them ? |
| Mark (Detroit) |
| Dear Mark, |
| The fact that I have not yet proven all these points does not mean that they are not true (except to charlatans). I would prove them all this very moment but my girlfriend has told me that I must get to bed right now ! (I think she might be some kind of a counter-revolutionary but more likely she has infinite patience with me.) |
| Dear Comrade Science, |
| When is Ben going to reply to my lengthy polemic which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that he opposes dialectical materialism ? |
| Mark (Detroit) |
| Dear Mark, |
| I understand that he is working on it, that it will available soon enough, that you will not like it and that it will not be funny. |
| ----//-// |
| [Boys and Girls: Send your questions to Comrade Science on this channel. And remember: "He knows more than you do!"] |
| Also, coming soon enough to this station: |
| @ Juicy gossip on the life-and-death struggle and activity of the Seattle comrades |
| @ On a serious note: Ben replies to Mark |