Go to this wiki page and post to the "threads" section
at the bottom of the page
|
Conscious Forces Will Bring Us
Certain Victory
__/
__/ __/ __/ __/ __/ __/ __/ __/ __/ __/ __/ __/ __/ __/ __/ __/ __/ __/ __/
Annual Report for Ben Seattle
Including how, in the coming period of intensified class struggle,
– November 22, 2009 –
__/
__/ __/ __/ __/ __/ __/ __/ __/ __/ __/ __/ __/ __/ __/ __/ __/ __/ __/ __/ I believe it is useful for
revolutionary activists to post, each year, a summary of their activity over
the past year and plans for the coming year.
This is my 11th
annual report [1]. This year, since I
have been on an extended sabbatical (ie: a period of time off) from political
work—the formal part of my annual report will be quite short. However, since the few activists who read me
on a regular basis often expect something more substantial from my annual
report—I am also including this year an overview of how, as I see it, the
revolution in communications will assist the efforts of activists to self-organize
over the next few years in countries like the United States, where I live.
My annual report
The formal part of my
annual report always consists of three sections: (1) What I have done in the
past year (2) What I plan to accomplish in the coming year and (3) Problems
that came up and solutions that were developed.
The informal part of my report will be the overview.
(1) What I have done in the past year
Since I have been on an
extended sabbatical, I have done very little and my annual report has been
delayed six months. Among the things I
have done are the following:
(A) I wrote a short and highly concentrated essay in July
2008, "SAIC and the struggle for sobriety" [2], which attempts
to confront the most fundamental problems related to building revolutionary
organization. I recommend this short and
easy-to-read essay to all of my readers.
It includes the following key passage:
The only realistic
and reliable way to overcome self-deception and maintain a clean
and sober perspective is to strive to develop a depth of humility
equal in magnitude to our confidence in our principles and the boldness of our
vision. This means, above all, that we must ask for help from one
another for the purpose of keeping ourselves honest. We need mass
criticism. Mass criticism is a matter of life and death.
Mass criticism equals victory. The lack of mass criticism equals defeat.
(B) I wrote a short essay [3] with the aim of correcting
some of the formulations Lenin used in "The State and Revolution"
that have not stood the test of time.
(C) I created a chart [4] (as part of preparation for my
upcoming reply to Eric of the CVO) showing a timeline of humanity's transition
from capitalist rule to classless society.
(D) I have also participated, to a limited extent, in
four political communities: (1) The Media Weapon community-in-embryo,
which exists mainly in the form of the Party of the Future (POF) email
discussion lists, (2) the Seattle Anti-Imperialist Committee (SAIC), (3)
a local self-styled marxist study group and (4) the Kasama blog site--a
community of activists centered around refugees from the RCP-USA, (a decaying
Maoist group known for having a number of the features of a cult).
I will say more about some
of these communities below, after the formal part of my annual report.
(2) What I plan to accomplish
My extended sabbatical is
winding down. Marx noted that men make
history, but not in conditions of their choosing. I do not know to what extent I will
contribute to the making of history—but my future work will be in conditions
that are not of my choosing—where, after a lengthy illness, I gave my final goodbye
to my darling—the woman of my dreams and my partner for 16 years.
I have no specific plans at
this time other than to put together my shattered life, as best I can, and to
fight to transform each and every injury she suffered into unshakable
determination. However it would be
logical for me to focus on the Attention Refinery project [5] (ie: a
system of integrated blogs and wiki's that will use collaborative filtering)
and to devote at least some attention to online communities such as RevLeft.
(3) Problems that came up and
Friction between activists
is a normal part of any community. And
friction, in the form of confrontation, has accompanied my work with SAIC,
Kasama and the local marxist study group.
The usual solution to this friction is community oversight and
involvement (ie: healthy intervention by community supporters). This kind of healthy intervention has not
(yet) taken place in connection with SAIC (a very small community) and Kasama
(where healthy intervention has been discouraged or disallowed) but it took
place in the study group (before it collapsed).
For example, I once lost my cool and acted in an arrogant way with a
study group member during the discussion.
Another member, grasping the situation, grabbed my hand and gently but
firmly explained that we need to build relationships with one another based on
greater respect.
This concludes the formal
part of my annual report. Following are
some comments on how, in the coming period of intensified class struggle, I
believe activists will use open communities and information war to create the
conscious forces that will sweep away all obstacles.
A background of economic crisis
The political conditions facing activists in the period
ahead are likely to be dominated by two main factors: the continuing economic
crisis and the imperialist wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The current economic crisis has affected all countries
and thrown many tens of millions of people out of work. The immediate cause of the crisis is well
known: a section of the ruling class (ie: the big capitalists—the
bourgeoisie—who own the corporations and the media and the politicians left and
right) thought they could get away with creating trillions of dollars of what
was essentially counterfeit money. This
has had the effect of poisoning the world’s money supply and crippling the
normal mechanisms which make possible the flow of investment and capital. In a capitalist economy, the flow of capital
is like the flow of blood in the human body.
When this flow is disrupted it is bad news. The practical effect of all this will be
unemployment, homelessness, hunger and misery for untold millions.
At the same time, U.S. imperialism is in continuing its
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan aimed at maintaining US hegemony over the
strategic oil resources of the Middle East and Central Asia. Bush launched these wars but the
"progressive" Obama, as the new representative of the U.S. ruling
class, is escalating the war in Afghanistan even as he withdraws a fraction of
the troops in Iraq.
The objective factor
As materialists, we understand that the misery and pain
of many millions and the continuing imperialist wars will eventually translate
into an upsurge in mass actions and the class struggle. The conditions of struggle are accumulating
as both the objective factor (ie: material events in the world) and the subjective
factor (ie: the ideas in the minds of activists—and the masses) are
maturing.
So I want to talk about this.
I think that most of us are familiar with the idea of the
objective factor. The ruling
bourgeoisie here in the U.S. is preparing to deal with the inevitable
intensification of the class struggle with both lullabies and the big
stick. We have not yet seen much of
the big stick (we got a small peek at it during the Bush years—but the big
stick is being reserved for the future).
Right now we are hearing the lullabies—the sweet songs that everything
wonderful will come if we only wait for deliverance from Obama.
The subjective factor
I am not going to talk much about the objective factor
that will be radicalizing millions and driving everything forward in the years
ahead. Rather I am going to talk about
the subjective factor—and the decisive developments that appear poised
to shape:
(1) the emergence of a revolutionary movement—and
The CPUSA was a revolutionary mass party
The United States has not had a revolutionary mass party
for many decades—ever since the degeneration of the Communist Party USA
in the mid-1930’s. The CPUSA carried out
a great deal of outstanding work and attracted to itself essentially all the
best activists from all the trends on the left.
