The war in Iraq is now in a state of complete chaos. And with at least 3,771 U.S. soldiers dead (as of September 12) and perhaps as many as 600,000 Iraqi deaths as a result of the invasion of the country, the only course for the future that the Republicans and the Democrats set is for more death and destruction.
Now, U.S. government officials and military generals have stopped talking about the September “progress” report (which implies that “victory” is near) and are instead talking of keeping troops in Iraq for a decade, perhaps decades.
The current excuse for the continued occupation of Iraq is to prevent a civil war, but a fierce civil war has broken out in spite of (or because of) the U.S. imperialist occupation. In an act of desperation (or as part of its efforts to put pressure on some of its Shi’ite allies) the U.S. military is now backing Sunni tribes that were previously blowing up American troops.
Since the military invaded Iraq four-and-a-half years ago, the Bush Administration has given excuse after excuse for the occupation. First, Bush said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none, so he changed his story. He said that the military went in to remove the dictator Saddam Hussein. But after this was accomplished and troop withdrawal was still nowhere in sight, Bush changed his story once again, claiming that the intent of the Iraq invasion was to “spread democracy.”
But it’s not about “spreading democracy” and it never was. The real reason the U.S. military invaded Iraq was to gain control of their vast oil resources and establish a permanent military base in the region. This becomes apparent when we see that all plans for “withdrawal” include maintaining a military presence in the region for an indefinite period of time, and when we see that one of the “benchmarks” for the Iraqi government is to pass laws favorable to U.S. oil.
This is called IMPERIALISM, an economic system into which we are born where the government uses its military to force its influence upon other nations for the benefit of large corporations like the oil companies. The bloodshed must be stopped, but change isn’t going to come from above! Imperialism cannot be "fixed" by ANY politicians, because those politicians are_part_of the economic system of imperialism!
What of the “anti-war” Democrats?
The Democrats have achieved an amazing feat. They have managed to pass pro-war legislation while maintaining their image of being “anti-war.” Recognizing that the fiasco in Iraq posed a threat to U.S. imperialism, the Democrats proposed a non-binding resolution opposing the “troop surge.” But when their resolution was a flop, they gave Bush and the Republicans exactly what they wanted: more money and more troops for the war.
This has enraged many, but what about the supposedly "progressive" wing of the Democratic Party? This wing of the Democratic Party has a special mission: to promote one of the most bloodstained lies of all time. Democratic Party politicians like Lynn Woolsey, Diane Watson, Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, John Conyers, and Jim McDermott are on a leash. They are allowed to mouth off a bit about Bush's criminal war in order to promote the illusion among activists that, if they only give up their independence and militancy and kiss enough ass - the imperialist Democratic Party can be transformed into a party of "peace" that serves the people. We must ask these "progressive" politicians: if you oppose imperialism then why are you a member of the Democratic Party -- why do you, by your actions, promote the idea that this die-hard imperialist party can be fundamentally changed?
In March, the media reported of a closed-door meeting between Nancy Pelosi and some of these “progressive” Democrats. In it, a deal was made that the “progressives” would make sure Pelosi’s $100 billion escalation of the war would pass in the “Out of Iraq Caucus.“ Then, it was agreed that these progressives would personally vote against the bill when it reached the floor! Similarly, when the Democrats were sure that this legislation had enough votes to pass, they allowed their top presidential candidates (like Clinton and Obama) to oppose it as well. Thus, the Democrats were able to pass pro-war legislation while maintaining an “anti-war” image. Further, the only “alternatives” currently being suggested by the “progressives” are simply different ways to achieve the same imperialist goals that the mainstream Democrats and Republicans want. Finally, although Bush announced a “partial withdrawal” of troops, this is only to avoid an uprising by the American people, and no one said anything about a total withdrawal!
Therefore, waiting for change to come from above won’t work, and we must take action ourselves!
We need organization which is independent of the mainstream antiwar organizations
In recent months the die-hard imperialist nature of the Democratic Party has become more clear to a wider section of activists. Because of this, the mainstream antiwar organizations are now talking a bit more than they have in the past about the treachery of the imperialist Democrats. It is good thing that the mainstream antiwar organizations are organizing demonstrations and other mass actions, but unfortunately, these organizations remain bound with a thousand threads to the left wing of the Democratic Party and the liberal brand of imperialist politics. For example, the speakers at their rallies will often promote the same old reformist solutions like writing letters that appeal to the conscience of politicians, or encourage sending troops to Iraq (under a NATO or United Nations flag).
The antiwar movement will remain weak and powerless until it makes a decisive break with all sections of the Democratic Party and with the imperialist politics and imperialist illusions that are inseparable from the Democratic Party. The antiwar movement will become powerful when it is based on the masses and on mass action, and when it recognizes the need to fight for a world without imperialism. A world without imperialism will be a world that is not run by the rich (i.e.: the bourgeoisie -- the ruling class of big-time capitalists) but will instead be run by the working class and masses, with peace, abundance and genuine democracy for all.
When the antiwar movement recognizes the need to target and get rid of the entire economic and political system of imperialism (and the rule of the rich which makes imperialism inevitable) this will set off the alarm bells in the corridors of power, and increase the pressure on all the political flunkies of the rich to end the criminal war in Iraq.
Antiwar activists need organizations which work consistently to oppose illusions in all imperialist politicians and saviors from the establishment. But this alone is not enough. In order to avoid the sectarian disease with infects much of the left, we need organization which is based on democracy and political transparency. The authors of this leaflet want to see such an organization develop. We need your help to make this happen.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Rule of of a Single Organization vs. Rule of the Class
Author
Alex
Summary
Is there an important distinction between the rule of a single organization like a Communist Party and the rule of the working class? Every single "workers' state" to date has failed because they_assumed_that the working class leadership must take the form of a single organization. To gather activists, Leftists must distinguish themselves from these failures and recognize the need for democratic rights of free speech.
Body
==============================================
What is "The Red Beacon?"
==============================================
This is a news channel run by Alex.
The goal of this channel is to spread news, opinions, and various other articles based on the principles of information war -- or the democratic, open struggle for ideas.
The ultimate aim of this channel is to create an environment where serious discussion can be held regarding important political and theoretical questions that will advance the anti-war and revolutionary movements. This is part of an attempt to end the crisis of theory in the leftist community today, and make way for the coming of a movement that will end war and end ultimately end bourgeois rule.
This channel also believes that readers have the right to have their comments known to an international audience, and to have their comments responded to with something thoughtful and useful (if they want it).
More info can be found in the "Afterword" section of this article.
====================================================
Our featured presentation
====================================================
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
A couple of weeks ago, I sent a letter to SAIC (Seattle Anti-Imperialist Committe )and Frank (a SAIC supporter and founder of the Communist Voice Outreach [CVO]) regarding some changes that SAIC could make in its policy to attract more serious activists. In Frank's reply to me, he made several points, one of which stated that what Ben Seattle and I have been advocating was discarded by Lenin as "'Left' childishness."
Frank has stumbled upon an extremely important theoretical question. Should the workers be led by a single organization? Here is what I wrote to Frank regarding that subject:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lenin’s “Left-Wing Communism”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In his letter to me, Frank cited Lenin’s work “Left-Wing Communism, An Infantile Disorder” to somehow prove that the ideas that Ben and I have advocated (like the necessity of multiple workers’ parties under workers’ rule) were discredited by Lenin as “‘Left’ childishness” and are therefore wrong ideas. In all honesty, this argument is flimsy. Frank used a very small amount of Lenin’s words, and after reading “Left-Wing Communism,” Ben and I have concluded that they were used out of context.
In chapter V of “Left-Wing Communism,” Lenin criticizes the German “Left communists” for their practices. However, he does not criticize their theoretical practices as much as he criticizes their_sectarian_practices. The German “Left communists” split from the German Communist Party and labeled all political parties as “bourgeois.” Lenin felt that it was reactionary to use the various opportunist parties in Europe to plaster all political parties with the same image, and I agree.
But Frank uses this argument to back up his own, which says that what Ben and I have advocated is unsound. We have not labeled all political parties as bourgeois, so I believe that this argument is weak. However, it does raise a very important theoretical question:
Should the workers be led by a single organization?
“Left-Wing Communism, An Infantile Disorder” can be found here:
http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/LWC20.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule of a single organization?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lenin notes in criticizing the German “Left communists” that naturally, the workers will form a system of leaders because certain people are more experienced, have better leadership qualities, etc. Ben and I have no opposition to this statement, and we recognize the need for political organization. However, Frank’s mistake is that he_assumes_that this working class leadership must be in the form of a single organization.
If working class leadership must take the form of a single organization, the only way for it to maintain its monopoly over political power is to suppress democratic rights of free speech. But true workers’ rule is inseparable from these rights. Just as a mass organization cannot represent the people without transparency, a political party cannot rule on behalf of the workers unless the workers have concrete democratic rights of free speech, and this implies that multiple workers’ parties will eventually spring up and demand a role in the government.
Every single “workers’ state” to date has degenerated into a police state because people have assumed that the workers’ leadership must take the form of a single organization. Upon taking power, the Communist parties have had to suppress free speech (i.e. have had their political opponents shot) to maintain their control. This is unacceptable and completely avoidable.
But how, you might ask, can we prevent the bourgeoisie from buying their way back to power without a monolithic party that ultimately suppresses workers’ rights as well? The solution is to separate speech and property. Under workers’ rule, no one will be able to buy free speech, and the workers’ voices, being the majority, will drown out the cries of the bourgeoisie.
Many activists have seen the degeneration of the various “workers’ states” in the world, and they have massive doubts as to whether a world without bourgeois rule is even possible. And when organizations like SAIC and the CVO fail to address this issue, many will feel reluctant to join up with them. However, if organizations do address the issue of the need for democratic rights of free speech, they will reassure activists that a world without bourgeois rule is possible and become a pole of attraction for activists all over the country (and the world).
