| document id: |
author: |
archive link |
publisher id: |
date written: |
|
[Note by Ben on February 17, 2002]
These documents originally appeared as Seattle #85, Detroit #98 and Seattle #86.
The title, abstract and chapter headings are by me. Recently, Alex, has
reconsidered his position and has asked me to add the following note:
I consider that my contribution to the exchange on this page was naive, unconsidered, and wrong. While I take responsibility for writing what is posted here, I believe that to a great extent, I was incited to do so by Ben, as a pawn in his battle with Joseph. I do not know Joseph's motives for not replying, I strongly suspect that he read the situation accurately, that I was acting as a pawn of Ben, and that his exchanges with Ben were rapidly becoming fruitless, and wrote me off at that point. I consider that Joseph was correct in taking this tack. | ||||
|
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
--------------------------------------------------------------
2 A New Voice (introducing Alex)
18 Ben has secret documents
19 Stonewall Joseph explains why he will not reply
to Ben's accusations
21 Open Letter to Alex
61 Alex replies to Joseph
72 Joseph is struck dumb
|
| Seattle # 85 -- December 8, 1995 -- from: Alex -- to: all |
| I have been reading Neil's debate with Joseph with some interest. I am fairly new to the whole political realm, and for that reason I tend to discount my contributions as having that much value, and have hesitated jumping into the fray. As a brief introduction, I first became active during the Central America movement, where I first encountered the MLP, and I started to be interested in the party a couple of years before it broke up. I am aware that my exposure to the current issues is skewed by the geographics involved -- I might well see things very differently if I happened to live in Detroit, for example (and that is one of the liabilities of being relatively new to these debates). We are built by our experiences, and much of my limited political experience has been with the Seattle branch, and the various formations it has taken since. I am also aware that being associated with Ben is tantamount to being associated with the devil incarnate among some, but, hey, if a guy is going to let a little thing like that deter him, he is hardly worth his salt as an activist. |
| I appreciated the tone of what Neil had to say in his recent polemic: |
|
| His analysis is, I think, wrong, but the call for polemical decency is one which I think anyone but Joseph will appreciate at this point. As he says, regardless of what you think of Ben's politics, he has been asking some questions which deserve answers. Instead, what I have seen is name calling and abuse, on the one hand, and stone silence on the other. |
| It is fundamentally a materialist view that calm, scientific debate (not pulling any punches, mind you) ON THE ISSUES, will eventually bring the truth out. This is because there really is a real world out there. Our discussions are merely attempts to figure out what that world looks like, or will look like tomorrow or the next day. |
| Of course, we all have internal contradictions. That is the nature of life in a dialectical world. Capitalism heightens those contradictions, by facing us with questions like: do you want to eat, or to speak the truth? These contradictions distort our view of the world. Discussion is a simple process of rooting out the more glaring contradictions, one by one. The complicating factor is that it is never obvious on the surface whose contradictions are being discussed. Patience and perseverance, humility and a commitment to a scientific attitude speed this process along, as much as it can be sped, but it is at best a slow process. |
| What are the blocks to understanding? I think there are several. |
| First, and not to be discounted for its very simplicity, we are all ignorant of much of the world, and how it works. Particularly when it comes to making predictions, which is what much of politics is about, our ignorance is quite a handicap. This is similar to trying to predict the winner of a horse race when you only know 1/2 of the horses running, only more so. |
| But more importantly are the distortions which all of us are prey to, to one degree or another. Where do these distortions come from? Well, it is hardly enough to say that they come from 'material conditions'. That says no more than that I claim to be a materialist -- an empty claim, unless I can use it to analyze the world. The most basic relationship we have in our lives is that of worker to boss. It ties us all to life and to our society, and is built on a lie. The boss must maintain in us a certain level of confusion about what we are doing, or we would never do it. It is uncomfortable to know that someone is lying to our face, and can do nothing about it. So, to ease our discomfort, we slip into various comfortable lies. |
| Finally, and most importantly, are the lies which come from our own rationalizations. Offered an opportunity at a little more comfort for ourselves (or even the illusion of an opportunity), at the expense of much greater discomfort for others -- privilege, a bonus, a two tier wage structure, in exchange for selling out our co-workers -- we rationalize that, yes, we do deserve a little more comfort, we do need the money to get out of debt, we do work harder than the average (possibly all true). You get the picture. And, of course, as soon as we de-couple our fortunes from those of all workers everywhere, we can no longer see the lies the boss hands us quite so clearly. Any position of relative comfort -- like support from the party, so we don't have to work -- leaves us vulnerable to lying to ourselves, and distortions of our worldview. These points, I think, are indisputable among materialists. |
