(part 2) Who will rule? An organization--or the working class?

-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Seattle
Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2007 9:42 PM
To: 'pof-300'
Subject: [pof-300] (part 2) Who will rule? An organization--or the working class?


Ben - June 30:
--------------

> 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

Hi Alex,

I went to the gathering point for the confrontation between the
Minutemen (and their supporters) and anti-racist activists. Both
sides gathered at the foot of the Space Needle at noon today.
There were about 60 people (including wives and kids) of this
proto-fascist movement--and about 30 of us.

Frank and a few SAIC members were there, distributing a very
solid leaflet (included in the appendix below). I distributed a
few of the leaflets and also kind of slipped around the police
lines in order to talk to the Minutemen supporters and get a
personal feel for their attitudes, politics and temperament (ie:
get to know your enemy).

Many of these people appear to be backward members of the working
class. Many of the Minutemen supporters carried signs in favor
of Ron Paul (the Republican "maverick"). They were fired up on
being "American" and all that shit. None of the people I talked
to admitted to being racist (that is not how they see themselves)
but changed the subject when I asked them why the neo-nazis and
KKK support the Minutemen. The SAIC leaflet nails it when it
says that this movement represents an attack on immigrants and
the "divide and rule" tactics of the rich.

I did not stay around for the march but heard what happened later
at SAIC's public meeting which was at 3 pm this afternoon. Both
sides marched downtown to the Federal building (about a mile and
half away) by which time the numbers on both sides had increased
(about a hundred for the proto-fascists and a slightly larger
number for us). Some anarchist kids who came to confront the
racists lobbed water balloons at them and the police sprayed many
of the anti-racist activists with pepper spray. It is unclear
whether or not there were any arrests.

Now let's talk about theory:

> (2) Is the distinction in principle between:

> (a) the rule of the working class and 
> (b) the rule of a single organization

> an important distinction on which clarity is necessary
> in order to rescue the revolutionary movement from
> the theoretical crisis which has left it paralyzed?

Frank (in an unfinished draft of a reply to me) claims that it is
"nonsense" to make such a distinction. Frank believes he is
backed up by Lenin. Frank quotes from Lenin and also uses his
own words (which are paraphrases of comments Lenin made in
various places) to make what he believes to be some kind of solid
argument.

Let's quickly review Frank's argument, in his own words, before I
make further comments:

----------------------------------------------------------
"the 'either-or' approach is nonsense"
(from Frank's unfinished draft of his reply)
----------------------------------------------------------

> Ben ends his pamphlet as follows:

> ".the goal of the revolutionary workers' movement is
> the rule of the working class as a class -- rather than
> the rule of an organization which claims to represent
> the interests of the workers. Only this can lead to
> the transition to the ultimate goal of a classless
> society with no state whatsoever." 

> Either the rule of the class, or the rule of a party
> claiming to represent working-class interests. 

> Lenin's "Left-wing' communism.." was a polemic against
> [...] Ben's above approach as "old and familiar rubbish"
> and "'Left' childishness." This is because classes are
> generally led by political parties, and during the
> period of proletarian dictatorship, the class struggle
> continues. [...] 

> Thus, during this era of transition to communist society
> the struggle to politically organize and lead the class
> struggle continues, as does the struggle to organize
> production around an economic plan--something that
> cannot be separated from politics. If the class is to
> rule, it must still be led by it's best political
> representatives and organizers, and they still need
> definite organization: a political party. And, this
> party must be merged in the class. Hence, the "either,
> or" approach is nonsense. As Lenin put it "Without an
> iron party tempered in the struggle, without a party
> capable of watching and influencing the mood of the
> masses, it is impossible to conduct the struggle
> successfully."

> [...] Ben [...] says that one of the key theoretical
> questions [...] is the "incompatibility of workers'
> rule with the dictatorship of a single party" (which
> could also be written the "incompatibility of workers'
> dictatorship with the rule of a single party). Thus,
> whether it's written "incompatibility", or "rather
> than", the idea remains "either, or" ...

----------------------------------------------------------
My comments on Frank's draft:
----------------------------------------------------------

I believe that Frank's arguments are flimsy and full of holes.
As we develop focus on this question we will see that Frank's
arguments evaporate.

