From:    Ben Seattle 
To:      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 ---