A comment on RCP's current "Battle for the Future" campaign (part 2):
Nothing but Hot Air
Talk of "proletarian democracy" without recognition of
the central and decisive role of democratic rights
is nothing but breezy nonsense
To save space on this page the RCP's leaflet:
The Battle For The Future Will Be Fought From Here Forward!
has been moved here.
Go to top
2. Ben replies -- RCP has forgotten about democratic rights
|
RCP's article overlooks question of democracy
by Ben Seattle on 19 Dec 2004
We need
to be thinking about a future in which the world is not ruled by the bourgeoisie but,
unfortunately, this article falls short of what is needed.
The biggest ideological
obstacle to thinking about a world not ruled by the bourgeoisie -- is the myth that the
alternative -- the rule of the working class -- must necessarily assume the form of a police
state (ie: the rule of a single party which has a monopoly of political power and which
suppresses the democratic rights of its opponents).
Crisis of theory
This myth originates in the experience of the Soviet and Chinese revolutions of 1917 and 1949.
Both of these revolutions degenerated into revisionist police states in which a new ruling class
distorted marxism in order to justify the permanent suppression of the independent political
voice and independent politial life of the working class. The result of this myth has been a
"crisis of theory" which has led to the paralysis of the left and the growth of both the
reformist and sectarian diseases which currently infect (and greatly undermine the work of)
nearly all progressive organizations.
This myth, and the resulting crisis of
theory, must be smashed up so that hundreds of thousands of activists will be able to understand
that a world without bourgeois rule must be the goal of the progressive movement.
The RCP/Avakian article, however, is quite weak in terms of challenging this myth and the crisis
of theory.
The article can only say that "yes, there must be, and there will be,
firm leadership to hold onto power for the people and to guide all the complex and challenging
struggle."
Translation: working class rule will assume the form of the rule of a
single party.
Bullshit.
The reality is that the working class will
exercise firm leadership -- but this leadership will not necessarily assume the form of the rule
of a single party. More to the point, working class rule will see the emergence and development
of a very large number of political organizations which both cooperate and compete with one
another in a very complex political ecosystem.
The emergence of a vast number of
political organizations will be based on the fundamental democratic rights which all citizens
will enjoy.
The RCP, unfortunately, does not have a clue concerning these
democratic rights and why they will be necessary in a modern society -- that is why the RCP is
unable to discuss these rights in an article which is supposedly aimed at addressing the
concerns which activists have about a future police state.
The best the RCP can do
is talk about how "millions will be drawn" into the work of the state and that the "leadership
of society" (ie: RCP's euphemism for the single political party that will have final say
concerning who is allowed to speak and who is not) will not be afraid of people who ask
questions.
This kind of talk is empty if it cannot address the question of
democratic rights. Democratic rights will make it possible for the masses to organize themselves
to oppose and smash up the incompetence, hypocrisy and corruption which will, from time to time,
emerge even in a workers' state.
I respect the dedication and hard work of the RCP
activists -- and I recognize that much of their agitation and their tactical contributions in
street demonstrations are useful to the movement. But this organization is bankrupt in theory.
The RCP cannot address the question of democratic rights because the monolithic theoretical
views which dominate their organization are unable to confront the crisis of theory.
Ben Seattle
http://struggle.net/ben
Related articles (without the typical bullshit):
Proletarism is anti-revisionist
Marxism for the 21st century
http://struggle.net/proletarism
Politics, Economics and the Mass Media
when the working class runs the show
http://struggle.net/ALDS/essay_153_content.htm
Go to top
3. Janx (a kid around the RCYB) ignores Ben and
asks readers to engage with content of RCP's leaflet
|
step up and Battle For The Future!!!!
by Janx on 19 Dec 2004
The RCYB and other communist forces in Atlanta
are organizing to massively distribute this statment to hundreds of thousands of people in
Atlanta and the suroounding areas.
To do this
The flyer is now availble in
the Atlanta area for people to get bundles of!
