From: Ben SeattleTo: marx-int Subject: M-I: Proyect fires a salvo at the moon Date: Sunday, April 12, 1998 9:15 PM Carrol Cox: >The attack Lou and I are mounting on Ben Seattle's >sterile dogmatism does *not* imply that the distinction >Ben hammers on is wrong in principle, only that, under >current "first world" conditions, it is silly. It is *not* silly >for people being murdered, napalmed, tortured. "Which >side are you on?" is *always* a crucial question; it's just >that its concrete content changes continuously. =============================== What is the origin of the split in the working class movement ? =============================== Hi everyone, The current skirmish between Louis Proyect and myself erupted over the question of what attitude the working class movement should take in relation to the reformist ideology. My view is that the working class movement should work with reformists whenever it is possible to do so in a principled way--but that the reformist *ideology* (which limits itself to those reforms which do not threaten bourgeois class rule) must always be firmly rejected. Such a view is the "sterile dogmatism" which Louis Proyect and Carrol Cox are so proud to openly attack. Now I should start by saying that I have no problem with Louis Proyect and Carrol attacking my views. They are doing me a huge favor by attacking me because, by so doing, they are giving attention to the fundamental issues. If Louis and Carrol did not attack my views, my posts on this subject would almost certainly be ignored. Most people on this forum would rather talk about other subjects. That is unfortunate, but it is also the truth. What is the significance of the debate on the nature of reformism? It is reformism that is responsible for the split in the working class and progressive movements. This, above all else, is the most important point to understand. Many readers of this forum have another view: that it is *sectarianism* which splits the movement. Now sectarianism is, indeed, a very vicious disease. But reformism is not one bit less vicious in the way it undermines working class unity. If I can get a single reader to consider this, who has not considered this before, then the time spent on this essay will have been well worth while. What is the reformist ideology ? Why is it no less vicious than sectarianism ? How does reformism undermine the struggle of the working class to have its own politics and organization which is *independent* of bourgeois control? I cannot answer these questions very well. I would be more long-winded than usual were I to try. Rather, I suggest readers read the arguments made below by Louis Proyect and try to follow the action. This will likely create greater clarity than anything I could say. ================================== Independent from bourgeois control ================================== Ben Seattle: >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: independent of bourgeois >control) gradually becomes a dim memory as revolutionary >enthusiasm is eroded and replaced by cynicism and >demoralization. Louis Proyect: >This is absurd. The Labor Party in the United States is not >under "bourgeois control." It was founded by leftish trade >union bureaucrats like Tony Mazzochi. When something >like this appears, it is absolutely critical for revolutionary >socialists to push it to the left. This has to be done on the >inside of the party, not outside it. The difference between a >Labor Party and an Internet news service is that the former >involves living human beings with social power. They can >call strikes, elect candidates, raise money for liberation >movements, etc. A news service is directed toward people's >thinking. All well and good, but at a certain point you have >to marry ideas to action. These words by Louis Proyect contain a wealth of information. Central to everything here is the concept of *independence* from bourgeois control. This is an extremely powerful concept. But, as we shall see, it means something entirely different to different people. Let us start with a simple example. It is important to the working class that women have the right to fully control whether or not they have children. This includes the right to safe abortion on demand. Various reactionary segments of society, at the service of the bourgeoisie, have attacked this fundamental right in various ways. Why has this fundamental right been under attack? It is not because of religion, even though religious convictions have been used to mobilize backward elements to attack these democratic rights of women. The right of women to abortion has been under attack as part of an offensive against the working class as a whole. The more that the revolutionary potential of women is suffocated by darkness and ignorance, the more difficult it becomes for the working class as a whole to defend itself. The bourgeoisie, which is highly intelligent, understands this quite well. This is why the bourgeoisie so often looks for any weakness in the working class movement, any opportunity to divide the working class along racial lines, along gender lines, along lines of sexual orientation. Now what is the stand of the working class on this question? The answer, really, is simple. The reactionary offensive against women's right to abortion must be opposed: firmly and clearly, without hedging or equivacation. Any organization which is independent of bourgeois