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 ----//-//