| 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" | ||||
A reply to Joseph's article "Communism as a science":
|
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
--------------------------------------------------------------
5 The "Miracles"
9 The principal outstanding question of communism
as a science
11 Joseph seeks escape
14 Joseph agrees with capitalist apologists
17 "Bottom-up" methods are destined to rule
19 The silence of the spams
21 How Joseph turns Engels into a revisionist
23 Joseph's courage has failed him
26 Theoretical passivity of sectarians
29 Others are not succumbing
36 Decide for yourself
38 Sterile daydreams and real cockroaches
40 Notes:
|
| Six months ago I wrote an article under a similar title puncturing Joseph's pretensions of being an anti-revisionist fighter. In the space of this period Joseph's journal, the Communist Voice, has not given its readers the slightest hint that my article existed. Joseph has refused, without explanation, my request to print my two page summary of my 23 page article. This in spite of Joseph's oft-repeated promises that his journal would have room for views opposed to his own. |
| In this light, a review of Joseph's article "Communism as a science" reveals that Joseph has a problem with communism as a science -- which hangs over his head like the Sword of Damocles. |
| Joseph's article has skillfully avoided ANY MENTION of the PRINCIPAL OUTSTANDING QUESTION of communism as a science -- a question which will soon enough consume the efforts of humanity and rock the 21st century. |
|
|
|
of communism as a science |
| If the "miracles" described above are possible, not through divine intervention but via the actions of human hands and minds -- then HOW can the "impossible" be made possible ? |
| This is the question I deal with in the polemic which Joseph attempts to hide from his readership. This is the question which haunts Joseph whether he is awake or dreaming. This is the question from which Joseph seeks to escape. |
| In his reply to Barb [1], Joseph quotes Lenin on the necessity of abolishing money and exchange. But any REAL DISCUSSION of how this might be accomplished in the context of the modern world is a strictly forbidden topic ! For my efforts in raising this issue Joseph has called me a "reflection of neo-conservatism in socialist thinking". |
| The ideologues in the pockets of the capitalists tell us that a society based on commodity production and exchange (ie: money) will be with us until the end of time. They tell us that the only alternative to an economy based on the marketplace -- is the discredited "command economy" under which a small privileged section of the population (ie: a group of central planners and administrators) tell everyone else what to do. |
| And Joseph AGREES with these capitalist ideologues. The only alternative to the rule of the marketplace, he argues, is the rule of a central administrative apparatus. |
| In my February 3 polemic, I point out that in a future communist economy, a central directing administrative apparatus might or might not eventually evolve -- but that it would be a theoretical blunder of the first magnitude to believe that such an apparatus would be NECESSARY for the smooth running of the economy and society as a whole (paragraphs 73- 79 and elsewhere). Instead I argue (in view of the well-known marked history of central bureaucratic apparatuses to fall prey to corruption/incompetence and become captive to the material interests of a class of privileged exploiters) that it is inevitable that humanity will will search out and find methods of organizing its political, economic and cultural affairs without need for corruption/incompetence/exploitation prone central authorities. I spoke of the search for more "bottom-up" and democratic methods of organizing the production of wealth and cited the example of "cooperative anarchy" which has emerged as a model for the creation of protocols on the internet. |
| The response of Joseph and his loyal flunky Mark was at first to attack me amidst great amounts of bluster and hot air. But for the past six months, following my February 3 reply, they have been utterly silent. Why ? Because in my polemics I kicked their fannies hard and their faces are in the mud and they are covered with shame. This may seem a vulgar description to some -- but all the same it is completely accurate. |
| In two principal areas I was able to prove that Joseph was misrepresenting Engels for sectarian purposes (in paragraphs 104-106 I nail Joseph for claiming that Engels believed that future communist society would have no political life and would hence be dead and in paragraphs 15-32 I demolished Joseph's claim that Engels predicted that a communist economy would be governed by a central directing authority and showed instead that Engels had predicted that the forms of organizing production WITHIN a single factory or economic unit would eventually become the same as the forms of organizing cooperation BETWEEN factories). |
| Joseph would like to reply to me but every time he contemplates a response his courage fails him. Joseph was beaten and humiliated by my "Joseph in Wonderland" polemic seventeen months ago. He has never replied to it and he never will. Joseph said that my polemic contained "lies" but he never said what the lies were. Instead Joseph and his one-time allies with the Chicago Workers Voice discouraged their supporters from reading it. And in fact Joseph's harvest of humiliation and shame resulting from his encounters with me became an issue in the Detroit-Chicago divorce, with Jake reporting that Joseph became "quite upset" on the subject [2]. |