control, and which deals with a broad range of social issues, such as a political party, will fully and without ambiguity support the right of women to abortion. This is so simple and obvious that it is almost absurd that I would have to take up the precious time of readers to say such a thing. Louis says the Labor Party is independent of bourgeois control. But did the Labor Party support the right to abortion? Not in a clear way. Activists at the founding convention tried to put forward an amendment to the founding platform to this effect--but were defeated by a host of extremely undemocratic measures put in place to insure that the Labor Party remained under the tight control of a handful of bureaucrats with an agenda of their own (please see the accompaning post: "Two articles on the Labor Party in the US" for details). Now for Louis, this is an example of an organization which is *independent* of bourgeois control. It is organized in a highly undemocratic way. It is too cowardly to clearly defend one of the most elementary rights of women. Yet, according to Louis, it is independent of bourgeois control. So, what is obvious, I believe, is that "independent", to Louis, means something very much different than to many readers. Now some people like to play with words. Suppose, for example, that a man is walking a dog. The dog is on a leash. Does the man control the dog? Someone could argue that he does not. The man might have *some* control of the dog, goes this argument, but the control is not total. After all, the dog may lift its leg and relieve itself either here or there. The man may not necessarily control *everything* the dog does. Furthermore, at some time in the future the leash could break, or the man could be so distracted by the development of the class struggle somewhere, that he forgets to maintain a tight hold on the leash. Now it can be very tiring to deal with good, honest activists of high integrity who insist on playing such tiring word games. I am sure most readers can understand this. That is why I will not dispute any contention by Louis Proyect that the Labor Party in the US has some degree of independence from bourgeois control. Because so does a dog on a leash. And the Labor Party is very much on a bourgeois leash. Louis Proyect's conception of *independence* from bourgeois control includes being on a bourgeois leash. But many of us have a very different conception of *independence*. It is the independent movement of the working class-- the strivings of the working class to have its own politics and organization completely out of the orbit of bourgeois influence --that will lead to the overthrow of bougeois rule. Louis Proyect, and the many contributors here who share his prejudices, imagine that they have something profound to say concerning the strivings of the working class for this independence. I consider that unlikely. Such people will undoubtedly have many useful things to say on a variety of topics--but not topics directly related to the strivings of the working class to have its own independent politics and organization. Because these concepts, to the Louis Proyects, are as far above their heads as the stars. And that concludes my introduction to this latest exchange. ======================== Origin of "social power" ======================== Ben of Seattle: >> Politicians such as Jesse Jackson have social power >> precisely because the bourgeoisie *gives* it to them. >> Why does the bourgeoisie do this ? Because people >> like Jesse Jackson play ball with the bourgeoisie. >> Because people like Jesse Jackson perform errands >> for the bourgeoisie. Because the bourgeoisie has a >> *need* for people like Jesse Jackson. Louis Proyect: >This is an undialectical understanding of Jackson's social power. >There is something called the black church. For a full discussion >of its role in the civil rights movement, I recommend Taylor >Branch's "Parting of the Waters." Any dialectical understanding of Jesse Jackson's social power must take account of the class interests of the bourgeoisie. Does Louis Proyect believe that the bourgeoisie have no influence on the black church? Suppose that Jesse Jackson was unresponsive to the most important and vital bourgeois class interests? Does Louis Proyect believe that the bourgeoisie would have no power to influence what goes on inside the black church so that *someone else* (who might be more accomodating) would emerge as leader and eclipse Jesse Jackson? The naive may not believe it possible, but such things have been known to happen. ============================ Conspiracy theory of history ============================ Ben Seattle: >>In 1988 the Democratic Party in the US was facing a credibility >>problem among the workers and oppressed. The Democratic >>Party was losing its ability to present itself as a defender of the >>interests of workers. The Democratic Party had a need for some >>preacher to bring the wandering flock back into the fold. Louis Proyect: >This is a conspiracy theory of history. A much more sensible >understanding of why Jackson ran has to do with pressures >from within the black community. When there's a social crisis >of the dimensions that were occurring, a ruling class politician >from that community might feel the need to respond to maintain >his credibility. Precisely. Jackson must posture to maintain his credibility with the masses. If he loses that credibility, then