From:    Ben Seattle 
To:      marxism-international
Subject: Re: M-I: Leaders and Caudillos of the Left
Date:    Sunday, April 05, 1998 8:24 PM

Hi everyone,

I am quite busy but this was too much to pass 
by since it relates to *the* core issues.


Jim Monaghan:
==========
>>What does everyone else think is the healthy democratic 
>>norms of a Revolutionary party.

Ben Seattle:
========
(please see my comments below)

Louis Proyect:
==========
>The most important thing is to reject the notion that the party 
>is organized on the basis of some declared "correct" program 
>which is rooted in revolutionary continuity back to Marx. 
>This is a guarantee that you will become a cult. All Lenin was 
>trying to do was build a nation-wide socialist party in Russia 
>where there was none. He was not trying to invent a new
>type of party. 

Ben Seattle:
========
What cannot be left out here is the period of struggle
(approximately 1902 - 1912) during which there was
*immense clarification*, on a mass scale, of the 
differences between the revolutionary and reformist
orientations.  Lenin, even while in exile in Siberia, was 
acutely aware of the struggle against reformism that 
was taking place in the German party and was very
determined to wage this struggle effectively
in Russia.  *This* is the key to understanding
the development of the Russian party into the
reformist and revolutionary wings.  Once a
sufficient body of revolutionary practice
(including the 1905 revolution and the period of
reaction which followed) had been digested by
the workers--it no longer made sense for the
bolshevik wing to engage in the *same kind*
of united front tactics with the mensheviks.
Extremely widespread sections of workers
had become highly conscious of the differences
between the reformist and revolutionary wings.
It was *this* maturing of the consciousness
of the workers that led to the split between 
the bolsheviks and mensheviks becoming 
more formal in 1912 and not earlier.

If anyone believes that a genuine communist
organization of any type (much less a party)
can be created without the most relentless
struggle against the reformist ideology--they
are certainly dreaming.

Hence the "healthy democratic norms" which
Jim Monaghan asks about will be those which
facilitate victory over the reformist ideology
[footnote 1].

Other types of ideological deviations are
(generally) less serious.  A comrade may
believe that the moon is made of green
cheese.  This would not represent a very
scientific attitude but neither would it 
represent the same kind of danger to a
communist organization that the reformist
ideology represents.

>We are in the same position Lenin was in in 1890.

In my opinion we are probably closer to 1900.  There
is a need for all who consider themselves to be communists
(or even progressive) to learn how to engage in principled
cooperation with one another and (this is especially important)
to learn how to engage in this cooperation *without*
losing sight of their principled differences.

There is a clear need, at this point, for genuine communists
to learn how to work with reformists--but to do so in such
a way that the groundwork will be laid for the great struggles 
against the reformist ideology in the coming period.

It is the coming revolution in digital communications which
will greatly facilitate this task.  It is in forums such as this one,
and many others, where communists will learn how to 
engage reformists in an intelligent way *without* making 
concessions to the reformist ideology.  The example here 
on M-I is a good one.  The views which at present are 
dominant here are reformist views [footnote 2].  But 
communists can engage in discussion here by listening 
carefully and patiently clarifying one or two key points 
at a time.

Eventually, the struggle between the reformist and
revolutionary viewpoints will heat up here and on other
forums.  But the flame is only on "warm" at this time.
One reason for this is that there are relatively few
fresh "warm bodies" coming on the scene to fight over
(please see my reply to Carrol for more on this).

>Mainly it requires that we think for ourselves, a daunting task 
>in the world of  cult-sects that dominate organized Marxism.


Ben Seattle:
========
What we need is a little red indicator light that flashes a
warning whenever anyone is not thinking thru the issues
for themselves or engaging in many similar kinds of
self-deception  ;-)

Carrol Cox:
========
>I think Lou Proyect's answer covers the essentials, but I 
>would like to add one thing, for leadership cults, like ideas, 
>do not drop from heaven but have their material bases.

Ben Seattle:
========
The comment about material basis is a good one.  Reformism
has a material basis (alliance with political trends that ultimately
derive their strength from bourgeois connections) but so also
does sectarianism (the competition for "warm living bodies" to
support a paid central staff and newspaper).

I am going to sum up now:

The "healthy democratic norms of a Revolutionary party"
that Jim Monaghan asks about will be established and
proven in the activity of many organizations to create
a common electronic news service that will be open to all
trends.  This common project will be (loosely) analogous
to the common communications system founded by Lenin
(ie: Iskra) as soon as he was released from exile in 1900.
This project will involve both cooperation and competition
between all trends at, ultimately, a very high level of intensity.
It will be in this process, so to speak, that the wheat will be
separated from the chaff.

Folks, I really wish I had more time.  But I don't.  The answer
to Jim Monaghan's question *cannot* be separated from the
practices between progressive organizations and people that
will evolve in the wake of the revolution in digital communications
which is still in its infancy.

These issues are fundamental and will not go away.

I invite everyone here to check out my website at:

        www.Leninism.org

and/or previous things I have written.  

        On Communist Unity (posted to M-I about two hours ago)

        How to Build the Party of the Future (in process)
        www.pix.org/pof

        The Digital Fire (Oct-Nov 1996)
        www.pix.org/cyberLeninism/fire.htm

        Ben's 19 Points on the Party of the Future (March 1994)
        "Democracy Rooted in Scientific Culture 
        is the Basis of Unity
        of the Proletarian Trend of Trends"
        www.pix.org/pad/cld/cRed-43x.htm

Sincerely,

Ben Seattle
----//-// 5.Apr.98  8:30 pm

=================================
[footnote 1] Polemical decency
=================================

This means that a culture of "polemical decency"
becomes a first-rate priority.  People should be
listened to.  Questions must be poised and
answered.  The strong points of someone's viewpoint
should be considered as well as his weak points.
Great effort to avoid mischaracterizing the views
of others (ie: building straw men--the favorite tool
of charlatans everywhere) will be *mandatory*.
A culture of what I call "scientific polemical 
accountability for revolutionaries" will be 
fundamental.

=================================
[footnote 2] Reformist conceptions dominate M-I
=================================

I see this in:

(1) the attitude here toward the Labor Party in the US, 
a creation of, by and for the corrupt trade union 
bureaucracy and a "workers' party" which is, ultimately, 
on a very bourgeois leash.  Schemes to make the
Labor Party "independent" of bourgeois control end
up degrading the consciousness of would-be 
revolutionary activists and remind me of nothing 
so much as "fool-proof" plans to extract limitless energy 
from perpetual motion machines.

(2) the passivity toward discussing the tasks which are
decisive in moving things forward.




     --- from list marxism-international@lists.village.virginia.edu ---