| Having had a number of discussions with Ben about his ideas, I think I can say this with a reasonable amount of certainty: Ben's apocryphal ideas started as simple questions and tentative hypotheses. As he asked questions, and was met with a great deal of bluster, but no substance, he began to become more certain that he was on to something. Calling him anarcho-communist may mean a great deal to Neil, but it means very little to me. I do not understand his errors. Of course he may be dead wrong. That is a given. And he almost certainly is wrong in some areas. That is a hazard of trying to make predictions in a complex world. As a newcomer to all this debate, I think I am open-minded to reasoned arguments about his errors. But I am also pretty immune to Joseph-style ranting. Remember, he was never the hero to me that he was to many who have been around the party for decades. To me he sounds like a bitter old man who has indigestion. He may sound scary, but the worst he can do is whack you on the shins with his cane if you get too close. If he starts adding some substance to his writings, starting with answering the question Ben has dubbed 449, I will accord him more respect, but not until then. |
| Joseph has responded impressively quickly and volumiously, to Neil, why can't he respond as quickly to Ben's questions? And Mark, in Joseph's appendix to Detroit 96, rips Neil's letter to the PR apart. Ooo, am I impressed! For his next trick, what will he do? Crush a gnat with his bare hands? Of course Neil is something of a dope, and if that wasn't obvious before, it is from his letter to PR. And he sounds to me as though he might be flirting with the LRP. After all, all he has to go back to in his old friends from Detroit is, "No, you're a revisionist dog!", "No, you're a revisionist dog!", "No, I said you were a revisionist dog first, and so I'm right." But the point is, if he can get it that we need a scientific attitude, then why can't others? Neil, thank you for your call for polemical decency. |
| Meanwhile, among all of you who are saying that Ben is an idiot, or a revisionist, or whatever, you have my ear, if you can answer the issues Ben has raised with substance. That is all I ask. |
| Alex |
he will not reply to Ben's accusations |
|
To: All From: Joseph Green Detroit #98 December 8, 1995 |
| Dear Alex, |
| It was interesting to hear from another voice from around the late Seattle Branch of the MLP. But one thing struck me as rather odd about your letter. You make a plea for "polemical decency". Yet your letter doesn't put forward any political or theoretical views about the polemics it discusses. It is full of personal characterizations instead. It denounces me as a dishonest ranter. It denounces Mark for analyzing Neil's letter to the LPR, saying "ooo, am I impressed! For his next trick, what will he do? Crush a gnat with his bare hands." But then you agree that Neil is probably flirting with the LRP. The difference between what you say on this and what Mark says, is that Mark analyzes a series of political issues while you instead personally characterize Neil as "something of a dope". |
| Don't you see the contradiction here, Alex? |
| What is a decent, useful polemic? It is one that deals with political or theoretical or scientific issues, and says something of interest. Is that not so? In that case, why are you so upset with Mark's letter, which refers to a whole series of issues? Do you have any views on these issues? If so, I would be glad to hear them. |
| Or take your characterization of me as a ranter and hack. If you must say that, and if it makes Ben feel better to see this said repeatedly, fine. I understand. But what about the content of what I have written? Ever since 1991 I (and Mark and Frank and Pete) have written a series of articles on the points under dispute with Ben and Fred of the late RSSG, some directly in reply to Ben and Fred and some simply on issues they have raised. I wrote an extensive article on the structure of the Soviet economy and whether it refuted Marx's view of socialism, as Fred thought; other articles on the nature of value in today's capitalism and what would happen to it in a future socialist society; another polemic with Fred discussed the relation of these issues to the environment; other articles dealt with Ben's views on a variety of issues, such as "The right to criticize, factionalism, and social- democracy" or two articles on "Left-wing neo-conservatives"; etc. These articles have appeared in the late Workers' Advocate Supplement, in the late Information Bulletin, in the e-mail debate, in the Chicago Workers' Voice Theoretical Journal last year, and the Communist Voice this year. Have you even seen these articles, or are you basing your comments only on the latest exchange between me and Neil? If you haven't seen the other material, you might be pleasantly surprised when you examine them. You might find that they raise a number of issues worth pondering. As it is, you don't comment on a single view expressed in these articles (which is why I wonder if you have seen them), but you simply suggest I am indecent. |
| I am not real surprised that you do this, given the atmosphere created around the late RSSG, but I think you might reconsider this. After all, consider the atmosphere which Ben has fostered. He actually started a campaign to have people tell me to go to hell. He wrote a letter for publication in CWVTJ #2 (March 1994), entitling it "An appeal to comrades of the xmlp trend". (p. 29) It states that "Unfortunately, I have been unable, to date, to complete my reply to comrade Joseph." But "in the meantime", there was something else he had to do to create the proper atmosphere for people to read his coming reply. What was that? He appeals to comrades that "Joseph should be told to go to hell." |