We aim to distribute millions of copies
of this statement across the country in the next few weeks. Our goal is to have a major impact
on society. To change the terms of the debate. To help build a massive movement of resistance to
the Bush juggernaut of war and fascism that will manifest in the streets across of this county
on inauguration day and beyond. To bring our dreams of a different future into reality.
To let people know we have a leader in RCP Chairman Bob Avakian that can lead a mighty struggle to make
revolution and remake all of society- with his pathbreaking vision of a society we would really
WANT to live in.
If you have not already done so, read the statement. Let us know
what you think. Bring your ideas, your creativity your questions and yes yes yes your
disagreements to us and help figure out how we can rise to the occasion. Strategize with us on
how to spread it to every corner of the U.S.- red and blue states, campuses and universities,
rural ares, suburbs and cities.
In Atlanta:
- Get in touch with the
Revolutionary
Communist Youth Brigade
at rcyb_atl (at) yahoo.com
- Get bundles of flyers from RW
supporters rwatl (at) hotmail.com
- You can get a copy of the stament
online at
www.rwor.org
- check out the new website
www.bobavakian.net
- read the latest
issue of the
Revolutionary Worker newspaper and
check other other
works by Bob
Avakian at www.rwor.org
Go to top
4. Ben challenges Janx to reply to criticism of leaflet
|
Reply to Janx re: democratic rights
by Ben Seattle on 19 Dec 2004
Quote from Janx:
"Let us know what
you think. Bring your ideas, your creativity your questions and yes yes yes your disagreements
to us and help figure out how we can rise to the occasion"
Ok Janx, give some
thought to the questions I raise above related to the nature of democratic rights in a modern,
economically developed society after bourgeois rule has been overthrown. This will help your
organization rize to the occasion.
Will workers' rule necessarily assume the form
of the rule of a single party that has final say over who is (and who is not) allowed to express
his views?
If your organization cannot give thoughtful replies to critics
(including a correct answer to questions related to democratic rights in post-bourgeois society)
then you may not yet be deserving of the respect and attention of the working class.
Ben Seattle
http://struggle.net/ben
Re: The Battle For The Future Will Be Fought From Here Forward!
by Janx on 22 Dec 2004
"Ben
Seattle" raises some very important and deep
questions, despite the unnecessarily hostile
tone and
approach. Among the contradictions he speaks to is,
when a revolutionary
communist party wins a revolution
and has state power, will it not become a police
state
as well? In fact Ben goes on to say that this is
exactly what happened in
China and the Soviet Union.
I do not want to undervalue or underrate to extreme
importance of deeply thinking through and
understanding the questions that Ben raises.
However
at this moment I can only make a brief reply and
cannot answer all the
contradictions that he raises.
Another point, I do not want to pretend that I have
all the answers to these questions, like so many
others, I am trying to learn how to
change the world.
I think its important to engage what Bob Avakian has
been
writing about recently, we all need to
RE-envision socialism and communism. He is
challenging
all communists to look back through our history with a
scientific and
fearless methodology and learn from
both the positive and negative lessons.
The proletariat (those that who are most exploited by
the capitalist mode of production)
is the class who
has the most interest in overthrowing capitalism and
running a
society in the interests of humanity. Any
society in a class divided world will be run by
the
interests of one class or another. Socialist society
is the society in which the
proletarian classes'
interest is in controland setting the terms of
society. But
this is not to say that newly emerging
capitalists (including and in particular, members
of
the communist party) will not try to overthrow the
rule of the masses.
The society I am talking about is called the
dictatorship of the proletariat, and it is
in
opposition to the current capitalist society and
vastly more democratic than the
society we live in
today, the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie (aka
bourgeois
democracy).
The dictatorship of the proletariat (DOP) during socialism,
is a
necessary step to bringing a better world into
being. Now, what Ben poses is that this DOP
is really
a dictatorship of the revolutionary communist party.
