the theoretical front of struggle (excerpts related to theoretical struggle) -----Original Message----- From: Ben Seattle Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 12:07 AM To: 'pof-200' Cc: 'pof-300'; 'theorist' Subject: [pof-300] (1) leaflet, (2) political priorities, (3) the theoretical front of struggle Hi Alex, Your exchanges with Frank have been quite fruitful. Although Frank claims not to understand what you meant when you asked him to focus on the more important issues--in practice he respected your request--and did so. He cut out the crap and focused on the key issues. And Frank also gave his opinion on a key theoretical question: explaining why he believes that the workers' state will supposedly not allow multiple parties. Neither Frank nor the CVO has ever dared to touch this question before in a public statement. So you were successful in drawing Frank out--and he made public what has, up until now, been an argument that was private and internal. It may take a while to discuss and fully digest Frank's comment but it is clear to me that you did an outstanding job. What is urgent and important at this time? ------------------------------------------ [...] Political tasks and priorities ------------------------------ [...] Building a channel: ------------------- [...] Theoretical work: ----------------- Work on the theoretical front is also useful but opportunities for this are not always present. For example, I did not know that Frank would respond to my annual report--and would not have written my ten part series: "Cargo-Cult Leninism vs. Political Transparency" if he had not. Rather I was pressed for time but felt, when Frank replied, that the opportunity to achieve clarity on a number of topics was simply too good to pass up. Your exchanges with Frank have been quite valuable but I should tell you that I consider it unlikely that Frank will give you very many further responses. At a certain point (which may be close) you will have effectively refuted him and (as much as is possible in these kinds of exchanges) proven him mistaken. At that point, Frank will likely decline further exchanges with you. You will have learned valuable theory in the process (and maybe others on this list or in SAIC will also). And I will have had the encouragement of watching yourself (a relatively newcomer) soundly thrash a highly experienced and disciplined comrade who, unfortunately is currently blinded by a political religion. You do not need to reply in a substantial way to Frank any time soon. Rather, you and I can take our time discussing and digesting his reply and its significance and you can reply to Frank after the mass actions this fall. For now you can send him a short note thanking him for his reply and explaining that you intend to take some time studying it before giving it an answer. Frank did respect your request that he put aside the personal attacks on me and focus on what is important. It would be helpful for you to acknowledge that he did so. This will let Frank know that you recognize this and also that you will expect him to similarly keep his act clean in the future (since as this struggle intensifies it is possible that Frank may need further reminders of the necessity of keeping things clean). Having said that I would like to comment on the theoretical bankruptcy of Frank and the CVO (and "X9", the maoist kid that I helped introduce to Frank and who, along with Frank, founded SAIC). So I include the appendix A (below) and also appendix B (which I wrote in 1999) which we can take our time discussing and make use of when you eventually give Frank a substantive reply. As far as Frank's (and the CVO's) insistence that I am really an "anarchist" -- the whole issue here is that he has a special religious definition of anarchism. If you do not agree with with Frank's cargo-cultist views--then by his definition you are an anarchist. It is generaly useless to argue with people about definitions of words like this. We are materialists and we restrict our discussion with people to the use of words that have some kind of mutually well-understood meaning. All the best, Ben Seattle http://struggle.net/ben/ ================================================= Appendix A: What does victory look like? ================================================= Frank opposes the existence of multiple parties under worker's rule: Frank, Sept 2: -------------- > You write, however, of multiple workers' > parties eventually springing up and demanding > a role in government. But upon what program > would these parties spring up if there was a > real Marxist party leading the class struggle? Frank is mistaken from several different directions. 1) If there was a real marxist party leading the class struggle it would include within it room for a wide range of views on important questions. This follows from the nature of reality--which is complex. Different schools of thought will have different opinions on all sorts of questions. An organized, public struggle between different schools of thought (ie: political trends) will be the best engine to drive the search for facts and to determine the truth that must guide policy. So even if there is a single party (ie: the best scenario) it would contain multiple parties within it that would openly struggle against one another. This is more-or-less equivalent to a system of parties that are united under an umbrella organization. 2) It is a simple fact that the leading party may (a) become captured by corrupt people or (b) fall victim to sectarianism or other diseases--and undergo a process of degeneration. In such circumstances there will be a need for those who see the need for a genuine revolutionary organization to have the right to create it should the "real marxist party" become a phony revisionist party. No one can guarantee that this cannot happen (since it has happened in every case without exception). 