The CPUSA had a revolutionary character and was a mass
organization. What do I mean by mass
organization? Two things:
(1) It had a lot of people—more than a hundred thousand
If we are serious about building a revolutionary mass
organization (and I write these words primarily for those activists who want,
more than anything in the world, to see such an organization emerge) then we
must soberly consider not only the strengths of the CPUSA—but the weaknesses
which led to its degeneration into what it is today: a defender of bourgeois
rule—an instrument and apologist for the imperialist Democratic Party.
The degeneration of the CPUSA
The CPUSA capitulated (ie: subordinated itself to
liberal reformist politics) in the mid 1930's as a result of pressure from
Stalin—who was desperate to make a deal with the western imperialist countries
so that they would put a leash on Hitler.
But this brings up the question of why the CPUSA lacked enough of
a backbone (ie: internal motion and integrity) to stand up to this pressure.
The CPUSA emerged in the wake of Lenin’s 1917 revolution
in Russia. The prestige of the Bolshevik
revolution was very high in progressive circles at the time and the Bolshevik
methods of organizing had proven to be very effective. For these reasons the nature and structure of
the emerging organization took shape under the guidance and influence of the
Russian leadership.
Of course there is nothing wrong with progressive
organizations in the U.S. recognizing the experience and knowledge of
international comrades and accepting their influence. But if an organization is not eventually
strong enough to stand on its own two feet—there is going to be a problem. If you live by imported consciousness, so to
speak, then eventually you are likely die by imported consciousness. The Russian leadership degenerated—and as it
slid into the gutter in the 1930’s it took with it the organization in the
United States (and communist organizations everywhere else in the world also).
Groundhog Day
As a result of the degeneration of the Russian and
Chinese revolutions and their associated parties such as the CPUSA—today the
idea of a revolutionary mass party of the working class has little
attraction to most activists.
The material world being what it is, however, the need
for a revolutionary mass party will assert itself. The working class and progressive movements
will never be able to challenge the domination and control of all of
society by the ruling bourgeoisie until the working class has its own organizational
weapon that will enable it to make itself conscious and mobilize tens of
millions into action. It is a bit like
the movie, Groundhog Day [6], where the lead character (Bill Murray)
finds himself compelled to live the same day over and over again—until he “gets
it right”. In a loosely analogous
way—the working class and oppositional movements will never be able to find
solid footing until they create a revolutionary mass party which is (1)
aimed at the overthrow of the capitalist system and (2) resistant to the
corrupting pressure to betray.
The good news today
The good news is that all the conditions for the
emergence of such a revolutionary mass party are rapidly maturing. These conditions include:
(1) the development of mass communications
technologies (ie: an ever-increasing array of cheap and easy-to-use
internet-based hardware devices and social-networking platforms) which will
enable the mass of activists to more easily coordinate their efforts and
maintain effective oversight and control of a new generation of
organizations—and
(2) the total failure and collapse of the supposedly
“socialist” revolutions in the Soviet Union and China—which have
highlighted the theoretical bankruptcy of existing so-called “marxism”
(centered around a police state with low productivity) and made
clear the need for revolutionary theory centered on how the working
class can run society better than the bourgeoisie.
The emergence of conscious forces
“Once the correct ideas characteristic of the advanced class The revolution in communications is leading to the
emergence of conscious forces in the world and it appears to me that
these forces appear poised to dominate the 21st century. These forces, above all, will serve the class
struggle of the workers and the oppressed and, I believe, in the long run,
will prove to be invincible.
These conscious forces will be created within communities
as ideas openly compete against one another.
These conscious forces will result from the actions of
many people who have grasped the ideas and principles which
are decisive for the healthy development of the revolutionary movement.
Conscious forces are not, of course, something new. They have existed since before the dawn of
civilization. And, in particular, these
forces have often played a powerful (or decisive) role in the events of the
last two centuries. These forces, for
example, were ultimately the reason that Hitler lost the second world war and
U.S. imperialism was driven out of Vietnam.
What is new about the conscious forces
which are emerging today, I believe, will be their magnitude. Often, a change in magnitude changes
everything. For example, an artillery
piece can be thought of as a very large rifle.
But an artillery piece can do things in battle that a rifle cannot do.
Similarly, when hundreds of thousands of
conscious soldiers have rifles, they can do things that cannot be done with
even the largest artillery or the biggest bombers--as U.S. imperialism
discovered in Vietnam.
Ever-increasing amounts of oxygen
Conscious forces are a product of the class
struggle in society and, in turn, react back on and intensify the class
struggle. Conscious forces are created
as a section of the exploited class organizes itself, sums up its experience
and develops correct ideas and, in turn, takes these correct ideas in a
systematic way to larger sections of the class.
The best analogy for conscious forces may
be that of the heat from a fire.
A sufficient amount of heat will lead to the combustion of available fuel. The combustion of fuel, in turn, releases
additional heat which leads to the combustion of additional fuel and so on in a
chain reaction.
In this analogy, the fuel for the fire can be
considered to be the conditions of exploitation and misery which affect
the oppressed classes. Historical
experience shows that, as the class struggle develops and large numbers of
people become conscious they will make any sacrifice for their class.
In this analogy, what is new and different in
current conditions is an additional factor: oxygen.
Fire requires heat, fuel and oxygen. A fire can burn quickly and generate a lot of
heat, even if there is less fuel, if there is a lot of oxygen. Oxygen, in this analogy, corresponds to the ease
with which people can spread ideas to one another.
The powerful role that is played by the ease
with which people can spread ideas was shown by the development of the antiwar
movement on college campuses in the 1960's.
Never before in history had such a powerful movement against imperialist
war developed within the imperialist country that was carrying out the
war. Of course in this case there was
also considerable fuel on campus (ie: the threat of the draft was causing
hundreds of thousands of students to think hard about these things). And we should also keep in mind the positive
factor of the powerful civil rights movement.
But the ease with which it was possible for students to organize and
spread ideas played a big role also.
And the emerging revolution in
communications, in this analogy, corresponds to ever-increasing amounts of
oxygen being released everywhere on earth.
And this is setting the stage for a eventual
explosion of stellar magnitude--a collision between classes that will lead to
the overthrow of all existing social relationships.
The hangman and the priest
It is often said that the dominant ideas of any society
in any historical period have been the ideas which serve the ruling class of
that society. The reason for this is
simple: no class can rule by force alone.
Force alone is not enough--it tends to break down over time as it is
repeatedly contested. Classes always
rule by a combination of force and political deception. Political deception requires that certain
ideas (ie: it is useless to resist, things will eventually get better if we are
patient and wait, we live in the best of all possible worlds, we should
disregard our interests as a class and focus only on getting ahead as
individuals, it is more effective to vote for some establishment "savior"
than march in the streets and build a militant movement, etc) dominate the
thinking of the oppressed classes.