I also looked at the comments by Lenin that Frank cites (chapter
5 of "Left-Wing Communism") and it is clear to me that Lenin was
mainly ridiculing, not the _theoretical positions_ of the German
opportunists--but their _sectarian practice_ in:

(1) splitting from the German communist party and
(2) opposing parliamentary activity and the
principled compromises that the German
communists were making with a section of
the reformists.

It is interesting that Frank believes that this principle (ie:
that there is supposedly no essential distinction between the
rule of a single organization and the rule of the working class
as a class) is important. The theoretical journal of his
organization (the CVO) has never, that I can recall, committed
itself to a position on this question. Why would Frank's journal
not take a position on a question that Frank believes is
important? Probably because Joseph (the editor of the journal)
is too clever to draw attention an issue such as this that would
threaten to undermine his prestige.

Frank is correct that the class struggle will continue after
bourgeois rule is overthrown and that the working class will need
leadership during this intense class struggle. And this
leadership will need to be organized.

Where Frank runs into trouble is that he _assumes_ that this
organization will necessarily take the form of a _single_
organization.

The Stalinist political machine advanced arguments to promote
this idea when it opposed the "division of authority".

But it is not necessarily true that the leaders of the working
class will be part of a single organization following the
overthrow of bourgeois rule. They may be--or they may not. They
may be at some times and they may not at others. No one can
predict the nature of working class organization in any kind of
exact detail in a situation that is likely to be extremely
turbulent and fluid.

I think that we can say that working class leaders will be united
on some important questions and opposed to one another on other
important questions. This opposition on important questions
will, in nearly all situations, be highly public--and the working
class as a whole will have an intense interest in the struggles
and the outcomes--and different sections of the class (and
individuals within the class) will take one or another side at
different times.

This public opposition (ie: between the leaders of the working
class, and their respective followers, to one another) will
inevitably take some kind of organizational form--even if it
takes the form of organizations of people who are united in some
kind of larger or umbrella organization.

Where Frank gets confused, I think, is that he loses sight of the
essential distinction between the nature of a organization which
represents the interests of the working class--and the nature of
the workers' state.

The workers' organizations are based on voluntary actions.

The workers' state, on the other hand, has the power of coercion.

This is absolutely fundamental.

Frank writes that the party must be "merged" in the class. In
this case "merged" is a weasel word that Frank is compelled to
use to deny the distinction between the party and the class. The
class is not the party. The class cannot rule _as a class_ when
one section of its leaders can lock up, torture or shoot other,
rival sections. At this point the class loses it ability to rule
as a class. And what rules is a _section_ of the class leaders
who, over time, lose connection with the class and emerge as a
new ruling class of oppressors.

This is not merely some kind of academic question. This is what
happened to Lenin's 1917 revolution and the Chinese revolution
and all the other "working class revolutions". Every one of
them, without exception, were either born as a dictatorship of a
few over the many--or degenerated in that direction until what
was left were scenes from the novels of George Orwell: stinking,
criminal oppression of hundreds of millions while singing songs
and waving red flags. 

The result of this has been to shake the confidence of the
working class and the revolutionary movement. What went wrong
with these revolutions? If we sacrifice for a revolution in this
country will the same kind of police-state degeneration also be
inevitable? Or should we simply close our eyes and say that
"shit happens" (ie: the CVO line, in concentrated form) and hope
for the best?

The degeneration of the workers' party (or parties) can only be
avoided when the working class as a whole has the concrete and
democratic rights of speech and organization. This (and only
this) will guarantee that the workers can create organizations to
effectively oppose incompetence, hypocrisy and corruption in
their own state--and their own organizations.

And yet, when workers have the right to create independent
organizations, many of these organizations will inevitably, as
they develop and grow, demand and win the right to play a role in
the state itself.

So the two questions I raise at the beginning of this post:

(1) the inseparability of democratic rights
    from workers' rule,
(2) the incompatibility of workers' rule with the
    dictatorship of a single party or organization

are themselves intertwined:

(1) If the workers have fundamental democratic rights then they
will have multiple organizations and these organizations will
aspire to and win representation (in some form) in the state.

