Seattle # 83 -- December 4, 1995 -- from: Ben -- to: all

Neil started out innocently enough on Sunday, November 26.  He compared 
my debate/discussion with Pete (Seattle #82, Saturday, Nov 25) to a 
football game and gave me 10 points to Pete's 17.  Even though Neil was 
in complete agreement with Joseph on the essential theoretical points -- 
he (somehow) seemed to suspect that something might be wrong with 
Joseph's orientation.  Neil spoke of Joseph's "rigid and 
overcentralized" structure and an "overemphasis" on "distributive 
justice".

This was not to win Neil any appreciation in Detroit.  Now I, myself, 
have no idea what "distributive justice" even means.  But it might be a 
reference to the fact that Joseph's conception of "communism" is just a 
"share the poverty" vision shared by some misty-eyed liberals and crusty 
revisionists.  This is a sore point with Joseph because I have been 
emphasizing the fact that genuine communism must produce MORE WEALTH 
than conventional "free-market" capitalism and that Joseph's revisionist 
scheme has been shown by history to be not only inseperable from the 
nurturing and development of class antagonisms -- but, in a complex 
economy, to produce far LESS WEALTH than ordinary capitalism.

Worse than this, however, was that Neil showed enthusiasm for the 
discussion in the first place.  The worst thing, the very worst thing, 
is to PAY ANY ATTENTION to anything written by the crafty infidel who is 
out to destroy us and is making fools of us with ease.  Assigning 10 
points to the black hat will only tend to encourage decent-thinking 
comrades to read his arguments -- which make us look like a bunch of 
ignorant hicks (at best) or highly corrupt and conscious charlatans.

Neil also commits another serious indiscretion.  He says that Joseph 
should have greater room in his schema for workers' mass economic and 
social organizations.  But isn't this similar to what Ben has been 
saying ?  Wasn't the title of "Why is Joseph Afraid of the Masses ?" 
designed to puncture and ridicule Joseph's fear of the actions of the 
masses ?

But this is not the end of Neil's provocations.  Neil also comes up with 
a five-point list that he and his comrades believe would characterize 
the functioning of a communist society.  The first three items on this 
list involve the abolition of money, wage labor and commodity 
production.  Bad news Neil.  You are going to have to pay for your 
rashness.

The problem with Neil's first three points is not theoretical.  No one 
on the planet earth claiming to be an anti-revisionist communist could 
disagree that money, wage labor and commodity production cannot be the 
basis of a communist economy.  Rather, Neil's problem here is that all 
who have been following Ben's debate with Joseph and his flunky Mark -- 
will recognize that these three points are issues which Ben is 
consistently bringing up.  And to focus attention on these items can 
only assist Ben.

Neil commits a great sin with his forth point also.  Neil says that the 
"political state dies out".  This is a sin because it can as easily be 
understood as taking Ben's side as taking Joseph's.  Ben says that under 
communism there will be no state but there will still be politics (even 
if they are not class politics).  Joseph says that there will be no 
politics but that there will still be a state (he does not call it a 
"state" -- he calls it a central administrative apparatus that 
constitutes the elected general and formal authority that will make and 
enforce all the rules that all the peons must obey -- but to the rest of 
the world it kind of sort of seems to somewhat resemble a state).  
Hence, Neil's declaration that a "political state" will die out is 
neither fish nor fowl.  It satisfies the requirements of both Joseph's 
non-political state and Ben's non-state politics -- and hence -- fails 
to take sides.

And the biggest problem of all with Neil's five point list is this: IT 
INVITES DISCUSSION !  If you, as a reader, think that something is 
missing, why you just might feel encouraged to e-mail in your two-cents 
worth and -- well hey, pretty soon the fire gets out of control.

