| 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". It originated as a reply to Detroit-69 by Mark | ||||
"Our fun and learning never ends"
|
Contents: TIP: Clicking on any of the paragraph numbers
--------- along the left margin
will take you back and forth
between the body of the article
and the table of contents.
paragraph
number chapters sections subheads
--------------------------------------------------------------
M5 Contest is Asymmetric
M20a Ben Is Relentless
M38a How Mark and Tim Trivialize Stalin's Crimes -- or
-- Ben Offers to Eat a Bug
M46a Lenin at the 11th Congress
M57a How Our Sectarians Mummify Theory
M64a Stalinist Roots of the MLP's Implosion
M70a Mark wants tenure
M78a How Mark Equates "Cooperative Anarchy" with
"Anarchy of Production"
M85a Assumption # 1 -- "only capitalism can organize
competition"
M86a Assumption # 2 -- "what the hell's the difference
anyway ?"
M89a EVERYTHING Complex is Made Up of Independent,
Conflicting Processes
M98a Capitalist Competition
M100a Communist Competition
M106a Competition Under the Dictatorship of the
Proletariat
M111a Cooperative Anarchy
M119a Conclusion: Barbarian at the Gate
M121 Comrade Ray's 1988 Letter
|
| Ben certainly seems to have drawn a lot of response for someone who is "substanceless". And he certainly seems to have no shortage of well-wishers who offer to steer him onto the right path. "Please talk about Haiti and Palestine!" he is asked. "These are the real issues" he is told. |
| Right. |
| The latest is Mark. Let's see now: Tim, Joseph, Pete and now Mark have all come forward to make sure that everyone knows that Ben is without substance. But Ben seems to knock them down one after the other. The bigger they come, the harder they fall, one and all. Actually it reminds me of a bunch of ants defending their nest from attack. But in this case Ben gets to play the role of an anteater. "Yum, yum, yum" he says, "Are there any more ?" |
| Supporters of the xmlp's religious wing feel compelled to take on Ben because he is making them look like fools. This is the actual dynamic going on. Supporters of our religious wing reason that since they are right, therefore in polemical confrontation with Ben they will win. Unfortunately by giving me all this attention they are playing into my hands. The truth is on my side. The more attention that is given to me the more I can use it to point out the truth. |
| Yesterday's "Investor's Business Daily" (December 23) contains a front page article on Karl Marx. The article concludes with these words: |
|
| It seems like the bourgeoisie feels less afraid of Marx these days. But maybe they are overconfident ? Maybe they are dreaming? |
| More to the point, maybe there is a connection between the premature announcements of the death of Marxism and the activity of present day "Marxists" who would turn his revolutionary ideas into fossils. One such "Marxist" is our own comrade Mark. He and Joseph have been working most energetically to transform Marx's living ideas into parodies of themselves. |
| Many within our xmlp trend still consider themselves to be Marxists. But to maintain the revolutionary spirit of Karl Marx within our midst, we have no choice but to take a firm stand against frauds and charlatans within our own ranks who would utilize talk of Marxism and the fight of the working class against social-democracy to incite us against one another and split us for the sake of their own sectarian schemes and dreams. It is for this purpose that I have been moved to comment on the comic misadventures of our would-be defenders of the faith. I hope that everyone within our ranks who still believes that Marx's analysis offers the path forward gives thought and consideration to this question. |
| This contest between the leading supporters of our religious sectarian wing and me is asymmetric (ie: uneven). To begin with, I am writing primarily to influence supporters of our religious sectarian wing. I am interested in interacting with their consciousness. This means I try to keep in mind their prejudices so that I can maintain their "ear", or readership. Of course I am writing also with a larger audience in mind. By this I do not mean the majority section of the xmlp, but rather the eventual body of activists who may have in interest in sorting matters out as material of this kind becomes public and goes on the internet and becomes accessible to millions. |
| But the larger audience is somewhat problematic for now and serves mainly to influence the debate indirectly as some of our religious sectarians may occasionally pause and consider how all this might sound to newly emerging activists. |
| Our religious sectarians are the least passive section of the xmlp audience. I use the phrase "least passive" rather than "active" because in a number of critical ways this section of the audience is quite passive. How is this ? They are passive in publicly disavowing and disassociating themselves from the spam that is produced within their own ranks. Such passivity tends to greatly slow down the interactive process in which our contradictions are revealed, deepened and resolved. I wish to encourage our religious sectarians to become more active. In the long run, the proliferation of spam hurts everyone who wants to see a real organization built on solid foundations that can be relevant to the struggle of the oppressed. |
| The debate between Mark and me is asymmetric in a number of ways. The more active portion of the audience supports Mark and has a strong need, a vested organizational interest, in believing him. Because of this, Mark can get away (in the short run) with any number of stupidities. I nailed Mark in "Joseph in Wonderland" for outrageously distorting my position on the value of proven ideas. I said they were "useful" while Mark claimed my position was that they were "useless". Rather than admit his error, Mark replied with lengthy philosophical treatises justifying his position. Part of the problem here is that for me to refute Mark, I would have to write something lengthy on philosophy and the "target audience", Mark's sectarian supporters, would ignore it, as they ignored "Wonderland". |
| Does this mean that Mark can get away with his charlatanism ? No. I plan to respond and to respond in way that cannot be ignored. This may take some preparation but it will be worth the effort. In the meantime the question may be asked -- why does the sectarian audience even read my stuff at all ? This audience, or some portion of it, does read, or at least skim, at least some portion of what I write. This despite their prejudices and vested organizational interest and need to believe Mark. Why is this ? |
| I believe I have readership in the "enemy camp" for two entirely different reasons. |
| First, the sectarian supporters have a need to deceive themselves. The self image they maintain involves paying close attention, or thinking they are paying close attention, to the xmlp polemics. Well I welcome any readership I can get for any reason. |