| Nor was this simply an isolated excess by an excited Ben. Instead it followed from his views on how discussion should be organized. I dealt with a similar view by Fred (RSSG) in my article "Censorship, imperialism and revisionism", which is also in CWVTJ #2. According to Fred, it is "censorship" if I write an article critical of his views. Similarly, Ben holds that it creates the proper atmosphere for discussion and debate to organize to have people tell his critics to go to hell. |
| And he has continued in this vein. He and Fred organized a campaign to say that those who disagreed with them were Stalinists, opponents of discussion, censorers, etc. Ben was so hot to find insults that he couldn't restrict himself to presently-existing words, but invented new words whose sole purpose was vituperation. Moreover this campaign had been connected to a real burn-the-books-style campaign, namely, the campaign to ensure that the Marxist-Leninist Party's last congress did not decide to publish a journal which would publish additional materials after the party (and its old journals) dissolved. This proposed journal (called the "temporary journal" in the debate of that time) would have allowed place for research materials that hadn't yet been published, for new research materials, for reports on what various circles of comrades were doing, for the views of comrades with any point of view, etc. It was not a journal committed to anti-revisionist communism, like Communist Voice is today, but was designed to provide a place for all the views from the old MLP to be expressed. There were sufficient MLP resources left to publish it (no one denied that), and there were comrades who were enthusiastic to put it out and would have ensured its publication (no one denied that either). But this journal couldn't be allowed to see the light of day because, you see, it would have my views too (and those of other comrades who stood for anti-revisionist communism just as ardently and thoughtfully) and because I was the comrade who volunteered to take up the heavy burden of editing it. And according to Fred and Ben, it's "censorship" to allow views critical of their positions to be published, while it is freedom to burn a journal that would have given a voice to everyone. |
| What do you call people who defend their views by suppressing journals? Is that not an indecent way of polemicizing? What do you call people who can't develop a journal themselves, but will burn down any other journal? Are these not truly indecent people? If the Fifth Congress majority didn't want me as editor, it could have elected any other editor it pleased. But what the RSSG and former CC majority didn't want, was a journal where the different views would be expressed. |
| And have you taken a good look at Ben's polemics? A really good look? Look at almost any of them, and you see the same method of vituperation, constant and repetitive. He himself says why he does that. He talks about how he "targeted" me or Mark or whoever. It is a conscious style designed not to spread enlightenment, but to discredit whoever Ben takes as his enemy of the day. |
| For example, take the last paragraphs of Seattle #82, paragraphs which are actually rather toned down for him. It's entitled "Kids in a Treehouse". Note that it has no content whatsoever, but is just an attempt to personally smear critics. Or take Seattle #83. Here Ben INVENTS a dialog and puts these charming words in my mouth: "Hey you little bastard, you swallowed my spam with such delight yesterday that I think you should do so again today!" and "Whatzamadder, don't you like the taste of my spam anymore." Do you recommend that we learn this style of writing from Ben? |
| Meanwhile, you mention my polemic with Neil. Whatever angry words are exchanged with Neil, isn't it the case that I centered on political issues? |
|
| Ben doesn't speak to these issues. I do. The CV organization does. |
| Ben, it is true, says that he is doing profound work on the "theoretical foundation of communism in the modern world". He doesn't have time for anything else, he says. (He has time to hundreds of pages of personal vituperation--he just doesn't have time to talk about politics and about the class struggle.) Well, Ben has written two articles which sum up his views on the "theoretical foundation of communism". These are "The Digital Infrastructure of the Proletarian Revolution" and "On the transition to a communist economy". He advertised these supposedly profound tomes extensively. He patted himself on the back over them and shouted that he had important advances and new views in them. |
| But he never circulated them. You suggest that I and others haven't replied enough to Ben. But Ben has never yet put his two key articles onto e- mail. He still hasn't. I don't have these articles. I and others have asked him for these articles repeatedly. If he doesn't submit his work to the scrutiny of critics, then it doesn't make much sense to accuse others of not replying. |
| What would you think of a mathematician who claimed to have wonderful proofs of the hardest and most difficult theorems, theorems which everyone had been trying to solve for decades, but refused to publish them? What if that mathematician refused to submit them to journals unless two mathematicians from every university agreed, beforehand, to praise his work? What if that mathematician shouted that all other mathematicians were ranters, blusterers, ignoramuses, dopes, hacks, etc. for not recognizing the value of his work, but still never showed that work? What if that mathematician wrote book after book--hundreds of thousands of words--about the value of serious and scientific work and the harm of puffery and fraud, but still didn't release his work? |