And, in all honesty,
at the beginning of sociailism it
will very likely seem like it. It will be a major
challenge and necessity for all genuine
revolutionaries to build new organs of state
power
asap that allow more and more of the masses of people
to run and rule all
society. Some of the organs of
power will have to have been built during the
revolutionary period.
Yet this is not and will not be enough!!! Bob Avakian
has been writing extensively on these questions. How
do we "expand the we" under
socialism? Why dissent and
debate are necessary and must be embraced under
socialism, not suppressed and crushed! That the masses
have been kept from learning how to
work with ideas,
that this contradiction (between those that are
trained to work
with their minds, and those that are
trained to work with hands) must be overcome as a
part
of the masses more and more firmly ruling all of
society. and much more. Like I
said before I cannot
write much at this time.
I encourage you to read the
recent series of article
by Bob Avakian on Dictatorship and Democracy. I think
in
these article you may find that you do not know the
RCP's perspective as well as you may
think! lol, and
hopefully you will find this very refreshing!
http://r
wor.org/bob_avakian/new_speech/avakian_democracy_dictatorship_speech.htm
In the
most recent issue of the Revolutionary Worker
an article was published on epistemology.
What Bob
Avakian talks about in this article is a real advance
from the traditional
thinking in the international
communist movement, including that of Lenin and Mao. I
encourage you to check this article out.
Re: The Battle For The Future Will Be Fought From Here Forward!
by Janx on 22 Dec 2004
Sorry
about the double reply, if a mod could take care of that it would be great, I apologize for the
inconvenience.
Ben said "Ok Janx, give some thought to the questions I raise above
related to the nature of democratic rights in a modern, economically developed society after
bourgeois rule has been overthrown. This will help your organization rize to the occasion."
I agree totally! This is a deep question (as I spoke to in my last reply a bit)
and needs a lot of thought. How do we bring into being a new society in which the seeds of a
whole new and better world are being planted, and a society that people would want to live in;
all the while not setting the masses up for defeat. The extent to which revolutionaries give
thought to these question has everything to do with whether or not we will rise to the
occasion.
And it may interest you to know that it is exactly this question (and
questions related to this) that Bob Avakian has speaking to and bringing new insights and
understanding to.
Dictatorship and Democracy, and the Socialist Transition
to Communism
http://rwor.org/chair_e.htm#democracyspeech
On Proletarian Democracy and Proletarian Dictatorship--A Radically
Different View of Leading Society
http://rwor.org/chair_e.htm#onproletarian
I also want to genuinely encourage you to dig into these documents and
let us know what you think about what our leader is saying. Like it asked in the RCP statement
at the top of this page "Will you bring your ideas, your creativity, your questions and yes,
your disagreements to us, and help figure out how we can rise to the occasion?" Clearly you have
stepped up, and are bringing your questions and some of your perceived disagreements (as well as
some very real ones). Lets keep up this conversation, as before, my email is at the top of this
thread.
Go to top
7. Ben challenges Janx to prove that he is for real
|
Ben Seattle challenges Janx to show he is for real
by Ben Seattle on 24 Dec 2004
Hi
Janx,
Ok, I read the first of the articles that you recommended (ie:
dictatorship and democracy).
The speech, together with the
questions and answers,
totalled more than 70
thousand words (ie: 92 pages when I printed it out with half inch margins). Considering that the
RCP, in spite of its problems, does a number of useful things in the movement -- I take it
seriously as a political trend -- and at least once every ten years I will read an article by
your chairman Bob, even though he is one of the most long-winded and digressive speakers since
the death of the charlatan Hardial Bains. So I am now good until the year 2015.
I
had to read in his speech all these _stories_ about Krushchev, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Kennedy and
the Dalai Lama in order to better understand how your group believes that society will be run
after the bourgeoisie are overthrown. These stories can be useful history to many activists who
know very little of the real history of this century. But to me it was somewhat painful to wade
thru all this stuff because I have been around the block and am already familiar with it all.