| Second, I think there may be some low-level concern or vague uneasiness about the sleazy methods that fuel the sectarian phenomena. Sectarian supporters may sense at some level that all the sacrifices that they make, all the talk about taking on the bourgeoisie and the capitalist system -- is just so much empty self-deception if they can't see the need to take a stand against the corruption in their own midst. There may be some recognition that there is truth in my statement that if we do not address the issues that are decisive and real then we inevitably fall prey to one or another kind of political death or hypocrisy. |
| As a result of this asymmetry, each side has certain advantages. Mark can engage in incredibly stupid maneuvers and get away with it for a while because of the need of the audience to believe in him and a certain willingness to shut its eyes to sleaze. This phenomena will be illustrated in various ways. Ben has several disadvantages. He is not only working to wake up comrades who are content to sleep, but must find ways to make the debate both informative and interesting, in the midst of a hostile audience. But Ben has an advantage that greatly outweighs all else. Mark is prisoner of the "looking good is better than being good" philosophy in which everything is said for effect and no long-term consciousness-building can take place. In sustained interactive combat, prisoners of the "looking good is better than being good" philosophy are at a severe disadvantage because their contradictions accumulate around them and lead them deeper into paralysis. Ben, on the contrary, is bound only by the truth and operates in accord with the genuine interests of the hostile audience, which is not completely corrupt and still maintains possession of some revolutionary spirit. |
| I have been asked to comment on the writings of Fred, Jason and others. And so far I have avoided this. Does this mean that I am "hiding" something and "covering up" for them ? Actually not. I have reasons to avoid going into this. Let's consider what they are. |
| One: I have limited time and energy. Materialists can grasp this. My time and energy belong to the proletariat and I am not quite so stupid as to squander it by falling for the transparent maneuvers of those who are afraid of what I have on my agenda. Mark and Joseph are desperate to divert the issue because they sense what is in store for them. Mark and Joseph say that I am a hypocrite because I say that "information wants to be free" and then do not give my opinion, in the present atmosphere, on every topic under the sun. Hey folks, I said "information wants to be free", not "information wants to be stupid". |
| Those who act as if I am obligated to respond without fail to every single issue that has come up are hucksters and hypocrites. I wrote a 47 page refutation of the methods of Joseph and Mark and it has yet to be dealt with. But it will be. Mark is pretending that he has dealt with it. But his charlatanism in this regard is overdue for exposure. The work required to make this exposure, and to make this exposure so compelling that it cannot be ignored even by those who have a vested interest in doing so -- falls on my shoulders. It is my responsibility to make Mark pay for his deception. And he will. Neither he, nor anyone else can distract me. |
| Two: The errors made by Fred and Jason are less decisive to the fate of our trend than the religious sectarianism that has emerged supposedly to fight them. This must seem like heresy to our religious sectarians. But let's consider the matter. |
| Neither Fred nor Jason seems to consider himself a communist at this point. This is fine with me. I don't consider them communists either. I say this having dealt with their views on whether the study group needs to be concerned with the general question of moving beyond the limitations of the capitalist system as a whole. |
| If they are not communists, we might ask, then what are they ? Are they social-democratic dogs, enemies of the working class and all progressive humanity ? Well not quite. |
| In my book they are progressive-minded intellectuals and political activists. This is an admittedly fuzzy term of course. In the past and in the present progressive-minded intellectuals and activists have taken many wrong stands and in many cases these wrong stands have hurt the interests of the working class. One example of this, from our experience in the anti-intervention movement, is the "Contadora peace process". Many (in fact most) progressive people supported this. And yet it was actually the brain-child of a section of the bourgeoisie who used it to undermine the struggle of the peoples of Nicaragua and El Salvador and liquidate the solidarity movement here in the U.S. |
| I believe that progressive minded intellectuals and activists sometimes need guidance from the proletariat. And Fred and Jason may need some guidance. I guess where I differ from our religious sectarians is in what I consider to be guidance. Leaving aside whatever portions of their criticisms may be correct, the fact remains that a good portion of the noise our religious sectarians have been making over Fred and Jason is nonsense. I wish I had time to go into this. Mark would say that unless I can immediately prove my every position that I am insisting that everyone take my word for matters and have "blind faith" in myself. But as events unfold it will become clear that Mark is the last person who should be speaking about blind faith. What I do hope is that some of our religious sectarians do think about this -- do give it some thought. We have all seen how the RCP would take advantage of the positions of the reformists to bind their own supporters into sectarian nonsense. The mechanism here is the idea of "either them or us". Our religious sectarian leadership says we must all choose between Fred and Jason's positions and trajectories and Joseph's and Mark's sectarian spam. But politics is often more complex than choosing "them or us". Sometimes activists must think matters over for themselves and not simply choose a trend to do their thinking for them. Sometimes activists must reject both CISPES and Bob Avakian. |
| And in my view our religious sectarian leadership is much closer in its outlook and methods to Bob Avakian than Fred and Jason are to CISPES. |
| Are Fred and Jason social-democrats ? I am not sure. There are certainly indications that they are moving in that direction. But there are counter-indications also. In certain fundamental theoretical foundations -- I believe they are quite weak. And their trajectory and inclinations disturb me. I oppose, within my modest abilities, their motion in this direction and I believe it important to do what can be done to help them and the local study group as a whole see that the central question the study group must be concerned with is the entire range of issues involved in bringing about a society that is not chained to capitalist production relations. Such efforts to awaken them must be made. There can be no guarantee that such efforts will be successful. But the effort must be made and there are certainly grounds for cautious optimism. |
