Frank's Reply to Alex, which also serves as a reply to Ben

(Alex's short intro and postscript are in tables with green background)



-----Original Message-----
From: Alex G.
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 8:51 AM
To: pof-300@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [pof-300] Frank's Reply to Me, which also serves as a reply to Ben

NOTE: The letter I sent Frank and the SAIC was slightly modified from 
what I posted here. I took out several senstences that I thought were 
rather one-sided and added this:

>[...] "But the SAIC is an activist committee with the definite program 
>of work outlined in its unity statement. And, although it has room 
>within it for various schools of thought on what the viable 
>alternative to imperialism is---including room for people who don't 
>think too much about this question---our unity is that "debating 
>this question is not the purpose of the SAIC." 

How can SAIC really be an anti-imperialist organization if they don't 
have a clear idea what the ALTERNATIVE to imperialism is? How can 
they really continue themselves far into the future if they 
apparently have "room for people who don't think too much about that 
question," and if "debating this question is not the purpose of 
SAIC?" If this is not the purpose of SAIC, then what is? To me, this 
is a credibility issue. You may think that simply wanting to get rid 
of imperialism is good enough, but SAIC would be much more effective 
if they had a clear vision of the alternative to imperialism, and if 
that vision was subject to debate. The bottom line is that SAIC needs 
to take up explicitly revolutionary tasks and talk about a long term 
goal like the eventual defeat of imperialism (and the capitalist mode 
of production that is its creator) if it wants to continue its 
usefulness."


Dear Alex,

Both me and the SAIC are very busy this week mobilizing to confront 
the Minutemen/mfa this Saturday (another local struggle that Ben is 
MIA from). Thus, I don't really have time to devote a lot of thought 
to your letter. Nevertheless, a few things stand out that I would 
like to reply to now.

1) The SAIC is an activist committee united around a definite 
program. It relies on going to the masses with leaflets and having 
face-to-face discussions with them in order to mobilize them for anti-
imperialist struggle. Its website, and internet work in general, is 
subordinate to this. 

What we have on the website is simply our leaflets and statements. 
Yes, these have certainly been agreed to by the entire committee, but 
isn't this a good thing rather than the bad thing that you seem to 
imply it is? Further, if someone, or some minority, did have a big 
objection to what was said in a leaflet, they certainly could post 
their criticism on the website. Yet the basic point is that we barely 
have time to keep up with the occasional comments there (which are 
all there except for spam) and our mail box. And, as far as resolving 
contradictions is concerned, our method is to resolve them by seeking 
truth from facts. But 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! 

2) You write that "if `debating this question is not the purpose of 
SAIC?" If this is not the purpose of SAIC, then what is? To me, this 
is a credibility issue.", etc., etc. But you don't see that, like 
Ben, you would liquidate us, smash us, from the "left". So here's an 
excerpt from some unfinished comments on Ben's reply to me which deal 
with this very issue, as well as Ben's demagoguery about "entrusting":

Putting words into my mouth in order to evade looking at the results 
of practical experience 

.......... 

Ben's response is to further evade honestly dealing with his own 
practical experience, as well as that of the SAIC and many others. 

He begins by saying that my "main argument is that readers need only 
look at the fruit of Frank's work and compare it to the fruit of 
Ben's work---and that is all you really need to know about the 
respective principles."

Of course, I never compared my work to Ben's. This is only his 
subjective framing of the issue. But I certainly did discuss 
principles, a very applicable one being that I argued for SAIC to 
proceed on the basis of the experience it has gained so far, 
strengthen the links it has made so far, etc., rather than to shoot 
in the dark on the internet ala Ben. More, I connected Ben's scheming 
to organize the world via the internet with politics when I wrote 
that 

"The pareconites, anarchists of various schools, Socialist Labor 
Party, Socialist Party of Great Britain (Socialist Standard) all 
condemn capitalism and have their visions of the future, with the 
latter boasting that it has been broadcasting it since 1904. But 
they're `above' doing the detailed work necessary to advance the 
movements of today toward overthrowing capitalism. All that is 
necessary is that people grasp that capitalism is no good, and their 
proposed system better…. 

"Practice seems to bear out that since leaving the ex-MLP, Ben has 
been part of this family of `left' socialist sects and anarchists. 
Further, when he's done anything political, I think that it's 
generally been with the underlying aim of convincing others to join 
him in spreading the gospel. Thus, his program for SAIC…."

