revolutionary mass organization
(there are two posts by Ben on this page, both written August 14.)
-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Seattle
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 10:05 AM
To: 'pof-300@yahoogroups.com'
Subject: RE: [pof-300] Frank's Reply to Me, which also serves as
a reply to Ben
Hi Alex,
> Ben, this is his first attempt to respond to
> your June 30 reply to him, so perhaps sending
> him my letter was indeed a good idea, since
> it's gotten him to make a response.
Yes, it certainly looks like it :-)
Frank (who may or may not be quoting Lenin):
> Either the rule of the class, or the rule of
> a party claiming to represent working-class interests.
Frank is coming close to making a statement on a very important
political and theoretical question: will working class rule
assume the form of the rule of a single organization?
This is what happened in the Soviet Union. The party and state
were merged. This was not a "correct" thing to do from the
perspective of marxist theory. Rather, Lenin defended this
merger by explaining that it was an emergency measure in a period
of extreme crisis. I agree with Lenin on both points.
If the party and state are merged -- then you don't really the
dictatorship of the class. You have the dictatorship of an
organization. At best you have the dictatorship-in-embryo of a
class that will hopefully grow in the right direction (but it
didn't). But it is not the dictatorship of the class unless the
members of the class have the right to speak out and organize
themselves independent of the state in order to exercize this
dictatorship.
Frank, like many cargo-cultists, argues by means of isolated and
out-of-context quotes by Lenin. Scientific argument is reduced
to throwing around quotes and arguing over what they meant. The
experience of Lenin's 1917 revolution is invaluable and certainly
deserving of study. But we can't be intimidated by people who
throw quotes around without understanding what these quotes mean.
If Frank wants to argue that worker's rule will consist of the
rule of a single organization -- then he should do so. I doubt
he will. I think that Frank would like to ignore this topic and
simply hope that it all goes away.
But it will not go away. The hopes and dreams of all humanity
require that we develop an understanding of a world without
bourgeois rule that is realistic and can be defended without
having to throw around out-of-context quotes.
I will eventually have more to say but I am not yet certain I
will be able to do so this month.
All the best,
Ben
-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Seattle
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 11:55 AM
To: pof-300@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [pof-300] revolutionary mass organization
(was: Frank's Reply to Me, which also serves as a reply to Ben)
more (briefly):
-- 1 --
Frank:
> Marxists have always helped initiate and build mass
> organization to fight the class enemy, i.e., trade
> unions, anti-racist and anti-fascist organizations
> of various types, organizations to defend and expand
> the rights and role of women, militias, armies, and
> many others. But they've also seen it as a "left" or
> sectarian error to demand that such groups adopt the
> communist maximum program. This is because under
> capitalism (and for a long time after the working
> class has become the ruling class) such a demand
> would restrict the mass character of such
> organizations. And, since mass struggle is the
> motor of history, and mass struggle involves
> building mass fighting organizations, this "left"
> demand for "pure" organizations is essentially
> rightist.
> [...]
> were the SAIC today to adopt the program: "take
> meaningful steps to address the crisis of theory
> under which a police state ruled by a single party
> is seen as the only possible alternative to the
> continued rule by the bourgeoisie" it would exclude
> many anti-imperialists and strengthen the hand of
> the sham anti-imperialists among them.
Frank appears to be claiming that I am demanding that SAIC be
some kind of "pure" organization: that SAIC members accept and
agree with a "maximum program" that would exclude many people
from SAIC.
I have nowhere demanded such a thing. Rather I have argued that
SAIC should embrace a wider section of activists.
Meaningful steps to address the crisis of theory would include
providing a page on SAIC's website where SAIC supporters could
post their own articles. These articles could include different
views on what will follow bourgeois rule. Anarchists and
"socialists" as well as supporters with other views would be able
to post their views. SAIC supporters (as well as readers of
SAIC's website) would be able to read the different views and
make criticisms or ask questions in the comment space for each
article. In this way, the strengths and weaknesses of the
various views would become more clear and so would the
differences between the various views. But members of SAIC would
not be required to adhere to one or another view. Membership in
SAIC would be defined by agreement with the SAIC unity statement.
I am on record as advocating that the SAIC unity statement be
modified such that SAIC membership would be open to a larger
section of activists.
Frank appears to be confusing (1) encouragement of meaningful
discussion of what follows bourgeois rule with (2) requiring
agreement with one or another view.
-- 2 --
> if you really study what Ben has written you
> will find that he doesn't think that genuine
> anti-imperialists can resolve contradictions
> among themselves---even using his idealist
> internet schemes!
It would be really cool if Frank were to explain what he is
talking about. There are many things that he _could_ mean. I
have said that the activists in a revolutionary mass organization
will not always be able to overcome their contradictions without
intervention (ie: discussion, input and guidance) from a larger
section of activists and workers . Is this what Frank is talking
about? Experience certainly shows that activists like Frank and
Joseph will refuse to think about decisive questions unless they
are confronted with these issues in a public way. Given half a
chance -- they will prefer to sweep everything under the carpet
until the end of time.
-- 3 --
It would be useful for you to explain to Frank that you are
posting his replies to the pof-300 list (which has public
archives) in order to avoid potential misunderstandings. Frank,
I believe, has a tendency to want to keep political discussion
private (ie: where people like me, who have a lot of experience
with Frank's errors and self-deception, cannot criticize it). It
is better if the discussion is public. If Frank wants to write
to you in private, he should make it clear that he is doing so
and also explain the reasons why.
-- 4 --
Frank did not call me a "rouge". He called me a "renegade", as I
recall. However the two words mean very similar things :-)
All the best,
Ben