he is *useless* to the bourgeoisie who would then have little use for him. Jackson's personal interests are *bound up* with the class interests of the bourgeoisie. Jackson wants to maintain his credibility and to do so he will use his credibility to help resolve the social crisis and bring things back to normal. This is, roughly, what happened. >Can one say in advance that the Rainbow campaigns >would never have evolved into a third party? I believe it is safe to say that such a third party will be brought into existence only when there is a sufficient social crisis that the bourgeoisie has a need for such a third party--to intercept the leftward motion of the masses. This is what Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition and the Labor Party in the US both represent: an attempt to form a third party out of forces in and around the left-wing of the Democratic Party. Such a third party would serve bourgeois interests on the day that the faith of the masses in the Democratic Party collapses and a new party is needed to maintain support for bourgeois institutions and the fundamental norms of capitalist society as a whole. Until such time as the bourgeoisie has a need for such a party--they will not give the signals that it is OK to go ahead. And the people who run the Rainbow Coalitions and Labor Parties will sniff the air and conclude that "the time is not right" even if Louis Proyect most ardently believes that it is. >I guess Ben of Seattle has some kind of Oliver Stone >inside information about plots in some smoke-filled >room that guaranteed no such evolution would take >place. The idea that present day society is ruled by a social class, the bourgeoisie, which exercises heavy influence, if not outright control, over nearly all institutions is hardly new. Louis Proyect gives far too much credit to me. I believe such credit belongs to Karl Marx. Marxist theory does not hold that the bourgeoisie exercises its control or influence exclusively thru meetings in smoke-filled rooms. That would be a silly idea. Bourgeois society has evolved a whole series of methods to exercise influence and control. Some of these methods involve financial pressure. One cannot live, much less accomplish much, without money. The pressure of finances and resources has a tremendous affect on activists. If you tone down your leaflet just a bit (and leave out the most important part) --the local church council will allow you to use their mimeograph machine for free. Isn't that great? Along with this goes the pressure to align with bourgeois respectability. This is not unrelated to pressure for coverage in newspapers, TV and other media. Finally, we have the role of ideology. The role of ideology is central. The reformist ideology is one that confines itself to reforms, confines itself to those progressive measures which do not directly threaten the foundations of bourgeois rule. This ideology affects the thinking of even very good people who will, under its influence, denounce an analysis of the methods by which the bourgeoisie maintains its rule--as "conspiracy theory". One more point on this. Louis Proyect believes that it would have been Oliver Stone style conspiracy theory to say in 1988 that Jesse Jackson was a servant of bourgeois interests. But the essence of the scientific method is the ability to predict the outcome of an experiment. In 1988 people such as myself were telling activists in the anti-intervention movement that it would be a mistake to let one's life energy get sucked into campaigns around Jackson because he was a flunky of the Democratic Party. Louis Proyect and Carrol Cox, on the other hand, were promoting a different view and would never have "dreamed" that someone like Jackson could end up "deeply entrenched in the Clinton machine". So the bottom line is this: It was those who opposed the reformist ideology that best understood Jackson's trajectory. And it was those who were taken in by reformist fairly tales that today must publically express amazement at this development. ======= Tidbits ======= Ben Seattle: >>One of the tasks of genuine communists is to raise the >>consciousness of the masses so that they can clearly >>understand the role which is played by treacherous >>misleaders like Jesse Jackson. Louis Proyect: >Okay, Ben, everybody understands that your are >a genuine communist and the rest of us are fakes. I am not asking anyone to consider me to be a communist. I am asking to be considered as a progressive activist who happens to *consider himself* to be a communist. And that is how I consider you, Louis--as a progressive activist. And from that perspective, Louis, you are not a fake. >Now when are you going to step away from that >computer terminal and interact with the working-class? As soon as my Mommy gives me permission to cross the street by myself. >If you are going to be a cyber-red like David Stevens, >the least you could do is come up with >some interesting links like he does. My nom de guerre *is* "cyberRed", as a matter of fact. See: www.pix.org/cyberLeninism/cyberRed.html ========= The leash ========= > Know about any racy sites that specialize in kinky sex? > I myself like to be walked around on a leash. You like to be walked around on a leash, Louis ? This is a fib. You got the idea of a leash from watching the Jerry Springer show Friday night. I saw this too because my girlfriend, who knows that I am a diligent