Appendix A: Comments from readers Alex and Paul ------------------------------------------------------------ Alex - April 27 ------------------------------------------------------------ -----Original Message----- From: Alex G. Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 11:03 AM To: Ben Seattle Subject: Re: (draft) Ben replies to Eric Gordon (part 1) Cargo-Cult Leninism vs. Information War Hi Ben, There are only a couple of problem that I'd like to address here: > In this same article Joseph also claimed that the working class > would run this advanced society by means of a single political > party. Even though you already did this in your last reply to Joseph, I think it would be helpful if you included the passage in question, i.e. the part about the working class ruling through "its own political party." Secondly, while you do state this clearly enough to me in the article, I think this should be stated even more directly: The problem is not that the CVO really wants a world where democratic rights are suppressed or that they directly promote such a thing. The problem is that a) their desciptions of future society .. can be confusing and/or misleading, .. and b) they fail to confront the_question_of .. democratic rights during workers' rule .. in their agitation. The bottom line is that their agitation does nothing to add clarity to these important issues, and thus, while it may not promote illusions directly, by not confronting them, the CVO allows these illusions to flourish. So perhaps adding a sentence or two that really drives this point home is in order. It may seem redundant, but the CVO and others have a history of misunderstanding you, so I think it pays to be redundant. -- Alex ------------------------------------------------------------ Paul L - April 27 ------------------------------------------------------------ (Ben added paragraph breaks for readability) -----Original Message----- From: hekmatista Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 3:55 PM To: pof-300@yahoogroups.com Subject: [pof-300] Single Party or Multiple Party D of P? The recent exchange between Eric (of CVO?) and Ben has been interesting and productive. I will not attempt to address the question of the transitional economy or its stages, though I realize it is connected to the issues of freedom of proletarian speech and association and the issue of single party/multiple party workers'democracy. For now let me limit myself to the locus of power in the d of p. If we assume that in the leadup to revolution, one party or tendency gains enough traction within the class to have the leading ideas, programs, and slogans of the class, then, yes, that single organization will AT THAT JUNCTURE be the expression of the interests of the class as a whole. Chances are it will obtain a majority of delegates to whatever form of workers' councils or workers' parliament (it's not a dirty word, refer to James Connolly) arises as the instrument of direct class democracy. The likelihood that ALL the advanced workers will belong to that single party, however, is low. How many "vanguards" do we have right now? In looking at the lists of self-proclaimed Leninist parties in any one of the advanced countries, I fail to see how their cadres will put aside historical differences between Stalinists, Hoxhaists, Trotskyites, Maoists, Council and other Left Communists, the left wing of social democracy (which always breaks with their right in revolutionary situations), not to mention syndicalist, and anarchist groupings. By the time we arrive at a revolutionary crisis there will no doubt be far fewer organizations; most of the currently existing ones will have long since died for lack of genuine class roots, the better ones will have proletarianized themselves beyond recognition, fusions, splits, etc. will have reconfigured the ideological landscape, BUT THERE WILL STILL BE SEVERAL organizational expressions of the will of the class. Back to the hypothetical situation of one of these parties being dominant and having the correct mass line at the point of crisis; what shall that party do about the others that have a different take on what is to be done? Obviously the c c of the dominant party will believe that they are objectively correct and the other parties are objectively compromising the chances of the class successfully moving forward toward communism; just as obviously, the c c's of the various other parties will believe the same in reverse. Keeping the assumption that the largest, most authoritative party has won the following of the mass workers' organizations, in their majority, but not their unanimity, what should be the form in which that one party fights for its line as against the lines of other workers' parties? Remember, the other (subjectively, at least) workers' parties are the free associations of WORKERS, just as the neo-bolshevik majority party is a free association of workers. To believe the resolution of such matters is merely a tactical decision of the majority party's leadership is to believe that the locus of the proletariat's political will is IN THAT PARTY. Historically, it may well be, AT THAT JUNCTURE. However, to invest the one party with that power, to identify it PERMANENTLY with the interests of the whole class, inevitably leads (and has led) to degeneration and the reestablishment of an alien ruling class, from within the party itself. On the contrary, to identify the locus of the class dictatorship with the organs of direct workers' democracy, whether soviets or whatever forms the historical moment creates, means that the (inevitably) temporary majority must as a matter of PRINCIPLE not of tactics, approach the other workers' parties on a basis of political struggle, not suppression of the (inevitably) temporary minority parties. The class itself will select appropriate policies in their direct assemblies, which will at one point make one party the dominant one, at other points another. Complete freedom of speech and organization for all workers is essential for this to occur, obviously. Principled parties who wish to perform a vanguard role must needs proclaim the absolute freedom of speech, press, and agitation of ALL workers' tendencies. Just who is the vanguard at a given moment is not written in the stars; the working class will decide, and what it decides, it can also change.

Cargo-Cult Leninism vs. Information War Workers' Rule: Is it Dead or Alive? The question that we cannot escape concerns the degeneration of the Soviet and Chinese revolutions of 1917 and 1949. If these revolutions appeared to be successful and then degenerated -- does this mean that future attempts at establishing workers' rule will inevitably suffer the same fate?

Appendix A: Comments from readers Alex and Paul

Appendix B: What Does Victory Look Like? A chart comparing the "dictatorship of the proletariat" (embryonic vs. with immune system) across 8 dimensions

Appendix C: Who will control the gift economy? • Does planning require a central authority? • Do we need a single plan for the entire economy? • Will we use carrots and sticks -- or our internal compass? • Who is the ultimate authority?

Appendix D: Ben answers three of Eric's questions • Finding Marx's endorsement on a piece of toast • One party to rule them all?

• How to Build the Party of the Working Class • We need mass democracy Real organization cannot be built on a foundation of sand • The Media Weapon community (and POF email lists) • more from Ben Seattle