Why many activists dislike the RCP
I know that many of the RCP's supporters are sensitive to perceived disrespect of their
organization. If my remarks here appear to be flippant or borderline disrespectful -- please
understand that I want to encourage other activists to communicate and engage with you and
intend to demonstrate to other activists, who may read these words, that it is possible to
communicate with your group without either (a) trashing you completely or (b) displaying an
overly reverential attitude which deadens the spirit of calling you on your mistakes.
Many activists in the movement intensely dislike your group. I think that the main reasons
for this are (1) a perception of cult-like behavior by your group and (2) an instinctive disgust
with your theoretical views concerning how society will be run after bourgeois rule is
overthrown (ie: you guys really do believe that your organization will be running things during
this period and will, during times of crisis, have final say concerning who is allowed to speak
and who will need to be suppressed as a "counter-revolutionary").
I am not going to
address the issue of cult-like behavior. There are a lot of groups on the left with strange or
manipulative behavior and nobody is perfect. I do not want to get bogged down into discussion of
what does (or does not) constitute annoying or frustrating behavior because, frankly, in the
context of the present exchange between you and me -- this is not really important. If the two
of us can talk to one another as one activist to another -- and if we can treat one another with
respect -- and make an effort to listen to one another -- then there is a basis for sincere and
productive discussion.
Nor am I in the least bit frightened of your theoretical
views (ie: your views of Mao or Stalin or your assessment that, while they were alive, the
Soviet Union and China represented a form of workers' rule). The anarchists, of course, are
really frightened by your views -- because they actually imagine (as do you) that you might come
to power and, in the context of a crisis, shut them up.
I have more confidence in
the working class than this. No group (or collection of groups) is going to win the respect and
attention of the working class (much less lead the working class to victory against the
bourgeoisie) until it demonstrates that it actually understands the conditions of modern society
well enough to dispose of the mythology that has accumulated over many decades concerning the
"DOP" (ie: the dictatorship of the proletariat).
Smashing myths
The first myth is that the "DOP" is really the dictatorship of a
party. The bourgeoisie promotes this line, the Soviet and Chinese revisionists promoted this
line -- and so do you (see above: "at the beginning of socialism it will very likely seem like
it").
The second myth is that the ruling party/state will suppress criticism (ie:
suppress the democratic rights of speech, organization and assembly) from sources it does not
like.
These myths grew out of the Soviet and Chinese experiences. During the period
in which Lenin was alive the party and the state _were_ merged and the party/state _did_
suppress its critics. Lenin did not apologize for these things because they were necessary
emergency measures in the wake of a civil war that had shattered the economy and created a
famine in which 20 million died.
But Lenin never called these emergency measures
"socialism". He did (at various times) call these measures the "dictatorship of the proletariat"
and this has, unfortunately, led to a great deal of confusion -- because the working class, as a
_class_, never ruled in Russia. What existed instead was the rule of a party which was
determined to create the conditions that would make this possible (ie: a functioning economy and
the democratic rights that could not be restored in the absence of a functioning economy without
setting in train a series of events that would have quickly resulted in a restoration of
bourgeois rule).
Unfortunately, the restoration of the shattered economy took more
than ten years -- and by that time the ruling party appears to have degenerated (and to become
the organizing center for a new ruling class). The emergency measures which Lenin instituted,
and which were intended to be temporary, became enshrined as supposedly permanent features of
workers' rule -- and the permanent suppression of the independent political voice and
independent political life of the working class was justified by a new state religion called
"marxism-leninism".
These myths have been promoted by Stalinists and Trotskyists
alike -- and by the bourgeoisie -- and have resulted in a "crisis of theory" which makes it very
difficult for even the most serious and militant activists to understand, in a realistic way,
what the alternative to bourgeois rule will look like in the context of a modern developed
society under stable conditions (ie: with a functioning economy, a working class majority, not
in the midst of civil war or under major military attack by imperialist powers, etc).
confronting the crisis of theory
Any
serious and sober attempt to confront the crisis of theory (as it applies to a modern country
like the U.S. with a developed economy and communications infrastructure) must recognize that it
will be neither necessary (nor even possible) to suppress, on a long-term basis, the basic
democratic rights of the population to either voice their views -- or to become familar with the
views of others (even if these views are reactionary).