(2) And if the "dictatorship of the proletariat" (often
abbreviated as "DoP") takes the form of the rule of a single
organization with a monopoly of political power--it can only
maintain this position by waging war against these fundamental
democratic rights.

Frank's various arguments and "word tricks" (such as "merged")
cannot remove from our agenda the need for a sober summation and
accounting of the massive betrayal of the Soviet and Chinese
revisionists. US imperialism has a relatively free hand in the
world today because the Soviet and Chinese revolutions were
either born crippled or quickly degenerated. The revolutionary
peoples of the Middle East and Central Asia (many of them) are
left embracing the dead end of reactionary feudal religion
because the revolutionary movement has, so far, not shaken off
the dead hand of the past. Because of the dead hand of the
past--the vast productive forces of the world, today, are not
being used to provide for the needs of the overwhelming majority
of humanity--and are instead used to enslave hundreds of millions
with bombs, prisons and escapist culture that cuts our connection
with the rest of humanity. And the revolutionary movement will
not be able to shake off the dead hand of the past until it
smashes up the existing theoretical obstacles which lead
cargo-cult organizations (like Frank's CVO) to, essentially,
ignore the distinction in theory between the rule of a single
organization and the rule of the entire working class as a class.

----------------------------------------------------------
Attempting to hide behind Lenin
----------------------------------------------------------

Frank claims that he is backed up by Lenin. Frank even claims
that Lenin called the distinction between the rule of an
organization and the rule of the entire working class "old and
familiar rubbish".

As I noted, I looked into this.

Lenin was targeting the sectarian practice of the German "lefts".
Lenin ridiculed their theoretical views because they were
attempting to use these theoretical views to justify their
sectarian practices.

For example, if Frank advocated that an antiwar march should
begin at one place in the city and I advocated another place to
begin the march -- and I justified my choice by claiming that
Frank stands for the rule of some leaders while I stand for the
rule of the entire class -- then Frank would be completely
justified in ridiculing how I am using such a question to justify
something that is entirely unrelated. I will not (here and now)
attempt to explain the political situation in either Germany or
Russia in 1920 (ie: when "Left-Wing Communism" was written) but
will simply note that the theoretical question that the German
lefts were raising was completely irrelevant to the sectarian
practices they were advocating. That is why the German lefts
were deserving of ridicule.

Of course Lenin had an opportunity, at the time, to clarify the
theoretical question that the lefts had raised--and discuss the
distinction in principle between the rule of an organization and
the rule of a class. And Lenin did not do so. The reason he did
not, in my view, is that this essential distinction was not as
important (in either Germany or Russia) in 1920 as it is to the
world-wide working class today. It was largely an irrelevant
question in Germany at the time and it was also not an issue in
Russia in which action could be taken. Lenin wrote in other
places (mainly in 1921 and 1922) that the restrictions on the
democratic rights of workers and peasants in Russia could not be
lifted until there was a functioning economy (something Lenin
estimated, after the Russian economy had been shattered in the
civil war, would take ten years at best and probably closer to
twenty years) and the majority of the population was no longer
desperately unhappy with the bolsheviks.

That is the problem. Lenin was writing in 1920 about conditions
in Germany and Russia and 1920. Frank is, unfortunately, tearing
quotes out of context to invent arguments in conditions today, in
the 21st century. Frank believes he is being loyal to Lenin.
The irony is that Lenin had contempt for this kind of slavish
thinking that repeats words and phrases out of context without
understanding what they mean.

This is the problem with cargo-cult Leninism. Some cargo cults
imagined that they could summon enormous quantities of cargo from
the cargo gods by holding elaborate tea ceremonies. Why? Well
it appeared to work for the British colonialists. The British
would have tea and 4 pm everyday and would periodically receive
their cargo. So why shouldn't this work for them also?

This is the level of Frank's arguments: weasel words about the
party and the class being "merged" together with tearing quotes
out of context from nearly a hundred years ago. It is no wonder
that Frank is opposed to any mention of these topics on the SAIC
website. Some part of Frank's brain understands how ridiculous
it looks for Frank to use these weasel words and to invoke the
mantle of the scientific leader of the working class (ie: Lenin)
to justify his (ie: Frank's) total servility to this kind of
religious obscurantism and his (ie: Frank's) inability to think
or talk about how the goal of the working class (ie: workers'
rule in place of bourgeois rule) will function in the context of
modern conditions.