student of culture, called me away from my polemic so that I might see firsthand this important development on a show which is being attacked by William ("Mr Virtue") Bennet and a Senator from Connecticut. You want a racy site ? Try www.jennicam.org (note: "org" *not* "com"). It is not particularly kinky, but recently the president of the largest cable company in the US, TCI, denounced it before (I think) the American Association of Catholic Bishops as a prime example of the *degradation and depravity* that appears on the internet and is threatening the fundamental values of the American people. What is this site about? A young woman, Jenny, has a web camera that allows viewers to see what goes on in her apartment. And she does *not* turn it off when she changes her clothes--so you might catch a glimpse of her sans bra or underwear. Will the values of the American people survive this assault? Check it out yourself and see. Personally, I am concerned over a different type of degradation. I am concerned over the degradation of the consciousness of would-be "revolutionaries" when some outfit (whether run by Jesse Jackson or some left-wing trade union bureaucrat) that is on a *bourgeois leash* is described as being *independent* of bourgeois control. To me, this is the ultimate degradation. You want something, Louis, that is hot ? Until you understand the significance of the struggle of the working class to have its own independent politics and organization, you will never know real passion. ======================================= Ask me again and I'll tell you the same ======================================= > We don't even know your real name. I use the name "Seattle" only because it is shorter and easier for readers to spell and remember than my real name. What is my real name? Puddentame. Ben Puddentame. ===================================== What is Louis Proyect's alternative ? ===================================== > If you think that a revolutionary organization can be built > by people pecking away at computer terminals, then > you are dafter than I thought. I think that revolutionary organization will be built by revolutionaries who communicate with one another to (a) develop the principles that will guide and organize their activity and (b) assist the masses in their struggles and, as part of this, bring a comprehensive picture of the world to the masses. Could you explain again what part of this you have a problem with? I can understand that you have very serious objections--but I can't seem to pin down precisely what they are. I am in favor of whatever communications medium works best. All organizations are built around some system of communication. Rebellious slaves used spoken language. The Russian party that split into the bolsheviks and mensheviks was built around Iskra. I am sure that, at the time, Lenin's proposal was ridiculed as building an organization "in paperspace". I have presented a specific proposal for progressive forces to unite, in a principled way, around a common project--an electronic news service that could eventually reach millions of people. Such a project would serve as a vehicle for cooperation between revolutionaries and reformists and would also serve, over time, to clarify the distinction between revolutionaries and reformists. So far, Louis, you have considered my idea to be worthy of ridicule but not serious discussion. I, by the way, have no problem with that. I believe you will discuss the project in a more serious way when you are ready to do so. Until then, Louis, I am curious. Do *you* have any specific proposal to rebuild a communist movement--other than to unite progressive forces around the common goal of pushing formations such as the Labor Party to the left ? To me, it would be easier to transform lead into gold--or for us to smash a brick wall with our heads. The likely result is headaches, demoralization, cynicism and the erosion of revolutionary will, convictions and integrity. I am far more interested in building something that would be *independent* of bourgeois control. I am trying to better understand why you would oppose a project aimed at being independent of bourgeois control. I would think that such a project would be truely deserving of mass support. ==================== Practice and program ==================== Ben Seattle: >>Neither the Russian, the Chinese, the Albanian nor the >>Cuban parties had "communist" theory that wasn't fucked-up >>in some serious way. We were faced with the problem of >>developing our own theory. We didn't know this. Our >>theoretical level was so low that we didn't understand how >>starved we were for correct theory. To make matters worse, >>developing correct theory takes time. Theory represents >>concentrated experience. It takes time to get experience. >>It takes time to concentrate it. We didn't have time. The >>opportunism, sectarianism, charlatanism and reformism that >>saturated nearly all corners of the movement greatly hindered >>cooperation between revolutionary activists who often were >>hardly speaking to each other. Louis Proyect: >This is a classic formulation of an idealistic approach to politics. >Theory is not developed in isolation from practice. Ben Seattle: Louis is quite correct when he says that theory is developed from practice. But isn't this precisely what I said in the passage above that Louis denounces as idealist? Readers can verify this for