| In this regard it appears the efforts of our religious sectarians have been counter-productive. It may not be the case that none of their criticisms of Fred and Jason is valid. Fred and Jason are clearly wrong on a number of points. Rather the problem is that the religious sectarian noise is precisely that. It has such a low signal-to-noise ratio that it only reinforces the prejudices of those younger and less experienced members of our study group who fail to see any problems at all in the views of Fred and Jason and who consider talk of going beyond capitalism to be "fantastic" ("fantastic" not in the positive sense but in the sense of being outside the realm of matters which are possible to intelligently discuss). It should be remembered that just as the RCP pointed to social-democratic bogeymen to bind their supporters to sectarian idiocy, so have the social-democrats often pointed to the RCP to discipline their own supporters who were becoming disgusted with craven reformism. |
| I wish that those who support sectarianism would consider this. I wish I had time to go into this more but the realities of life are that I don't. Maybe I will be able to go into it eventually. But those religious sectarians who believe that I should clarify everything under the sun -- should give some thought to helping to clean up the spam being produced within their own ranks. If I have to do it all, then I have less time to deal with Fred and Jason. And this is a real point. I have carried on polemics with Fred. They are not complete. These issues were brought up in the study group and Fred got trounced but paid attention and thought the session was useful and interesting. Some others in the study group were somewhat enlightened and realized that there was a real issue here. I have been planning to report on these developments to the wider xmlp audience (in greater detail than the brief report in Seattle # 60 last August) but the fact is that such matters take time. In such a highly charged atmosphere as has been created by our religious sectarians every word must be carefully considered because there is no shortage of charlatans who would not fail to seize any opportunity to distort matters, tear things out of context, etc. Those who believe that Ben should spend more time clarifying every issue under the sun should get off their own damn butts and do a little work to clean their own house, and should do so publicly, in open e-mail, because only this works towards a situation where other comrades, who are not religious sectarians but whom may have other problems, feel it worthwhile to bother trying to talk to you. |
| It is the sectarians who oppose a dialog. They make a big noise about wanting to discuss and debate. Many are fooled by this. But any time they get a chance they try to drown out real discussion with stupidity. This charade needs to be exposed. I believe it will be. It will be exposed faster and more rapidly if other comrades, from either "camp" become less passive and more active and take an open stand against spam and the spam slingers. |
| So finally, for the sake of argument, let's suppose that Fred and Jason were social-democrats. Would this mean that I should be directing the main thrust of my polemical energy against them ? Not necessarily. I have concluded from paying careful attention to the dynamics of our e-mail communication that it is my responsibility to pay primary attention to exposing the charlatans who are pretending to be communists. These charlatans are working energetically to split us and incite us against one another in such a way that the search for truth and the development of the maximum possible unity in practice is sacrificed for sectarian considerations. |
| These charlatans claim that any kind of unity between the sectarians and the non-sectarians would require that the sectarians give up their "fight" against social-democracy. I hope that sectarian supporters pay close attention to this logic. I have never demanded that the sectarians drop their fight against social-democracy or against any ideas they believe are wrong or harmful to the interests of the working class. This is not the kind of unity I have proposed. I have demanded that they no make false and irresponsible charges that cannot be backed up. Comrades interested in the kind of unity I have proposed can look up my 19 points on my conception of what I call the "trend of trends" and can see for themselves that I do not oppose any kind of principled fight against opportunism. I oppose only the spam and the spam slingers. |
| Even if Fred and Jason were social-democrats, this would not necessarily make them the main problem in the xmlp. Fred and Jason may be mistaken on various issues but they both appear to be too aware of their own fallibility to qualify as manipulators or bullshit artists. The main problem would still be those spam slingers in our ranks who pretend to be acting like communists. Such spam slingers have no interest in the search for truth and clarity on any issue. They have fallen into sectarianism and opportunism. They are going to be smashed. |
| Ben offers a counter-proposal to his critics. They should read "Joseph in Wonderland" carefully and decide whether Joseph should reply. "Wonderland" was written in response to accusations by Joseph and Mark that Ben had taken up social-democratic ideas. "Wonderland" exposed the charlatan methods used. Joseph ignored it completely other than to reply that it was full of unspecified "lies". Apparently the sectarian portion of the xmlp audience is content with this and needs no further direction on how to think. Ben proposes that all who believe that he should write on Haiti and Palestine first read Wonderland. And all who have publicly called on Ben to write on these subjects should publicly call on Joseph to reply to Wonderland. |
| Those who believe that Ben should concentrate his fire on people like Fred and Jason would do well to recall that Ben himself has been accused by Mark and Joseph of having social-democratic views in the realm of philosophy and the theory of party organization. Mark implies that I am avoiding "politics". But are the issues on which I concentrate my fire political or not ? Before I explore the errors of Fred and Jason there are a few matters to be settled. I will deal with Fred and Jason after the dust clears. Our sectarian leadership does not like this. I am going to build a fire. I am gathering wood. Our sectarian leadership organizes whoever it can to believe that I am "hiding" issues and "covering" for people because I will not be distracted from my mission. Too bad. I am relentless. Those who attack the unity of working class activists should know that they are playing with fire. And fire burns. |
-- or -- Ben Offers to Eat a Bug |
| Folks: Mark has the mentality of a Doberman pinscher. The only problem is: he can't pinch. Let's examine some of his maneuvers and see if the sectarian portion of the xmlp audience might consider being less passive in the face of spam being slung in their name. |
| Mark has come out to defend Tim's accusation that Ben's conduct "stinks of Stalinism". Tim compared my behavior to the right-wing SP leaders who called out the cops on the left wing majority in 1919 and to "Stalin's brutality toward his opposition". Mark says that Tim is "correct". This is truly amazing. When Tim first wrote this, I somewhat assumed that he had been up all night working on Struggle magazine, had drunk 30 cups of coffee and had uploaded this nonsense as a result of being carried away in a caffeine-induced detachment from reality. I pictured Tim getting a full night's sleep and then looking in horror at what he had written but being too embarrassed to retract it. But nooooo. |