Joseph responded in Detroit #94 (Wednesday, Nov 29).  Joseph noted 
(quite correctly) that Neil was in complete agreement with him on the 
essential theoretical point and argued (again, correctly) that Neil's 
temerity in daring to criticize Joseph is related to other political 
factors.  This last point is undeniably true.  The circumstances of the 
Detroit-Chicago divorce have created conditions whereby Joseph's 
tendencies towards organization despotism are less intimidating to Neil 
and Neil is able to think and formulate his thoughts with a greater 
degree of independence from Joseph than was possible before.

Of course Joseph finds this outrageous.  "Hey you little bastard", 
Joseph says in effect, "you swallowed my spam with such delight 
yesterday that I think you should do so again today!"  "Whatzamadder", 
Joseph bellows: "don't you like the taste of my spam anymore ?"

Now Neil may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but such naked 
attempts at bullying by Joseph are enough to light up even this dim 
bulb.  Somehow, even Neil realizes at last that Joseph is engaging in 
pure charlatanism -- and even though he knows that he is outgunned 
intellectually -- he gets his back up -- and decides in desperation that 
he will do something he has never done before:  he thinks really hard.

Neil replies later that same night.  Maybe there might be a connection, 
Neil conjectures, "precisely" between, on the one hand, our support for 
"socialist" Albania, China and the Soviet Union under Stalin, and, on 
the other hand, our "revisionist" theories of political economy ?

Now this is getting dangerous.  Before, Neil was simply an ungrateful 
peon who dared to express an interest in the views of the blackest of 
the black hats.  Now Neil is guilty of a THOUGHTCRIME !  To suppose that 
there might be a connection between the mountain of theoretical 
absurdities in the MLP's past and the mountain of absurdities in the 
present -- represents an indirect approach to questioning Joseph's 
single-point-of-control theory.  Neil hasn't taken on the single-point-
of-control theory directly yet.  But he is starting to get warm.

And Neil gets warmer.

Neil raises the question of why Joseph is as slippery on this question 
as "deer guts on a doorknob".  Anytime someone raises the question of 
the real motivations for Joseph's charlatanism -- they are in the first 
stage of an attempt to plumb the dynamics of Joseph's denial and 
addiction to his own spam.  Neil speculates that Joseph wants to avoid 
the central questions because they are "painful" to him.  Could be.  
Neil says that Joseph's behavior is more evasive, dishonest, idealist 
and eclectic than Marxist.  Just might be a chance.  Neil then brings up 
the question of the "MATERIAL BASIS OF REVISIONISM".  For a brief 
moment, Neil is red hot.  Neil, however, then backs off.  Neil is only 
speaking of the material basis of the Soviet revisionists.  Neil will 
not mention the ultimate in thoughtcrimes: that there might be a 
material basis to Joseph's "revisionist anti-revisionism".  But even if 
Neil didn't dare say it -- did he think it ?  For a moment -- did he 
wonder ?

No matter.  Neil finally lets loose with a concentrated summation of our 
entire situation:

     "It is out of the exposure,
     explaining the laws of motion
     [of] capitalism and its socialist antithesis
     that both shatters the main apologetics for 
     the models of the failed/degenerated old movement 
     and ... propel[s] us now to help in theory and practice
     to resurrect the genuine tactics and goals
     [of] the workers struggle for [the] overthrow of
     all capitalist social relations
     and the building of a communist world
     of abundance and freedom for humankind."

Better be careful Neil.  You are starting to sound like Ben.  Neil's 
statement betrays a spark of recognition that a discussion and 
understanding of the nature of future communist society -- is the key to 
overcoming the theoretical crisis and bankruptcy that has crippled the 
left for seven decades in the wake of the betrayal and defeat of Lenin's 
revolution.  Only one problem here: the main apologetic for the 
failed/degenerated old movement turns out to be our own dearly beloved 
comrade Joseph -- who is not going to willingly allow himself to be 
shattered.

Joseph understands quite well that discussion will inevitably lead to 
his further exposure.  But how can the discussion be stopped ?