I might add that if one tends to reduce politics to "spreading the 
news" that a world without bourgeois rule is possible---as Ben 
consistently does, then it's quite logical that one would be 
fascinated with developing internet techniques with which to 
accomplish this. 

But Ben doesn't want to deal with the political principles that I 
raised, nor his own practice, so he charges me with using a pragmatic 
method of analysis.

..........

Of course, Ben's project may actually grow if he persists long 
enough, but then, as now, we have the right to expose and oppose the 
politics driving it. This leads to the main political issue that I I 
raised in my May 24 comments, and that I`ll take up more sides of 
here. 

Putting words into my mouth in order to defend "left" sectarianism 

I wrote six paragraphs giving my views on why I thought it would be 
wrong for SAIC to abandon its anti-imperialist basis of unity. The 
basic point in them is that 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. 

Of course, alongside this work to support and build organizations of 
struggle that are not united around the communist maximum program, 
real communists also work to build their own organization, work to 
spread its influence and draw new people into its work, and work to 
lead the overall class struggle. Further, they strive to lead 
particular mass organizations by winning them to a tactical line on 
what to do in the particular situation. But this is not the same 
thing as trying to get these organizations, as organizations, to take 
up the overall communist program, even if in particular circumstances 
a majority vote can be won. Instead, they encourage people within 
these organizations who see the value of fighting for the overall 
communist program to unite with the communist party, while the party 
continues to strive to tactically lead the mass organizations, and to 
draw new people into activity in these organizations. 

It's in this way that I think that "an organization which is both 
mass and revolutionary in character" (to use Ben's words) is built up 
in the practical movements. And, I think that this is why three years 
after the October Revolution, Lenin still thought that it would be 
folly to make recognition of the dictatorship of the proletariat a 
condition for membership in the trade unions. No doubt the Bolsheviks 
could have won a majority vote in the existing unions, but this would 
have excluded a large number of workers from these mass 
organizations, and strengthened the hand of the Mensheviks among 
these workers. Similarly, 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.

But Ben knows that he can't defend his "left" sectarian position 
regarding SAIC by discussing the issue in this way, so he again 
attributes words to me that I never wrote, and ideas to me that I 
don't hold, in order to attack them. For example: 

"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' 
(i.e., the CVO)…Frank advocates that SAIC entrust the CVO with tasks 
such as:

(a) developing SAIC's ideological life (i.e., by means of the CVO 
study group) and 

(b) developing and putting forward a clear vision of our 
revolutionary goal." (All emphases by Ben.)

But, of course, the SAIC does take up revolutionary tasks. Only a 
sectarian can reduce revolutionary tasks to putting forward a clear 
vision of the future society. Let's here, however, stick with Ben's 
conscious distortion of what I really argue and advocate.

And, in this regard, I've consistently advocated and encouraged the 
study of Marxist theory, and the setting up of Marxist study groups 
that combine study of theory with practical activity. (So many 
articles and letters by me are on the internet that do this that I 
don`t think it`s necessary to give references to them.) Further, I've 
often done this with people thousands of miles away that I have 
little or no contact with. (Hence, to use Ben's bugbear, I have no 
way of "controlling" them.) I've done this because I believe that, 
taken as a whole, real advances will come out of these study groups---
including in terms of advancing the immediate class struggle and in 
terms of advancing communist theorizing on what must be done after 
the overthrow of the bourgeois state in order to ensure that a 
classless society is reached. World experience over many generations 
has repeatedly shown that new activists forming Marxist study groups 
can lead to these results---especially when th ey`re composed of 
young people from the working class and oppressed nationalities. And, 
this has also been my personal experience. 

Thus, rather than saying to these activists that they should entrust 
to the CVO theorizing on how to attain a communist society, I, in 
practice, encourage them to do their own study and theorizing. But 
let's now turn to Seattle and SAIC.

Evading the issue that I raised, Ben falsely asserts that I advocate 
that SAIC members entrust developing ideological life and socialist 
theorizing to the CVO and the CVO study group. Since local CVO 
members participate in several study groups here, it's unclear which 
of these he means. Nevertheless, a look at one of these study groups 
shows the opposite of what Ben so baldly asserts. 