| Political activists as well as ordinary people have extreme contempt and disgust for Stalin's murder of hundreds of thousands of political opponents. But Stalin's crimes were not simply in the sphere of mass murder. Stalin's legacy extends into another realm. Stalin systematically converted Lenin's living theory into a system of religious dogma. While both Stalin's mass murder of people and his mummification of theory were crimes, and were interconnected, it is important to understand the distinction. Our religious sectarians are also busy mummifying theory but they haven't murdered anything except their own brain cells. |
| Tim however does not accuse me of mummifying theory. Tim claims that I am making actual physical threats against comrades. This is what he actually says ("the method of resolving differences by threats of violence"). It appears highly unlikely that even Tim actually believes such charges. Of course it is true that Ben offered to "kick Tim's ass". But was this a physical threat ? Let's examine the matter. |
| Ben's use of this phrase was contained in the "e-mail chart" in "Joseph in Wonderland" where Ben uses it to describe his 12-10-93 reply to Tim. This is the same chart, by the way, which was censored from the Chicago Workers Voice Theoretical Journal. Let's look at a small portion of this chart: |
|
| Any analysis of the Ben's 12-10-93 letter (see below) will show that Ben was offering to kick Tim's ass in cyberspace, in the context of a debate over democratic rights and that this took place in response to Tim's bragging that those agnostic about Lenin were "mice" afraid of struggle. Tim was also likely aware that in Seattle # 60 Ben spoke of Mark being afraid of "getting his ass kicked again". Since Ben never paid a call on Mark in Detroit and was more than 2500 miles away when he kicked Mark's ass, it somewhat strains credibility to think that anyone would actually believe that Ben is making physical threats. Further, Tim shows recognition that my "threats" (I call them promises) were not physical. Tim calls Ben a "vulgar verbal brawler" "issuing crudities" and "vulgarities" and other "tyrannical behavior". Imagine that ! In response to incredible spam, sectarianism and outrageous violations of scientific methods of inquiry from our religious wing, in which serious accusations of anti-marxism, social-democracy and liquidationism are casually made but neither retracted nor backed up -- Ben issues "vulgarities" ! How shocking ! What an assault on the most refined sensibilities of little comrade Fauntleroy who is afraid that his hair might get mussed or his clothes dirty if he gets into a scuffle. |
| What did Ben actually say in that portion of the 12-10-93 letter in which he offered to "kick Tim's ass" ? It turns out that Ben was actually challenging Tim to a serious debate. Let's take a look at it: |
|
|
|
|
| This is the only place, to my knowledge, where it can be said that Lenin predicted the development of revisionism and called it "the real and main danger". My December 10 reply to Tim is the only place in any MLP or xmlp literature to which I have had access which mentions Lenin's warning in any way. The question of democracy is central to our work in the future. We need to understand it (it seems clear to me that at present we don't) and in order to win the trust of the masses we must honestly admit what cannot be denied: that democracy (in the sense of democratic rights) in society and in the party was shut down by 1921. I say this to show that my December 10 letter was completely serious. |
| Of course Ben is guilty of saying that Tim would be "chicken" if he refused the offer to debate. The colorful characterization "offered to kick Tim's ass" was added by me later after Tim did indeed chicken out. Is there supposed to be something wrong in using a phrase like this ? |
| I believe in the value of "politainment". I believe in taking "dry" intellectual issues and making them bold and colorful so that comrades can "follow the action" in situations where one side is deliberately attempting to conceal the course of events. Our religious sectarians are attempting to disguise the fact that they are on the defensive. They talk loudly and swagger about. Mark in particular is the sectarian's answer to Rush Limbaugh. His outward pugnaciousness belies an inner weakness. Those who parrot his nonsense are reducing themselves to the role of dittoheads. Tim is a good man but he has allowed himself to be caught up in all this nonsense and needs to be brought back down to earth. |
| An examination of Tim's charge will show that his real complaint against me is that I held him up to ridicule. I trampled on Tim's sense of dignity. Folks -- his feelings were hurt and his prestige suffered a drop. Sorry Tim. It's a tough world. Tougher if you're stupid. Tim, you should have thought about this before you started slinging spam. The xmlp e-mail system serves the oppressed. Spam slingers may think they can get away with nonsense. Then they whine when they lose respect. Smell the coffee Tim. Dry your eyes. You can get your respect back. |
| At the final Congress of the MLP, I spoke to Joseph privately. I thanked him for his years of struggle on behalf of the proletariat and told him that I was going to "go for your throat". Joseph did not conclude that I was making a physical threat. Instead he appreciated my candor. I think that when one communist is convinced that another is sliding into opportunism -- this is the kind of language that should be used. |
| Finally, to eliminate all doubt, Ben will make a surprising offer. Ben will offer to eat a bug if anyone, Tim included, reads Ben's 12-10-93 reply and concludes that this letter, itself dealing with the question of democratic rights, manifested a threat of physical force against anyone. Ben makes this offer because even Tim would look too silly to make such a claim. |
| Mark says that Ben is a hypocrite because he ridicules Tim's charge but does not similarly condemn Jim's charge that our religious sectarians were reviving Stalin's methods. Well I looked up what Jim had to say: |
|
| Folks, unfortunately I cannot condemn Jim's statement because it appears to be completely accurate. I will say however that there are matters that Jim has left out and which need to be said. Jim does not explain WHY Joseph and our religious sectarians are so wedded to Stalin's techniques of mummifying theory. Jim is cool, aloof and professional in his analysis. He leaves it to readers to draw their own conclusions. |
| But I am following the "intervention" model with our sectarians, based on how an alcoholic in a family must be confronted. I believe that EVERYTHING needs to be said, particularly concerning motivations. |
| Stalin carried out his crimes, both against theory and against people, so that his brutal regime could SURVIVE. |