In the late 60's, as the anti-war movement was heating up, the 
reactionaries had a problem.  In nearly all public debates and forums on 
the war -- the fundamentally predatory character of the U.S. imperialist 
war was discussed and denounced -- and supporters of the war were 
getting trounced by protestors.  Discussions of the real issues were to 
their disadvantage and as a result -- the reactionaries were forced to 
retreat to a slogan which openly embraced an unthinking attitude: "My 
country, right or wrong".

From time to time we are given peeks into the atmosphere of desperation 
and panic within their camp as Joseph and his followers discover that 
any open contest over principles and arguments -- will result in their 
defeat and disgrace.  One such peek was Tim's venting of outrage at 
Ben's "tyrannical Stalin-like behavior".  Another was Pete's request 
last December (and Frank's this November) that I divert my attention to 
a host of other issues.  A most instructive lesson was Frank's command 
to Pete to stop discussing political issues with Ben and to instead let 
Ben "go figure".  But Frank was tardy in shutting up Pete and the 
resulting exchange now seems to have energized Neil.  How can this fire 
be kept from spreading further ?

Comrade Phil has devised a way to deal with Ben without dealing with the 
pesky principles that Ben keeps raising:

     "Ben's activities on the Boeing strike"

     "As a Boeing worker ... I can testify that Ben is too busy 
     waging war on that awful demon Joseph, the scourge of the 
     Western World, to pay any attention to minor issues such as 
     the Boeing Machinists' strike.  After all, don't you know 
     that according to the gospel according to the Saviour of the 
     Proletariat, Ben, the masses do not need any centralized 
     leadership -- they will recognize their interests 
     independently and wage conscious class struggle and win 
     AGAINST ALL ODDS, and they have no need for any socialist 
     leadership, whose major mission (according to the model 
     developed by the Great Leader, Ben) is the composition of 
     monstrous tomes of insulting, anarchist trash to waste the 
     time and energy of anyone who is conned into paying 
     attention to it.  No, do not expect any effort on the Boeing 
     strike from Ben; his valuable time is occupied with much 
     more important things."          (Phil, Dec 1)

A couple of points here are of interest.  Yes, it is true that I have 
been too busy to deal with the Boeing strike.  I believe that communists 
must be realistic in regard to their priorities and not overextend 
themselves to the detriment of their work.  I have decided to focus my 
energy on the theoretical foundation of communism in the modern world.  
I do this because it needs to be done.  It is our single most important 
task at the present time.  If almost no one else will take up this task 
-- and attempts to ban discussion of it -- well, this just means it is 
all the more important that I attend to it.  I know that eventually I 
will have plenty of assistance because all intelligent discussion leads 
in the direction of real communists gravitating towards those tasks 
which are most decisive.

What Phil appears to be overlooking, however, is WHY communists do 
agitation to assist the workers in their struggles for partial demands.  
We have an "ulterior" motive.  We want to earn the workers' ears.  We 
want to demonstrate to the workers that we are worth listening to.  Once 
workers listen to us -- we will be able to tell them about the necessity 
of overthrowing capitalism and creating a world which is better.  An 
examination of Joseph's "share the poverty" single-point-of-control 
conception, however, reveals what has been really going on:  We have 
done all this incredible work for twenty years to get workers to listen 
to us -- and when they do -- we tell them about our plans to create a 
society and economy that will produce LESS WEALTH than capitalism.  Is 
it any wonder that so many comrades have felt like they have been 
beating their heads against a brick wall ?

I won't bother to refute Phil's attacks on my supposed views that the 
workers do not need organization and leadership.

The "payload" of Phil's message is the key phrase "conned into paying 
attention" to Ben's anarchist trash.  Phil is trying to tell Neil that 
he is a dupe and a victim of Ben's diabolically clever scheme to lay the 
principles on the table for all to see.