themselves. I said that theory is developed from experience. According to the materialist worldview, isn't experience just another name for practice? I believe that even Louis's supporters will agree that his opposition to my views will appear clumsy if Louis attacks me for a statement with which he has just agreed. Readers, and the development of M-I, will be better served if Louis would try to be a little more calm and actually read what I say before denouncing it as an "idealist approach". >The notion that revolutionaries will think up >the correct program and then go out and make >a revolution based on that theory is anti-Marxist. I have been attacked as "anti-Marxist" by both sectarians and reformists. But what counts is being able to back up such charges with intelligent argument and discussion. Otherwise all we are left with is hot air. To my knowledge I have never made any mention of a "program". I must admit to readers that I am not even certain what a "program" is. My impression is that this word, itself, means different things to different people. What I *have* discussed is what I believe are the decisive tasks to create a communist movement worthy of the name. The decisive task in practice, I believe, is the creation of an electronic news service which would be open to both reformist and revolutionary trends. Readers themselves would rate the newsworthiness of articles in a common database using many tools and methods. Unfortunately, I am too dim-witted to understand the connection between what I have proposed and Louis's criticism. Maybe some astute reader could help me out? =========== Tidbits - 2 =========== >Ben, by his own admission, has never organized anybody except himself. This is highly untrue. I have never been able to successfully organize myself. But I am undaunted, and will make herculean efforts--until victory. >I would urge him to be a little bit more modest >about his claims to making revolutions I am a little slow on the uptake, Louis. Could you kindly explain, one more time, what revolutions I have claimed to have made? >Words are cheap. Very well put. Ben Seattle: >>What conclusion should we draw from this ? >> >>1) Without theory the communist movement is hardly >> worthy of being considered a communist movement. Louis Proyect: >Ben, you have no theory. Louis, I do have a theory. My theory is that you and Carrol get upset when I say that the communist movement is naked in the presense of its enemies because it is guided by bankrupt, reformist theory. Please tell me: is my theory that this upsets you correct? ===================== Modern communications ===================== >There are thousands of Marxists in the US who >don't own a computer and who are respected for >winning victories in their area of struggle. True, of course. But the communications revolution is only beginning. I have heard that Web-TV sells for $99 and allows one to send and receive email. So a "computer" is not really needed. I would make an analogy here. We are rapidly approaching a period where the ability to use email and the web is as essential a skill for an activist as the ability to read and write. In earlier periods, those who fought oppression would learn to read and write so that they might better conduct their struggle. Activists today are learning that digital communications allows them to read and post messages to large and ever-increasing portions of the world. Rather than fume at the idea that the importance of digital communications will increase--it would be better to try to understand the impact this will have on the class struggle. >There are environmental activists who are >leading struggles to keep toxic dumps out of poor and >working-class communities, many of whom are Marxists. >There are students at places like Occidental College >who are protesting the university's link to >oil companies doing business in Burma. All of these activists are probably quite capable of describing their struggles in first-rate articles that could be placed into a common database where they could attract a wide readership and serve to inspire other activists. ============================== Principled cooperation between reformists and revolutionaries ============================== Ben Seattle: >>Louis Proyect's conception of revolutionaries working with >>reformists involves joint work and working relationships with >>people such as Jesse Jackson. My conception of >>revolutionaries working with reformists involves joint work >>and working relationships with people such as Louis Proyect. Louis Proyect: >Work? What do you mean? Work on some cockeyed web >page filled with hammers-and-sickles? My idea of work is >going to Africa and training SWAPO in desktop publishing >techniques so that they can run an effective election campaign. >Or organizing 500 volunteers to staff tables on a saturday >afternoon to call for a cut-off for contra funding. Your idea of >work is to figure out what Java applet can make a Lenin icon >rotate on a 360 degree axis. We all recognize that you have done good work Louis. No one disputes that. But I have discussed a news service that has a breadth of coverage comparable to the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal. Certainly the NYT and WSJ carry more than a bust of Lenin rotating in three dimensions. We would all be better served, Louis, if you dealt with what I have actually proposed rather than straw men which