A real workers' state, under
modern conditions, will instead work to suppress reactionary views only in those forms of
communication that are based on commercial resources (ie: forms of communication that make use
of paid labor rather than volunteer labor, or similar commercial resources). Forms of speech
that are outside of the commodity sphere (ie: web sites, leaflets or newsletters by individuals
or groups on the basis of volunteer labor and which receive no money from advertizing, etc) will
be essentially unregulated by the workers' state.
This alone will cut the bourgeois
apologists down to size -- where they will be confronted by the energy (and the bitter
experience) of the masses who will expose and defeat them in millions and billions of individual
public encounters.
Efforts of the RCP to correct its errors
The most interesting thing about Avakian's
speech is that it appears to represent a certain striving (within both the ranks and the
leadership of the RCP) to make contact with reality. Voices in your organization (including
chairman Bob) are begining to recognize that you actually know a lot less than you thought you
did. Even Bob, himself, admits that sometimes he has read things that he has written -- and
realized that it is bullshit.
The problem that the RCP faces, as it struggles to
develop more scientific views and overcome the cultish beliefs and practices that hold it back
and are annoying to many activists, is two-fold:
(1) the need to hold the
organization together
(2) the need to remain focused on its core mission:
the mobilization of the working class
for the overthrow of bourgeois rule
In his 70 thousand word speech, chairman Bob discussed his concern that the RCP would be pulled
in different directions (ie: split or disintegrate) by comparing the situation to the old
English practice of "quartering" where stout ropes would be tied from each of a person's arms
and legs to four strong horses which would pull the person apart. This is a painful prospect and
reasonable concern.
The organization which I supported (ie: the Marxist-Leninst
Party) disintegrated in confusion in 1993 under the pressure of attempting to confront the
crisis of theory and place its views on a more scientific basis. Amid acrimonious infighting,
two-thirds of the members of the MLP collapsed into complete passivity. Much of the rest of the
organization retreated into sectarianism (ie: the Communist Voice Organization -- which in spite
of its problems still does a fair amount of useful work for its size -- just like the RCP). A
few people around the MLP became outright reformists -- kissing the ass of Social-Democracy and
the left wing of the Democratic Party that they had formerly denounced (correctly) as flunkies
of the bourgeoisie.
I think that the description of your organizational project
needing to be a "solid core with a lot of elasticity" is a reasonable way to approach this. You
guys need to be able to talk to one another (as well as to activists and to people like me) in a
calm way as you all work to come down to earth in such a way that your organization does not
disintegrate into passivity, reformism or sectarianism (ie: more than it is already
sectarian).
It will become clear, with time, that many of your current positions in
relation to Stalin, Mao, your exalted chairman himself and "MLM" are untenable. The danger is
that, as this happens, many around your organization will also conclude that your basic mission
(ie: the overthrow of bourgeois rule and its replacement with workers' rule) is unrealistic. So
I would think it would be better for your organization to undergo a "soft landing", so to speak,
rather than to crash like the MLP did.
The working class needs a genuine mass
revolutionary organization. Such an organization does not currently exist. It will need to be
created -- and it will be. And I see no reason that people around your group could not play a
principled and useful role in this process.
Theoretical poverty
(example # 1)
Janx:
> I also want to genuinely
encourage you
> to dig into these documents and
> let us know what you think
Well, Janx, I have the ability to tell _you_ what I think (if you are prepared to
listen). To what extent my views will penetrate up the ranks of your organization to the people
who prepared the very poorly thought-thru "Battle For The Future" leaflet -- I am frankly, very
deeply skeptical.
The comments that Avakian makes in his speech that are directly
related to the attitude of your group concerning the democratic rights of the masses after the
overthrow of bourgeois rule -- could probably be put on a single page (instead of spread
diffusely over 92 pages). What we find out is that the RCP recognizes that a revolutionary
government would find a greater need to "tighten the reins" during periods in which it was weak
and insecure -- and would feel less of a need to do this during periods when it felt strong and
secure. And this may be true.