=================================================
Afterword
=================================================
Contents
-----------------------------------------
1. How to get a reply to your comments/criticism
2. Why can’t we get a response at Indymedia or RevLeft?
3. What is "The Red Beacon?"
4. Our mission
5. Links for more info
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. How to get a reply to your comments/criticism
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
YOUR COMMENTS/CRITICISM ARE WANTED AND NEEDED! I am an activist much like yourself. I make mistakes. Therefore, your thoughtful comments and criticism can only help me in achieving my goal, and they are most welcome.
However, if you are seeing this on an Indymedia or RevLeft page, here is what we recommend:
1. Refrain from posting on Indymedia . Instead, post on this channel’s page where the article was originally posted: http://theredbeacon.blogspot.com/2007/08/author-ben-seattle-reposted-by-alex.html
2. If you want a serious response, make that clear in your post.
3. It would be nice if you listed the site where you saw this.
4. Wait, and we should make a useful response within TEN DAYS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Why can’t we get a response at Indymedia?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First of all, Indymedia articles only stay in the main column for a couple of days. Honestly, thoughtful responses can sometimes take several days, which is time we don't have with Indymedia. Anyone can write something quickly, but to write something thoughtful takes more time.
If you post on this channel’s page, it gives me more time to generate a useful response to your comments and criticism: http://theredbeacon.blogspot.com/2007/08/author-ben-seattle-reposted-by-alex.html
Note that if you're already here on our blog, you can just post here (obviously).
------------------------------------------------------------
3. What is "The Red Beacon?"
------------------------------------------------------------
Again, this is a news channel run by Alex.
It is part of a broader community called the Media Weapon community, which can be found here: http://mediaweapon.com
At this stage, the "community" is more of a community-in-embryo, as very few activists post frequently and with useful information.
However, this can change, and this channel is part of an attempt to change it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Our Mission
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The goal of this channel is to spread news, opinions, and various other articles based on the principles of information war -- or the democratic, open struggle for ideas
My ultimate aim is to create an environment where serious discussion can be held regarding important political and theoretical questions that will advance the anti-war and revolutionary movements. This is part of an attempt to end the crisis of theory in the leftist community today, and make way for the coming of a movement that will end war and end ultimately end bourgeois rule.
This channel also believes that readers have the right to have their comments known to an international audience, and to have their comments responded to with something thoughtful and useful (if they want it).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Links for more info
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Seattle -- http://struggle.net/ben
"Cargo-Cult Leninism" vs. Political Transparency -- http://struggle.net/struggle.mass-democracy
The Red Beacon -- http://theredbeacon.blogspot.com/
Mediaweapon Community -- http://mediaweapon.org/
Alex
Summary
Is there an important distinction between the rule of a single organization like a Communist Party and the rule of the working class? Every single "workers' state" to date has failed because they_assumed_that the working class leadership must take the form of a single organization. To gather activists, Leftists must distinguish themselves from these failures and recognize the need for democratic rights of free speech.
Body
==============================================
What is "The Red Beacon?"
==============================================
This is a news channel run by Alex.
The goal of this channel is to spread news, opinions, and various other articles based on the principles of information war -- or the democratic, open struggle for ideas.
The ultimate aim of this channel is to create an environment where serious discussion can be held regarding important political and theoretical questions that will advance the anti-war and revolutionary movements. This is part of an attempt to end the crisis of theory in the leftist community today, and make way for the coming of a movement that will end war and end ultimately end bourgeois rule.
This channel also believes that readers have the right to have their comments known to an international audience, and to have their comments responded to with something thoughtful and useful (if they want it).
More info can be found in the "Afterword" section of this article.
====================================================
Our featured presentation
====================================================
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
A couple of weeks ago, I sent a letter to SAIC (Seattle Anti-Imperialist Committe )and Frank (a SAIC supporter and founder of the Communist Voice Outreach [CVO]) regarding some changes that SAIC could make in its policy to attract more serious activists. In Frank's reply to me, he made several points, one of which stated that what Ben Seattle and I have been advocating was discarded by Lenin as "'Left' childishness."
Frank has stumbled upon an extremely important theoretical question. Should the workers be led by a single organization? Here is what I wrote to Frank regarding that subject:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lenin’s “Left-Wing Communism”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In his letter to me, Frank cited Lenin’s work “Left-Wing Communism, An Infantile Disorder” to somehow prove that the ideas that Ben and I have advocated (like the necessity of multiple workers’ parties under workers’ rule) were discredited by Lenin as “‘Left’ childishness” and are therefore wrong ideas. In all honesty, this argument is flimsy. Frank used a very small amount of Lenin’s words, and after reading “Left-Wing Communism,” Ben and I have concluded that they were used out of context.
In chapter V of “Left-Wing Communism,” Lenin criticizes the German “Left communists” for their practices. However, he does not criticize their theoretical practices as much as he criticizes their_sectarian_practices. The German “Left communists” split from the German Communist Party and labeled all political parties as “bourgeois.” Lenin felt that it was reactionary to use the various opportunist parties in Europe to plaster all political parties with the same image, and I agree.
But Frank uses this argument to back up his own, which says that what Ben and I have advocated is unsound. We have not labeled all political parties as bourgeois, so I believe that this argument is weak. However, it does raise a very important theoretical question:
Should the workers be led by a single organization?
“Left-Wing Communism, An Infantile Disorder” can be found here:
http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/LWC20.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule of a single organization?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lenin notes in criticizing the German “Left communists” that naturally, the workers will form a system of leaders because certain people are more experienced, have better leadership qualities, etc. Ben and I have no opposition to this statement, and we recognize the need for political organization. However, Frank’s mistake is that he_assumes_that this working class leadership must be in the form of a single organization.
If working class leadership must take the form of a single organization, the only way for it to maintain its monopoly over political power is to suppress democratic rights of free speech. But true workers’ rule is inseparable from these rights. Just as a mass organization cannot represent the people without transparency, a political party cannot rule on behalf of the workers unless the workers have concrete democratic rights of free speech, and this implies that multiple workers’ parties will eventually spring up and demand a role in the government.
Every single “workers’ state” to date has degenerated into a police state because people have assumed that the workers’ leadership must take the form of a single organization. Upon taking power, the Communist parties have had to suppress free speech (i.e. have had their political opponents shot) to maintain their control. This is unacceptable and completely avoidable.
But how, you might ask, can we prevent the bourgeoisie from buying their way back to power without a monolithic party that ultimately suppresses workers’ rights as well? The solution is to separate speech and property. Under workers’ rule, no one will be able to buy free speech, and the workers’ voices, being the majority, will drown out the cries of the bourgeoisie.
Many activists have seen the degeneration of the various “workers’ states” in the world, and they have massive doubts as to whether a world without bourgeois rule is even possible. And when organizations like SAIC and the CVO fail to address this issue, many will feel reluctant to join up with them. However, if organizations do address the issue of the need for democratic rights of free speech, they will reassure activists that a world without bourgeois rule is possible and become a pole of attraction for activists all over the country (and the world).
=================================================
Afterword
=================================================
Contents
-----------------------------------------
1. How to get a reply to your comments/criticism
2. Why can’t we get a response at Indymedia or RevLeft?
3. What is "The Red Beacon?"
4. Our mission
5. Links for more info
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. How to get a reply to your comments/criticism
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
YOUR COMMENTS/CRITICISM ARE WANTED AND NEEDED! I am an activist much like yourself. I make mistakes. Therefore, your thoughtful comments and criticism can only help me in achieving my goal, and they are most welcome.
However, if you are seeing this on an Indymedia or RevLeft page, here is what we recommend:
1. Refrain from posting on Indymedia . Instead, post on this channel’s page where the article was originally posted: http://theredbeacon.blogspot.com/2007/08/author-ben-seattle-reposted-by-alex.html
2. If you want a serious response, make that clear in your post.
3. It would be nice if you listed the site where you saw this.
4. Wait, and we should make a useful response within TEN DAYS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Why can’t we get a response at Indymedia?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First of all, Indymedia articles only stay in the main column for a couple of days. Honestly, thoughtful responses can sometimes take several days, which is time we don't have with Indymedia. Anyone can write something quickly, but to write something thoughtful takes more time.
If you post on this channel’s page, it gives me more time to generate a useful response to your comments and criticism: http://theredbeacon.blogspot.com/2007/08/author-ben-seattle-reposted-by-alex.html
Note that if you're already here on our blog, you can just post here (obviously).
------------------------------------------------------------
3. What is "The Red Beacon?"
------------------------------------------------------------
Again, this is a news channel run by Alex.
It is part of a broader community called the Media Weapon community, which can be found here: http://mediaweapon.com
At this stage, the "community" is more of a community-in-embryo, as very few activists post frequently and with useful information.
However, this can change, and this channel is part of an attempt to change it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Our Mission
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The goal of this channel is to spread news, opinions, and various other articles based on the principles of information war -- or the democratic, open struggle for ideas
My ultimate aim is to create an environment where serious discussion can be held regarding important political and theoretical questions that will advance the anti-war and revolutionary movements. This is part of an attempt to end the crisis of theory in the leftist community today, and make way for the coming of a movement that will end war and end ultimately end bourgeois rule.
This channel also believes that readers have the right to have their comments known to an international audience, and to have their comments responded to with something thoughtful and useful (if they want it).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Links for more info
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Seattle -- http://struggle.net/ben
"Cargo-Cult Leninism" vs. Political Transparency -- http://struggle.net/struggle.mass-democracy
The Red Beacon -- http://theredbeacon.blogspot.com/
Mediaweapon Community -- http://mediaweapon.org/
Monday, August 13, 2007
"Cargo-Cult Leninism" (Part 3)
Author
Ben Seattle (reposted by Alex)
Summary
Many so-called “Marxist” organizations today are plagued by “cargo-cult” ideology, repeating phrases like “dictatorship of the proletariat” without fully understanding what they mean. Why are people so intent on drinking the kool-aid? Because they WANT to believe that things are OK.
Sadly, many “revolutionary” organizations today have completely failed to address the need for democratic rights of free speech under workers’ rule, and, ultimately, fail to take on revolutionary tasks.
What is the solution?
We need mass democracy! We are in dire need of a revolutionary organization based on the principle of transparency to serve the needs of the working class struggle!
This is an abridged version of Ben Seattle’s work, “Cargo-Cult Leninism” vs. Political transparency.