| Similarly, our sectarians carry out their crimes, against theory and against brain cells, so that their grouping can SURVIVE under the imperative of pragmatic trend-building. Should their grouping survive ? Well I have nothing against any group from the xmlp deciding to stick together and try a common approach to continuing revolutionary activity. And I believe that this is part of the motivating force that drives the Detroit-Chicago axis. But I have seen the effects of religious sectarianism and conclude that sectarianism is poison and must be smashed. Whether the Detroit-Chicago grouping can survive in the absence of religious sectarianism is unclear. Personally I doubt it because it looks like it is the sectarian hype-glue that holds it together. But the survival of this grouping cannot be a justification for continuing religious sectarianism. Opportunism is opportunism. It breeds decay, despair and corruption. The attempt must be made to build political activity and organization based on the true interests of the working class. |
| As far as Jim's accurate criticism of how our sectarians mummify theory a la Stalin, I would like to add my own two cents worth. Stalin came out against Engels on philosophy. I have not yet gone into this but will eventually. In my dispute with Mark on the theory of knowledge, Engels supports me and Stalin supports Mark. Or should I say that Mark supports Stalin ? |
| It should not be considered a coincidence that Mark and Tim so utterly trivialize Stalin's crimes. Stalin's mummification of theory and in particular his theory of party organization has been at the core of what has been crippling us for years on end and finally cost us our organization and unity. |
| Ray's September 1988 letter to the CC and the fate which befell it can be considered the Rosetta Stone that allows us to accurately decipher the causes of the party's disintegration. Here is Ray: |
|
|
| The fact that this letter, amazingly accurate in retrospect, was suppressed and, more to the point, that such suppression was correctly considered to be "business as usual" is itself more telling than much of its content. It was Stalin's super-centralized party architecture that made it inevitable that such important information be kept hidden from the party base -- which was thereby rendered powerless to save the party. |
| But our unity can be re-established and our organization rebuilt -- although it will be on a very different and far more powerful basis than has ever existed before. |
| Mark says I slander him when I say that he "wants tenure" and is "pouting" because many comrades will not read what he and Joseph write. But here are his own words: |
|
| Imagine that ! Comrades so absolutely brazen as to "freely admit" they are weary of being spammed. To quote Humphrey Bogart in Casablanca, "I am shocked, shocked I tell you", that such scandalous behavior has been reported in the ranks of the xmlp ! |
| Well Mark, the truth is that I would also like more comrades to read what I write. But the difference between you and me is that instead of berating comrades in a moralistic, sectarian snit-fit, I work to be halfway conscientious, to tell the truth, to be enlightening and interesting. Some of what I write, such as "Ask Comrade Science", is designed for a larger audience, and contains elements of humor. Some of my "politainment" techniques seem to have aroused your particular ire. Why ? Because they were most effective in exposing your cowardly evasion of my "biospherian challenge". |
| I would like you to have a larger audience share Mark because when comrades tune you out, they are less likely to read my debate with you. You will have to cut down on the spam, Mark. If you want more readership and larger audience share, you will have to EARN IT. |
| But this is not understandable to Mark. Mark feels that Ben is acting in a tyrannical fashion to propose a system of forums segregated on the basis of quality. Under this system, everyone would be able to read everything but certain forums would restrict convicted charlatans and spam slingers from writing to them. I have already shown how Mark's opposition to this is really opposition to a basic principle that will underlie the workers' dictatorship -- the right to refuse spam. Mark has a fit over this. As we will see in the next section, Mark has a conception of workers' rule that would give unneeded privileges to a central bureaucracy. |
| In the meantime Mark I will put it to you simply: |
| In our forums we either get the tyranny of the thoughtless over the thoughtful or the other way around. It's got to be one way or the other. In the forums that exclude you and Joseph, the thoughtful comments will gain attention and recognition and in the forums that you set up and dominate thoughtless nonsense will rule the roost. You make your bed guys, and then you have to sleep in it. |
with "Anarchy of Production" |
| Folks, this is a major issue of first rate theoretical importance. I hope readers pay careful attention to how Mark's allegiance to Stalin's codified theory of social and economic organization and his sectarian induced artificial stupidity degrades his ability to deal with what is certainly one of the most important questions of our time. |
| Below are Mark's comments on the matter (emphasis added): |
|
|
|
|
| Mark makes a number of assumptions here that reflect both sectarian fury and typical revisionist prejudice. Let's consider what they are: |
| Mark equates the coordinating force that would bring into alignment "the actions of many independent, conflicting and parallel processes" with the "invisible hand" which coordinates independent commodity producers under capitalism. Of course this "invisible hand" is also known as the action of the capitalist market. So Mark is simply assuming that no other kind of force is possible that can coordinate the actions of producers who have any significant degree of independence from one another. Hence, according to Mark, only capitalist principles can structure an economy in which the creators of wealth may organize into units that compete against each other and enjoy significant freedom of action in their economic decisions. We might expect revisionists to think like this, but why should communists ? |
| Mark simply equates "cooperative anarchy", a term the meaning of which he likely does not have a clue, with "anarchy of production" under capitalism. Of course both terms do contain the word "anarchy". But to equate these two terms on account of sharing a word would be similar to equating "socialism" with "national socialism" because both terms have a word in common. Sectarian supporters would do well to consider the consequences of continuing to allow our Marks and Josephs to be the arbiters of the limits of our debate. |
| Let's discuss these amazing assumptions just a bit. |
| Why should we accept Mark's assumption that only capitalism can organize economic competition ? Such an assumption is absurd. Competition performs an important function. It can prove, so to speak, who's hot and who's not. Competition can prove which techniques and methods of production and motivation are effective in the real world. Competition can be considered a form of scientific experiment. "You say your way is better ? Well, we'll just organize a little contest and find out". This is true in the fields of economics, politics, culture, etc. Just to give one example: Mark and I are competing right now. We are producers of ideas who are competing to show the relevance of opposing theories to building an organization that serves the working class. Are Mark and I therefore capitalists ? |
