From:    Ben Seattle 
To:      marxism-international
Subject: M-I: For a culture of scientific discussion (Ben replies to Proyect)
Date:    Wednesday, April 08, 1998 5:41 AM


Louis Proyect:
> I got news for you. I'd rather join the
> Labor Party--for all its flaws--than the
> collection of lunatics like "neil" and
> Malecki et al who hate it.

Hi everyone,

The discussion between Louis and me has become very slightly
heated.  I will give here a short summary of some key
issues.  Other than that, my intention, for now, is to let
this matter rest.

Jim Monaghan started this off three days ago by asking for
everyone's opinion about what healthy democratic norms would
exist in a revolutionary party.

I replied that the essential democratic norms within a
genuine communist organization would be those that
facilitated victory against the reformist ideology
(ie: the reflection and influence of bourgeois ideology).
Such norms, I pointed out, would revolve around a culture of
"polemical decency" in which people are listened to,
questions are poised and answered and the strong points of
someone's viewpoint are considered as well as his weak
points.  In particular, I emphasized, great effort must be
made to avoid mischaracterizing the views of others
(ie: building straw men), which I noted was the favorite
tool of charlatans everywhere.

Now, as a result of this I have come into contradiction with
Louis Proyect.

Now everyone here, of course, knows Louis Proyect.  Louis is
a gifted contributor to this forum.  Louis may have his weak
points but most here would agree that he has made a large
number of outstanding contributions.  Louis, whatever his
weaknesses, contributes to this forum by helping to give it
*life*, by injecting common sense into many discussions and,
with his killer sense of humor, helping to make this forum a
fun place.  And we want this forum to be a fun place.  We
want to be able to enjoy it.  That does not mean, of course,
that we cannot conduct serious work here.  We can help to
change the world and at the same time enjoy doing so.  And
Louis helps to show us how this can be done.

And, by his activity, Louis helps to draw and maintain the
interest of progressive people in this forum and thus
facilitates intelligent discussion among activists from many
trends.  And this forum, for all its weaknesses, plays a
very useful role.  I met my friend Joćo thru this forum.

Now I have my differences, of course, with Louis.  My
differences with Louis have come up most sharply on the
question of whether or not it is necessary for a
revolutionary organization to conduct an internal fight
against reformism in order to maintain its political health.

Now, as Ken Howard has pointed out, the question of the
attitude of revolutionary organizations toward reformism has
been a big one for most of this century.  This question has
been a big one since before any of us were born.  And this
question is going to continue to come up until such time as
the bourgeoisie is overthrown (an event likely, by even the
most optimistic projections, to be at least several decades
from now).

So, considering that this question has been around a long
time and will continue to be around for a long time, it
would be rather foolish of me to think that I can settle the
matter here and now.

In particular, it is clear to me, from observing this forum,
that Louis's attitudes are more-or-less representative of
the attitudes of a fairly broad section of the active
participants here.  The struggle against reformism does not
have a very good name to many or most on this list.

It therefore is only appropriate that I present my views
calmly and concisely and not press the issue at this time.
The day will come when forums such as this one will be of a
very different character than they are at present.  Forums
such as this one will likely become hotbeds of
anti-reformist sentiment.  I can't say when this will
happen.  Such events are largely dependent on the
development of the class struggle in society as a whole.  As
the class struggle intensifies, as the inevitable betrayals
take place, large sections of political activists become
very angry at reformism.  At that time, people such as Louis
Proyect (and many others here--because Louis is
representative of the dominant attitudes on this forum) may
feel compelled to remember what is wrong with reformism--how
it undermines and sabotages popular struggles, deceives the
masses and serves all the ends of bourgeois rule.

But until that time, until fresh forces arrive on the scene
and there is more to work with, I am content to simply
observe much of the nonsense that passes thru here.  I know
the future will be very different.

So rather than bore everybody and make a big deal about the
major issue of principle--how without a revolutionary
organization the bourgeoisie will continue to rule--how
without a struggle against reformism a revolutionary
organization cannot defend its integrity, and so on--I will
leave all that for a better day.  Instead I will deal with
one or two relatively minor points.


Scientific culture
==================

The main issue that is worth discussing is the building of a
scientific culture here on M-I.

Louis has been in favor of building such a culture here but,
at the same time, has on occasion departed from a principled
stand.

I asked Louis to acknowledge the distinction between an
"intelligent struggle" against reformism and the antics of
clowns like Neil and Malecki.  Otherwise readers could be
left with the impression that we must choose between
(a) passivity toward reformism and (b) acting like
imbeciles.  Do you want worms on your toast this morning or
do you prefer slugs ?  But we don't have to accept such a
choice because we can think for ourselves.

Both Neil and Malecki have carried out enough activity that,
for many people who engage them in discussion, Neil and
Malecki represent "Marxists".  The mind boggles at the
thought.  Reactionaries and anti-communists may sometimes
try to take advantage of this because they know that people
like Neil and Malecki (neither of which would, if brains
were dynamite, be able to blow their nose) do not generally
make a good impression.  But reactionaries and demagogues
who try to equate people like Neil and Malecki with Marxists
are simply taking advantage of ignorance.