==============================================
What is "The Red Beacon?"
==============================================
This is a news channel run by Alex.
The goal of this channel is to spread news, opinions, and various other articles based on the principles of information war -- or the democratic, open struggle for ideas.
The ultimate aim of this channel is to create an environment where serious discussion can be held regarding important political and theoretical questions that will advance the anti-war and revolutionary movements. This is part of an attempt to end the crisis of theory in the leftist community today, and make way for the coming of a movement that will end war and end ultimately end bourgeois rule.
This channel also believes that readers have the right to have their comments known to an international audience, and to have their comments responded to with something thoughtful and useful (if they want it).
More info can be found in the "Afterword" section of this article.
====================================================
Our featured presentation
====================================================
These sections were originally published
in “Cargo-Cult” Leninism vs. Political Transparency
-- by Ben Seattle, June 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is revolutionary theory?
(– Is it GLUE to hold an organization together? – or a STICK we use to beat heretics? – or is it a LIGHT that helps us see?)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organizations based on cargo-cult Leninism often see revolutionary theory as a kind of “glue” (ie: a set of tribal totems and taboos)
that holds their organization together. Frank appears to uphold this view in his description of the real “crisis of theory” faced by the MLP as it disintegrated. In his reply to me, Frank noted that at this time a number of weird and wrong views sprouted among supporters of the party.
In Frank’s view the most important priority was to mobilize people around the party to condemn the heretics. Frank explains that this was “the only way to salvage anything from the situation”.
This was not my view. I dealt very heavily with theory during this period but, for the most part, I ignored most of these weird (and obviously wrong) views because it was clear that other theoretical issues were more important.
Frank hints at one of these issues when he describes one of the wrong views:
“Stalinism, it was implied by some, was merely the logical product of Leninism.”
Now I am not in agreement with this particular wrong view that Frank cites – but I did consider this an important issue to investigate – and I have done so (see: “The Foundations of Modern Revisionism”). The suppression of democratic rights for which Stalin is well known did not begin with Stalin. This suppression began under Lenin’s leadership. The difference between Lenin and Stalin was that Lenin made clear that these measures were temporary emergency measures – while Stalin (without even waiting for Lenin’s body to get cold) proclaimed these measures as eternal principles of working class rule. But you can’t oppose the wrong view that Frank describes in a very clear way unless you understand this difference. And this difference was never understood by the MLP – and has never been written about by Frank’s organization, the CVO.
This is a key difference in how Frank and I view the role of revolutionary theory. Revolutionary theory is not a stick we use to beat or humiliate heretics. We use theory to answer questions – and to guide our work by helping us see the vital connection between our work in the day-to-day struggles today and our revolutionary goal tomorrow. If someone is hesitant to work for a future society that he thinks may be a police state – we can make use of this doubt to help us understand the theoretical questions for which the entire revolutionary movement needs answers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Spectre of Endless Discussion
(We don’t need to live in fear of talking about our goal. We can sort things out a little bit at a time …)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recently, in response to my proposal that SAIC take steps to address the need for a clear vision of our revolutionary goal, X9 said that this raised the issue of “endless discussion”.
This line holds that so-called “endless discussion” represents a threat – and will divert SAIC from other important work – as evidenced by numerous people who spend all their time talking on the internet instead of doing anything to build the movement.
I call this the "don’t drink water" argument. It is a scientific fact that drinking too much water will kill you. But no one uses this as an argument against ever drinking water. Sometimes water is essential. The way to avoid drinking too much water is to use a little bit of common sense. Then we don’t have to be afraid of drinking water.
It is true that if we spent all our time discussing our disagreements or controversial issues – then we would get nothing done. But this does not mean that we should not be able to participate in discussion in a measured way on an ongoing basis. The way to prevent long-term, ongoing discussion from undermining our work and focus – is to manage our time, focus and priorities so that the time we spend in discussion does not undermine other necessary fronts of work.
Frank makes a similar argument against developing SAIC’s web site. Frank argues that if we put too much energy and focus on developing our website – this will lead to neglect of other necessary fronts of work. And, of course, this is true. Here, again, the way to develop our website without undermining our work is be careful about what is “too much” – and to begin modestly, gradually putting work into our website and paying careful attention to the point at which other necessary work begins to be neglected.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The foundations of modern revisionism (“Marxism-Leninism” is anti-Marxist, anti-Leninist and revisionist)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank says that I have abandoned “Marxism-Leninism”. This is true. But what does the phrase “Marxism-Leninism” really mean? This term was never used by Marx or Lenin – it was coined by Stalin after Lenin’s death in order to oppose the principles for which Marx and Lenin fought.
Stalin argued, in his book “Foundations of Leninism” (1924) that the "unity of will" of workers' parties everywhere required "iron discipline" to prevent "the existence of a number of centers" and "division of authority".
In this case "number of centers" and "division of authority" are code phrases for democratic norms of open struggle between groups within the party that have opposing views on important questions.
Unlike Lenin – who had argued that various restrictions on democracy (both within the party and in society as a whole) were temporary emergency measures in a truly desperate situation – Stalin proclaimed that all workers' parties (in all times, places and conditions) must speak with a single voice and, under Stalin, the merged party-state ruthlessly suppressed the independent political voice and independent political life of the working class.
As a result, the concept of rule by the working class (ie: the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and "socialism") has since become identified with a police state – the rule of a corrupt minority which falsely claims to represent the interest of the workers and which suppresses the voice of all opposition.
The Marxist-Leninist Party (which both Frank and I supported until its dissolution in 1993) did extensive theoretical work which exposed Stalin's capitulation to international capitalism in the mid-1930’s when (frightened by Hitler’s 1933 seizure of power in Germany and desperate to make a deal with the west in the hopes that they would put a leash on Hitler instead of financing the build-up of the nazi war machine) Stalin liquidated the International Communist Movement and led it into the social-democratic sewer.
While the MLP repudiated the Stalin of the 1930’s – it never repudiated the early Stalin who turned Lenin's temporary emergency restrictions on democratic rights into supposedly essential and eternal principles of working class rule. The MLP paid dearly for failing to pursue the vital theoretical questions involved in how democratic rights were necessary to (and inseparable from) the stability of workers’ rule.
The resulting crisis of confidence led to a meltdown which destroyed the organization. The leftover religious orientation (see sidebar on “cargo-cult Leninism”) resulted in great bitterness between the majority (who concluded that banging one’s head against a brick wall would accomplish very little and who therefore became demoralized and politically passive) and the minority (who concluded that banging one’s head against a brick wall would eventually produce results as long as one did not lose faith).
The Communist Voice Organization originated from the wreckage of the MLP, as did my own work. But while the CVO has never confronted any of the key theoretical questions (ie: the inseparability of democratic rights from workers' rule, the incompatibility of workers' rule with the dictatorship of a single party or organization, etc) – I have seen the consequences of ignoring the vital questions of theory and have pursued the decisive theoretical struggle.
This has led me to repudiate the revisionist orientation and religious methods which were part of “Marxism-Leninism” since its birth in 1924. This has led me to look again at the profoundly democratic principles of Lenin which Stalin worked to bury. As a result I have supported the proposal advanced by Russian worker comrades such as Gregory Isayev (arrested for organizing workers under the rule of both Brezhnev and Yeltsin) that the movement for workers’ rule abandon the name “communism” in order to signal a clear and decisive break with the treachery of the "communist" leaders who have betrayed the working class.
The precedent for this is the decisive break that was made against the treacherous parties of the Second International which, in 1914, supported the mutual slaughter of worker against worker that has become known as the first world war. At that time Lenin argued that the name “social-democracy” was hopelessly discredited in the eyes of workers and that a new name for the workers’ movement was necessary. Lenin proposed using the name “communism” (as had originally been used by Marx at the time of the Manifesto). Isayev has proposed that the new name be “proletarism”. That sounds just fine to me.
Stalin's argument against "the existence of a number of centers" and the need to speak with a single voice appears to me to represent the real basis of Frank's argument that SAIC would be "disorganized" if its website featured a diversity of voices. Frank has attempted to support his position with a variety of arguments – but none of these arguments seem very solid to me.
“Cargo-Cult Leninism” vs.
Political Transparency can
be found in full here:
http://struggle.net/struggle/mass-democracy
=================================================
Afterword
=================================================
Contents
-----------------------------------------
1. How to get a reply to your comments/criticism
2. Why can’t we get a response at Indymedia or RevLeft?
3. What is "The Red Beacon?"
4. Our mission
5. Links for more info
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. How to get a reply to your comments/criticism
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
YOUR COMMENTS/CRITICISM ARE WANTED AND NEEDED! I am an activist much like yourself. I make mistakes. Therefore, your thoughtful comments and criticism can only help me in achieving my goal, and they are most welcome.
However, if you are seeing this on an Indymedia or RevLeft page, here is what we recommend:
1. Refrain from posting on Indymedia or Revleft. Instead, post on this channel’s page where the article was originally posted: http://theredbeacon.blogspot.com/2007/08/author-ben-seattle-reposted-by-alex.html
2. If you want a serious response, make that clear in your post.
3. It would be nice if you listed the site where you saw this.
4. Wait, and we should make a useful response within TEN DAYS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Why can’t we get a response at Indymedia or RevLeft?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First of all, Indymedia articles only stay in the main column for a couple of days. Honestly, thoughtful responses can sometimes take several days, which is time we don't have with Indymedia. The same is true of RevLeft. If few people comment on a post, it gets put off the front page. Anyone can write something quickly, but to write something thoughtful takes more time.
If you post on this channel’s page, it gives me more time to generate a useful response to your comments and criticism: http://theredbeacon.blogspot.com/2007/08/author-ben-seattle-reposted-by-alex.html
Note that if you're already here on our blog, you can just post here (obviously).
------------------------------------------------------------
3. What is "The Red Beacon?"
------------------------------------------------------------
Again, this is a news channel run by Alex.
It is part of a broader community called the Media Weapon community, which can be found here: http://mediaweapon.com
At this stage, the "community" is more of a community-in-embryo, as very few activists post frequently and with useful information.
