Alex's follow-up with Frank -----Original Message----- From: Alex G. Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 8:43 AM To: pof-300@yahoogroups.com Subject: [pof-300] My Follow-up to Frank I have been very busy lately and will probably continue to be that way for the next couple of weeks. However, I have had time to finish this. I had to rewrite it a couple of times because it sucked, but I think I've gotten in to a point where it is clear and only focuses on the arguments that matter. ---------------------------------------------------------- Dear SAIC and Frank, A couple of weeks ago, I sent you a letter regarding some changes in SAIC's policy that I as well as Ben Seattle have been advocating for some time. Frank replied to me rather quickly with some serious arguments and some attacks on Ben. It is the intent of this follow-up letter to: 1. Correct a mistake I made that caused my original letter to have a different meaning than it was intended to have 2. Address the more serious of Frank's arguments and not waste time on trivial ones. Although this is a response to Frank, I would very much like to hear from other SAIC supporters, because what follows regards them, and in my view, to keep this between just me, Frank, and Ben is pointless. I have posted Frank's reply to me on the pof-300 email list (if Frank doesn't mind that) for Ben and his community-in-embryo to read. If people haven't read it, Frank's reply to me can be found here: This letter is split into two main sections, each with a few subsections. Contents ------------------------------------------------- 1. Theory and Practice * The monolithic message of SAIC * SAIC's need to discuss vision * A mix of theory and practice 2. Rule of the Party vs. Rule of the Class (Is This an Important Distinction?) *Lenin's "Left-Wing Communism" *Rule of a single organization? 3. Conclusion ================================================================ 1. Theory and Practice ================================================================ ---------------------------------------------------------- The monolithic message of SAIC ---------------------------------------------------------- On the SAIC's web page, people see the leaflets that the committee has agreed upon. The fact that SAIC can apparently agree on some things it good; however, what are not seen are all of the_contradictions_that SAIC has and how those contradictions are resolved. SAIC, like almost all other organizations of its kind, is at a stage where it cannot effectively reach an audience much outside of the Seattle area. This is because activists who are unable to make it to SAIC meetings cannot see what goes on behind the curtain and provide input, and therefore do not feel that they have any control over the direction of SAIC. In short, activists outside the committee feel that the movement does not belong to them. This fact limits SAIC's long-term effectiveness to the Seattle area. In the future, SAIC will need to reach a much broader audience, but in order for them to be able to do this, activists must feel that they have an acceptable level of control over the organization. For non-local activists, this means more transparency for SAIC, and more effective use of the SAIC web site. No matter how democratic the committee itself is, to non-local activists, the message that SAIC spreads is still_monolithic_because activists outside the committee have no control over it. The bottom line is that without complete transparency, the movement does not really belong to the people. Activists need to be reassured that they have control over the movement before they will want to be part of it. It's that simple. Here are some measures SAIC could take to create more transparency and reach a broader range of activists: 1. Post records of SAIC meetings on the web and allow readers to make comments so that non-local activists can see the contradictions and offer input. 2. Create a section of the site where activists can post their own articles and have them responded to and rated by other activists. These changes may take time to implement, but we can do this one step at a time, and they will be well worth-it in the end. ---------------------------------------------------------- SAIC's need to discuss vision ---------------------------------------------------------- In may last letter, I made the mistake of implying that SAIC must put forward a clear revolutionary goal and that all SAIC supporters have to agree. This is not what I meant, but this is what it sounded like, so I'm going to amend my statement here: I completely support SAIC in its goal to draw a wide range of activists (in fact, this is what I'm also advocating). At this stage, I recognize that SAIC is not ready to put forward a clear vision of what a world without imperialism looks like because this would indeed alienate activists (and Ben realizes this as well). However, SAIC supporters need to_debate_this topic openly for three reasons: 1. Many new activists will be reluctant to join up with SAIC or any other Leftist organization because they have doubts as to whether there is any alternative to imperialism (i.e. they think the alternative is a police state like the USSR). If SAIC discusses the question of what a world without imperialism looks like, activists will be reassured through the multiple views displayed that a world without bourgeois rule_is_possible and they will be more likely to support SAIC. 2. Intelligent debate will draw serious activists from all over the country. 3. Such discussion will allow SAIC to resolve its differences openly and eventually develop the clarity it will need in the future. The perfect tool for this open discussion would be a section of SAIC's site where activists can post_their own_articles and have them responded to and rated by others. This allows SAIC supporters (and non-supporters) to discuss SAIC's future openly without forcing anyone to think a certain way. The people will resolve their differences on their own. ---------------------------------------------------------- A mix of theory and practice ---------------------------------------------------------- Frank has often said that spending too much time on things like SAIC's site will cripple the organization because they will fail to do more urgent things. This is true. He also said that SAIC's real value comes from its short-term tasks like distributing leaflets and organizing protests. This is partially true. Spending too much time on theory will indeed get SAIC nowhere, but this does not mean that we can't discuss theory at all. Developing a mix of theory and practice and moderating how much time we spend on less urgent tasks will merely take a little common sense. Too much of anything is too much, but we normally don't use this as an argument against doing something entirely. ================================================================ 2. Rule of the Party vs. Rule of the Class (Is This an Important Distinction?) ================================================================ ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 don't see the connection, because we are not advocating that all political parties are always bourgeois. However, the fact that Frank brings this up raises 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. 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). 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. ================================================================ Conclusion ================================================================ You may have noticed that I did not address certain arguments that Frank made (like whether or not Ben is an anarchist). This is because I believe that Frank's time is far too valuable to be wasting on these trivial pursuits, and I think we both need to cut the crap. I have read Ben's principles and they make sense to me. Now I want to hear Frank's opposition, and arguing about whether Ben is an anarchist or not is a distraction. I want to hear Frank's arguments (or those of any other SAIC supporter) without all of the useless distractions. Frank also said that his arguments in his last letter were not finished. I would like to hear Frank finish those arguments, if he does not believe they are finished enough already. That is all. Sincerely, Alex