----------------------------------------------------------
What's next?
----------------------------------------------------------

Alex--you did a great job in your letter to Frank. It would be
useful for you to follow up on this but it is important for you
to understand that it is not necessary for you to do this in a
hurry. Rather, it would be useful for you to take your time to
make sure you feel comfortable with all the issues before
replying. The discussion with Frank will likely run its course
after a very small number of exchanges--so it is good to aim for
precision.

Frank is deserving of great respect. He is more dedicated that
you and me put together. If I had half of his self-discipline I
could probably accomplish twice as much as I do now.

This is an opportunity for you to interact with a revolutionary
activist with a ton of good experience (ie: read the leaflet in
the appendix below on the Minutemen to get an idea of who you are
dealing with) who happens to, unfortunately, be crippled with a
cargo-cultist ideology at the present time. This exchange can
give you an opportunity to sharpen your ability to understand and
talk about the principles which are vital for the regeneration of
the revolutionary movement. This opportunity can also help to
raise the consciousness of some of the readers of our list and
some of the members of SAIC.

Marik is correct in his assertion that there is a limit to the
value of this discussion. We should not overestimate it but
neither should we underestimate it. In the long run our own
independent activity is what will count (ie: the revolutionary
channels that Marik and you are working on). At the same time
the current limited opportunities for productive exchanges should
be seized.

It would be great if you could somehow get Frank to make a
statement about what he has already discussed that is something
more than a draft. I am not sure I feel comfortable quoting
Frank in forums outside of the pof lists on the basis of what he
describes as "unfinished comments" that he may not have intended
(I am unclear) be made public. So if you were to explain to him
that you want to explore this topic but only feel that it is
worthwhile to do so if the discussion is public--then Frank may
finish up his comments on this topic--or maybe simply make clear
that his existing comments are "finished enough" to be public.

As far as his tendency to waste words describing how dishonest
and so forth I supposedly am -- you can simply explain to him,
truthfully, that his time is too valuable to waste on such a
trivial subject as whether I am dishonest. You have read my
arguments on key principles and my arguments make sense to you.
You would like to see Frank's best arguments that oppose these
principles. If Frank wastes time on irrelevant topics--that is a
distraction--and you want to see Frank at his best--without the
distractions.

All the best,
Ben
http://struggle.net/ben/

========================================
SAIC leaflet mobilizing for action
against the Minutemen
========================================

Confront the Minutemen, August 18!
Published August 11th, 2007 in General Statements 
Defend and build the movement for immigrant rights- 

The ruling politicians are on a rampage against the 12-13 million
undocumented immigrants peacefully living and working in this
country. This is part of a class offensive of the rich to beat
down all workers and other oppressed people. The August 18
Minutemen march in Seattle is a provocative manifestation of this
reactionary offensive.

The ruling class offensive 

In Congress, liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans have
several times united around "comprehensive immigration reform"
bills that would treat people without papers as outlaws, enact
semi-slave "guest worker" programs, and create a national I.D.
card. They would also offer financially expensive paths to
citizenship that could take from one to two decades to achieve,
with bureaucratic requirements nearly impossible for most people
to meet. These Congressional efforts have temporarily fallen
apart, but leaders of both parties promise a renewed effort after
the presidential election. Moreover, they talk about passing
piecemeal attacks before then, one of which would use
undocumented youths as cannon fodder in the U.S. war machine.
Meanwhile, the Bush Administration has not only supported the
reactionary reform legislation, but it has stepped up
Gestapo-like raids by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE) cops, whose budget has been padded in recent years. This
bipartisan political offensive is being conducted on behalf of
the employers and very rich-the capitalist class. They not only
want to super-exploit migrant workers, but they want to use this
super-exploitation as a club to drive down the wages and
conditions of all workers, citizens or not. As part of this, they
deny the millions of undocumented workers the same rights as
everyone else so that they dare not strike or raise their voices
in protest against their conditions lest they be deported. And
they offer "paths to citizenship" that are so long, costly, and
filled with obstacles where one misstep can lead to jail and
deportation that many immigrants would dare not register for
them. Furthermore, the capitalists and their political
mouth-pieces cynically point to the immigrant workers as the
cause of unemployment and lack of social services when it's their
policies and their system that are the real causes. In this way
they pit worker against worker in order to prevent them from
uniting as a class in order to wage a fight-back in their common
class interests.
The stand of the working class and all progressive people must
therefore be that only when immigrant labor has rights and gets
organized can the efforts of the capitalists to use them to drive
down all workers be foiled. Hence, the necessity of building a
powerful movement demanding full rights for all immigrants, now!
Part and parcel of building this movement is work to politically
isolate and defeat the anti-immigrant Minutemen. 