But how about when Louis makes a similar attempt to equate
Neil and Malecki with the struggle against reformism ?

I hold that Neil and Malecki are no more representative of a
real struggle against reformism than they are representative
of marxism.  Neil and Malecki are representative of
*sectarianism*.  Louis (and many others here) are failing to
distinguish between sectarianism and the struggle against
reformism.  Louis (and many others here) *need* people like
Neil and Malecki in order to ridicule the struggle against
reformism.

As something more representative of an intelligent struggle
against reformism--I would cite Gary MacLennan's posts on
the struggle of the Australian dockworkers.  Gary points
out, quite correctly, that the dockworkers are in a very
difficult situation made much worse by the efforts of the
Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) to keep a lid on
the struggle.  For the dockworkers to avoid defeat in this
difficult situation, they would probably have to defy the
trade union hacks and organize independent actions.  I am
fairly removed from the situation there but I think it would
be safe to say that the Australian dockworkers need to know
that "their" leadership is treacherous and cannot be
trusted.  A news article in the workers' future electronic
news service would say such things clearly--and could
receive wide enough readership to have a big effect on many
such struggles.

Ken Howard appears to oppose, *in theory*, my formulations
on the need for a struggle against reformism--but *in
practice* he does much better.  In the discussion between
Gary MacLennan and Tony Hartin, Ken made a number of useful
points: He opposed the idea, promoted by the reformist
hacks--that nobody outside the MUA should venture an opinion
about the disgusting tactics.  Ken came up with a useful
formulation that it was important to criticise the tactics
used by the hacks within the clear context of support for
the struggle of the workers.  Ken also opposed Tony
Hartin's tendency to be an uncritical cheering squad for the
hacks' disgusting manuevers and demagogic exhortations for
"unity" and "discipline" (ie: code words for mindlessly
going along with losing tactics).

An intelligent dicussion of the necessity of opposing
reformism would examine issues like this from the point of
view of both practice and theory.


A scientific attitude towards
a future workers' news service
==============================

Louis Proyect:
> Mostly your invitation for an electronic
> news service seems besides the point on a
> Marxism list, which--after all--is devoted
> to a discussion of Marxist politics.
> To advocate that another forum be established
> is fine and dandy, but meanwhile what are your
> ideas about how to advance the class struggle
> except to start a new Internet service?

An electronic news service could connect progressive
activists with one another and, more importantly, connect
them with the masses.  The usenet group and web site that
Louis mentions are indeed useful but in terms of what is
needed, they are quite primitive.  It is good to see reports
of the social movements and trade union struggles--but when
I need to read the *news* I read the New York Times or the
Wall Street Journal.  This is because I need better coverage
and a more practical layout ("user interface", if you
please).  Ken Howard, again, shows that he is giving thought
to this because he has identified a decisive issue:
"information overload and management" (which he calls
cyberalienation).  He notes that following some of the news
this way can be both exciting and overpowering--and that
these are important issues which must be considered.

Ken's observations, in my book, are on the mark.  Readers
will need a way to rate articles for others, write
electronic margin notes (either for personal use or to share
with others) and many other features in order to make a news
service that is truely useful.  Ken is thinking about these
things and his example helps to point the way forward.

Louis does not see the potential of such a news service.
One of the problems with being in ideological orbit around
formations like the Labor Party in the U.S.--is that the
idea of workers and progressive activists launching their
own *independent initiatives* (ie: indepedent of bourgeois
control) gradually becomes a dim memory as revolutionary
enthusiasm is eroded and replaced by cynicism and
demoralization.


My credentials ?
================

Louis Proyect:
> I am looking for people who not only have
> solid ideas about how to move the class
> struggle forward, but who have experience
> in actually organizing people.
> Our cyberwarriors seem to be lacking
> in real world experience by and large. What
> is your organizing experience anyhow, Ben?

My "credentials" are mainly irrelevant.  I would advise
Louis to try to keep the focus of discussion on what is
really important.

However, for the curious, I worked, like many here, with an
organization that considered itself a nucleus of a future
mass party.  That organization was the Marxist-Leninist
Party, USA.  Many of the theoretical positions of the MLP,
despite our unbounded confidence in them, turned out to be
absurd.  We said that Mao Tsetung Thought would shine
forever.  We said that eternal glory was due to J.V. Stalin.
We hailed the glorious beacon of socialism in Albania.  As
we discarded these myths and got closer to the truth that
Lenin's October Revolution was in a hell of mess by the time
he died, our organization's unity broke up amidst furious
and unprincipled sectarian infighting.

The MLP was unable to face up to its internal contradictions
and, for this reason, it collapsed.  Approximately two
thirds of the three dozen members concluded that "objective
conditions" were so bad that little or nothing could be done
and became passive.  The remaining third broke up, more or
less, into two groupings, one of which is headed by Louis's
good friend Joseph Green (who has promoted Louis to the rank
of "professor" in the pages of his journal).