Independent, Conflicting Processes |
| The magnitude of Mark's error is difficult to overstate. By denouncing the idea of an economy composed of vast numbers of conflicting, independent processes, Mark has accomplished the impossible. Mark has presented to us a picture of a future communist economy and world without internal contradictions. Such a world would be utterly devoid of life and completely dead, not to mention impossible. This is what we get from our would-be resident expert on dialectical materialism. And then he can't figure out why we don't give him tenure, why many comrades refuse to read his spam. |
| Mark, in effect, is accusing me of worshipping capitalism. There is much to say here and time is short. This is such a rich area that maybe comrades will forgive me for getting a little carried away in what follows. Some of my formulations could doubtlessly be improved. Mark, the "stop me before I spam again" titan of tough talk will doubtlessly pull some phrase out of context. Too bad. |
| To broaden our view a bit, let's consider the phenomenon of life. All life processes are based on the extremely complex interactions of large and small macromolecules which simultaneously both attract and repel one another. All life processes are products of a system of organization made of billions and billions of contradictory, conflicting, independent and parallel processes. And yet there exist principles of organization that nature has stumbled upon which allow these independent, contradictory, parallel processes to interact in such a way that the sum effect is highly synergistic (ie: the whole is more than the sum of its parts) and creates a system with a higher order of complexity. |
| Similarly all profound intellectual or emotional processes involve the interplay and interaction of independent, conflicting elements. |
| No process of any complexity could possibly be otherwise. Nature, by its nature, is PARALLEL. |
| Yet Mark, smugly and in a most authoritative manner whips around a strand of cooked spaghetti, imagines he is cracking a bullwhip, and lays down the law: any complex economy composed of independent, conflicting, wealth-creating processes is by definition capitalism. I would say that if someone should be accused of worshipping capitalism -- it should not be Ben, but Mark. |
| Competition is inseparable from and an indispensable component of cooperation. Competition is, in the final analysis, the only available means to measure the efficiency or effectiveness of a process. All measurement involves a process of comparison of a known quantity to an unknown quantity. Competition is the most real method of comparing and contrasting, in practice, one process with another. |
| Competition is here to stay. Competition in all spheres of society (whether economic, cultural, political, etc.) is fundamentally a reflection of the inherent tendency of all processes in nature to operate in parallel. As such, as a manifestation of parallelity, competition (as a way of resolving contradictions, which must, of necessity, interact with one another) is inherent in the character of physical law. Those who profess that competition, as a principle of economic development, is only possible via the mechanism of money and the market are in fact preaching that money and the market are eternal -- that from now until the end of time "MONEY MAKES THE WORLD GO 'ROUND". Such preaching is not that far off from (and from a theoretical point of view is much worse than) the views of Fred and Jason. Fred and Jason are at least in a formal sense agnostic (ie: unconvinced) on this question while Mark, who disdains agnosticism on any scientific subject, is absolutely certain that competition is forever bound up with the existence of money, the market, commodity production and the rule of capital. |
| And who opposes competition ? Those who have a material interest in preventing the contradictions from working themselves out (ie: resolving themselves) -- those who, in the face of competition, know that they will lose. Mark understands that in the open competition of ideas that he will lose. This is why he tries to cheat with a hail of spinctrons, shit-ons, morons and other particles of the Self-referential Tautological Uncritical Principle of Interactive Dogmatism (ie: S.T.U.P.I.D.). Mark's insight on the need to drown intelligent discussion in stupidity shows the "hidden intelligence" behind our sectarian's artificial stupidity systems. |
| What might assist production units in a communist economy to coordinate their activity into a harmonious whole ? The direction of Mark's thinking is shown by his raising of the issue of "anarchy of production". Can we summarize the meaning of this term in a few words ? Yes we can. Under capitalism, various economic units (ie: corporations) produce commodities for sale on the market. Production volumes are based on estimates of sales volumes that the market will support. Prices are set via "supply and demand" curves and the imperative to maximize profit. Because of the complex interworkings of such a system, periodic crises develop in which many or most companies simultaneously experience a phenomena under which production volumes exceed what can be sold for a profit and inventories accumulate. This periodic crisis is called a recession or depression. The lack of an overall plan governing or regulating production is often cited as an essential element of this periodic crisis. It should also be noted in passing that the periodic economic crises which accompany capitalist economic development, painful though they are, are only an extremely small and visible part of the extreme wastage of human, material and ecosystem resources under capitalism. |
| Revisionist economies have attempted to coordinate the actions of production units by stripping them of most of their freedom of action, often dictating to them incredibly detailed production plans, schedules, quotas, sources of supply and details of distribution. Under such arrangements, the productions units are often unable to make decisions based on local conditions or to defy the detailed directives of central planning bodies which may or may not be composed of people with their head up their ass. In all the revisionist economies the central planning bodies have all inevitably developed into bureaucracies that made decisions that went against the interests of the workers and the majority of society. Furthermore, economic development in the revisionist countries either stagnated or became so slow that competition with "free-market" capitalism in the economic-political-military spheres led to their being either crushed or forced to accede to marketplace mechanisms. |
| One of the most essential and defining characteristics of a truly communist economy would be the active participation of the masses in setting priorities for the overall direction for economic development and growth. Would the action of the masses be reflected simply through central planning bodies which would dictate a tune to which all production units must march ? Well this is conceivable in particular industries and in particular circumstances but in general I believe it absurd to consider this the general rule covering the bulk of the production of the wealth of society. |