The Boeing strike itself is interesting for a number of reasons.  A big 
issue in this strike is the steady increase in the sub-contracting of 
work to foriegn sweatshops.  This raises interesting issues of political 
economy and of worker solidarity that could cut against the chauvinist 
bluster of the hacks.  Another issue in the strike is copayments for 
medical insurance.  This ties in with the entire issue of universal 
health insurance and the various class and sectional interests in the 
national "debate" on this subject.  Potentially of greatest interest is 
that for the first time the workers rejected a contract that the hacks 
had solidly recommended they accept.  Even the bourgeois papers locally 
are filled with articles on how this represents the growing distrust and 
animosity of workers.

Fortunately Phil and Frank's leaflet on the Boeing strike, which will be 
out soon, will likely explore these issues in depth.  We know that they 
are planning to come out with a leaflet because Phil would not be stupid 
enough to attack me for not producing a leaflet on the Boeing strike 
when he works there and has not done so either.  This would make Phil 
look like a consummate hypocrite -- who feigns interest in the struggle 
of the Boeing workers for the purpose of protecting Joseph from Ben.  
Even Joseph's supporters, who have their heads shoved up their butts, 
cannot be so stupid as to be caught so shamelessly and dishonestly 
speculating on the Boeing struggle.  Or could they ?

Joseph replied to Neil (Detroit #95, Friday, Dec 1) in an atmosphere of 
increasing desperation.  Neil is too demanding, Joseph argues.  So we 
were a little confused and made a few minor errors in the past, hailed 
as great leaders a few butchers like Stalin and the Khymer Rouge.  Is 
this any reason to think that we could be making any errors today ?

Joseph points to his own exemplary record in the struggle to understand 
the nature of revisionism.  Why he says that all kinds of pieces of 
paper were generated and some of them were not shoveled into the memory 
hole.  Yeah, I guess so.  One of these pieces of paper was Ray's 1988 
letter.

In fact everything was going just fine until the "great demoralization" 
hit.  Some lilly livered comrades just couldn't see spending the rest of 
their lives smashing their heads against a brick wall -- renegades and 
traitors all.  Of course Joseph's single-point-of-control theory had 
nothing whatsoever to do with any of this.

See, it is really Neil who has abandoned anti-revisionism.  Neil just 
brings up stupid questions about the nature of communist society so that 
he can schmooze with Trots, Castroites and various other assorted slime.  
This is the point where Joseph attempts to blackmail Neil with the 
dossier composed of the pictures of Neil romping in the nude with 
Trotsky and Frida Kahlo.

Joseph has proof.  There is a "connection" between Neil and the CWV.  
The CWV in turn has a "connection" with El Machete which in turn has a 
"connection" with Castro himself.  And this is not all.  Joseph has 
proof that Neil has been seen smoking Cuban cigars.

Joseph will soon enough be in a position to prove that all his enemies 
are connected in a vast conspiracy against the working class.  Within a 
few years all political trends of any more consequence than a leaderless 
boy scout troop will have their own web sites.  And all these web sites 
will have connections to other web sites.  And by following one or 
another string of connections, a reader will be able to travel from 
nearly any given web site to any other (except Joseph's--Joseph will 
preserve the purity of his solitary splendor by ensuring that his web 
site is connected to no others).

Humor aside, there is a serious question here of great importance.  As 
the communications revolution unfolds it will have a profound influence 
on the organization of the left, both in the U.S. and internationally.  
One of the important questions here is the development of methods by 
which activists from various groups and with various orientations can 
engage in cooperative activity in such a way that the struggle against 
opportunism -- is not denigrated -- but on the contrary is enhanced.  I 
have put forward my own ideas on how these processes can be accelerated.  
In my 19 points in "Joseph in Wonderland" I describe how progressive 
groups can develop methods of creating "an information community" which 
would greatly assist -- not only practical work such as journalism and 
the systematic presentation of all ranges of views on all questions -- 
but would also assist the development of the struggle against 
opportunism.