waste everyone's time. Louis, we may have sharp disagreements over theory and questions of orientation related to building a communist movement. But I would be a fool not to recognize your journalistic skills. I would like to see them put to use at the service of the working class. I do not wish to imply by this, of course, that your skills, both organizational and journalistic, are not serving the working class at present (that's a question for another day). Rather, I believe that you should have a larger audience and I will work in the direction of securing one for you. I will also work so that readers of this news service will be able to easily and publically criticize whatever they consider mistaken in anything written by anybody, including by you and by me. ============== Party building ============== Louis Proyect: >My idea of [a] revolutionary party is centered on the >need to regroup activists with a Marxist orientation. One problem with this is that the term "Marxist orientation", as used at present, has no meaning whatsoever. I am in favor of grouping progressive activists of all orientations around a common project: an electronic news service. Such a project would be loose enough that different trends that are hardly on speaking terms with one another would still be able to contribute articles to a common database. Because the cost of electronic communication and databases is extremely minimal (I am in the process of trying to learn how to set up a database that could be updated by the public over the web--and it is costing me only $40 a month) the amount of money involved and the degree of trust between different trends that would be required--would be minimal also. I expect something more to develop from this project also. I believe that there will eventually converge, out of such a project, activists who want to center their efforts on building politics and organization which is independent of bourgeois control and ideology. These activists are the ones that I will feel closest to. These activists are the people that I will consider to be communists. >Your idea of a revolutionary party is utterly idealistic, >in the Platonic sense. Please explain, one more time, for someone as stupid as me, what is idealist about what I have described above. ============= Credentials ? ============= Louis Proyect: >A real revolutionary movement has to be built, >but it will consist of people who have >credentials in the mass movement, like Lenin had. Isn't it clever of Louis to use Lenin against me? Lenin's "credentials" were that he understood that a real movement could only be built on the basis of sound principles and that a serious effort must be made to discover and understand what these principles were. One of the most central of these principles, by all accounts, was the necessity of opposing the reformist ideology. Louis Proyect: > You have absolutely no credentials in the mass movement. Ben Seattle: I have enough experience building the mass movements to know that the mass movements are not built by people who talk about credentials in the way which Louis Proyect does. I have enough experience organizing in workplaces and schools to have seen first-hand company management and stressed-out administrators go to some amazing lengths to discover and fire or expel workers or students who were suspected of supporting the organizing efforts of the Marxist-Leninist Party. These were people I knew. And, in some cases, knew very well. I have enough experience in the class struggle to understand that my current employer has a very low tolerance of anyone "foolish" enough to organize other workers. I have enough knowledge of cyberspace to know that anyone who wants to can use DejaNews to look up "Ben Seattle" (or the name of anyone who is suspect of organzing) and see what I'm up to. It is sad that Louis Proyect is so detached from the class struggle that he would taunt me for not giving him my real name. This is especially sad given Louis's history, in which he sent email to the employer of someone on this list about their activities here. As I recall, the person involved became so disgruntled that he caused a huge disruption on this list involving *hundreds* of posts too stupid to read. And the noise from this incident eventually became so loud that it led to the creation of LeninList. ===================== Anytime you are ready ===================== >You long-winded asshole. You are a middle-aged man sitting >at a keyboard, god knows where. You have absolutely no >credentials in the mass movement. You have never written >anything on the Spoons list except to call for the development >of communist consciousness and then linking up all that >consciousness through TCP/IP. You are like the Wizard of Oz. >If somebody pulled the curtain away, they'd find some hapless >geek who doesn't know how to make a leaflet, who doesn't >know how to deliver an agitational speech, who is actually a >political virgin. Welcome to the club. The Internet is filled with >cyberwarriors just like yourself. Ben of Seattle, meet Malecki >of the North Pole, Godena of Pawtucket, "neil" of Los Angeles, >Rodwell of Sweden and Bedggood of New Zealand. Exchange >email addresses and let the revolution begin. Anytime, Louis, that you are ready to end your tantrum, more serious discussion can begin. Ben Seattle, ----//-// 12.Apr.98 --- from list marxism-international@lists.village.virginia.edu ---