Frank's latest statement

(Frank's statement follows short intro by Alex G)



-----Original Message-----
From: Alex G.
Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2007 9:34 AM
To: pof-300@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [pof-300] Frank's latest statement

Having sent my reply to Frank, today I recieved Frank's response.

I found it to be hostile and very quickly written, so I was honestly 
a little disappointed. Again, he used weasel words when dealing with 
the issue of democratic rights of free speech and a one-party state, 
which should hopefully show to readers that the idea of 
the "communist party" being "merged" with the class is bankrupt.

He continued saying that Ben and I don't realize that practical 
things like distributing pamphlets are important, and that we don't 
care about the future of SAIC because we suggest improvements... 
These statements aren't very sound in my opinion.

He claims I "evaded" the issue when dealing with Lenin's "Left-Wing 
Communism," but I did not. I explained the differences between what 
the German "Left Communists" advocated and what we advocate, but he 
seems stuck on the idea that we and the German "Lefts" are one and 
the same.

Finally, he did not make an attempt to "finish" his previous comments 
and instead recycled the same arguments (just with a little bit more 
anger this time).

But as I said, this debate is not necessarily for Frank. It is for 
SAIC supporters who read it and the readers of this list to benefit 
from. I don't think Frank will ever change his mind, but hopefully, 
it will get people's brains working.

I will probably not follow up Frank's latest statement with a 
response, at least not for a while. I have been focusing a lot lately 
on building consciousness in my home town and building a real anti-
war movement in our area (which we currently don't have), so I should 
be fairly busy with that.

However, I should note that I sent an email to Frank privately 
regarding his reply and I quickly addressed a couple of things he 
said that I took issue with. But I didn't say anything new, and I 
didn't feel it necessary to post it here.

I should also address that I added a quote from Lenin's "State and 
Revolution" to briefly address Frank's criticism of 
Ben's "Cooperative Anarchy." This is what I added:

"[…] Only communism makes the state absolutely unnecessary, for there 
is nobody to be suppressed -- "nobody" in the sense of a class, in 
the sense of a systematic struggle against a definite section of the 
population. We are not utopians, and do not deny the possibility and 
inevitability of excesses on the part of individual persons, or the 
need to suppress such excesses. But, in the first place, no special 
apparatus of suppression is needed for this; this will be done by the 
armed people itself […]"

"[…] And secondly, we know that the fundamental social cause of 
excesses, which consist in the violation of the rules of social 
intercourse, is the exploitation of the masses, their want and their 
poverty. With the removal of this chief cause, excesses will 
inevitably begin to `wither away' […] With their withering away the 
state will also wither away."

Frank didn't see why I put that in there, and maybe I shouldn't have, 
but it was to show that hiding behind Lenin to criticize Ben's ideas 
doesn't work very well, because Ben's work has roots in Lenin that 
Frank apparently doesn't see. But I didn't put too much stress on 
that because it's simply not an important argument to waste time on. 
However, Frank still seems avid about continuing the argument that 
Ben's an anarchist.

Anyway, here's Frank's letter:


Dear Alex,

The SAIC is composed of anti-imperialist organizers, some of whom are 
communists, and others who are sympathetic to communism in a general 
sense. The committee's mission is to continue to build the anti-
imperialist trend in the movement here, and the mission of the 
communists in SAIC is to build the communist trend in the movement 
here. This movement consists of living, breathing people that we must 
go have discussions with, argue with, give leaflets to, sell journals 
to, go on walks with, drink some beer with, and organize contingents, 
demonstrations and struggles with. There's no other way that either 
the anti-imperialist trend or the communist trend is going to be 
built up other than in these ways. They're not going to be built by 
sideline critics and internet generals. 

So it was from this framework that I explained to you that we barely 
have time to keep up with the occasional comments on our website, and 
that we can do no more on this front and still be a fighting 
organization. But you apparently don't have much concern about 
whether we exist or not, because you proceed to make various 
suggestions for "improving" the SAIC website---to be implemented over 
time of course! Guess what? I don`t have time to mull over either 
your or Ben's suggestions, and I don`t think that other SAIC comrades 
do either. We have other things on our minds: October 27 and the 
October 27 Coalition, what are the Minutemen going to do next, and 
how can we better rally the masses against them?, etc., etc. (In 
California activists are worrying over how to evade and resist ICE 
raids, and how to rally a movement against them as millions of people 
in this country are worried sick about being grabbed and deported.) 
And guess again, our current work is very transp arent. 