The majority in this study group are SAIC members who are not 
affiliated to any communist group. Two others are part of the broad 
anti-war and other progressive movements. And two others are members 
of both SAIC and the CVO. This group is studying basic works of Marx, 
Engels and Lenin (now beginning the fifth or sixth complete work---
i.e., unadulterated, and not "spun" by anyone), and, although it 
consists of young activists, they're not naïve, and no one is going 
to push them around or manipulate them. (In this regard, a couple of 
them have had quite a bit of experience with the RCP and ISO, and all 
have some experience with various left-wing trends.) So these 
comrades are getting a grounding in Marxist theory that they can 
combine with their practical experiences and use to measure or judge 
any political trend or group, including the CVO. Hence, were I 
arguing that SAIC people entrust Marxist work and the vision of the 
future to the CVO then I would either have t o oppose this study 
group's existence, or demand that it just study the Communist Voice 
journal! 

Meanwhile, Ben has probably written and uttered the words "crisis of 
theory" thousands of times, but rarely if ever does he connect this 
with calls to study Marxist theory, or to form Marxist study groups. 
No doubt, he fears the development of a youthful political trend that 
can use Marxist science to measure or judge his politics. That might 
result in his politics being brushed aside in short order; sort of 
like the people "with a clue" abandoning his internet list.

More "left-wing" childishness 

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, an infantile disorder" was a polemic 
against (as he put it) "petty-bourgeois revolutionism, which smacks 
of, or borrows something from, anarchism, and which falls short, in 
anything essential, of the conditions and requirements of a 
consistently proletarian class struggle." (my bolding) And, sure 
enough, in Chapter 5 of this work we find Lenin characterizing 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. This is a complex and fierce political struggle 
not just against the old bourgeoisie desperately trying to make a 
comeback plus small-owner mentality and vacillation by the petty-
bourgeoisie (yes, even in the most industrialized countries we'll 
have petty-bourgeois around for some time), but also against the 
rising of a new bourgeoisie. 

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." (My emphasis.) The struggle 
referred to is the struggle to effect the transition to classless 
society, a society in which there are no political parties or state. 

It might be objected, however, that Ben's formulation is not exactly 
the same as that of the German "lefts" because Ben writes of an 
organization which claims to represent the interests of the workers, 
and, therefore, he's really only writing of Stalinist or other 
revisionist party. But no, elsewhere in his pamphlet he says that one 
of the key theoretical questions that everyone he lists but himself 
has foundered on 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"….[end excerpt]

I don't know when (if ever) I'll get around to finishing these 
comments on Ben's pamphlet, but the above is the major theoretical 
point in it---plus one other. And it is a "REAL ISSUE involved" that 
I would hope you study and think about more. The rest of my comments 
consist of exposing and refuting Ben's mass of lies and demagoguery, 
and since Ben is so sideline to the movement I'm not sure of its 
value. Yet, since you welcome suggestions on what to do in your area, 
an area that I know nothing about, perhaps this other excerpt might 
be useful:

"Ben relates a discussion he initiated with X9 and me, in which I 
didn't oppose the idea that a certain individual who happens to be on 
Ben's list post SAIC materials around the internet. And, of course, 
the SAIC is happy when others forward or post its materials, 
including when people who happen to be on Ben's lists do this. 
However, Ben fails to mention that I gave the opinion, which I've 
given to Ben before, that I think the main issue for this comrade is 
to continue to build his political links where he is, figure out what 
to do there, at some point begin coming out with his/their own 
agitation, etc. But charge of political parasitism is not leveled 
against this comrade, or anyone else on Ben's lists. It's leveled 
against Ben."

This was written about a comrade in an area that I'm a little bit 
familiar with, and who I've talked with a little bit. I guess the 
main point in it that applies to you is that you have to continue to 
study revolutionary theory, continue to pay attention to the various 
trends that say they're Marxist (including the CVO), and use Marxism 
as you grasp it to guide your actions. This is vague, but even if I 
knew much more than I do, I would still have to be vague on many 
things. 

In conclusion, I think that "left" liquidationism is a real issue, 
and I would like to hear your thoughts about what I wrote above. 
Further, I've never written anywhere---or said to anyone---that Ben 
is a "rogue". (You seem to be going after my character!) But I have 
characterized him as an anarchist---a political characterization of 
his fundamental ideas. So I would also like to hear from you how 
Ben's ideas critiqued at 
http://home.flash.net/~comvoice/04cBen1.html#T6 are not anarchist. 

All for now,

Frank



I believe several of his points to be strong, but I also believe I 
can give a strong response to them. I will be replying to him in the 
next couple of days.

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.