| There are other ways of involving the masses in the economic life of society. The masses can participate as consumers, as producers (ie: as workers) and as shapers of public opinion. This could include participation in mass organizations that would be very effective despite wielding no formal authority whatsoever. |
| Consider an example. Two similar products are available. One tends to use resources that endanger an ecosystem and the other requires more labor. Or, similarly, the production of one or the other may indirectly affect the living conditions of people in Bangladesh. Or again, one may be produced by an economic unit which is seized by an internal dispute and the masses may wish to take sides. The decisions of the masses, as consumers (as individuals or via organizations that choose products), as workers (as individuals or via organizations similar to unions) and as shapers of public opinion (again, as individuals or via participation in economic, political or cultural organizations) would determine the proportion of the two competing products which accumulate to the public wealth. Does this mean that there would be no central planning bodies? No. But it allows us to see a picture of a society and an economy vastly more complex and sophisticated than the one-dimensional cartoon picture Mark has drawn up in which the general rule is that production units can be neither in conflict with nor independent of one another. |
| For example, there might be different and opposing bodies concerned with economic planning and development. Or there might be different schools of thought or currents of opinion within a single planning body. These differences would correspond to opposing or competing political, economic or cultural philosophies. Another factor here may be competing material interests. Competing material interests may play a small role for a while in the early stages of communist (ie: classless) society, even if their effect is infinitely smaller than the role they play in a class divided society. |
| What is required to accomplish the coordination of production units which may both compete and cooperate with one another in ways more complex than the vibration and interaction of molecules in a living cell ? The action of the marketplace under capitalism is infinitely crude compared to the kinds of coordination that would exist in a communist economy. A communist economy would operate without a market. It would operate without money. There would be no production of commodities (ie: goods produced for the purpose of sale). ALL production would be for the sake of consumption and ALL consumption would be for the sake of production. The economic, political and cultural struggles in society would be utterly and completely merged and indistinguishable from one another although by this time we are probably discussing something advanced beyond the very earliest stages of communist society that we can foresee. |
| For such an economy a high degree of political, cultural and economic development would be necessary. The mechanism that coordinates the action of all producers and all consumers would not be the marketplace but consciousness. The intervention of consciousness in the economic life of society would occur in myriad ways at every level. Consciousness would in turn be served by the material and cultural/informational goods and services (ie: "hardware" and "software") produced. And consciousness would also be the primary, the highest and the ultimate form of wealth. |
Dictatorship of the Proletariat |
| I have tried to explore some of these questions at greater length in my "On the Transition to a Communist Economy". In particular, in "TCE" I focus on the question of how we get "from here to there". Mark says I will not release it because I believe "the rest of the world is too stupid". But my stand is actually against passivity. I oppose the passivity of both the minority and the majority, both of which have, with certain exceptions, failed to take an active interventionist attitude against overcoming the stinky sectarian atmosphere in our midst that has been created by Joseph and his loyal lap dog Mark. The reality is that I have repeatedly offered to release both "TCE" and "DIPR" (ie: "The Digital Infrastructure of the Proletarian Revolution") as soon as I get two responses to my poll from each city with xmlp activists. I take this stand because I believe that it encourages an interactive atmosphere in which the reading audience participates in the creation of theory. I take this stand not because I believe comrades are stupid but because they are passive against stupidity. I don't write for couch potatoes or armchair revolutionaries. And when convinced I am right, I am more stubborn than a mule. |
| Of course I have been discussing the functioning of a communist economy. We know that under communism there would be no state and hence no possibility for central planning bodies to throw their weight around in a coercive manner. But Mark's opposition to me centers around the transition period between capitalism and communism, the period of the "dictatorship of the proletariat". Would competition exist under the "D of P" ? Yes. It would flourish. Otherwise we could never get "from here to there". |
| I consider it is a mistake to believe that there would be a single form of economy during this transition period. I have concluded that instead of inventing forms corresponding to a homogeneous "socialist economy" -- that we should consider a different approach. I conclude that during the transition period both capitalist and communist sectors of the economy would exist side by side. In fact, I expect there would be three sectors because the capitalist sector would itself be divided into a private capitalist sector and a state capitalist sector. All sectors would compete against one another as well as cooperate in various ways with the arbiter of these interactions being the masses, via their direct actions and via their will reflected indirectly through the state machine. |
| Initially the communist sector would be very small and awkward. It would not be as efficient as the capitalist sector and would require state intervention to keep it alive so that it could grow. Of what use would it be if it were not strong enough to compete against the capitalist sector and survive on its own ? To answer this question we can paraphrase Ben Franklin who, upon witnessing an early demonstration of a lighter-than-air balloon, was asked "of what use is this ?" Franklin replied "Of what use is a new born baby ?" The communist sector would be increasingly supported by the masses as it demonstrates that it had the present and future ability to serve their needs far better than the capitalist sector. It would grow and develop and eventually overwhelm the capitalist sector which (via the intervention of the workers' state) gives it nourishment in its infancy much like the white of an egg gives nourishment to a growing chick embryo. |