Just one example is that you no doubt saw our open letter to the anti-
war movement regarding October 27, and saw that we're part of the 
October 27 Coalition. Well, what do other activists in the city see 
of the SAIC there? If you were in the meetings and on the list serve 
you would see that we're people with some definite ideas on what 
should be done. We use the methods of scientific reasoning and 
persuasion to win others to our views. We use tact and tactics in 
dealing with various opportunist groups and individuals there. We 
abandon some of our original ideas for ideas that other people have 
put forward that we think are better. We insist that the coalition be 
democratic, and at the last meeting had to oppose one sham-anti-
imperialist and revisionist group being bureaucratically silenced by 
the facilitator. Sometimes we're just another part of a vote by a 
large majority, and at other times we're in a tiny minority. We get 
angry, and we have good laughs. We're called by our fir st names. 

But how important is all this transparency in comparison to our 
ideas, our political line? Were you there, you would want to vote 
with us, unite with us, go talk with us after the meeting, etc., 
based on this. Well, we weren't transparent about working out our 
line for work in the coalition! But what did this consist of? 

Some informal discussions between comrades, then part of a committee 
meeting devoted to talking over what we should do re: this coalition, 
then some email discussion of a draft of the open letter. I think 
that if someone listened to a tape recording of meeting discussion 
they would find it pretty boring: pondering and speculation about 
what various local opportunist groups and individuals were up to and 
why were we being invited; consensus that we should go, check it out, 
fight for our line; maybe we`ll write a letter to the movement after 
seeing what`s up; no contradictions. Email discussion of the draft? 
Technical writing issues. Replacing "infer" with "imply", removing a 
sentence that seemed gratuitous. Real enlightening stuff that I'm 
sure activists a thousand miles away would be sitting on the edges of 
their chairs pondering.

I should also back up and tell you that as with many things that we 
do, we were acting quickly---especially when we got the letter 
underway. Thus, having input from activists elsewhere would have been 
almost impossible: Firstly, because they're activists they don't have 
time to be pondering local tactical issues in a city that they know 
very little about. Secondly, because even if they do have ANSWER, 
UFPJ, ISO, YAWR, FSP, RCP/WCW in their cities, each of these groups 
or formations has its own local dynamics; and they know nothing about 
the various individuals that we discuss. Further, they know nothing 
of all of these groups' and individuals, standing with the movement 
overall and with the broader masses; nor do they know ours. No, the 
committee has a general line and method of work (it's all there on 
our website) and we go into action with it based on our analysis of 
the local situation. Similarly with groups and individuals in other 
parts of the country (although their line m ay be more vague, and not 
posted on a website.) 

I should also let you ponder the fact that we were invited (actually 
urged) to get involved in this coalition by people in the opportunist 
and revisionist (Trotskyist) camp who kind of like us. But we didn't 
meet them on the internet, we met them through our practical activity 
in the mass movement, met them through our work to actually build 
something that is genuinely anti-imperialist---not on a website or in 
our dreams, but in life, in reality. Furthermore, we're very 
transparent with them. One of our comrades in particular all the time 
works with one of them at the place they're in together (where 
they`re often on the same side in working to build something there), 
whereas I've known another for decades, i.e., we know each other 
well. And to further drive this point home, I first met one person in 
this coalition 36 years ago(!) when we were working on the same side 
to build the Revolutionary Union and Shelter Half's organizing on 
base at Fort Lewis. (I co uld tell similar stories about several 
other people in the coalition.) 

