From: Ben Seattle [icd@communism.org] To: marxism@lists.panix.com Subject: Re: Party and Independent Marxists (Ben replies to Carrol) Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 07:26:22 -0700 Carrol Cox: ------------ >It was orginally planned for m-i, stemming from a sort of flame war >there over dogmatism. A certain "Ben Seattle" had announced that >the primary issue before the left now (to be hashed out in cyber >space) was distinguishing "revolutionaries" from "reformists." Ben Seattle: ------------ Carrol's memory is is not completely accurate and his characterization above, in my opinion, is unfortunately misleading. The problem with Carrol's description is that it implies that I am in favor of the kind of premature polarization of activists that can never clarify anything but on the contrary can only fuel the worse sorts of mindless sectarian passion. What works far better is calm and thoughtful discussion that has the power to clarify which ideas serve the interests of the working class--and which do not. Last week, I collected 38 of the more important contributions to this thread and posted them at: www.Leninism.org/stream/98/reformism.htm I believe that an examination of these posts will show: 1) The "flame war" that Carrol describes was somewhat one-sided. Readers will be able to verify for themselves that to the extent that there was heat in this discussion--at least 95% of this heat originated with my distinguished opponents. Rather, I strove to be consistently meticulous in describing the views of my polemical opponents with precision. And while I sometimes made good-natured fun of the views and methods of Louis and Carrol--I strove to always treat both of them with respect--as people and as activists whom I consider to be profoundly mistaken. 2) I _never_ said that the issue was to distinguish between "revolutionaries" and "reformists". I said that the main axis of ideological development necessary for the creation of a genuine communist movement--would be the struggle against the reformist *ideology*. What I opposed was a particular ideology--not particular people. I also clarified my view on what the reformist ideology was: an ideology that undermined the struggle of the working class to have its own politics and organization that is *independent* of bourgeois control. Readers will be able to see for themselves that the key issue in the discussion was different views concerning what is meant by the phrase: "independent of bourgeois control". Carrol Cox: ------------ >Lou Proyect and I took up the cudgels, essentially holding >that such a distinction *had* been crucial in the past and >*would again be* crucial in the future, but that right now it >had no grip on practice or theory, but merely invented empty >windbagging. Out of that came my provisional conviction >that a distinction among what might broadly be called >"progressives" (revolutionary or not) *was* of importance >now, and should be explored. (Roughly, between those who >(a) in effect want to "influence" the liberal powers that >be--Clinton, the Democrats-- and (b) believe that we must >raise collective mass struggles *outside of*, *independently >of*, and in fact *in opposition to* the Democratic Party. I >launched on the Nation study to flesh that out and >test it (at least in my own mind). Ben Seattle: ------------ I am actually _in agreement_ with the formulation that Carrol uses above. From a theoretical perspective, the decisive issue is to be independent of bourgeois influence and control. "Mass struggles outside of, independent of and in opposition to the Democratic Party" are precisely what is necessary at this time. My disagreement with Louis Proyect and Carrol Cox seems to consist mainly of a competing interpretation of this phrase with which we all seem to agree. Louis Proyect and Carrol Cox, apparently, believe that Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition in the 1988 period, and the Labor Party in the US today, constitute political formations which are independent of the Democratic Party. My view is that this independence--is independence in name, not independence in fact. Ben Seattle 5.May.98 ----//-//