Joseph Green is a good man but, unfortunately, is afflicted
with the disease of sectarianism.  Another of Louis's good
friends, Neil, was also around the MLP.  Neil (who, by the
way, is not very representative of the kind of people who
made up the MLP) is also afflicated with the same disease.
But while in Joseph's case this is something of a tragedy,
in Neil's case it is more of a farce.

I emerged, essentially alone, with the view that the
communications revolution will transform the progressive and
communist movements in what will turn out to be the ultimate
nightmare for the bourgeoisie.  My "cyberLeninism" site can
be found at www.Leninism.org.  Whether I am afflicted with
the disease of sectarianism--readers will be able to judge
for themselves.

While the MLP held various absurd theoretical positions, in
practice we were quite a bit better.  We did an incredible
amount of work to build all the mass movements and we
organized in workplaces and schools.  Leaving aside people
like Neil (who was somewhat isolated from the internal life
of our party) the MLP was made up of fairly competent
comrades.  And the unanimous assessment which all these
quite capable and astute comrades had of me--was that I
couldn't organize my way out of a wet paper bag.

So that, for anyone who wants to know, represents my
credentials.


Contradictions in the ruling class ?
====================================

Louis Proyect:
>The ruling class "contradictions" over the
>Internet/free speech/commercialization questions
>are not even secondary, they are tertiary.
>Bill Gates' differences with the Justice Department
>are interesting to consider, but this is not
>the kind of ruling class split that occurred
>in the 1960s over the Vietnam war, for example.

Again, Louis is failing to set an example of a high standard
of scientific culture for M-I.  *Of course* the split within
the U.S. bourgeoisie over Vietnam was bigger.  U.S.
imperialism was engaged in a war of aggression against a
heroic people and this was leading to an awakening political
consciousness amoung many millions of workers and students
within the U.S.  One section of the bourgeoisie was
naturally more in tune with the danger this represented to
bourgeois interests.  But what does that prove ?

Does that prove that the split in the bourgeoisie over the
communications infrastructure is not significant?  Or that
this split is not bound to grow?  I am convinced that Louis
Proyect is capable of a more intelligent argument than this.

What is significant about the split in the bourgeoisie over
the communications infrastructure is that it will make it
*extremely difficult* for the bourgeoisie to suppress an
electronic news service that serves the working class.

And, incidently, Carrol Cox's argument, that for me to
discuss this makes *me* a reformist, is so priceless that no
comment is necessary.

Louis Proyect:
>You exaggerate the significance of computing for
>the revolution. A much more compelling question for the
>American working-class is how to deal with racism. Racism
>allows reactionary politics in the South to proceed
>unchallenged. Racism allows discontent in the rural
>Northern states to be channeled against non-Caucasian
>peoples rather than the ruling class.

I think it is worthwhile to consider the methods Louis is
using.  This is not Louis at his best.  I brought up the
idea of an electronic news service open to all trends as
*the* decisive task in practice around which the elements of
a communist organization worthy of the name will assemble,
connect with one another, and eventually create a communist
movement capable of commanding the loyalty of millions of
workers and overthrowing bourgeois rule.  Louis does not
actually deal with any of my arguments.  Louis simply
asserts that I am exagerating.  If Louis is so smart that he
can confidently assert that a genuine, popular and powerful
communist movement *cannot* grow around such a common
project--maybe he is smart enough to tell us what *other*
task might be the decisive task for the creation of a
communist movement?

Does Louis assert that figuring out "how to deal with
racism" is the decisive task?  The struggle against racism
is, of course, critical and extremely important.  But does
this make it the decisive task for achiving communist unity
and building a powerful communist movment?  If this is
Louis's position, then he should advance this position with
arguments, explain how the struggle against racism will
bring progresive activists together to build a communist
movement.  If Louis has intelligent arguments, I am prepared
to listen as I am sure that pretty much everyone here is.

I have a different view.  I believe that the struggle
against racism would be immensely helped by a news service
that reaches millions of workers with news that serves their
interest.  Such a news service would allow workers to read
and compare for themselves the different views of all
political trends.  Such a project would not only allow
future communists to connect with one another but would also
serve as a vehicle for collaboration between communists and
those reformists who are not aloof from the strivings of the
masses for an accurate picture of the world.

Louis Proyect:
>Basically, you have been saying the same thing on the
>Marxism lists for the past year or so. We need to have a
>revolutionary party that takes advantage of computer
>technology. We have to implement a news service using said
>technology. You are starting to sound like a broken record.

Maybe, if you try hard, you can learn to like the music.
Otherwise you can put me on the same email filter that
zapped Malecki from your hard drive.  I may not have the
following that you, Louis, have earned with your hard work
over many years, but there seem to be some people here who
believe that some of my arguments are intelligent.


Conclusion:
===========

I know that many here share Louis's prejudices about any
talk of opposing reformism.  I do not expect to win anyone
to this view who does not hold it already.  But I believe
that many here will agree that Louis, if he wishes to oppose
me, can certainly do a more credible job if he uses more
intelligent arguments.  I hope that Louis can keep this in
mind next time he and I engage in a squirmish.  We will all
be better off for it.

Sincerely,

Ben Seattle
----//-// 8.Apr.98 -- 5 am



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