You raise the question reaching a much broader "audience". Sorry, but 
we're neither actors on a stage nor talking heads on a T.V. screen. 
We're political activists, and, as such, we're interested in meeting 
up with similar activists everywhere. Our website is a way of letting 
them become aware of us, and think about what we say and do. It's a 
little weak in letting them think about what we do in that there 
aren't many reports there. But this isn't simply because we never 
write reports. For example, during the last month I've posted two (on 
Indymedia and on myspace---where they were forwarded by 2-3 people a 
least), but I never got around to posting them on our website because 
I assume that it's not as widely read and forgot about it. 
Nevertheless, I do think that we should write and post more reports 
there. 
In any event, activists are concerned with what a group is saying and 
doing (its politics) when they look at a website. If they like them 
they'll sooner or later make a connection. And, when I look at a 
website or homepage or blog I'm not worried if its decorated with 
pictures of Che Guevarra, etc., I want to see what the group or 
individual is saying and doing in the real world. Do I care about the 
meeting methods they used to arrive at these conclusions, or who said 
what? Hardly. If they're revolutionary conclusions I assume that they 
were arrived at in a revolutionary way. Am I interested in 
having "control" over this group? Hardly. If I like something they're 
saying or doing I write a letter hailing it. If I think they're 
making a theoretical or practical error I write another letter. (And, 
by the way, these are often well-received.) 

Your discussion of "'Left-wing' communism, an infantile disorder" 
entirely evades the issue that I raised: Ben's "left-wing" counter 
position of the rule of the class to party rule. To pull this off you 
write that "In chapter V of `Left-Wing Communism,' Lenin criticizes 
the German `Left communists' for their practices. However, he does 
not criticize their theoretical practices as much as he criticizes 
their_sectarian_practices" But the entire chapter so happens to be 
dealing with the theoretical point concentrated in its title, "Left-
wing" Communism In Germany: LEADERS---PARTY---CLASS---MASSES, and 
which you're apparently blind to. 

You go on to quote Lenin`s "The State and Revolution", but to prove 
what? The withering away of the state after exchange and the law of 
value no longer exist, after the separation of mental and manual 
labor no longer exists, after bourgeois right no longer exists, etc.? 
What Marxist disagrees with this? Further, what does any of this have 
to do with Ben's nightmarish vision of the future? (And you have yet 
to tell me how the critique of Ben's ideas at 
http://home.flash.net/~comvoice/04cBen1.html#T6 show that they're 
something else than anarchist.) 

And is pondering what anarchism is a "distraction" in this 
discussion? Not when you ask "Should the workers be led by a single 
organization?" and answer it in the negative. Of course the workers 
today are led by many parties or organizations (they`re split and 
therefore weak, and most often follow the ideas of their worst 
enemies) and they'll continue to be led by various parties after 
seizing power for an unknown length of time. But in any conditions 
time and place there are certain concrete things that the workers can 
do to advance their interests, and a Marxists party works out what is 
to be done to really serve the class interests while other parties 
work out programs that undermine, sabotage, or directly fight against 
the class interests. Hence, the workers' interest (all of the 
workers' interest) is to unite behind this party and to leave the 
other parties with no workers in them. Further, if under the 
dictatorship of the proletariat these parties are sabotaging, 
organizing an armed uprising, etc., it's in the interest of the 
workers to wipe them out with force. 

The very existence of parties implies classes and class struggle. 
This means that for the proletariat to win against its class enemies 
that it can't be split and fighting among itself. You write, however, 
of multiple workers' parties eventually springing up and demanding a 
role in government. But upon what program would these parties spring 
up if there was a real Marxist party leading the class struggle. You 
just can't deal with this question in the abstract, nor with the 
policy that the Marxist party would follow toward these parties.

You write that "If working class leadership must take the form of a 
single organization, the only way for it to maintain its monopoly 
over political power is to suppress democratic rights of free 
speech." But you don't see that you're dealing with "democratic 
rights of free speech" entirely in the abstract, i.e., from a non-
class perspective. To even gain power and therefore have democratic 
rights like freedom of speech the proletariat is going to have to 
deny such freedoms to others. And once in power its going to have to 
deny them to bourgeois inciters of rebellion, and even inciters of 
splits in its own ranks when facing rebellion. In such conditions 
multiple workers' parties (splits and confusion in the workers ranks) 
would only weaken the struggle for freedom of speech by the masses. 

Disorganization of the proletariat in the name of defending abstract 
and eternal "principles" (petty-bourgeois prejudices, actually). Is 
this not typical of anarchism---and why class conscious workers 
everywhere consider it their enemy? And, in dealing with the class 
struggle today, you and Ben treat transparency just as abstractly, 
and would disorganize the SAIC in its name.

In struggle,

Frank