Opportunism thrives in darkness.  Opportunism requires "information 
isolation" to protect itself from revolutionary critics who will 
puncture hypocrisy and lies in full view of the masses.  In the 
information communities in the future, trends that require "information 
isolation" as a condition of their survival -- will not have the 
prospects of a marshmallow in a microwave.  Evidence of this is the 
somersaults Joseph is turning at present to protect and isolate his 
trend, his deceit and his contradictions.

Last nite (Saturday, Dec 2) Neil replied to Joseph.  Neil's response 
indicates that he is not capitulating to Joseph's blatant attempts at 
intimidation.  At the same time it would appear that Neil has yet to 
break from the most fundamental features of the theoretical framework 
that Joseph champions.  And this, in the last analysis, is what is 
critical.

Neil can talk all he wants to about Joseph being a Little Caesar with 
his finger up his butt who is as slippery as deer guts on a doorknob.  
And these picturesque descriptions are both accurate and help to liven 
up what might otherwise be a dull set of exchanges.  But only a break 
from the confines of Joseph's theoretical straightjacket will have any 
lasting significance.

Neil appears to still maintain many illusions about Joseph.  Neil caught 
Joseph in distortion # 1,047,893: replacing Engels phrase "government of 
persons" with "administrations of persons" and says that hopefully this 
is not part of a systematic effort on Joseph's part to fog things up.  
Hope springs eternal -- does it not ?

Significantly, Neil criticizes Joseph for failing to alert the base of 
the party to the treachery of Jim, Michael and others who were "slinking 
around".  This, of course, is how Chicago views the world.  Neil and 
Chicago, who have in the recent period experienced first hand the nature 
of Joseph's charlatanism when used against them -- still seem to want to 
believe that Joseph's previous charlatanism, sectarianism and incitement 
against the majority of the xmlp (which they participated in and 
supported to the hilt) was just fine.  Well illusions die hard.

Neil also expresses confidence that discussion and debate can be useful 
if we all behave in a "politically civilized and serious manner".  This 
is my view also and it is good that Neil says this -- although I suppose 
this means that I may never enjoy the prestige of getting on the list 
that LA was keeping of the traitors to the working class slated to be 
hung after the revolution.

Seriously though, there is a problem we must discuss.  If we are really 
to be serious -- then we shouldn't bullshit each other or ourselves.  We 
have to struggle against deceiving ourselves.  We have to call a spade a 
spade.  And if there are consequences to calling a spade a spade, if 
doing so reveals weaknesses and foolishness and so forth -- then we must 
say "to hell with the consequences" because we mustn't be afraid to 
admit our errors.

And if we are to call a spade a spade -- then we must admit that there 
are those amongst us who do not wish to behave in a "politically 
civilized and serious manner".  Joseph made up his mind long ago.  He 
will not be "civilized".  We are going to have to fight him.  We are 
going to have to drag his principles into the sunlight and discuss them 
openly -- in full view of the world.  Joseph's dysfunction, its causes, 
development and consequences -- must be brought into the light of day.  
And if we are firm, if we are principled, then we may one day be 
fortunate enough to discuss Joseph's rehabilitation also -- because 
Joseph is worth saving.  But we can't help Joseph, and we can't fulfill 
our historic responsibilities -- unless we are completely honest with 
ourselves.

Oleg in Chicago takes a stand similar to that of Neil.  He defends 
himself from Joseph's distortion of the views of himself and Julie by 
carefully describing Joseph's method of constructing straw men.  Like 
Neil, Oleg will not utter the "c" word (ie: charlatanism).  Both Oleg 
and Neil treat Joseph's charlatanism as something that might go away if 
one wishes hard enough upon a star.  Both Oleg and Neil treat Joseph's 
charlatanism as if it were a newly discovered phenomena.  But the 
majority of the xmlp saw it clearly and got tired of it a long time ago.  
And if half of this majority got tired of revolutionary work or got 
discouraged or were unable to see the way forward -- this does not make 
Joseph any less of a charlatan.