| During the transition period, the state apparatus would act as a defensive shield to protect the interests of workers and the majority of society from the economic might and powerful corrupting influence of the capitalist class which would be in constant motion towards subverting the workers' dictatorship. Such a defensive shield could not successfully hold off attack forever and furthermore would be extremely expensive, in terms of the social distortions that it creates, to maintain. The development of a sword is the only way to end the contest for once and for all. That sword would be the communist sector which, once more mature, would be able to outproduce the capitalist sector by orders of magnitude (ie: hundreds or thousands fold) with a vastly higher productivity of labor. Once the communist sector had proven itself fully capable of providing for all the material and cultural needs of the masses, it would be allowed to absorb whatever remnants of the capitalist sector would be worth absorbing. |
| Now let's consider the meaning of the term "cooperative anarchy" which Mark assures us is just another way of describing capitalism. But let's examine it not as described by either Mark or Ben but as described by the actual pioneers who are experimenting with creating a form of wealth that, to a significant degree, lies outside of the bounds of commodity production. |
| The December 1994 issue of Dr. Dobbs' Developer Update (a journal for software developers) features as its lead an article on the development of the next generation of standards for the internet. It turns out that the development of standards for the internet is a very important matter. A great many people are affected. Different views on what the standards should be clash and it is important that the resulting decisions are best for everybody as a whole. Interestingly, the article focuses more on the process and philosophy of people working together to work out common standards than it does on the standards itself. The term "cooperative anarchy" has evolved to describe the process by which many kinds of work get done on the internet. The article goes on to quote a section of a technical paper which had a subhead titled "Cooperative Anarchy": |
|
| The Dr. Dobbs article goes on to note that much of the work involved in setting policy and standards on the internet is done on a volunteer basis but that this self-appointed collection of largely unpaid volunteers has accomplished vastly better results than were accomplished in the setting of standards for OSI (the dominant standard for local area computer networks) which involved negotiations among paid representatives of corporations. One can imagine the dynamics involved as the common interest as well as technical considerations tend to get overwhelmed by corporate political infighting. |
| Of particular note is the attitude above toward "centralization or forced cooperation". These terms of course correspond to what is often referred to as "top-down" methods of organization. The attitude of the above author towards top-down methods reflects the experience of large numbers of people who have worked in this kind of environment. They recognize that to a certain degree and in certain circumstances centralization is necessary but they will accept only the "least necessary" degree of this necessary evil. What is the problem with centralization ? The problem is that independent of the good will or resistance to corruption of those in the center, that the process of all information having to be channeled through a single central point inevitably introduces distortions and limits the ability of constituent elements of the process from interacting locally, or "in parallel". |
| I hope that sectarian supporters can consider the fact that Mark's most strident opposition to "independent, parallel processes" stems from his absolute fidelity to the principles of organization (of society and of its proletarian political party) codified under J. V. Stalin. In the Soviet party and in Soviet society all information, all interconnection between disparate process was in theory channeled through Stalin's brain. |
| Such organizational theories may have served the needs of survival and development of a very brutal regime in very brutal conditions but they have no place in the development of a communist society nor in the development of a proletarian party in the modern world. |
| This super-centralized organizational formula for stagnation in the midst of a fast moving world is still adhered to by our sectarian leadership who have yet to give account for how such a concern of first-rate importance as was reflected in comrade Ray's 1988 letter to the CC was deliberately concealed from the party membership. |
Barbarian at the Gate |
| I have been preparing to finish up something that Mark started a year ago when he said that another comrade who was agnostic about Leninism was an anti-Marxist. Mark has engaged in a number of maneuvers but they will not save him. I have replied here to his recent note (Detroit #69) but I am still preparing a reply to his positions on philosophy. |
| The barbarian is advancing up the hillside towards the walled fortress. His preparations are nearly complete. Soon he will be knocking at the gate. We can hear Karl Malden's voice, from the well-remembered American Express commercial, in the background. He is saying "What will you do, Mark ? What will you do ?" ----//-// |
| [A postscript under the above name was added by the author 4-26-95] |
| In 1988 comrade Ray informed the CC of his concerns that the party's priorities were too heavily weighted in the direction of agitation and publication at the expense of the neglect of much needed and overdue theoretical work aimed at resolving the crisis in communist theory originating from the failure of the 1917 revolution. |
| Comrade Ray felt that he had no way to bring his concerns to the base of the party without igniting a nasty political inquisition in a very uptight atmosphere (and possibly splitting the party or plunging it into civil war). At that time, after nearly twenty years of existence in one or another form, the MLP had no regular, established, open public channels for members and supporters at the base to air and communicate their concerns and opinions to one another. |
| The content of comrade Ray's concerns eventually spilled out in various forms to the entire party beginning in 1991 as the party's crisis deepened and it was becoming more clear that the accumulation of neglect of theoretical work had left us unprepared to maintain our unity and a clear focus of revolutionary work in the face of the continued decline of the mass oppositional movements. In fact the astounding theoretical neglect over the most basic and fundamental questions helped to accelerate the break-up of the MLP which occurred in November 1993. |
| Comrade Ray's hesitation, equivocation and concerns for unleashing such a storm as might have healed the party but also held the potential to destroy it in such an uptight atmosphere has been amply substantiated and can be well understood in light of the bitter tone of events in the period following the break-up of the party which have born witness to the most casual disregard for scientific methods of investigation and discussion and of the most blatant violations of the basic norms of polemical decency. ----//-// |
| [Technical note: The title "Mark Gets Burned" was added 9-9-96. Previously the title had been what is now the abstract.] |