The traditional description of the social roles
associated with the factors of force and political deception has been that of
the hangman and the priest.
The hangman makes an example those who dare to get out of line. The priest works so that everyone else can
accept that their fate is to suffer.
Modern
examples: We can see how these roles work in the context of a
developed country like the United States.
The role of force is carried out by the police and courts (or, on
occasion, the military) and the role of political deception is carried
out by a wide array of corporations and institutions in media,
educational, non-profit and religious sectors.
Force: In the
U.S., with its famous free speech rights, the role of force is normally kept in
reserve--to be exercised only when necessary--as when a militant demonstration
or action of the masses is attacked, on some pretext, by the police. We will almost certainly experience naked
brutal repression on a large scale in countries like the U.S. in the decades
ahead. But this is not going to happen
anytime soon [8].
Control of the
mass media: The control of the media in a country like
the U.S. is exercised in fairly sophisticated ways. There is no centralized bureaucracy which exercises
censorship or determines the "correct line". Rather, the will of the ruling capitalists is
generally imposed by means of money and ideology as large numbers of
individuals compete against one another for success and approval.
1. For example, there are good movies, which give a realistic
view of class relations in society and which encourage organized struggle
against oppression. But these exist by
way of exception (often in the form of independent films with small
audiences). The mainstream culture in a
country like the U.S. is dominated by escapism and empty sentimentality which
often goes to great lengths to invent situations (or even entire worlds) which
are removed, as far as possible, from anything real.
2. And there are also the rabid media guard dogs (ie: people
like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck who are propped up and promoted and given
charge of reserves of reaction) who bark and make a lot of noise and scare the
timid liberal media personalities into line (the liberals only have a backbone
when it comes time to wage imperialist war).
3. The general themes of bourgeois news are to create (a) a
climate of fear in which individuals are easily manipulated into
opposing supposed attacks on their sacred "values and culture" (ie:
Fox News and the rabid right) and (b) a climate of passivity while
waiting for things to get better (ie: the liberal side of the spectrum).
4. One of the general theme of bourgeois culture, in my
opinion, revolves around the atomization of the individual as his or her
inner world (and, in particular, the inner world of youth) is invaded in such a
way as to as to systematically alienate the individual against
others and even against the self. (This
would be a topic for an entire essay.)
This is related to the psychologically intrusive nature of modern
advertising which aggressively seeks to capture our deepest needs for
authentic connection with others and transform these healthy aspirations into
something unhealthy: a craving that can never be satisfied for magic
commodities that will supposedly give us the affection and appreciation we
need. In this process, we are reduced
from subjects to objects, from masters of our world to slaves of commodity
fetishism. This is also related to the
phenomenon of the bankrupt celebrity culture which saturates
American society. This is escapist
culture from which there is no escape: we cannot watch anything on TV (or
even pass the magazine rack at the grocery checkout line) without being
bombarded with images from the unreal world of the rich and famous telling us
what we are supposed to look like and what we should value.
Political
Deception: Countries such as the U.S. have developed a large number
of highly sophisticated institutions to promote the ideas which serve the
interests of the ruling class. As a
result, many of us are used to thinking of “public
opinion” as something that the bourgeoisie manufactures or easily
manipulates. For example,
currently all the major media (both liberal and conservative) promote the need
to continue the imperialist war in Afghanistan and maintain the presence of
U.S. troops in Iraq. (This may change as
the strategic situation in one or both countries deteriorates.) And, of course, we hear the constant sweet
songs and chorus that, if only we wait patiently enough, we can expect the most
that is possible to be delivered by Obama.
Stratum of
influence: More than this, the bourgeoisie has enormous influence
even within the mass oppositional movements in society (ie: such as the antiwar
movement) by means of a social stratum of liberal-labor politicians,
trade union bureaucrats, religious misleaders, non-profit honchos, poverty
pimps, “progressive” media personalities and professional “opinion leaders” who
are in orbit around the imperialist Democratic Party. This social stratum has the resources to prop
up activist groups by giving them publicity, money, connections, career
advancement and "respectability" (if only they water down their militancy
and adopt a more "realistic" attitude) and works to co-op and tame
the mass movements and pull them away from the path of militant mass
action and independence from bourgeois politics in favor of the "respectable"
dead-end of ringing doorbells to elect some supposed savior from the
establishment. (And it gets worse:
this stratum of politicians, bureaucrats, misleaders, honchos, pimps and
professional personalities in turn has alliances with a string of supposedly
"socialist" do-nothing organizations which are in various ways dependent
on these alliances and loath to do anything that might upset their
patrons.)
Combination: And the
suppression and promotion functions work together. For example: in Seattle in March 2003 police
bullied and corralled antiwar activists who had taken to the street--and a few
days later a well-known local journalist wrote an article on the event [9]
supposedly sympathetic to the activists but with the conclusion that activists
would get more attention and respect from decision-makers if they were
registering voters instead of marching in the street.
Breakdown: The
significance of the emerging revolution in communications is that it appears
destined to lead to a breakdown in the normal mechanism of class rule. Activists now have the ability to create
communities that will eventually organize a systematic effort to challenge
the political deception of the ruling bourgeoisie on all fronts and capture
the imagination, trust and allegiance of tens of millions.
What do we do? As activists,
this raises the question of how we can combine our efforts and give effective
organizational form to such a systematic effort to tear down the political
deception which is essential for the class rule of the bourgeoisie.
What kind of
movement? We should also be aware, of course, that it is at the
moment when political deception is torn down that the ruling bourgeoisie, with
little to lose, is most likely to unleash the kinds of brutal force (ie:
large-scale arrests in the middle of the night, torture and disappearances,
racist gangs and death squads with hidden links to the powerful) that have
always been common in less developed countries.
This is not an argument for inaction.
Rather this is a reminder that we must build the kind of movement that
has the ability to withstand attempts at brutal repression.
The emerging power of open communities
As a student of modern society, I have concluded that the
key principle that will help us understand the future development and evolution
of the progressive movements today—will be the emerging power of open
communities.
What are open communities?
Let’s start with the word “open”. What does this word mean? In the most simple sense, the word “open”
means that anyone can join—all activists have a right to participate in
the community, to know what is going on with it and to work to shape its
future.
The significance of this is obvious: the fact that a
community is open means that it is very difficult for incompetent or corrupt
power centers within the community to expel, silence or isolate their
critics.
And this, in turn, means that members of an open
community will have the ability to learn about, challenge and correct
incompetence and corruption. Members of
an open community will have the opportunity to self-organize (ie:
organize from the bottom up) and attract the attention and support of
the rest of the community.