However, this can change, and this channel is part of an attempt to change it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Our Mission
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The goal of this channel is to spread news, opinions, and various other articles based on the principles of information war -- or the democratic, open struggle for ideas
My ultimate aim is to create an environment where serious discussion can be held regarding important political and theoretical questions that will advance the anti-war and revolutionary movements. This is part of an attempt to end the crisis of theory in the leftist community today, and make way for the coming of a movement that will end war and end ultimately end bourgeois rule.
This channel also believes that readers have the right to have their comments known to an international audience, and to have their comments responded to with something thoughtful and useful (if they want it).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Links for more info
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Seattle -- http://struggle.net/ben
"Cargo-Cult Leninism" vs. Political Transparency -- http://struggle.net/struggle.mass-democracy
The Red Beacon -- http://theredbeacon.blogspot.com
Ben Seattle (reposted by Alex)
Summary
Many so-called “Marxist” organizations today are plagued by “cargo-cult” ideology, repeating phrases like “dictatorship of the proletariat” without fully understanding what they mean. Why are people so intent on drinking the kool-aid? Because they WANT to believe that things are OK.
Sadly, many “revolutionary” organizations today have completely failed to address the need for democratic rights of free speech under workers’ rule, and, ultimately, fail to take on revolutionary tasks.
What is the solution?
We need mass democracy! We are in dire need of a revolutionary organization based on the principle of transparency to serve the needs of the working class struggle!
This is an abridged version of Ben Seattle’s work, “Cargo-Cult Leninism” vs. Political transparency.
==============================================
What is "The Red Beacon?"
==============================================
This is a news channel run by Alex.
The goal of this channel is to spread news, opinions, and various other articles based on the principles of information war -- or the democratic, open struggle for ideas.
The ultimate aim of this channel is to create an environment where serious discussion can be held regarding important political and theoretical questions that will advance the anti-war and revolutionary movements. This is part of an attempt to end the crisis of theory in the leftist community today, and make way for the coming of a movement that will end war and end ultimately end bourgeois rule.
This channel also believes that readers have the right to have their comments known to an international audience, and to have their comments responded to with something thoughtful and useful (if they want it).
More info can be found in the "Afterword" section of this article.
====================================================
Our featured presentation
====================================================
These sections were originally published
in “Cargo-Cult” Leninism vs. Political Transparency
-- by Ben Seattle, June 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is revolutionary theory?
(– Is it GLUE to hold an organization together? – or a STICK we use to beat heretics? – or is it a LIGHT that helps us see?)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organizations based on cargo-cult Leninism often see revolutionary theory as a kind of “glue” (ie: a set of tribal totems and taboos)
that holds their organization together. Frank appears to uphold this view in his description of the real “crisis of theory” faced by the MLP as it disintegrated. In his reply to me, Frank noted that at this time a number of weird and wrong views sprouted among supporters of the party.
In Frank’s view the most important priority was to mobilize people around the party to condemn the heretics. Frank explains that this was “the only way to salvage anything from the situation”.
This was not my view. I dealt very heavily with theory during this period but, for the most part, I ignored most of these weird (and obviously wrong) views because it was clear that other theoretical issues were more important.
Frank hints at one of these issues when he describes one of the wrong views:
“Stalinism, it was implied by some, was merely the logical product of Leninism.”
Now I am not in agreement with this particular wrong view that Frank cites – but I did consider this an important issue to investigate – and I have done so (see: “The Foundations of Modern Revisionism”). The suppression of democratic rights for which Stalin is well known did not begin with Stalin. This suppression began under Lenin’s leadership. The difference between Lenin and Stalin was that Lenin made clear that these measures were temporary emergency measures – while Stalin (without even waiting for Lenin’s body to get cold) proclaimed these measures as eternal principles of working class rule. But you can’t oppose the wrong view that Frank describes in a very clear way unless you understand this difference. And this difference was never understood by the MLP – and has never been written about by Frank’s organization, the CVO.
This is a key difference in how Frank and I view the role of revolutionary theory. Revolutionary theory is not a stick we use to beat or humiliate heretics. We use theory to answer questions – and to guide our work by helping us see the vital connection between our work in the day-to-day struggles today and our revolutionary goal tomorrow. If someone is hesitant to work for a future society that he thinks may be a police state – we can make use of this doubt to help us understand the theoretical questions for which the entire revolutionary movement needs answers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Spectre of Endless Discussion
(We don’t need to live in fear of talking about our goal. We can sort things out a little bit at a time …)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recently, in response to my proposal that SAIC take steps to address the need for a clear vision of our revolutionary goal, X9 said that this raised the issue of “endless discussion”.
This line holds that so-called “endless discussion” represents a threat – and will divert SAIC from other important work – as evidenced by numerous people who spend all their time talking on the internet instead of doing anything to build the movement.
I call this the "don’t drink water" argument. It is a scientific fact that drinking too much water will kill you. But no one uses this as an argument against ever drinking water. Sometimes water is essential. The way to avoid drinking too much water is to use a little bit of common sense. Then we don’t have to be afraid of drinking water.
It is true that if we spent all our time discussing our disagreements or controversial issues – then we would get nothing done. But this does not mean that we should not be able to participate in discussion in a measured way on an ongoing basis. The way to prevent long-term, ongoing discussion from undermining our work and focus – is to manage our time, focus and priorities so that the time we spend in discussion does not undermine other necessary fronts of work.
Frank makes a similar argument against developing SAIC’s web site. Frank argues that if we put too much energy and focus on developing our website – this will lead to neglect of other necessary fronts of work. And, of course, this is true. Here, again, the way to develop our website without undermining our work is be careful about what is “too much” – and to begin modestly, gradually putting work into our website and paying careful attention to the point at which other necessary work begins to be neglected.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The foundations of modern revisionism (“Marxism-Leninism” is anti-Marxist, anti-Leninist and revisionist)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank says that I have abandoned “Marxism-Leninism”. This is true. But what does the phrase “Marxism-Leninism” really mean? This term was never used by Marx or Lenin – it was coined by Stalin after Lenin’s death in order to oppose the principles for which Marx and Lenin fought.
Stalin argued, in his book “Foundations of Leninism” (1924) that the "unity of will" of workers' parties everywhere required "iron discipline" to prevent "the existence of a number of centers" and "division of authority".
In this case "number of centers" and "division of authority" are code phrases for democratic norms of open struggle between groups within the party that have opposing views on important questions.
Unlike Lenin – who had argued that various restrictions on democracy (both within the party and in society as a whole) were temporary emergency measures in a truly desperate situation – Stalin proclaimed that all workers' parties (in all times, places and conditions) must speak with a single voice and, under Stalin, the merged party-state ruthlessly suppressed the independent political voice and independent political life of the working class.
As a result, the concept of rule by the working class (ie: the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and "socialism") has since become identified with a police state – the rule of a corrupt minority which falsely claims to represent the interest of the workers and which suppresses the voice of all opposition.
The Marxist-Leninist Party (which both Frank and I supported until its dissolution in 1993) did extensive theoretical work which exposed Stalin's capitulation to international capitalism in the mid-1930’s when (frightened by Hitler’s 1933 seizure of power in Germany and desperate to make a deal with the west in the hopes that they would put a leash on Hitler instead of financing the build-up of the nazi war machine) Stalin liquidated the International Communist Movement and led it into the social-democratic sewer.
While the MLP repudiated the Stalin of the 1930’s – it never repudiated the early Stalin who turned Lenin's temporary emergency restrictions on democratic rights into supposedly essential and eternal principles of working class rule. The MLP paid dearly for failing to pursue the vital theoretical questions involved in how democratic rights were necessary to (and inseparable from) the stability of workers’ rule.
The resulting crisis of confidence led to a meltdown which destroyed the organization. The leftover religious orientation (see sidebar on “cargo-cult Leninism”) resulted in great bitterness between the majority (who concluded that banging one’s head against a brick wall would accomplish very little and who therefore became demoralized and politically passive) and the minority (who concluded that banging one’s head against a brick wall would eventually produce results as long as one did not lose faith).
The Communist Voice Organization originated from the wreckage of the MLP, as did my own work. But while the CVO has never confronted any of the key theoretical questions (ie: the inseparability of democratic rights from workers' rule, the incompatibility of workers' rule with the dictatorship of a single party or organization, etc) – I have seen the consequences of ignoring the vital questions of theory and have pursued the decisive theoretical struggle.
This has led me to repudiate the revisionist orientation and religious methods which were part of “Marxism-Leninism” since its birth in 1924. This has led me to look again at the profoundly democratic principles of Lenin which Stalin worked to bury. As a result I have supported the proposal advanced by Russian worker comrades such as Gregory Isayev (arrested for organizing workers under the rule of both Brezhnev and Yeltsin) that the movement for workers’ rule abandon the name “communism” in order to signal a clear and decisive break with the treachery of the "communist" leaders who have betrayed the working class.
The precedent for this is the decisive break that was made against the treacherous parties of the Second International which, in 1914, supported the mutual slaughter of worker against worker that has become known as the first world war. At that time Lenin argued that the name “social-democracy” was hopelessly discredited in the eyes of workers and that a new name for the workers’ movement was necessary. Lenin proposed using the name “communism” (as had originally been used by Marx at the time of the Manifesto). Isayev has proposed that the new name be “proletarism”. That sounds just fine to me.
Stalin's argument against "the existence of a number of centers" and the need to speak with a single voice appears to me to represent the real basis of Frank's argument that SAIC would be "disorganized" if its website featured a diversity of voices. Frank has attempted to support his position with a variety of arguments – but none of these arguments seem very solid to me.
“Cargo-Cult Leninism” vs.
Political Transparency can
be found in full here:
http://struggle.net/struggle/mass-democracy
=================================================
Afterword
=================================================
Contents
-----------------------------------------
1. How to get a reply to your comments/criticism
2. Why can’t we get a response at Indymedia or RevLeft?
3. What is "The Red Beacon?"
4. Our mission
5. Links for more info
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. How to get a reply to your comments/criticism
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
YOUR COMMENTS/CRITICISM ARE WANTED AND NEEDED! I am an activist much like yourself. I make mistakes. Therefore, your thoughtful comments and criticism can only help me in achieving my goal, and they are most welcome.