3) If the democratic rights of speech and organization are extended to everyone--then parties will spring up that are not marxist and which will be hostile to the interests of the working class. It is to the benefit of the working class to allow these parties to exist and function--because it is neither practical nor necessary to attempt to suppress them (ie: they cannot be suppressed as long as the entire working class has the democratic rights of speech and organization). But let's continue with Frank: > To even gain power and therefore have democratic rights > like freedom of speech the proletariat is going to have > to deny such freedoms to others. Actually, that is not true. The proletariat, today, in countries such as the US, Western Europe and Japan has democratic rights of speech and organization even though it is not in power (hint: that is the reason we are able to talk about these topics today). These democratic rights will disappear in an acute revolutionary crisis--but they exist for now and the main limitation in our exercise of these rights is our own ignorance and inability to effectively coordinate our actions. But let's hear more from Frank about democratic rights: > And once in power its going to have to deny them to > bourgeois inciters of rebellion, and even inciters > of splits in its own ranks when facing rebellion. > In such conditions multiple workers' parties (splits > and confusion in the workers ranks) would only weaken > the struggle for freedom of speech by the masses. Frank's comments reveal a great deal. Frank is describing the situation that existed in Soviet Russia in 1921. At that time, the Bolshevik party, in order to prevent a return to bourgeois rule, was compelled to undertake a series of emergency measures which greatly limited democratic rights both in society at large and within the Bolshevik party itself. All competing parties were essentially outlawed. And all organizations within the Bolshevik party which were organized on the basis of a common platform of opposition to the policies of the majority faction of the party center--were dissolved. Lenin recognized that these measures carried grave risks (and indeed, it was the lack of democratic rights which meant that no force was available to oppose the corruption of the Bolshevik party which took place after Lenin's death) but at the time there was no other means to avoid a total collapse of Bolshevik rule and a complete restoration of the rule of the bourgeoisie and the hated whiteguard landlords. The Bolsheviks were forced to suspend democratic rights because by 1921 a majority of the population was quite unhappy with the Bolsheviks and would have supported any political trend that claimed that it was possible to get rid of the Bolsheviks without restoring bourgeois-landlord rule. There were many political trends which (if they had not been outlawed) would have made such a claim--but all of these trends would have ended up surrendering power to the bourgeoisie. It was for this reason that Lenin and the Bolsheviks found it necessary to suspend the democratic rights of speech and organization for the entire country until such time as the economy could be restored and the desperate circumstances could be corrected (ie: something that would have taken 10 or 20 years). So the emergency measures which the Bolsheviks took were indeed necessary--but at the same time the fact that they were necessary shows that, by 1921, it was not the Soviet working class which ruled Russia--but a single organization. This single organization hoped to bring about a state of affairs in which the working class as a whole would rule by means of the democratic rights that would allow the class to have access to all relevant information and to select or reject leaders and policies. And maybe this might have happened if Lenin had lived another ten years. But that is not what happened. Instead the whole thing went to shit. I think most readers know the rest of the story. The party degenerated before democratic rights could be restored--and before long a new class of rulers exploited the workers. And I believe that this shows that, in Russia, by 1921, it was not the working class that ruled as a class. If the working class had ruled--the workers would have had countless ways to prevent this kind of degeneration. What existed in 1921 was not the dictatorship of the proletariat (DP) but the dictatorship of the proletariat in embryo (DP-embryo). Under more favorable circumstances the DP-embryo might have matured into the real thing. But it did not. And this has been a double tragedy. It was a tragedy firstly because the revolution failed. The glorious October revolution became a vehicle for a new ruling class. It was also a tragedy for a second reason: it created (and still creates) confusion today concerning what the dictatorship of the proletariat is. Confusion still exists, today, in distinguishing between the dictatorship of the proletariat (DP) and the dictatorship of the proletariat in embryo (DP-embryo). Frank (and the CVO and X9) remain confused about this. Frank's comments (above) prove that he is confused. And Frank is fighting tooth and nail to keep matters confused. It has required years of work and confrontation in numerous instances for Frank to actually make public his views (as he has above) which argue that the working class would be _endangered_ by democratic rights (ie: that would inevitably lead to multiple parties). Activists who want to see an end to bourgeois rule and who believe that an alternative is possible that would be more than a police state--will sweep away the kind of theoretical bullshit and mumbo-jumbo which Frank preaches. We can do our share of this today. I have prepared (see below) a chart comparing the Dictatorship of the Proletariat (dp) to the Dictatorship of the Proletariat in Embryo (dp-embryo) across 8 major dimensions: ---------------------------------------------------------- The DP vs. the DP-embryo ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. Who rules? 2. Majority support? 3. Weak or strong? 4. Democratic rights of speech and organization? 5. Multiple organizations? 6. Separation of party and state? 7. Development of immune system against corruption? 8. Relationship to our goal?