Open communities will be instruments that capture free
human labor (ie: labor that is donated for the purpose of doing something
useful rather than in exchange for money or other forms of compensation) and transform
this labor into goods and services serving humanity in large and small
ways.
Open communities will be the fruit of the emerging
revolution in digital communications.
Of course open communities certainly existed long before the
internet. But the internet is making
communities possible and practical on a larger scale that has ever been
possible or practical before. And this
is going to change everything.
Open communities will emerge in the coming period and enable
activists to overcome all the corrupt and rotten traditions, practices and
organizations which currently dominate the left. More than this—open communities will provide
favorable terrain for struggle and lead to the emergence of the revolutionary
mass party of the working class.
Conscious forces will focus on building
The term "public opinion" has often
been used to describe what, in this essay, I am calling "conscious forces". Since these forces appear destined to play
a heroic role and shape the events of this century I have attempted to give
thought to how best to describe them.
One problem with the term "public opinion" is that it is so
often used to describe something which the bourgeoisie and its flunkies can
easily manufacture or control. More than
this, the term "public opinion" tends to imply something which is
passive in nature.
A better term might be "revolutionary
public opinion". But I am more
comfortable with the term "conscious forces" because it helps readers
understand that we are describing something which by its nature is powerful and
active. Early civilizations in
the Mediterranean developed when they learned to harness the power of the wind
to move their ships, travel long distances and engage in trade with one
another. Our movement will also develop
when we learn to respect and harness the power of conscious forces. This has many implications for the nature of
our work today.
We are only as sick as our secrets
I have on many occasions met activists who
were reluctant to publicly confront practices in the movement which they
knew were wrong. I have never
understood very well the kind of thinking that leads to this kind of
behavior--but I see it a lot. I
used to think that maybe this reluctance reflected a lack of confidence (ie:
maybe something only appeared wrong but was really ok) or some kind of fear of
retaliation (ie: if I speak out about the problems in this organization they
may say bad things about me). But my
experience has led me to conclude that the most important rationalizations (ie:
internal lies we tell ourselves to justify our failure to do what we
know is right) that many activists use to justify their silence boil down to
two:
(1) it won't do any good (ie: why tell people what they
I should also note that the general attitude
that we should not say anything bad about fellow activists (or activist
organizations) is widespread in the movement. Many feel that the progressive movements are
so small and surrounded by enemies that we should refrain from saying
anything that our opponents could use against the movement. And many are so disgusted by sectarian
name-calling (which, unfortunately, is also common in the movement) that
they think they can oppose sectarianism by refusing to publicly say anything
bad about anyone. The fact remains,
however, that this is an unhealthy attitude. The antiwar and revolutionary movements will
remain paralyzed by opportunism and powerless until this attitude
is overcome.
The addiction recovery movement has a
slogan that I believe applies here: "We are only as sick as our
secrets".
Security
culture is no excuse -- It is of course true
that activist communities require a security culture in order to reduce
or minimize harassment by police, employers, landlords or immigration
officials. Even in the U.S. (ie: a
relatively safe country to be politically active) activists are sometimes
arrested, fired, blacklisted, evicted, deported (or even murdered by gangs that
have ties to police).
This is not abstract. I met one activist, Gene Viernes, here in Seattle at a political meeting and sold him
a newspaper. I remember that he had a
serious attitude. He was later murdered
as a result of his organizing activity in the Cannery Workers' Union [10]. Another local activist was attacked with a
lead pipe by youth gang elements with ties to the police. He was fortunate that he was able to relearn
how to walk and talk. I had seen him selling
his newspaper at a political meeting at the University of Washington a few
hours before the attack that left him with a large indentation on the left side
of his head where a portion of his brain and skull had been removed. Another activist, with whom I worked closely,
was fired and blacklisted
by a corrupt union boss when his workplace organizing activity was
discovered. These are only the incidents
which happened to people whom I personally met or knew--from here in Seattle in
the 1980's. As activists we have a
legitimate need to keep our names and many details of our work private.
But the political problems in our
movement must be public. And the
principles which will lead to a healthy recovery for our movement must
also be public. And this means that
activists who want to build a revolutionary movement and who have experience
must discuss and sum up this experience publicly and on a regular
basis. This is one reason that I
write an annual report every year.
This is not a very common practice at this time. I believe it will eventually be more common.
We need to be
open and honest about political problems -- There are many similar principles from the recovery movement, such
as: "When we talk about our feelings, they lose their power over
us". I believe many readers will be
able to understand why these principles are so important to building a healthy
movement. We need the unrestricted healing
flow of consciousness to help us bind our wounds, heal our injuries and develop
clarity and determination concerning the road forward. Ill-conceived attempts to keep our political
opponents in the dark about our problems--have the unintended consequence of keeping
ourselves in the dark about our problems.
And this means our problems cannot be fixed. And nothing is more helpful to our political
opponents.
The simple truth is that all progressive
organizations need criticism to be healthy and it is the best organizations
that need criticism the most (ie: because these organizations are the most
valuable to the movement and therefore the errors which undermine the work
of these organizations are the most harmful to the movement).
I believe attitudes will change when the
central importance of conscious forces (or "revolutionary public
opinion") is better appreciated.
After all, public opinion can have relatively little affect when it is
not public. Activists who are new to the
movement need to know what is going on.
That means that we (ie: activists who have been around for a while and
have experience) have a responsibility to make our views known so that newer
activists have a decent opportunity to know both what is strong and what
is weak about every organization that seeks to recruit them and
so that they will be able to develop a realistic perspective on the
nature of the antiwar and revolutionary movements and the decisive tasks
we must confront if we are to make these movements healthy and powerful.
Conscious forces will be invincible
What is new and emerging today, it appears to me, are the
possibilities for revolutionary activists to make use of the open communities
made possible by the internet to create revolutionary public opinion
focused on:
(1) resisting the corrupting influence of the
bourgeois-controlled stratum of bureaucrats, misleaders, honchos and pimps
(described above) and overcoming everything rotten within the left and
(2) building a movement (and eventually an organization)
focused on the overthrowing the capitalist system and creating a world
of peace and abundance for all.
I have come to the conclusion that the conscious force
that is emerging will, in the long run, prove to be invincible. This new force will not only organize
militant mass actions--it will (in order to accomplish the above) confront the
following decisive tasks:
(1) overcoming both the reformist and sectarian
diseases that have paralyzed the revolutionary movement
(2) overcoming the crisis of theory which currently
makes it impossible for even the most determined activists to understand, in a
realistic way, the principles that the working class will harness in
order to overcome the system of commodity production (ie: the capitalist
system) and run society better than the bourgeoisie.