However, if you are seeing this on an Indymedia or RevLeft page, here is what we recommend:
1. Refrain from posting on Indymedia or Revleft. Instead, post on this channel’s page where the article was originally posted: http://theredbeacon.blogspot.com/2007/08/author-ben-seattle-reposted-by-alex.html
2. If you want a serious response, make that clear in your post.
3. It would be nice if you listed the site where you saw this.
4. Wait, and we should make a useful response within TEN DAYS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Why can’t we get a response at Indymedia or RevLeft?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First of all, Indymedia articles only stay in the main column for a couple of days. Honestly, thoughtful responses can sometimes take several days, which is time we don't have with Indymedia. The same is true of RevLeft. If few people comment on a post, it gets put off the front page. Anyone can write something quickly, but to write something thoughtful takes more time.
If you post on this channel’s page, it gives me more time to generate a useful response to your comments and criticism: http://theredbeacon.blogspot.com/2007/08/author-ben-seattle-reposted-by-alex.html
Note that if you're already here on our blog, you can just post here (obviously).
------------------------------------------------------------
3. What is "The Red Beacon?"
------------------------------------------------------------
Again, this is a news channel run by Alex.
It is part of a broader community called the Media Weapon community, which can be found here: http://mediaweapon.com
At this stage, the "community" is more of a community-in-embryo, as very few activists post frequently and with useful information.
However, this can change, and this channel is part of an attempt to change it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Our Mission
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The goal of this channel is to spread news, opinions, and various other articles based on the principles of information war -- or the democratic, open struggle for ideas
My ultimate aim is to create an environment where serious discussion can be held regarding important political and theoretical questions that will advance the anti-war and revolutionary movements. This is part of an attempt to end the crisis of theory in the leftist community today, and make way for the coming of a movement that will end war and end ultimately end bourgeois rule.
This channel also believes that readers have the right to have their comments known to an international audience, and to have their comments responded to with something thoughtful and useful (if they want it).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Links for more info
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Seattle -- http://struggle.net/ben
"Cargo-Cult Leninism" vs. Political Transparency -- http://struggle.net/struggle.mass-democracy
The Red Beacon -- http://theredbeacon.blogspot.com
"Cargo-Cult Leninism" (Part 2)
Author
Ben Seattle (reposted by Alex)
Summary
Many so-called “Marxist” organizations today are plagued by “cargo-cult” ideology, repeating phrases like “dictatorship of the proletariat” without fully understanding what they mean. Why are people so intent on drinking the kool-aid? Because they WANT to believe that things are OK.
Sadly, many “revolutionary” organizations today have completely failed to address the need for democratic rights of free speech under workers’ rule, and, ultimately, fail to take on revolutionary tasks.
What is the solution?
We need mass democracy! We are in dire need of a revolutionary organization based on the principle of transparency to serve the needs of the working class struggle!
This is an abridged version of Ben Seattle’s work, “Cargo-Cult Leninism” vs. Political transparency.
==============================================
What is "The Red Beacon?"
==============================================
This is a news channel run by Alex.
The goal of this channel is to spread news, opinions, and various other articles based on the principles of information war -- or the democratic, open struggle for ideas.
The ultimate aim of this channel is to create an environment where serious discussion can be held regarding important political and theoretical questions that will advance the anti-war and revolutionary movements. This is part of an attempt to end the crisis of theory in the leftist community today, and make way for the coming of a movement that will end war and end ultimately end bourgeois rule.
This channel also believes that readers have the right to have their comments known to an international audience, and to have their comments responded to with something thoughtful and useful (if they want it).
More info can be found in the "Afterword" section of this article.
====================================================
Our featured presentation
====================================================
These sections were originally published
in “Cargo-Cult” Leninism vs. Political Transparency
-- by Ben Seattle, June 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem with pragmatism
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank's main argument is that readers need only look at the fruit of his work and compare it to the fruit of Ben’s work – and that is all you really need to know about our respective principles.
In other words, Frank points to the success of SAIC and compares this to the lack of success (so far) of our community-in-embryo. On this basis, Frank argues that his views must be correct and that the "information war" and "community" principles which I advocate must be worthless.
The problem with this argument is that it amounts to what is sometimes called "pragmatism".
It is true that, by its fruit, we can know the tree (ie: we can judge the effectiveness of competing principles by looking at the practical results of these principles when applied to the real world). This is the basis of the scientific method: you determine truth by experiment.
But "pragmatism" tends to take this principle too far. Some experiments may only produce results when there is:
(1) a critical mass of talented and dedicated people
(2) sufficient time and
(3) favorable circumstances
So Frank may be deceiving himself when he claims that the "information war" and "community" principles are worthless. We have not yet proven that these principles are powerful but neither has Frank proven that they are not.
So this question is not yet settled. [1]
Attempts to create light bulbs and airplanes were not successful except after many repeated attempts. Nor has there ever been a revolution that put the working class firmly into power. But we do not conclude from this that light bulbs, airplanes or proletarian revolutions are impossible.
Further, sometimes the results of an experiment can be misleading. The RCP, for example, has been able to put together a national organization and organize actions of various kinds. However this does not prove that the RCP's orientation is correct. On a larger scale, the Soviet people, under Stalin’s leadership, defeated Hitler. However this does not prove that Stalin's principles were all correct either.
Footnote 1: The sentence "So this question is not yet settled" was added, for clarity, on July 14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cargo cults and cargo-cult Leninism
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a name for the kind of religion that is formed when people encounter an advanced technology which they are unable to understand: it is called a "cargo cult" (named after the South Pacific islanders who encountered American military logistics teams during the second world war and who, as a result, attempted to contact the gods of cargo by doing such things as carving microphones out of wood and headphones out of coconut shells and repeating the magic phrase "Roger, over and out" in hopes that the big silver birds would land with their bellies full of precious cargo).
Anthropologists have counted at least 75 cargo cults that formed independently of one another, in regions separated by thousands of miles, in the period from the 1890’s to the end of the second world war. These cults became popular because they embodied the anti-colonial sentiments of the native islanders and their belief that they, too, were entitled to a share of the material benefits of civilization. Cargo cults united peoples of different tribes that, previously, had little in common and led to such things as mass boycotts of mandatory attendance at missionary churches.
For this reason, the European colonialists would beat and imprison cargo cult leaders. There is at least one cargo cult that is still active (the “Jon Frum” movement in Vanuatu, east of Australia).
Cargo cults are fascinating for several reasons. They give us insight into the formation of religion and the process of human cognition. We tend to understand things on the basis of their external features and appearance. Hence the tendency to copy the outward appearance of phenomenon which we want to emulate but do not understand.
Many “Marxist” groups are caught up in what I call “cargo-cult Leninism” and have developed their own tribal totems and taboos. Basically, they have created a little religion on the basis of an appreciation for (but a limited understanding of) Lenin’s 1917 revolution. Frank and the CVO make a fetish out of centralized control and they repeat magic words and phrases such as “dialectical materialism”, "democratic centralism", “dictatorship of the proletariat”. And they can repeat by rote many sacred definitions. But they do not understand what these words mean.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
– Join our group – We can do your thinking for you
(Why do supporters of left-wing groups so often drink the kool-aid ?)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Groups on the left are often bonded together on the basis of special beliefs and practices – which are sometimes shallow and silly – and which often undermine work to build the antiwar and revolutionary movements. Why do supporters of these groups so often “drink the kool-aid” and accept and believe shallow arguments?
Because they WANT to believe
-------------------------------------------
1. They want to be loyal to their group
2. Things seem to be going ok
3. People who advance these arguments have proven knowledgeable in the past on
many related topics and are generally good people, likeable and trustworthy
4. People sense that these common beliefs play a vital role in holding the organization together and any challenge to them might threaten or destabilize the organization.
5. The group has developed an internal language and a system of rationalizations (ie: internal arguments) supporting their beliefs that are plausible enough, (in the absence of effective challenge) to feel good
6. The perception is that there is relatively little harm if one is mistaken. So why worry?
7. Looking too deeply into supporting arguments requires independent thought and analysis which requires hard work and can be difficult and uncomfortable.
What is the Solution?
-------------------------------
An exclusive focus on rooting for the organization which one supports – might be appropriate for a football or basketball game – but these attitudes are deeply corrupt and immensely damaging to the revolutionary movement. We need a clean break from these kinds of corrupt traditions – we need to develop a new tradition – one of individual accountability and commitment to integrity on the important political and theoretical questions of our time.
Accountability and independent thought require regular participation in public forums
-------------------------------------------------------------
Supporters of groups on the left can take steps to develop their capacity for independent thought and analysis by regular participation in public forums where they can gain experience in defending the views and practices of the group they support and, in the process, learn from others. Posting once a month (or at least several times a year) in a forum suitable for the kinds of discussions that unfold over weeks or months – and responding to calm and intelligent criticism – can help supporters learn to be accountable to the movement and to discover weaknesses and potential problems in the views, practices and internal rationalizations of the group they support.
“Cargo-Cult Leninism” vs.
Political Transparency can
be found in full here:
http://struggle.net/struggle/mass-democracy
=================================================
Afterword
=================================================
Contents
-----------------------------------------
1. How to get a reply to your comments/criticism
2. Why can’t we get a response at Indymedia or RevLeft?
3. What is "The Red Beacon?"
4. Our mission
5. Links for more info
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. How to get a reply to your comments/criticism
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
YOUR COMMENTS/CRITICISM ARE WANTED AND NEEDED! I am an activist much like yourself. I make mistakes. Therefore, your thoughtful comments and criticism can only help me in achieving my goal, and they are most welcome.
However, if you are seeing this on an Indymedia or RevLeft page, here is what we recommend:
1. Refrain from posting on Indymedia or Revleft. Instead, post on this channel’s page where the article was originally posted: http://theredbeacon.blogspot.com/2007/08/cargo-cult-leninism-part-2.html
2. If you want a serious response, make that clear in your post.
3. It would be nice if you listed the site where you saw this.
4. Wait, and we should make a useful response within TEN DAYS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Why can’t we get a response at Indymedia or RevLeft?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First of all, Indymedia articles only stay in the main column for a couple of days. Honestly, thoughtful responses can sometimes take several days, which is time we don't have with Indymedia. The same is true of RevLeft. If few people comment on a post, it gets put off the front page. Anyone can write something quickly, but to write something thoughtful takes more time.