The Minutemen, pitiful little helpers of the rich

In 2005 the Minutemen split into two groups, but each grouping
maintains the same essential stands. The Minutemen differ from
the dominant Washington consensus that some path to citizenship
(no matter if it's almost impossible) be included in reform in
order to sell it to the people. And, they pride themselves for
"defending the borders" by migrant hunting and snitching to ICE,
and they want to draw more people into this. In this way they
objectively help the employers and government by driving migrants
into "the shadows", where they're more easily exploited. Further,
they help the government and the rich by working to build an
anti-immigrant mass movement that would pit the working people
against each other. Thus, the Minutemen press and radio shows
fear-monger about an "invasion" by "aliens"(!), and "alien
criminals"; and they scream that undocumented workers cause
unemployment and crumbling social services. 

But, according to these scoundrels, they're not racists, they're
only interested in enforcing the law! Why, they even say that
they're multi-ethnic! And they actually try to get African
Americans and other victims of racial discrimination to join
their reactionary movement. We're just supposed to forget that
Jim Crow was once the law- according to the Minutemen logic,
people should have formed groups in that era in order to enforce
Jim Crow laws while innocently proclaiming that they weren't
really racists. Their logic is also that people should have
joined with the racists of the time who shouted that African
Americans from the South were "taking 'white' jobs", while also
proclaiming that they really weren't racists! But, returning to
the real world, the migrants who the Minutemen hunt in the
deserts of the Southwest nearly always have brown skins, and the
Minutemen press is even "horrified" when some politician they
don't like says something in Spanish. Further, U.S. immigration
law has always been racist, and the very ICE and Department of
Homeland Security that the Minutemen love so much are themselves
racist to the core.

The Minutemen's alleged concern about citizen's jobs is equally
threadbare. It has not been Mexican or other migrants who've
carried out massive layoffs in basic industries across the
country, but the capitalists. In fact, unemployment is a product
of the capitalist system of production, and it exists in
countries that people migrate from, just as much, if not more, as
countries that they migrate to. The way to fight unemployment is
to build unified movements against plant closings and layoffs, as
well as a larger movement demanding work or good compensation for
all. Scape-goating "illegal" immigrants sabotages this necessary
struggle.Mobilize for August 18! 

Politicians at all levels of government have long been making the
same racist anti-immigrant appeals as the Minutemen do, so
there's nothing new or original in them. But this shows that work
to politically isolate the Minutemen among the masses by
debunking their rubbish also serves to politically isolate the
politicians of the anti-immigrant establishment. It's therefore
an important part of building the immigrant rights movement.
Furthermore, the Minutemen have been holding rallies and marches
all over the country during the past months in order to build up
their reactionary movement, and this should not go unchallenged.
In fact, in Los Angeles and other cities the "feared" Minutemen
have more than once had the wind taken out of their sails when
large numbers of workers, youth, national minorities and other
progressive people surrounded them, denounced them, and broke up
their rallies. In Seattle we should strive to build a movement
that can do the same. Several groups have already called an
anti-Minutemen action against their scheduled Seattle Center
rally and, to prepare for it, we think that this call should be
spread more widely among the masses of people. 

Down with the Minutemen!
An injury to immigrants is an injury to all workers!
Full rights for all immigrants, now!

Seattle Anti-Imperialist Committee 
August 9, 2007

Meet at the foot of the Space Needle, Saturday, August 18, 12:00
noon