(3) building a community united around the
creation of a system of media channels [11] that will:
(a) provide comprehensive news, analysis, discussion
and debate about politics, economics, technology and culture to activists
and many millions of people
(b) be centered around delivering the core message
that a world without bourgeois rule is both possible and necessary (ie: information
war on the largest possible scale).
When a critical mass of activists understand the decisive
principles that have the power to transform the left in a healthy way—then
a new force, a conscious force, will have emerged. This is what Mao described in the quote above
(ie: "a material force which changes society and changes the world").
How open communities of struggle
I can summarize my conclusions in three simple points as
follows:
(1) We need a revolutionary mass organization dedicated to
(2) Such an organization will emerge from an open community
(3) Such an open community will be created when
So how exactly will this happen?
So how will this all happen? The answer to this question is not something
that can be written by me. It will be
written by the actions of many thousands of activists over the next two
or three decades. These activists will
create open communities and make use of information war to create
the conscious forces that will bring us victory.
What I can do is far more modest: I can give a concise
summary of my experience in the past year with five political communities (or
proto-communities).
My experience in four
Before I begin, I should first mention one community of
struggle which I have not engaged significantly in the past year: the RevLeft
web-based discussion forums.
-- 0 -- The RevLeft community
RevLeft, a web-based discussion forum with more than 13
thousand registered users [12], is a good example of an emerging left
community. As far as I am aware, not a
lot of actual work is organized at the site—it is mainly (so far) only used for
discussion. But in a spot where so many
leftists of different backgrounds talk to one another—practical programs of
work are likely to eventually emerge, gain attention, compete and combine. This would be the next step in RevLeft’s
development because communities unite and develop around common work.
Many left trends with a full program of work have people
on RevLeft who post or who check out what is happening. So the forums serve as a gathering place for
a fairly large number of people with a diverse range of views. It is also run in a fairly democratic way. For all of these reasons I believe the
community there has a lot of potential—and I will eventually find ways to post
to RevLeft on a regular basis.
Raising the
signal-to-noise ratio -- The success of the RevLeft
community has also created an interesting problem: RevLeft has attracted
a large number of clueless people—who appear to spend a lot of time
passing along useless and wrong facts and opinions to one another. This problem can be seen as an
important opportunity to develop methods of increasing the signal-to-noise
ratio of the discussion on RevLeft.
A system similar (but better) to the one used at Slashdot (where
it is easy to filter out shallow or clueless comments [13]) would allow readers
to more quickly and easily find the posts (and authors) worth reading.
Steps in the
direction of collaborative filtering -- The group
which runs the RevLeft site has been experimenting with methods of increasing
the signal-to-noise ratio, such as allowing posters to give reputation
points (or "karma") to one another so that it is easier for
readers to identify who is worth engaging and who should probably be
ignored. And it is also possible for any
registered user to setup a personal "ignore list" so that they
will not have to see posts from anyone on that list. So far, there appears to be no means for
readers to automatically filter comments on the basis of the rating received
by the comment or the reputation of the author. But RevLeft is an evolving community and may
eventually discover and implement practical software design principles
that implement collaborative filtering.
Unnecessary
secrecy -- There is one issue with the way that RevLeft is run that
raises a red flag (in a bad way, not a good way). The group that runs it, the CC (this does not
stand for "Central Committee" or "Control Commission" but
rather "Commie Club") says that it maintains open and democratic
discussion concerning its practice. But
in this case the word "open" does not mean "public" (ie: as
this word is normally used in the english language) but rather means
"secret". The CC keeps its decision-making
process (and discussion) secret. Of
course there will always be a need to keep certain things secret. The need for a security culture is real. In addition to this there are also issues of
protecting personal privacy and sometimes there may be legal issues. However the general practice of keeping
day-to-day admin work and discussions secret is not a good one and will
eventually limit the ability of RevLeft to serve the revolutionary movement.
Why is this?
"Voice but
no vote" assists conscious intervention -- The main
reason is that this makes it more difficult for RevLeft members who are not in
the CC to become aware of struggles within the CC and to intervene in
those struggles in a healthy way with their voice and the weight of
their experience. If RevLeft ends up
playing any kind of significant role in the class struggle--then contradictions
will emerge within the CC which will have better chance of being correctly
resolved if they are widely known and the largest possible number of activists
have an opportunity to participate in the resolution. Hence, there would be a need for a "voice
but no vote" role for non-CC members.
In addition, we must recognize that struggles represent conflicts over principles
and often provide useful opportunities for activists to learn about
important contradictions in the movement.
I should add that, of course, RevLeft at this time is
nothing but a web-based bulletin board.
It is not an organization and it is not playing a significant role in
the class struggle. And, to my
knowledge, the CC is doing a reasonably good job. But there are many activists on RevLeft who
do want to build a revolutionary mass organization that plays a significant
role in the class struggle. And, as a
large and democratic community of leftists, RevLeft has potential to
play a role in this--to become a center of consciousness and clarity and
organizing. And the more of a role it
plays, the more important the principle of political transparency will
become.
Core has no
need for secret information -- So my
suggestion, for those who would like to see the RevLeft community move in the
direction of becoming more significant--would be to oppose any and all
tendencies in the direction of creating a tier at RevLeft which is "in the
know" or has exclusive access to privileged information relevant to
RevLeft's internal contradictions and development. Yes, it is certainly necessary that there be
a leadership core of some kind that makes decisions. This is necessary because we live in a
class-divided society saturated with ignorance and otherwise RevLeft
would eventually be flooded by (and fall under the control of) people
who are attracted to its energy but have little understanding of or liking
for revolutionary politics. But making
decisions does not require exclusive access to information. There is no real practical need for
the leadership core to have exclusive access to politically important
information. Secrecy should be limited
to where there is an actual need.
Vague rationalizations for secrecy like "it would cause
problems" or "might be misunderstood" or "it's not
convenient" reflect an inability or unwillingness, in my view, to see the RevLeft
community become a more significant center of consciousness, clarity
and focused discussion and debate in the movement.
-- 1 -- The Media Weapon
The Media Weapon community-in-embryo [14] is the
name I use to describe the few activists who participate in the Party of the
Future (POF) email discussion lists [15].
I created these lists and my experience has been that when I do not have
time to contribute to them on a regular basis—eventually no one posts there at
all. I have neglected these lists over
the last year and, as a result, the lists are currently dormant. I hope to eventually help to bring them back
to life.