If you post on this channel’s page, it gives me more time to generate a useful response to your comments and criticism: http://theredbeacon.blogspot.com/2007/08/cargo-cult-leninism-part-2.html
Note that if you're already here on our blog, you can just post here (obviously).
------------------------------------------------------------
3. What is "The Red Beacon?"
------------------------------------------------------------
Again, this is a news channel run by Alex.
It is part of a broader community called the Media Weapon community, which can be found here: http://mediaweapon.com
At this stage, the "community" is more of a community-in-embryo, as very few activists post frequently and with useful information.
However, this can change, and this channel is part of an attempt to change it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Our Mission
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The goal of this channel is to spread news, opinions, and various other articles based on the principles of information war -- or the democratic, open struggle for ideas
My ultimate aim is to create an environment where serious discussion can be held regarding important political and theoretical questions that will advance the anti-war and revolutionary movements. This is part of an attempt to end the crisis of theory in the leftist community today, and make way for the coming of a movement that will end war and end ultimately end bourgeois rule.
This channel also believes that readers have the right to have their comments known to an international audience, and to have their comments responded to with something thoughtful and useful (if they want it).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Links for more info
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Seattle -- http://struggle.net/ben
"Cargo-Cult Leninism" vs. Political Transparency -- http://struggle.net/struggle.mass-democracy
The Red Beacon -- http://theredbeacon.blogspot.com
Ben Seattle (reposted by Alex)
Summary
Many so-called “Marxist” organizations today are plagued by “cargo-cult” ideology, repeating phrases like “dictatorship of the proletariat” without fully understanding what they mean. Why are people so intent on drinking the kool-aid? Because they WANT to believe that things are OK.
Sadly, many “revolutionary” organizations today have completely failed to address the need for democratic rights of free speech under workers’ rule, and, ultimately, fail to take on revolutionary tasks.
What is the solution?
We need mass democracy! We are in dire need of a revolutionary organization based on the principle of transparency to serve the needs of the working class struggle!
This is an abridged version of Ben Seattle’s work, “Cargo-Cult Leninism” vs. Political transparency.
==============================================
What is "The Red Beacon?"
==============================================
This is a news channel run by Alex.
The goal of this channel is to spread news, opinions, and various other articles based on the principles of information war -- or the democratic, open struggle for ideas.
The ultimate aim of this channel is to create an environment where serious discussion can be held regarding important political and theoretical questions that will advance the anti-war and revolutionary movements. This is part of an attempt to end the crisis of theory in the leftist community today, and make way for the coming of a movement that will end war and end ultimately end bourgeois rule.
This channel also believes that readers have the right to have their comments known to an international audience, and to have their comments responded to with something thoughtful and useful (if they want it).
More info can be found in the "Afterword" section of this article.
====================================================
Our featured presentation
====================================================
These sections were originally published
in “Cargo-Cult” Leninism vs. Political Transparency
-- by Ben Seattle, June 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem with pragmatism
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank's main argument is that readers need only look at the fruit of his work and compare it to the fruit of Ben’s work – and that is all you really need to know about our respective principles.
In other words, Frank points to the success of SAIC and compares this to the lack of success (so far) of our community-in-embryo. On this basis, Frank argues that his views must be correct and that the "information war" and "community" principles which I advocate must be worthless.
The problem with this argument is that it amounts to what is sometimes called "pragmatism".
It is true that, by its fruit, we can know the tree (ie: we can judge the effectiveness of competing principles by looking at the practical results of these principles when applied to the real world). This is the basis of the scientific method: you determine truth by experiment.
But "pragmatism" tends to take this principle too far. Some experiments may only produce results when there is:
(1) a critical mass of talented and dedicated people
(2) sufficient time and
(3) favorable circumstances
So Frank may be deceiving himself when he claims that the "information war" and "community" principles are worthless. We have not yet proven that these principles are powerful but neither has Frank proven that they are not.
So this question is not yet settled. [1]
Attempts to create light bulbs and airplanes were not successful except after many repeated attempts. Nor has there ever been a revolution that put the working class firmly into power. But we do not conclude from this that light bulbs, airplanes or proletarian revolutions are impossible.
Further, sometimes the results of an experiment can be misleading. The RCP, for example, has been able to put together a national organization and organize actions of various kinds. However this does not prove that the RCP's orientation is correct. On a larger scale, the Soviet people, under Stalin’s leadership, defeated Hitler. However this does not prove that Stalin's principles were all correct either.
Footnote 1: The sentence "So this question is not yet settled" was added, for clarity, on July 14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cargo cults and cargo-cult Leninism
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a name for the kind of religion that is formed when people encounter an advanced technology which they are unable to understand: it is called a "cargo cult" (named after the South Pacific islanders who encountered American military logistics teams during the second world war and who, as a result, attempted to contact the gods of cargo by doing such things as carving microphones out of wood and headphones out of coconut shells and repeating the magic phrase "Roger, over and out" in hopes that the big silver birds would land with their bellies full of precious cargo).
Anthropologists have counted at least 75 cargo cults that formed independently of one another, in regions separated by thousands of miles, in the period from the 1890’s to the end of the second world war. These cults became popular because they embodied the anti-colonial sentiments of the native islanders and their belief that they, too, were entitled to a share of the material benefits of civilization. Cargo cults united peoples of different tribes that, previously, had little in common and led to such things as mass boycotts of mandatory attendance at missionary churches.
For this reason, the European colonialists would beat and imprison cargo cult leaders. There is at least one cargo cult that is still active (the “Jon Frum” movement in Vanuatu, east of Australia).
Cargo cults are fascinating for several reasons. They give us insight into the formation of religion and the process of human cognition. We tend to understand things on the basis of their external features and appearance. Hence the tendency to copy the outward appearance of phenomenon which we want to emulate but do not understand.
Many “Marxist” groups are caught up in what I call “cargo-cult Leninism” and have developed their own tribal totems and taboos. Basically, they have created a little religion on the basis of an appreciation for (but a limited understanding of) Lenin’s 1917 revolution. Frank and the CVO make a fetish out of centralized control and they repeat magic words and phrases such as “dialectical materialism”, "democratic centralism", “dictatorship of the proletariat”. And they can repeat by rote many sacred definitions. But they do not understand what these words mean.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
– Join our group – We can do your thinking for you
(Why do supporters of left-wing groups so often drink the kool-aid ?)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Groups on the left are often bonded together on the basis of special beliefs and practices – which are sometimes shallow and silly – and which often undermine work to build the antiwar and revolutionary movements. Why do supporters of these groups so often “drink the kool-aid” and accept and believe shallow arguments?
Because they WANT to believe
-------------------------------------------
1. They want to be loyal to their group
2. Things seem to be going ok
3. People who advance these arguments have proven knowledgeable in the past on
many related topics and are generally good people, likeable and trustworthy
4. People sense that these common beliefs play a vital role in holding the organization together and any challenge to them might threaten or destabilize the organization.
5. The group has developed an internal language and a system of rationalizations (ie: internal arguments) supporting their beliefs that are plausible enough, (in the absence of effective challenge) to feel good
6. The perception is that there is relatively little harm if one is mistaken. So why worry?
7. Looking too deeply into supporting arguments requires independent thought and analysis which requires hard work and can be difficult and uncomfortable.
What is the Solution?
-------------------------------
An exclusive focus on rooting for the organization which one supports – might be appropriate for a football or basketball game – but these attitudes are deeply corrupt and immensely damaging to the revolutionary movement. We need a clean break from these kinds of corrupt traditions – we need to develop a new tradition – one of individual accountability and commitment to integrity on the important political and theoretical questions of our time.
Accountability and independent thought require regular participation in public forums
-------------------------------------------------------------
Supporters of groups on the left can take steps to develop their capacity for independent thought and analysis by regular participation in public forums where they can gain experience in defending the views and practices of the group they support and, in the process, learn from others. Posting once a month (or at least several times a year) in a forum suitable for the kinds of discussions that unfold over weeks or months – and responding to calm and intelligent criticism – can help supporters learn to be accountable to the movement and to discover weaknesses and potential problems in the views, practices and internal rationalizations of the group they support.
“Cargo-Cult Leninism” vs.
Political Transparency can
be found in full here:
http://struggle.net/struggle/mass-democracy
=================================================
Afterword
=================================================
Contents
-----------------------------------------
1. How to get a reply to your comments/criticism
2. Why can’t we get a response at Indymedia or RevLeft?
3. What is "The Red Beacon?"
4. Our mission
5. Links for more info
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. How to get a reply to your comments/criticism
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
YOUR COMMENTS/CRITICISM ARE WANTED AND NEEDED! I am an activist much like yourself. I make mistakes. Therefore, your thoughtful comments and criticism can only help me in achieving my goal, and they are most welcome.
However, if you are seeing this on an Indymedia or RevLeft page, here is what we recommend:
1. Refrain from posting on Indymedia or Revleft. Instead, post on this channel’s page where the article was originally posted: http://theredbeacon.blogspot.com/2007/08/cargo-cult-leninism-part-2.html
2. If you want a serious response, make that clear in your post.
3. It would be nice if you listed the site where you saw this.
4. Wait, and we should make a useful response within TEN DAYS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Why can’t we get a response at Indymedia or RevLeft?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First of all, Indymedia articles only stay in the main column for a couple of days. Honestly, thoughtful responses can sometimes take several days, which is time we don't have with Indymedia. The same is true of RevLeft. If few people comment on a post, it gets put off the front page. Anyone can write something quickly, but to write something thoughtful takes more time.
If you post on this channel’s page, it gives me more time to generate a useful response to your comments and criticism: http://theredbeacon.blogspot.com/2007/08/cargo-cult-leninism-part-2.html
Note that if you're already here on our blog, you can just post here (obviously).
------------------------------------------------------------
3. What is "The Red Beacon?"
------------------------------------------------------------
Again, this is a news channel run by Alex.
