which principles are the most deserving of being
the center of your reply to Frank? (to Alex) -- part 1

-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Seattle
Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2007 12:01 PM
To: 'pof-300'
Subject: [pof-300] which principles are the most deserving 
of being center of your reply to Frank? (to Alex) -- part 1


hi Alex,

I have had time to rest and to think as well as read carefully
Frank's reply and chapter 5 of Lenin's "Left-Wing Communism".

It is very good that you wrote to Frank and it is good that Frank
replied.

It is possible that, after you reply to Frank, he may reply a
second time. The correspondence, in my view, may dry up as it
becomes clear that you are focused on the most important
principles. Frank, I believe, will not be comfortable focusing
too much on these principles -- and he may withdraw from the
correspondence for this reason. This does not mean that the
exchange is useless. On the contrary, it is useful to you, it is
useful to a number of readers of our lists, it is useful to me,
it is useful to SAIC supporters who read it and it is useful even
to Frank (although he may not feel comfortable admitting it).
This "usefulness" is hard to measure but I believe it is real.
The revolutionary movement will eventually be recovering from the
crisis of theory which has paralyzed it. As we discuss and
debate the key theoretical questions we will understand them
better. Frank has emphasized the importance of political work
(leaflets and so on) on current struggles (such as this
afternoon's action against the racist minutement here in
Seattle). Frank is correct that this political work is necessary
and decisive. However the theoretical struggle is decisive also.
We cannot walk without using both legs--and the mass movements
(and our own consciousness) cannot advance without both theory
and practice.

I think two issues are key and deserve to be at the center of
your reply to Frank.

The first issue (as I expressed it Wednesday):

> (1) Can discussion or debate of post-bourgeois society
> on SAIC's website be used to attract attention to SAIC
> and broaden SAIC's readership and influence as well as
> help develop clarity concerning the principles that
> will guide the efforts of the working class?

You made a small error in your letter to Frank which implied that
SAIC, as an organization, should take a definite position on key
questions concerning post-boureois society. What this implies
(it may not have been what you meant) is that all SAIC members
must agree with these views. Frank replied and argued that this
would exclude from SAIC many members and supporters who did not
agree with these positions and that the basis of unity of SAIC
must be opposition to imperialism.

In my view Frank is correct in that the basis of SAIC's unity
should allow members and supporters to have different views on
these key theoretical questions. Where Frank is mistaken -- is
that Frank believes that, for this reason, SAIC should not allow
discussion or debate of these questions to take place on its
website.

I believe it would be helpful, when you reply to Frank, to
explain that you agree with him (assuming you do) that SAIC, as
an organization, should be open to activists with a range of
views on thise questions. Where you (and I) disagree with Frank
-- is his view that SAIC (and its website) should not encourage
discussion and debate of these differences. We believe that SAIC
should encourage discussion and debate on these topics because
this will both (1) help to resolve differences and develop
clarity over the long run and (2) will attract attention and
readership to SAIC's website and help SAIC develop its influence.

The second issue (as I expressed it Wednesday):

> (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?

I will discuss this (hopefully) later today (I have to leave my
computer now to attend the mass action against the minutemen).
For now I will simply say that, while Frank may sincerely believe
this distinction is irrelevant or nonsensical, it is the center
of the crisis of theory.

Frank cited Lenin's LWC as supposed support for his idea. It
would be good if we can draw Frank out on this decisive principle
(especially in a form that is more than a draft--since his letter
to you on this topic contained only remarks that Frank called
"unfinished").

More on this later today.

Many of Frank's other comments are, essentially, a lot of sound
and fury over nothing important. For example, whether or not I
am honest or MIA, etc -- is irrelevant. I am not such an
important personality in the movement that anyone actually gives
a shit whether or not I am honest, etc. Why should they? What
is key are the principles. These are what is important. If you
place these principles at the center of your reply to Frank --
this may increase the pressure on him to address this principles
rather than waste his (and our) time on irrelevant distractions.

So I will reply (later today) on Lenin's LWC and the distinction
between the rule of the class and the rule of a single
organization and why this distinction is central the salvation of
a revolutionary movement that is deserving of the respect,
attention and loyalty of the working class and oppressed.

All the best,
Ben