-- 2 -- The Seattle Anti-Imperialist Committee
The Seattle Anti-Imperialist Committee (SAIC) [16]
is probably the best political group in Seattle. SAIC consistently creates and distributes
hundreds (sometimes thousands) of high quality leaflets which tell activists
(and other readers) the truths that they cannot get from any other left group
in town. SAIC makes it clear that Obama
is the chieftain of imperialism—and that the antiwar movement must, above all,
strive to be independent of the influence of the imperialist Democratic Party
and it innumerable flunkies and allies in the movement. SAIC deserves support—and I have
supported SAIC by means of constructive and comradely criticism—mainly
to the effect that SAIC would be more effective in the movement if it
were more open and interactive and made use of things like an
email discussion list and wiki to which activists could contribute.
Readers who have been following my writing will also know
that my support of SAIC is not particularly appreciated, to say the least, by
SAIC supporters. I used to attend and
report on SAIC's monthly public meetings.
I can't do that anymore because SAIC responded by ending the practice of
having public meetings.
I did
eventually meet up with two former SAIC supporters who gave
up on SAIC because they felt that there was something wrong with it. Neither of these activists made a public
statement about their experience or conclusions. This kind of silence is part of the
attitude I criticize above. A character
in the movie "Bambi" sums up this attitude by saying: "If you
can't say something nice about someone--don't say anything at all". A better attitude was the slogan adopted by
activists in the early years of the AIDS epidemic: "Silence =
Death". Our movement will
remain paralyzed and powerless until lots of activists with experience
recognize the need to speak out when they see things that needs to
change. Only in this way can revolutionary
activists develop a healthy consensus concerning what principles must
guide our work.
The end of
impunity -- The core of SAIC is the Communist Voice
Organization (CVO) which emerged from the wreckage of the Marxist-Leninist
Party (MLP), as did I. Over the years I
have supported SAIC when it did the right thing but have also criticized many
of the practices which limited its effectiveness. In return, some of the SAIC comrades have
responded in ways that I consider shallow and/or unprincipled [17]. One reason they have done so--is for the
simple reason that they could.
They could act with impunity because others who could see and to
some extent understand what was going on--choose not to "get
involved". I view this as a symptom
of a movement mired in paralysis, passivity, demoralization and cynicism. But time is on the side of the conscious
forces, which are in ascendancy.
I look forward to the coming period when it will be more common for
activists to recognize their ability to put the revolutionary movement
on a healthy foundation and to take action on this basis.
-- 3 -- The local marxist study group
In March of this year I was invited to a local study
group. The group leaned in the direction
of marxism and everyone in it has experience with self-styled revolutionary
organizations. The half dozen people in
the group probably had a total of more than 100 years experience in the
progressive or revolutionary movement.
We read a book by Paul LeBlanc (a well-known social-democratic intellectual)
giving an overview of the revolutionary movement in the U.S. in the last
century as well as Lenin’s “State and Revolution”.
The LeBlanc book was very useful (particularly the
chapter dealing with the degeneration of the CPUSA) and was also useful in
illustrating some of the limitations of LeBlanc’s social-democratic (ie:
reformist) ideology.
The study group
fell apart after reading "State and Revolution"
when I proposed that some of us make a public joint statement that some
of Lenin's formulations on the dictatorship of the proletariat need a correction
or update in light of the degeneration of the 1917 revolution into a
police state [18]. Lenin himself
was clear that theory concerning the dictatorship of the proletariat was of decisive
importance and that we need to speak out about it. My view was that we should also treat this
topic as if it were important.
Initially, it appeared to me that two of the study group members agreed
with me on this. It turned out however,
that this was only agreement in an intellectual sense.
These two activists got cold feet as soon as it
became clear that making such a statement would upset others in the
study group. I think their thinking may
have been that the purpose of the study group was to make it possible for
activists to meet regularly and get along (and that, gradually, in this way, we
will build the movement). If anyone got
upset--then this purpose would be defeated.
That is not my view. My political
work is for the purpose of changing the world.
And, in a class-divided society, this cannot be done if our necessary
actions are hostage to someone getting upset.
-- 4 -- The Kasama blog
The Kasama blog [19] is a community of activists centered
around refugees from the decaying Revolutionary Communist Party, USA
(RCP). It is headed up by Mike Ely, who
used to be the editor of the RCP newspaper.
By means of diligence and hard work in writing interesting
articles and developing useful discussion, Mike Ely and his
supporters have created a site with a large readership here in the U.S.
and internationally. At this time, most
likely, anyone in the world who considers himself a maoist, has an internet
connection and speaks english is probably aware of the Kasama site.
The Kasama site is a good example of what happens when
the revolution in communications (and
the idea of an open community) impacts a cargo-cult Leninist organization [20]
like the RCP. Those activists who are
fed up with the sectarianism or cult-like nature of the organization discover
they have a place to gather together which welcomes them and their criticisms
of the organization they used to support.
For example, people who post are free to make
fun of Chairman Bob (but after a while it begins to sound like a guy in a bar
who will bend the ear of every available listener to complain about his
ex-girlfriend).
Like a goldfish in a blender -- The majority of activists around the RCP have
not yet given up on it in favor of Kasama.
After all, Kasama only has: (1) open discussion on a blog and (2)
a criticism of the RCP which more or less proves that the RCP has become too
much of a cult to ever find its way back to planet earth.
In the long run, however, it appears to me
that Kasama may have the upper hand.
From this point forward each ill-considered campaign or harebrained
scheme the RCP launches will likely find at least a somewhat critical
reflection on Kasama. And it will be
difficult for the RCP to implicitly threaten its supporters with excommunication
and social isolation--because now they have an alternative place to
go to hang out with other maoists who have similar politics--without
having to put up with the stench of a rotting fish (ie: Avakian worship)
hanging around their neck. And speaking
of fish--it is the analogy of a goldfish in a blender that best describe
the long-term position of all of the cargo cult organizations in relation
to the emerging revolution in communications.
Every dirty little manipulative stunt they pull to pump up and
hoodwink their supporters will eventually be summed up and broadcast to
the world. In the long run--all the
cargo cults will be running out of places to hide.
In many ways Kasama is like a version of the RCP
without Avakian or the extreme sectarianism, manipulation and cultism for which
the RCP is well-known. But many of
the basic political views of the RCP remain popular at Kasama. For example, the main criticism to be found
of RCP’s “World Can’t Wait” campaign (which eventually took the form of an
alliance with the left wing of the imperialist Democratic Party) was
directed at the campaign’s excessive hype and unrealistic
expectations. Few people who post at
Kasama have any awareness that it was wrong for the campaign to give a
"free pass" to imperialist politicians (ie: giving a platform to
Democratic Party politicians to speak their trash without refuting their
lies) [21].