Oleg's attitude toward Joseph strikes me as being like some redneck who 
owns a dog.  As long as the dog takes a shit in the neighbor's yard -- 
everything is just fine.  But when Joseph decides to take a dump on his 
front lawn -- Oleg discovers that he is a "bad" dog.

At some point, if we are really committed to serving the proletariat, we 
must be prepared to own up to our own mistakes and foolishness.  And it 
is utter hypocrisy to expect Joseph to abandon his self-deception if we 
are unable to face our own.

I think that one central theoretical issues stands before all else.  
Joseph's view of communism is of a system that must inevitably produce 
LESS WEALTH than free-market capitalism.  My view is of a system that 
would produce MORE WEALTH.

There are various other theoretical issues but they are all tied to this 
one.

Joseph's single-point-of-control theory constitutes the very HEART of 
the theory of modern revisionism.  Communism, as a theory fit to guide 
the struggle of the proletariat in the modern world, can never exist 
without dealing with the single-point-of-control theory most thoroughly 
-- understanding it completely and repudiating it most completely.

I am fairly tired.  I will say a few words and send this off.

There are two issues I want to touch on:

Whenever there are disagreements in society over the direction of 
forward movement -- disagreements over social expenditures and the 
utilization of social resources -- and these differences are not on the 
basis of individuals -- but on the contrary involve groups of people on 
various sides (on the basis of opinions, beliefs, experience and 
industrial or regional attachments) with opposing platforms -- who 
struggle with each other, and use whatever leverage is available to them 
to mobilize society and public opinion so that society as a whole does 
what they believe is best for all -- this is POLITICS.

And such politics, as I have described it, would exist without the 
existence of classes.  To argue otherwise is to argue, in essence, that 
everyone would think the same, at all times, on all issues.  And such a 
state of affairs would correspond to a world which -- either has no 
contradictions -- or in which everyone is in possession of completely 
perfect and completely absolute knowledge.

In fact, even within the individual, there is a kind of politics because 
we all have, in various forms, a struggle of ideas within our minds.  
And while the class struggle is reflected, in infinitely many ways, 
within our minds, the struggle of idea against idea is more general than 
the class struggle, precedes it historically and will succeed it 
historically.

If anyone wishes to try to refute the above -- the ball is in their 
court.

Neil argues that competition must lead to the exchange of commodities, 
the accumulation of capital, exploitation, class differentiation and the 
rule of the market.  What is Neil's reasoning process ?  Neil says that 
it is "obvious".  For those uninitiated with Neil's reasoning -- I will 
provide a translation.  If Neil says that something is "obvious" -- this 
means that Neil could not explain it if his life depended on it.

I think that Neil should give this some thought over a period of time 
and see if he can explain better what is so "obvious".  In particular, 
it is useful for anyone engaged in this kind of exercise to see if they 
can list all of the assumptions which they may tend to make, sometimes 
unconsciously.

In the meantime, I leave for Neil this quote:

     "Far from extinguishing competition, socialism, on the 
     contrary, for the first time creates the opportunity for 
     employing it on a really wide and on a really mass scale, 
     for actually drawing the majority of working people into a 
     field of labor in which they can display their abilities, 
     develop their capacities, and reveal those talents, so 
     abundant among the people whom capitalism crushed, 
     suppressed and strangled in thousands and millions."

Neil, your "assignment" (should you choose to accept it) is to give this 
quote some thought and also to see if you can identify the source.  I 
will tell you that the author was a prominent leader of a movement of 
workers that became well-known sometime between 1850 and 1950.  Hint: if 
you have any trouble -- you can ask Joseph.  He has this quote 
memorized.

Ben -- 4 Dec 95 -- 2am
----//-//