But nowhere does you organization recognize that any
revolutionary government which denies the basic democratic rights (ie: speech, assembly,
organization, agitation, etc) to the working class as a whole cannot be said to represent the
rule of the working class as a class -- ie: cannot be said to constitute the "dictatorship of
the proletariat" but can, _at best_, be said to represent the dictatorship of a group which
_intends_ to create the D of P.
Nowhere does your organization recognize that, in
the context of a modern, stable society, it will be neither necessary (nor even possible) for a
revolutionary government to silence the voices of its political opponents (whether the voices of
worker critics or reactionary critics) over the long term.
Avakian gives a highly
disingenuous example of a situation where the ruling party/state might need to suppress the
voice of critics:
> I was having another discussion with
> another poet, and
he was arguing that
> you really shouldn't suppress ideas,
> you really have to let
all these ideas
> come out, and then criticize the things
> that you think are wrong
and let people
> learn. And I said: "Well, that's good
> as a principle, and it
should be applied
> to a significant degree, but you can't
> make an absolute out of
that." And I
> gave this example: imagine if you were
> trying to build a new
society, and you
> go down the street and at every street
> corner are paintings of
women being
> raped and Black people being lynched.
> Do you think you could build a
new
> society with those images assaulting
> people at every turn? Some things
you
> have to put your foot down and say
> "This will not be allowed, because if
> it is, the masses of people are going
> to be demoralized and disoriented, and
> the reactionaries are going to be
> emboldened."
Excuse me but this is
exactly how charlatans argue.
When was the last time, Janx, that you, living under
conditions of bourgeois democracy, walked down the street and were confronted at every corner
with such clear incitements to rape and lynching?
Is this supposed to be a
realistic example of why a revolutionary government would need to silence the voices of its
critics?
Theoretical poverty
(example # 2)
Elsewhere, while discussing the need for "freedom
of expression, freedom of ideas", Avakian says:
> if you want to put it crudely --
we can't
> promise the intellectuals some of the
> same things that the bourgeoisie
is able
> to afford them now.
I think that this sums up where the RCP, and
many other similar groups, fail to understand the material conditions of modern society.
Taken literally, of course, an argument could be made that Avakian is correct. Today, for
example, the bourgeoisie can say to someone like Rush Limbaugh or Tom Leykis (if you want to
call them intellectuals) that they can make millions of dollars spouting reactionary
nonsense.
That, of course, is not going to happen when society is ruled by the
working class.
People like Limbaugh or Leykis will be able to spout reactionary
poison if they want -- but they won't be able to make any money doing so -- nor will anyone with
money be able to use that money to _amplify_ the volume of their reactionary garbage.
How will this work?
Anti-people demogogues (and reactionaries of all sorts) will
have the right to spew their poison only in the sphere of media that is free of commodity
relations.
Reactionary ideologues derive much of their power from the fact that
their voice is amplified a million fold by the resources of the wealthy. Once this artifical
amplification is eliminated (ie: by a revolutionary government which expresses the democratic
will of the masses by regulating all media which is commercial or is backed by commercial
resources) the reactionary demogogues will be cut down to size and find themselves overwhelmed
by the energy and experience of the masses.
This is fundamental because, by making
a clear distinction between commercial media (which the revolutionary government will have the
right to regulate) and free media (which will remain essentially unregulated), the potential for
the abuse of power is reduced enormously.
History informs us that whenever the
potential to suppress has existed -- it has eventually been used to suppress the voice of the
masses. Even Mao himself, by way of example, was unable to get his essays (which launched the
{Cultural} Revolution) published in Beijing (he eventually was able to publish in Shanghai).
The _rights_ of the masses to openly criticise and organize against the incompetence,
hypocrisy and corruption that will inevitably emerge even in the workers' state -- will be
_fundamental_ to the dictatorship of the proletariat in the context of modern, stable
conditions.