Tectonic plates
drifting apart -- The political trends most active on the Kasama site
are more or less the same as are around the RCP: (1) left-wing
social-democrats, (2) cargo-cult Leninists and (3) independent revolutionary
thinkers who are attempting to sort out the way forward (actually there are not
very many of the third category around than the RCP). The cargo-cult trends will be increasingly irrelevant
as time goes by, and the social-democrats and revolutionary thinkers will
eventually discover (as the class struggle heats up) that they are on opposite
sides, so to speak, of tectonic plates moving in different directions.
The best-laid
plans -- Mike and the people who make up the Kasama organization
want to create a revolutionary mass organization. My perspective on their practice is that they
have created some barriers that will make it difficult to move in this
direction and will need to be considered from a revolutionary perspective.
Captured by the base?
-- One problem is that a large part of the base
readership of the site does not appear to want to move in that direction. This is not necessarily a big problem by
itself if it is consciously understood--because the solution is to move forward
and if a section of the site readership does not like it--you move forward
anyway. On the other hand if you become too
concerned about maintaining readership and posting activity--then
there can be a danger of becoming captured by the needs of an audience
that includes many readers with social-democratic ideology, prejudices and
expectations. I doubt that Mike and the
Kasama leadership understand this with clarity because they appear to have
strong social-democratic prejudices themselves [22]. Furthermore, I have seen indications
suggesting this kind of weakness (as when Mike deleted a number of my posts for
being too lengthy or "authoritative" in tone with the explanation
that these posts might alienate readers).
Is the working
class the problem? -- I will discuss the other problem
in Kasama in a moment but first want to mention that Mike created a blog
posting out of my article "How to Build the Party of the Working
Class" [23] and, while I was happy to see this article get some
attention--I was disappointed in the reception it received and the discussion
which followed. One of the points which
became controversial was whether it was correct to base the party on the working
class. This basic principle of
marxism received a lot of opposition and relatively little support in the
discussion on Kasama. Most trends of
maoism have a problem with the working class and the "three-worlds" theory,
in particular, tends to look down on the working class in countries like the
U.S. And the RCP, for many years, has
denigrated the working class in favor of what it calls the "basic
masses" and so forth. So I suppose
I should not have been surprised. And
that typifies in some ways my failure to successfully engage with many readers
on Kasama. The more active ones, in my
experience, were enthralled by the emotions of the color red and idea of
revolution--but deeply suspicious of the working class. And those readers on the site who had more
confidence in the working class--tended to keep their thoughts to themselves--at
least during the period and on the threads in which I was active.
Kasama provides
political space for its critics -- Any
serious effort to create the kind of revolutionary mass organization that we
need--that has the ability to mobilize the working class in their millions for
the overthrow of bourgeois rule--must recognize the need to create political
space for open struggle concerning its agenda and priorities. People who are interested in the organization
must have easy access to this space and an easy way to link up with
others who share their views on how to move the organization forward. The Kasama site does offers political space
for its critics (except for sensitive topics like moderation--more on
that below) in the comments section under each article as well as a "threads"
forum--where readers can start their own topics--so it is important
to give the Kasama project credit for doing this.
But the space
has arbitrary restrictions -- I posted to the
"threads" forum for a while but eventually lost conviction that this
was a good use of my time for two reasons:
And this brings up the other barrier to Kasama’s healthy
development--paternalism.
A paternalistic community --
A community of sorts has developed around the Kasama blog
although I do not consider it to be a genuinely open community. Rather, based on my experience, I consider it
to be something of a paternalistic community.
I should explain my experience to readers.
Sword of Damocles --
I used to post to Kasama at least one or twice a month,
on average. I gave up on this (at least
for now) about a year ago when my posts
began to disappear without explanation.
Eventually it became clear that Mike, as the moderator, thought that
some of my posts were (1) too long, (2) too short, (3) too repetitive, (4) too
authoritative or (5) too full of links of articles I had written. Mike, it appeared, was concerned that my
posts would alienate or drive off a section of the readership he has
been working hard to build. My attempts
to discuss this in private with Mike left me with the conclusion that if I post
to the site—it would be with a Sword of Damocles [24] hanging over me
(ie: a threat of permanent expulsion if Mike decided that one of my
posts "disrespected the Kasama culture" or was “spam”).
Now some degree of moderation will always be necessary
in any system of forums which aspires to maintain the attention of serious and
busy people while also remaining open to posts from anyone. And disputes between moderators and people
who post are not uncommon. And it is
likely that Mike had some good points in his criticism of my posts. The issue here concerns how the Kasama
community can exercise effective oversight over disputes such as this.
For example, what happen if Mike, as a moderator, makes
an error? What happens if Mike
deletes one or more of my posts because it criticizes him or the way he runs
the site or the agenda he is pursuing?
What if Mike considers my posts on the need to fight reformism or the need for political transparency in revolutionary organization to be repetitive (ie: "spam") --and
permanently bans me? (This is certainly the direction things were
headed. I stopped posting when Mike threatened to permanently ban me and my posts kept
getting deleted and I thought I had been banned.)
These things can happen because humans beings are making
decisions and all of us will sometimes make mistakes.
Community must
have ability to intervene -- An open
community which is focused on the creation of a revolutionary movement and (eventually) a revolutionary organization—must recognize that there is a need for
the community to be aware of these kinds of disputes and, when
necessary, intervene to help resolve these disputes in a way that is
healthy and helps to build the community and strengthen the focus
of the community on the principles which are most important.
Basically, I recognize Mike’s authority as moderator but
I also believe there is a need for the Kasama community to be aware of
his actions in deleting my posts and to have an opportunity to hear the views
of both Mike and me on this topic. That
way, if or when Mike goes overboard in deleting my posts (as I believe he has)
cooler heads in the Kasama community can help everyone to maintain a calm and
sober perspective.
A thread on
"moderation" where discussion of moderation is banned --
Chemistry without atoms or molecules
-- To me, this is like creating a
thread to discuss chemistry but prohibiting discussion of any specific atoms or
molecules—in other words a silly waste of everyone's time. If the Kasama community cannot be trusted to know anything about or discuss
disputes concerning how the site is moderated (ie: something basic and
simple)—then how can this community play its necessary role in knowing about and discussing the far more
complex issues that will be involved in the creation of a genuinely revolutionary
movement and organization?
Or, in other words, if Mike can permanently expel me
from his site (as he has repeatedly
threatened to do—to the point where I thought he had made a decision to
expel me) without the Kasama community knowing about it or lending to
this dispute the weight of its experience—then this is a community organized on
the basis of paternalistic principles—where members of the community are
treated like children and not trusted to know what is really going on.