| Joseph has censored notice of my February 3 reply to his January 28 polemic against me. Joseph has done this because awareness and readership of my polemics might lead to discussion of their content. And discussion might lead to consciousness of the larger issues -- which lead to an exposure of Joseph's evasive maneuvers and charlatan methods for the purpose of getting followers to support him financially so that he can continue to be shielded from the harsh realities involved in having a job and dealing with the world [3]. |
| And it must be noted that to Joseph's relief the supporters of sectarianism in both Detroit and Chicago have to date shown little interest in the theoretical questions which will dominate the 21st century. Well that is their choice. (And it is also a logical consequence of Frank's view -- see note 3 -- that Joseph can do the theoretical thinking for everyone.) |
| But I will note that amidst a great deal of talk of building a trend capable of shouldering its responsibilities to the workers and exploited of this country and the world -- there has been a rather notable passivity towards the central theoretical questions and tasks which must be addressed by any trend which seeks to uphold genuine communism. Hey folks, guess what ? Your ability to shoulder your real responsibilities is directly proportional to your ability to be honest with yourselves -- which at present is directly proportional to zero. |
| The passivity of the Detroit and Chicago sectarians towards the real theoretical tasks facing genuine communism are probably par for the course in a period marked by demoralization and great theoretical confusion. But others are not succumbing to demoralization and passivity and are determined to put an end to the confusion. |
| Recently, after overcoming considerable opposition (including both resignations and hurt feelings) comrades in Seattle have begun a more formal study of the central theoretical question of our time -- how a modern society might organize itself without benefit of the market, without benefit of money and exchange. |
| A lengthy period of hard work and activity lies before us and particular people and forms of organizing work may come and go. But we have the benefit of a great deal of experience which leads us to understand that the real difficulties in revolutionary activity are the result of not keeping our eyes open and not "doing things right". |
| If we remain calm and alert and not stampede ourselves with knee-jerk emotional reactions, we have every real possibility of avoiding both |
|
| which appear to have enveloped the bulk of the remnants of the xmlp. |
| Anyone interested in reading my views on how a communist economy and society might actually function in the modern world is invited to look at my two polemics in which I give a general outline (Seattle #72 and #76 of 12-24-94 and 2-3-95). I will send nicely printed copies free (actually at my own personal expense) to anyone, friend or foe, who expresses an interest. (Temporary public address: [deleted 9-9-96 by Ben]) |
| In the meantime, supporters of Detroit and Chicago have the alternate option of following the latest revelations of the xmlp's own answer to Walter Mitty -- who aspires to be a full-time supported theoretician and who dreams the most sterile anti-revisionist dreams while in practice impotently opposing all real discussion of the nature and functioning of a future communist society without exchange and without money (a stand he shares, by the way, with Fred). In the meantime, Joseph can maneuver to have others support his addiction to theories of sectarian incitement and empty delusions. In the meantime Joseph can play the role of a junkie surrounded by squalor, garbage and cockroaches -- who knows that all his problems would be solved if only he could get his hands on -- another fix. ----//-// |
| [1] (See CV #3, page 55, column 1, mid-page) |
| [2] (See CV #1, page 48, lower half of column 2) Jake says that Chicago believed that Joseph's "point-by-point" replies to me were insufficiently "concentrated and popular" and was "skeptical" that they were leading anywhere. Any written exchanges detailing Chicago's criticism of Joseph's reply to me or Joseph's response to it, should they exist, are private and I have not seen them but I believe they should be released. |
| [3] (See CV #1, page 41, bottom portion of column 2) Only Frank has the courage to raise directly one of the cardinal issues behind all these maneuvers and these hundreds of thousands of words -- the issue of supporting Joseph financially. Of course Frank raises this issue from the angle of supporting the idea because Joseph has convinced Frank that Joseph's financial support is the key to theoretical progress. |
| But Frank is mistaken. Joseph's history of distortion, sectarian incitement, concealment and evasionism prove that no theoretical advances can be expected from continuing to support him. In fact the opposite can be expected as Joseph subordinates the struggle for theoretical clarity to the struggle for his material support. In fact, supporting Joseph is actually most unhealthy. It is unhealthy for Joseph and for everyone. Joseph's rehabilitation will require him to have the CONTACT WITH THE MASSES that comes best from working side-by- side with them. Until Joseph recognizes his errors, repudiates his corruption, maneuvering and incitement -- his considerable abilities are COMPLETELY USELESS to the proletariat. |
| Frank believes that for me to say this openly is part of a "witch-hunt against Joseph" (see CV #2, page 56, mid-way through column 1) because my struggle against Fred's views has been less public. But time will verify that what I say is the sober truth. Events will demonstrate that the struggle for anti-revisionism requires sharp blows not only at reformist conceptions but also against those "anti-revisionists" who swear on a stack of Lenin's works while conducting the most shameless sectarian incitement. ----//-// |