Technology helps us to see this -- because censorship in an economy
that is based on a modern communications infrastructure -- is becoming increasingly impractical.
For example, the corrupt, revisionist Chinese government is already finding that it requires an
ever-larger army of censors to maintain control of the electronic discourse in public forums --
and as internet usage in China continues to expand -- their problems in this sphere are growing
exponentially.
The concerns of activists that the RCP has a "totalitarian" agenda
has emerged as a major stumbling block in the ability of the RCP to "change the terms" of the
political debate in society (the term "totalitarian" for example can be found 14 times in
Avakian's speech and the Q&A that follows). But the RCP is unable to confront this challenge
_directly_ because they do not understand the material conditions of modern society -- they do
not understand that the media sphere will be a thousand times richer in proletarian society --
they do not understand how the media ecosystem will function as a result of the interplay
between the regulated commercial media sector and the unregulated free media sector.
This is why Avakian's timidity on this topic is _hidden_ (ie: buried under the protection of
92 pages of discursive long-winded ramblings about Krushchev, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Kennedy,
Ferdinand Marcos, the Shah of Iran, Howard Dean, David Letterman, Amy Goodman, Noam Chomsky and
the Dalai Lama) in the course of a speech that spends 98% of its content talking about the
hypocrisies to be found under bourgeois democracy -- and 2% of its content attempting to make
apologies for the mistaken notion that a genuine workers' state (supported by the overwhelming
majority of the population) will need to be afraid of (and will need to suppress) the voices of
its opponents.
This is why the leaflet "The Battle For The Future" does not contain
a single word about democratic rights but can simply repeat stale and clueless phrases about
"unleashing" or "embracing" the masses. We can do better than this.
My challenge to Janx
Since you admit, Janx, that I am raising very
important questions -- and you also admit that you know nothing about them -- then why not read
some of _my_ work where I give answers to these questions? I am a theoretician who is focused on
resolving the crisis of theory and, in particular, on the nature of workers' rule in the context
of a modern, stable society (ie: such as you and I live in). Comrade Bob says that people around
your party need to get better at dealing with ideas -- so why don't you become familiar with
some of my ideas?
You can start by reading the two articles I listed above:
Proletarism is anti-revisionist Marxism for the 21st century
http://struggle.net/proletarism
Politics, Economics and the Mass Media
when the working class runs the show
http://struggle.net/ALDS/essay_153_content
.htm
And, if you want to go a little bit deeper than the relatively short
articles above -- you can look at my article "The World for which We Fight" (ie: part 7 of the
Anarcho_Leninist Debate on the State at http://struggle.net/ALDS ).
More than this, you
can join me on the pof-200 email list -- which is focused on the crisis of theory as well as
other tasks which are decisive in the struggle to overthrow bourgeois rule. The pof-200 list
allows all subscribers to post only once a week (this is to maintain an acceptable
signal-to-noise ratio on a list which includes many young people who may not always understand
that they are clueless).
Send email to:
pof-200-subscribe (at) yahoogroups.com
List info at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pof-200/
The list could certainly use someone, like yourself, who has experience in the
revolutionary movement. I should be clear, however, that I am inviting _you_ (or any serious
activists who may be reading this Indymedia post) to participate in the life of the list with
your _own_ views and opinions. Activists who simply post the "latest" from their organization
without taking the time to answer questions about it or engage in discussion -- are encouraged
to go somewhere else.
So this is my challenge to you, Janx. I read the 70,000 word
speech by a long-winded leader "the likes of which this country has never seen before" -- and I
now challenge you to read some of what I have written -- and to tell me what you think of it --
on the pof-200 list. I can assure you that my work is far more concise and focused than that of
chairman Bob.
Sincerely and revolutionary regards,
Ben Seattle
http://struggle.net/ben
It will probably be no suprise to many that I never heard from this guy again.
These people claim they want to engage.
But if you make an effort to confront them on their windy nonsense ... they disappear.
Ben Seattle • January 28, 2005
|