Contradiction between words and deed
– The Kasama project posted a leaflet intended for wide
distribution which included the following appeal to activists:
Here we see the contradiction between word and deed. Kasama recognizes that there has been something deeply wrong with traditional communist organization as it been practiced for many decades. Kasama asks activists like me to be part of the community and help them struggle to find the correct path forward. Then my posts are deleted for being too long or too short or having too many links or having an “authoritative” tone or “disrespecting the Kasama culture” or being “repetitive” or not doing enough to engage and entertain and captivate and delight readers (many of whom, frankly, just do not like what I have to say) and I am repeatedly threatened with permanent expulsion--and all this nonsense is hidden from the community.
Kasama needs to make up its mind --
If Mike and Kasama want activists to come to their project and treat it as if it is for real—then
they need to make up their minds that they are not the RCP and cut out this kind of petty, annoying and stupid childish crap. Yes, they can post a thousand entries on their blog criticizing Avakian. But it will not do them any good if they act like Avakian.
Cargo-cult mentality --
It is not a big deal that Mike made some errors as
moderator and tampered with or deleted a number of my posts (after all he is
only humans and mistakes are inevitable).
But when Mike insists that disputes
over moderation must remain hidden (ie: secret) from the Kasama community—he
has fallen victim to the cargo-cult
mentality that saturated the organization (ie: the RCP) that trained
him. It is like Dr. Strangelove, in the
famous movie of the same name, attempting to give a “Heil Hitler” salute with
his right hand while furiously using his left hand to wrestle his right arm
down.
The degeneration of Lenin’s 1917 revolution and the
communist movement is inseparable from excessively
centralized control and concentration of power. These undemocratic
emergency measures were
necessary in Lenin’s time (ie: because in the conditions of the time the
bourgeoisie would have returned to power within
months if the most harsh and drastic measures had not been implemented) but
later, after conditions had improved—these same undemocratic measures were then
used to suffocate the revolution and enslave the working class in the
period after Lenin died. The
revolutionary communist movement has been struggling to confront this poisonous
legacy since that time. Until we do this—we will never escape the
swamp.
Mike and his fellow thinkers can issue a thousand declarations claiming that they understand they need to reconceive. I will believe them when I see it in their actions.
Why should it be necessary to keep disputes over moderation secret? Yes, you will need to keep moderation disputes
secret if you are Avakian and need to hide
a trainload of ugly truths from activists.
But an organization which has nothing to hide from activists will be
able to find a way to engage the
community in useful and necessary
work related to moderation and the creation of a signal-to-noise ratio in discussion that is attractive to serious activists.
The road
forward for Kasama -- I would like to see the Kasama
site develop. For this to happen, in my
view, it will be necessary for the Kasama
community to play more of role in determining how the site is run. In particular there needs to effective (and public!) oversight by
the community of moderation so that
when moderators make errors (which is inevitable) or disputes over moderation
become heated—cooler heads in the community can help find a resolution that
recognizes the need for both:
(1) open struggle over principles and
Community
oversight of moderation is not the only thing that will be necessary for
Kasama’s healthy development--but it would be a good start and would make it easier for members of the Kasama
community to engage in the necessary
open struggle to move Kasama away from both social-democratic and
cargo-cultist prejudices and influence. I
look forward to seeing this happen.
Fiery collisions
The period ahead, in my view, will be characterized by a
transformation of, essentially, all the existing left political trends which
are currently engaged in cutthroat competition with one another. This competition will continue--but each
trend, faced with the alternative of extinction, will find itself compelled
to transform itself, to a greater or lesser extent, into a different kind
of trend with many of the features of a community. The key feature of a community, as I
noted at the beginning of this essay, is that communities are more difficult
to control in a top-down fashion by a corrupt leadership than a more centralized
cult-like organization. The activists
at the base of many of the competing political trends have a desire to
join forces with other activists in a united effort. As competing political trends are compelled
to acquire the characteristics of communities--this desire of activists at the
base to merge their efforts with those of other activists--will become more
difficult to control.
I believe this development will have great significance
for the healthy evolution of the left and the revolutionary movement.
I believe that communities will tend to collide and
merge and, as they do so, undergo differentiation. The best analogy here is the formation of the
earth: clusters of rock formed and clumped together, planetesimals collided
under the influence of gravity and, as a critical mass came together,
differentiation followed as the heavier iron and nickel sunk down and formed
the core while the lighter silicon and oxygen floated up and formed the crust.
I know some of my readers dislike what they call
"argument by analogy". So I
will acknowledge that the above analogy, by itself, proves nothing. I present this analogy because I believe I
have a responsibility to the more serious activists to give them
my view, with the greatest clarity of which I am capable, of the fundamental
processes I believe will be shaping the left and the revolutionary movement
in the period ahead. When we understand
the big picture we can better position our work to have the greatest
impact.
If a single serious activist understands the significance
of the principles I have outlined in this essay--then my efforts have been
successful. Ultimately, revolutionary
organization will prove to be a matter of life and death. And the principles that will allow us
to create effective organization are, because of this, also a matter of life
and death.
And to those readers who find my analogies interesting--I
ask you to read some of my key related articles.
Conclusion:
There is a group of Indians in Canada called the Alkali
Lake Band of Indians [26]. The
story, as I heard it, was that, at one point in time, every member of this
group had become an alcoholic. The recovery
of the tribe started with a single Indian becoming sober and working
to bring sobriety, one by one, to other members of his tribe. This is a bit how I view my role within the
revolutionary movement and the left. I
have focused on theoretical work because there was a need for it. I believe I have essentially completed my
theoretical work. The issue for me now
will be to help use some of the tools I have developed to bring others to
sobriety. My abilities (to the extent I
have any abilities) are not because I am in any way brilliant. Rather, in my view, circumstances have left
me in the right place at the right time.
I have been left sober by the circumstances in which I have found myself
(ie: the collapse of the organization, the MLP, to which I had dedicated my
life) and I will work as best I can to bring sobriety to others with greater
abilities who may turn out to be the real leaders of our movement.
Those who have followed my work for a while know that I
have often written about what I call cargo-cult Leninism and that I am inspired
by the recovery movement, composed of people struggling to maintain a clean and
sober perspective on their lives. I
understand denial and the struggle against it.
And I will therefore leave readers with a link to what is possibly the
most famous sketch on this topic every
created, which effectively captures the thoughts and emotions of the
cargo-cultists as reality closes in on them.
John Bellushi, Dan Aykroyd, Chevy Chase and
Elliot Gould star in Saturday Night Live's "The Last Voyage of the
Starship Enterprise" [27].
---- Notes ----
[1] annual reports |
Want to post your thoughtful and considered comments?
Go to
this wiki page
and post to the "threads" section
at the bottom of the page
Want to post your thoughtful and considered comments?
Go to
this wiki page
and post to the "threads" section
at the bottom of the page