It is part of a broader community called the Media Weapon community, which can be found here: http://mediaweapon.com
At this stage, the "community" is more of a community-in-embryo, as very few activists post frequently and with useful information.
However, this can change, and this channel is part of an attempt to change it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Our Mission
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The goal of this channel is to spread news, opinions, and various other articles based on the principles of information war -- or the democratic, open struggle for ideas
My ultimate aim is to create an environment where serious discussion can be held regarding important political and theoretical questions that will advance the anti-war and revolutionary movements. This is part of an attempt to end the crisis of theory in the leftist community today, and make way for the coming of a movement that will end war and end ultimately end bourgeois rule.
This channel also believes that readers have the right to have their comments known to an international audience, and to have their comments responded to with something thoughtful and useful (if they want it).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Links for more info
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Seattle -- http://struggle.net/ben
"Cargo-Cult Leninism" vs. Political Transparency -- http://struggle.net/struggle.mass-democracy
The Red Beacon -- http://theredbeacon.blogspot.com
"Cargo-Cult Leninism" (Part 1)
Author
Ben Seattle (reposted by Alex)
Summary
Many, so-called “Marxist” organizations today are plagued by “cargo-cult” ideology, repeating phrases like “dictatorship of the proletariat” without fully understanding what they mean. Why are people so intent on drinking the kool-aid? Because they WANT to believe that things are OK.
Sadly, many “revolutionary” organizations today have completely failed to address the need for democratic rights of free speech under workers’ rule, and, ultimately, fail to take on revolutionary tasks.
What is the solution?
We need mass democracy! We are in dire need of a revolutionary organization based on the principle of transparency to serve the needs of the working class struggle!
This is an abridged version of Ben Seattle’s work, “Cargo-Cult Leninism” vs. Political transparency.
==============================================
What is "The Red Beacon?"
==============================================
This is a news channel run by Alex.
The goal of this channel is to spread news, opinions, and various other articles based on the principles of information war -- or the democratic, open struggle for ideas.
The ultimate aim of this channel is to create an environment where serious discussion can be held regarding important political and theoretical questions that will advance the anti-war and revolutionary movements. This is part of an attempt to end the crisis of theory in the leftist community today, and make way for the coming of a movement that will end war and end ultimately end bourgeois rule.
This channel also believes that readers have the right to have their comments known to an international audience, and to have their comments responded to with something thoughtful and useful (if they want it).
More info can be found in the "Afterword" section of this article.
====================================================
Our featured presentation
====================================================
These sections were originally published
in “Cargo-Cult” Leninism vs. Political Transparency
-- by Ben Seattle, June 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my recent annual report (May 2007) I discussed the principles which I believe must guide the Seattle Anti-Imperialist Committee (SAIC) in order for it to fulfill its potential to evolve into a revolutionary mass organization. Frank, a supporter of SAIC and the Communist Voice Organization (CVO), replied to me at length and opposed, in particular, my proposal that the SAIC website add a section where SAIC members and supporters could post articles or opinions -- arguing that this would somehow make it more difficult for activists to resolve their differences. Frank also opposed my proposal that SAIC take up explicitly revolutionary tasks, such as encouraging discussion aimed at creating a clear vision of our revolutionary goal. Frank also made a number of criticisms of me and the principles which have guided my political work for the last 15 years.
I am replying to Frank in order to draw attention to the principles which I believe will be the salvation of the revolutionary movement. It is unlikely, in the short run, that my arguments here will have much influence with SAIC or CVO activists, much less Frank. I believe, however, that in the long run -- the effort to forge and clearly explain fundamental principles will be of immense value. If the antiwar movement in the US takes a more serious turn, in which a large section of activists throw off illusions that US imperialism can be reformed (similar to what happened in 1968), then many activists will understand organizational principles to be a matter of life and death. In a period of great urgency and confusion we will need clear descriptions of principles that conform to the needs of the movement.
Resolution requires open struggle
---------------------------------------------
The first principle of a mass organization based on mass democracy -- is that resolution of our differences requires a period of open struggle in which the best arguments on each side are brought out in the light of the sun and sufficient time exists for activists to study, consider, discuss and debate these arguments. Allowing supporters to post to the SAIC website conforms to this principle.
Movement needs revolutionary organization
------------------------------------------------------------
Frank has argued that SAIC cannot take up revolutionary tasks because it is not a "communist" organization and that "our agreement" is that these tasks be entrusted to "other organizations and forums" (ie: the CVO). It is traditional in the movement for a cargo-cult organization of one or another flavor (ie: trotskyist, avakianite, etc) to lead a mass organization which includes those not inclined to drink the kool-aid. But that does not make it right. Frank advocates that SAIC entrust the CVO with tasks such as:
(a) developing SAIC’s ideological life (ie: by means of the CVO study group [*]) and
(b) developing and putting forward aclear vision of our revolutionary goal.
But SAIC should not be dependent in either of these ways on the CVO. First because SAIC should stand on its own feet and second because the CVO is utterly unreliable on both counts:
(a) people like me (who have done independent theoretical work and are aware of the CVO’s shortcomings) are excluded from the CVO study group
(b) the CVO is totally incapable of putting forward a clear vision of our revolutionary goal. For example: in the 12 years since they were founded they have never said a single word in print that recognizes and discusses the need for the working class and masses to have the democratic rights of speech and organization in order to exercise control over the economy, culture and politics of society in the period after bourgeois rule has been overthrown. The CVO appears to be aware of the brutal suppression of democratic rights over many decades by the former Soviet Union and the current Chinese regimes – but they are unable to reach the conclusion that they have any obligation to make it clear that their goal is not a similar society – even though their leaflets and theoretical journal are festooned with the hammer and sickle symbols of these regimes and they use various phrases (like: "socialism") which they repeat but are unable to understand, explain or defend.
We need calm, long-term discussion
-------------------------------------------------
I look forward to reading calm and considered opinions concerning the principles which are decisive to our movement. In the months and years ahead we will all gain experience and learn from our mistakes.
* [Footnote by Ben. July 14] After writing this I learned that the study group is not an official CVO study group. It is an informal study group. A SAIC supporter emailed me and informed me that the reason I was not welcome was because my participation would tend to distract from their study.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is political transparency? (It means that activists can see what goes on behind the curtain)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is political transparency? Political transparency means that everything that is politically important can be known by anyone who cares. In the context of a mass organization it means that activists can easily find out (for example, by going to the website of the organization) about the internal struggles, or contradictions, within the organization. It means that activists have the right to know:
1) What political trends play an important role in the life of the organization and
2) What political agendas exist and how the struggle between these political agendas unfolds.
It is also important (in order to clear up common misconceptions) to explain what political transparency is not. Political transparency does not mean that there will be unnecessary compromise of issues related to:
(1) personal or organizational security,
(2) personal privacy or
(3) time-sensitive tactical info related to upcoming mass actions.
Activists must have the right to know about the internal struggles within the mass organization – so that they can intervene in these struggles with the weight of their convictions and experience.
If activists do not have this right – then it is not really their organization – it does not really belong to the movement. It is as simple as that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The opposite of transparency (Stonewalling: the easy answer to all criticism)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are there any bothersome questions that it is difficult to answer? Are you not sure how to reply when someone suggests your actions reflect incompetence, hypocrisy or corruption?
The solution is easy! Just don’t answer! Let hell freeze over before anyone can hold you accountable for what you say or do!
Why does the CVO refuse to talk about the necessity of fundamental democratic rights of speech and organization when the working class runs society? Your guess is as good as mine ... they will not say. Does the CVO understand that concerns about a police state are a major ideological roadblock that makes it difficult for activists to recognize the need to overthrow the system of bourgeois rule? They will not say. Why did the CVO refuse to condemn the US imperialist bombing of the Balkans that helped to pave the way for the current war in Iraq? They will not say. Does the CVO believe it is important for a revolutionary organization to be accountable and to answer questions? They will not say. But, in this case, their actions tell us everything we need to know.
“Cargo-Cult Leninism” vs.
Political Transparency can
be found in full here:
http://struggle.net/struggle/mass-democracy
=================================================
Afterword
=================================================
Contents
-----------------------------------------
1. How to get a reply to your comments/criticism
2. Why can’t we get a response at Indymedia or RevLeft?
3. What is this?
4. Our mission
5. Links for more info
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. How to get a reply to your comments/criticism
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
YOUR COMMENTS/CRITICISM ARE WANTED AND NEEDED! I am an activist much like yourself. I make mistakes. Therefore, your thoughtful comments and criticism can only help me in achieving my goal, and they are most welcome.
However, if you are seeing this on an Indymedia or RevLeft page, here is what we recommend:
1. Refrain from posting on Indymedia or Revleft. Instead, post on this channel’s page where the article was originally posted: http://theredbeacon.blogspot.com/2007/08/cargo-cult-leninism-part-1.html
2. If you want a serious response, make that clear in your post.
3. It would be nice if you listed the site where you saw this.
4. Wait, and we should make a useful response within TEN DAYS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Why can’t we get a response at Indymedia or RevLeft?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First of all, Indymedia articles only stay in the main column for a couple of days. Honestly, thoughtful responses can sometimes take several days, which is time we don't have with Indymedia. The same is true of RevLeft. If few people comment on a post, it gets put off the front page. Anyone can write something quickly, but to write something thoughtful takes more time.
If you post on this channel’s page, it gives me more time to generate a useful response to your comments and criticism: http://theredbeacon.blogspot.com/2007/08/cargo-cult-leninism-part-1.html
Note that if you're already here on our blog, you can just post here (obviously).
------------------------------------------------------------
3. What is "The Red Beacon?"
------------------------------------------------------------
Again, this is a news channel run by Alex.
It is part of a broader community called the Media Weapon community, which can be found here: http://mediaweapon.com
At this stage, the "community" is more of a community-in-embryo, as very few activists post frequently and with useful information.
However, this can change, and this channel is part of an attempt to change it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Our Mission
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The goal of this channel is to spread news, opinions, and various other articles based on the principles of information war -- or the democratic, open struggle for ideas
My ultimate aim is to create an environment where serious discussion can be held regarding important political and theoretical questions that will advance the anti-war and revolutionary movements. This is part of an attempt to end the crisis of theory in the leftist community today, and make way for the coming of a movement that will end war and end ultimately end bourgeois rule.