| society is ruled by a single organization | society is ruled by the working class as a class |
|
sometimes supported by a majority, sometimes opposed by a majority |
supported by a stable majority of the population |
| fragile, weak (ie: relatively easy to overthrow when opposed by the majority of the population) and inherently unstable | robust, powerful, strong, stable |
| compelled to suppress all organized opposition and exercise a monopoly of political power in order to survive |
not threatened by opposition,
extends democratic rights of speech and organization to those who advocate the overthrow of workers' rule and a return to bourgeois rule. The state will regulate and restrict only "commercial speech" (ie: media created by wage labor as opposed to volunteer labor) which will not be allowed to drown out, in political, cultural or economic arenas, the voices of the non-commercial speech of the masses. |
| Political organizations will not be able to exist and carry out work independent of the ruling party/state without permission of the ruling party/state | Political organizations will not need permission from anyone to exist or carry out independent work |
|
The Party and State are essentially merged. Only party
members may have positions of authority in the state.
Elections, if they exist at all, are pro forma. There is no real opposition nor real campaigns and the real issues are buried and kept secret. |
Party and state are separate.
Many party members will be in the state, but the state will also include non-party people and members of different parties. Elections of one or another kind will take place in which candidates from different parties (or individuals not associated with a party) will campaign and be elected to positions of authority The state will rule (ie: have the power of coercion: police and prison) The party will not rule (ie: its influence will be based on voluntary actions) |
|
effective criticism from outside the ruling party/state
can easily be shut down by the ruling party/state
If the ruling party/state feels itself to be threatened, then external criticism will be shut down and critics will face threats of job loss, imprisonment and execution |
organizations outside the ruling state will openly criticize and organize the masses against the inevitable incompetence, hypocrisy and corruption which will emerge in the people and policies of the state |
|
This is not our goal.
This is a form of martial law --
representing a transition period extending from the
aftermath of possible civil war to the period in which
the economy is restored and society can function in a
stable way where everyone has enough food to eat, etc.
During this period, being crushed from outside (ie: by the external military or economic forces of imperialism) of suffocated from within (ie: by the corrupt internal elements which emerge and thrive when there is a lack of internal democracy) is an extreme danger (resulting in a return to bourgeois rule, or the rule of a new exploiting class) and this is what has happened, historically, in every case without exception. In modern conditions, any workers' revolution that found itself to be so weak and to have such little popular support that it was compelled to suppress democratic rights and retreat to conditions of DP-Embryo for a lengthy period (ie: much longer than a year or so) would probably be doomed (ie: would be likely to be crushed from outside or suffocated from within). The period of DP-embryo would not be necessary if working class forces can come to power in a scenario where there is no external war or civil war of the kind which destroys much of the basic infrastructure needed for the economy to function. The working class has never come to power in such a scenario. |
This is what victory looks like!
No revolution in human history has reached this stage. But this is highly likely to happen in the 21st century. There is little danger that the DP will return to bourgeois rule (or the rule of a new exploiting class) because the masses are armed with democratic rights and will be able to effectively oppose all corruption. If the leading workers' party becomes corrupt, the masses will be able create other parties to take its place. The DP will itself be a transition period in which, over several decades, the moneyless gift economy gradually replaces the economy based on commodity production and exchange (ie: the capitalist and state-capitalist sectors) |