| You say that others haven't taken Ben seriously. But he himself passed the most harsh judgement on his own work by not circulating it. Actions speak louder than words. He suppressed his own articles--after having repeatedly written messages whose entire content was boasting about them and telling everyone to get ready and wait, here they come. Thus he inadvertently showed his real judgement about the value of his own work. And finally, when Fred of the late RSSG wrote his "Layman's Guide to Infotopia" last March, we found out something about why Ben didn't circulate his writings. Fred chided me for taking Ben too seriously and wrote, in essence, that he had LAUGHED at Ben's articles. It seems this really frightened Ben. Recall the story of the emperor's new clothes? |
| And Fred was a former ally of Ben. Fred had worked along with Ben in an attempt create an atmosphere in which anyone who opposed them was told to go to hell (all in the name of the freedom of thought of course). So if Fred laughed at these articles, we outsiders can imagine what these articles are like. |
| In any case, Ben decided that his views could only be circulated in bits and pieces in the midst of page after page of sneers. The result is a colossal waste of time. And yet more time is wasted as several dozen e-mails are partly devoted to whether these articles will ever be circulated, will he please circulate them, his appeals that comrades will approve them in advance, etc. He whines about how valuable his time is, but he is a champion waster of other people's time. |
| And despite that, we have analyzed the basic drift of his recent work, and published a comment on it in Communist Voice #4. You actually don't comment on our analysis of Ben's work. Have you read it? If you have views on its strengths and weaknesses, I'd love to hear them, and such views would help us know what is of interest to readers of Communist Voice, and which points should be elaborated further. If you don't find it of interest, then why suggest that we should write more about Ben's material? If nothing we have written yet is of interest, then why ask us to waste more of your time and ours by writing yet more? |
| Indeed, I was surprised by your comparison of my polemic with Neil to that with Ben, because I and others have written far more about Ben, and Fred, and related issues than we have written about Neil. Of course, you won't find that material in a polemic between me and Neil, and I don't know why anyone would look there to find material on Ben. But have you looked into the past polemic with Ben, which was in various publications and on e-mail? Do you subscribe to Communist Voice and did you read Chicago Workers' Voice Theoretical Journal last year when it was covering the debate with Ben and Fred? Have you reviewed the articles in the Workers' Advocate Supplement on these issues? If not, then apparently part of the issue is simply that you are not aware of what was already written. But if you have, great, on these questions as on our current polemic with Ben, I would love to hear your views. What did you find interesting and of value? If, in reading this material, there are particular issues that you think are important, it would be good if you raise them. I am not asking that you talk about everything, but start by talking on any of the points that you found of interest. |
| Well, so much for now, Alex. I'll be interested to hear back from you on political and theoretical issues. Say what you want about me being a ranter and hack, as you please. But when you are through, please include what you think about the political and theoretical issues involved, or about some research you are involved in, or even about the debates that took place among the RSSG (one of Ben's big secrets--he even tried to keep the demise of the RSSG secret). What are your views on the issues that were debated during the MLP's final hours concerning socialism, imperialism, the value of Marxism, the nature of value in present-day and future society, the issue of party building, whether the proletariat exists as a class, etc.? What do you see as the needed orientation for communist work today? |
| That's what missing from your letter, and that's what you find in Communist Voice and related literature. And I look forward to hearing what you think of the various issues of Communist Voice. |
|
Communist greetings, Joseph Green |
|
PS: Here is one of Ben's many ads for the emperor's new clothes: |
|
Seattle # 38 to: all date: 2-14-94 |
| Announcement: |
|
|
| Title: |
|
|
| Author: |
|
|
| Summary: |
|
of the greatest communications revolution in history. The development of a global digital communications infrastructure promises, as decade rolls after decade, to release vast and ever-increasing amounts of oxygen onto the fires of the class struggle, setting the stage for an eventual political explosion of stellar magnitude." |
| Reviews (from the Seattle Study Group): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Seattle #86 -- January 5, 1996 -- To: all -- From: Alex -- Re: Detroit #98 |
|
1/5/96 Joseph -- |
| First, I must apologize for the delay in my response. I was away for the last three weeks, and did not receive your reply until yesterday. |
| As I wrote, I will not engage with you until you approach polemics responsibly. I will take you seriously only when you have demonstrated that you deserve to be taken seriously. To do so, answer Ben's question 449 thoughtfully (even a simple "yes, I understand I was wrong" or "no, I believe I was right" will do). In exchange, I pledge to answer any question you have about my position, thoughtfully, and within 30 days of your reply. |
| Alex |
|
----------- As a refresher, here is the infamous 449, first posed 10/24/95. Joseph has yet to acknowledge its existence. |
|
| And reasons (a) and (b): |
|
| [] |
| And Joseph has not said one word in reply since. |