This channel also believes that readers have the right to have their comments known to an international audience, and to have their comments responded to with something thoughtful and useful (if they want it).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Links for more info
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Seattle -- http://struggle.net/ben
"Cargo-Cult Leninism" vs. Political Transparency -- http://struggle.net/struggle.mass-democracy
The Red Beacon -- http://theredbeacon.blogspot.com
Ben Seattle (reposted by Alex)
Summary
Many, so-called “Marxist” organizations today are plagued by “cargo-cult” ideology, repeating phrases like “dictatorship of the proletariat” without fully understanding what they mean. Why are people so intent on drinking the kool-aid? Because they WANT to believe that things are OK.
Sadly, many “revolutionary” organizations today have completely failed to address the need for democratic rights of free speech under workers’ rule, and, ultimately, fail to take on revolutionary tasks.
What is the solution?
We need mass democracy! We are in dire need of a revolutionary organization based on the principle of transparency to serve the needs of the working class struggle!
This is an abridged version of Ben Seattle’s work, “Cargo-Cult Leninism” vs. Political transparency.
==============================================
What is "The Red Beacon?"
==============================================
This is a news channel run by Alex.
The goal of this channel is to spread news, opinions, and various other articles based on the principles of information war -- or the democratic, open struggle for ideas.
The ultimate aim of this channel is to create an environment where serious discussion can be held regarding important political and theoretical questions that will advance the anti-war and revolutionary movements. This is part of an attempt to end the crisis of theory in the leftist community today, and make way for the coming of a movement that will end war and end ultimately end bourgeois rule.
This channel also believes that readers have the right to have their comments known to an international audience, and to have their comments responded to with something thoughtful and useful (if they want it).
More info can be found in the "Afterword" section of this article.
====================================================
Our featured presentation
====================================================
These sections were originally published
in “Cargo-Cult” Leninism vs. Political Transparency
-- by Ben Seattle, June 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my recent annual report (May 2007) I discussed the principles which I believe must guide the Seattle Anti-Imperialist Committee (SAIC) in order for it to fulfill its potential to evolve into a revolutionary mass organization. Frank, a supporter of SAIC and the Communist Voice Organization (CVO), replied to me at length and opposed, in particular, my proposal that the SAIC website add a section where SAIC members and supporters could post articles or opinions -- arguing that this would somehow make it more difficult for activists to resolve their differences. Frank also opposed my proposal that SAIC take up explicitly revolutionary tasks, such as encouraging discussion aimed at creating a clear vision of our revolutionary goal. Frank also made a number of criticisms of me and the principles which have guided my political work for the last 15 years.
I am replying to Frank in order to draw attention to the principles which I believe will be the salvation of the revolutionary movement. It is unlikely, in the short run, that my arguments here will have much influence with SAIC or CVO activists, much less Frank. I believe, however, that in the long run -- the effort to forge and clearly explain fundamental principles will be of immense value. If the antiwar movement in the US takes a more serious turn, in which a large section of activists throw off illusions that US imperialism can be reformed (similar to what happened in 1968), then many activists will understand organizational principles to be a matter of life and death. In a period of great urgency and confusion we will need clear descriptions of principles that conform to the needs of the movement.
Resolution requires open struggle
---------------------------------------------
The first principle of a mass organization based on mass democracy -- is that resolution of our differences requires a period of open struggle in which the best arguments on each side are brought out in the light of the sun and sufficient time exists for activists to study, consider, discuss and debate these arguments. Allowing supporters to post to the SAIC website conforms to this principle.
Movement needs revolutionary organization
------------------------------------------------------------
Frank has argued that SAIC cannot take up revolutionary tasks because it is not a "communist" organization and that "our agreement" is that these tasks be entrusted to "other organizations and forums" (ie: the CVO). It is traditional in the movement for a cargo-cult organization of one or another flavor (ie: trotskyist, avakianite, etc) to lead a mass organization which includes those not inclined to drink the kool-aid. But that does not make it right. Frank advocates that SAIC entrust the CVO with tasks such as:
(a) developing SAIC’s ideological life (ie: by means of the CVO study group [*]) and
(b) developing and putting forward aclear vision of our revolutionary goal.
But SAIC should not be dependent in either of these ways on the CVO. First because SAIC should stand on its own feet and second because the CVO is utterly unreliable on both counts:
(a) people like me (who have done independent theoretical work and are aware of the CVO’s shortcomings) are excluded from the CVO study group
(b) the CVO is totally incapable of putting forward a clear vision of our revolutionary goal. For example: in the 12 years since they were founded they have never said a single word in print that recognizes and discusses the need for the working class and masses to have the democratic rights of speech and organization in order to exercise control over the economy, culture and politics of society in the period after bourgeois rule has been overthrown. The CVO appears to be aware of the brutal suppression of democratic rights over many decades by the former Soviet Union and the current Chinese regimes – but they are unable to reach the conclusion that they have any obligation to make it clear that their goal is not a similar society – even though their leaflets and theoretical journal are festooned with the hammer and sickle symbols of these regimes and they use various phrases (like: "socialism") which they repeat but are unable to understand, explain or defend.
We need calm, long-term discussion
-------------------------------------------------
I look forward to reading calm and considered opinions concerning the principles which are decisive to our movement. In the months and years ahead we will all gain experience and learn from our mistakes.
* [Footnote by Ben. July 14] After writing this I learned that the study group is not an official CVO study group. It is an informal study group. A SAIC supporter emailed me and informed me that the reason I was not welcome was because my participation would tend to distract from their study.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is political transparency? (It means that activists can see what goes on behind the curtain)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is political transparency? Political transparency means that everything that is politically important can be known by anyone who cares. In the context of a mass organization it means that activists can easily find out (for example, by going to the website of the organization) about the internal struggles, or contradictions, within the organization. It means that activists have the right to know:
1) What political trends play an important role in the life of the organization and
2) What political agendas exist and how the struggle between these political agendas unfolds.
It is also important (in order to clear up common misconceptions) to explain what political transparency is not. Political transparency does not mean that there will be unnecessary compromise of issues related to:
(1) personal or organizational security,
(2) personal privacy or
(3) time-sensitive tactical info related to upcoming mass actions.
Activists must have the right to know about the internal struggles within the mass organization – so that they can intervene in these struggles with the weight of their convictions and experience.
If activists do not have this right – then it is not really their organization – it does not really belong to the movement. It is as simple as that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The opposite of transparency (Stonewalling: the easy answer to all criticism)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are there any bothersome questions that it is difficult to answer? Are you not sure how to reply when someone suggests your actions reflect incompetence, hypocrisy or corruption?
The solution is easy! Just don’t answer! Let hell freeze over before anyone can hold you accountable for what you say or do!
Why does the CVO refuse to talk about the necessity of fundamental democratic rights of speech and organization when the working class runs society? Your guess is as good as mine ... they will not say. Does the CVO understand that concerns about a police state are a major ideological roadblock that makes it difficult for activists to recognize the need to overthrow the system of bourgeois rule? They will not say. Why did the CVO refuse to condemn the US imperialist bombing of the Balkans that helped to pave the way for the current war in Iraq? They will not say. Does the CVO believe it is important for a revolutionary organization to be accountable and to answer questions? They will not say. But, in this case, their actions tell us everything we need to know.
“Cargo-Cult Leninism” vs.
Political Transparency can
be found in full here:
http://struggle.net/struggle/mass-democracy
=================================================
Afterword
=================================================
Contents
-----------------------------------------
1. How to get a reply to your comments/criticism
2. Why can’t we get a response at Indymedia or RevLeft?
3. What is this?
4. Our mission
5. Links for more info
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. How to get a reply to your comments/criticism
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
YOUR COMMENTS/CRITICISM ARE WANTED AND NEEDED! I am an activist much like yourself. I make mistakes. Therefore, your thoughtful comments and criticism can only help me in achieving my goal, and they are most welcome.
However, if you are seeing this on an Indymedia or RevLeft page, here is what we recommend:
1. Refrain from posting on Indymedia or Revleft. Instead, post on this channel’s page where the article was originally posted: http://theredbeacon.blogspot.com/2007/08/cargo-cult-leninism-part-1.html
2. If you want a serious response, make that clear in your post.
3. It would be nice if you listed the site where you saw this.
4. Wait, and we should make a useful response within TEN DAYS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Why can’t we get a response at Indymedia or RevLeft?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First of all, Indymedia articles only stay in the main column for a couple of days. Honestly, thoughtful responses can sometimes take several days, which is time we don't have with Indymedia. The same is true of RevLeft. If few people comment on a post, it gets put off the front page. Anyone can write something quickly, but to write something thoughtful takes more time.
If you post on this channel’s page, it gives me more time to generate a useful response to your comments and criticism: http://theredbeacon.blogspot.com/2007/08/cargo-cult-leninism-part-1.html
Note that if you're already here on our blog, you can just post here (obviously).
------------------------------------------------------------
3. What is "The Red Beacon?"
------------------------------------------------------------
Again, this is a news channel run by Alex.
It is part of a broader community called the Media Weapon community, which can be found here: http://mediaweapon.com
At this stage, the "community" is more of a community-in-embryo, as very few activists post frequently and with useful information.
However, this can change, and this channel is part of an attempt to change it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Our Mission
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The goal of this channel is to spread news, opinions, and various other articles based on the principles of information war -- or the democratic, open struggle for ideas
My ultimate aim is to create an environment where serious discussion can be held regarding important political and theoretical questions that will advance the anti-war and revolutionary movements. This is part of an attempt to end the crisis of theory in the leftist community today, and make way for the coming of a movement that will end war and end ultimately end bourgeois rule.
This channel also believes that readers have the right to have their comments known to an international audience, and to have their comments responded to with something thoughtful and useful (if they want it).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Links for more info
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Seattle -- http://struggle.net/ben
"Cargo-Cult Leninism" vs. Political Transparency -- http://struggle.net/struggle.mass-democracy
The Red Beacon -- http://theredbeacon.blogspot.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)