seattle.indymedia.org

ugh
Posted by: you don't really want to know = that... at=20 Sep 07, 2008 18:30

Wow. "Cargo Cult?" "Discipline?" "Sobriety?" I think that = someone could=20 argue for transparency without using dismissive labels, if one = wanted to=20 actually create the trust and forbearance needed for a mass = revolutionary=20 organization which has transparency and the space for honest = discussion of=20 disagreements.

That you've chosen instead to engage in = insults=20 rather than argument shows that your isolation might be self = imposed. When=20 one feels that an organization "isn't listening" how do insults = add to the=20 "signal to noise ratio"? When you're setting tasks for others, are = you=20 being a boss, or a co-worker?

Making up unrealistic time = budgets=20 for listserv administration, or misinterpreting the reluctance of = others=20 to follow YOUR recipe for THEIR tasks is one symptom of exactly = what=20 anti-imperialists are trying to undo: you have a lot of = assumptions about=20 what everyone else should be doing. Check that. Do for yourself = what you=20 want to see happen. Let others find their own path. =

Ben doesn't = build=20 movement
Posted by: Cargo = Cultist at=20 Sep 08, 2008 15:22

Ben Seattle has done shit in ten years to build a movement of = any sort.=20 He has in fact done the work of the bourgeoisie by tearing down = others'=20 attempts at movement work. It's his way or no way at all. And his = activism=20 is confined only to those who have hours and hours to debate and = fart=20 around in front of a computer screen.

meanwhile = ehats got=20 done by cultists?
Posted by: = burrr at=20 Sep 08, 2008 16:53

oh. lets not wait longer for the revolution, it must be = finished for my=20 next birthday so I can be a happy satisfied being.

Lets = not wonder=20 how to get togather with others who won't go our (loony, asocial,=20 jacobean, elitist, spoiled, narrow, hairshirt, pie in the sky, = half=20 baked.....)way and our program. And fuck those who try to give=20 constructive criticism. THEY are the reason we have not been able = to make=20 the world in our image. Its never that our image is unpoppular, or = that we=20 are not good salespeople. Its external causes that defeat us, = never=20 shooting our own foot.....

And if ben is such a thorn, = what have=20 you done on your own kiddies? Unless you started f not b, or the = street=20 medic program. nada zip zilch of "progress" since the uterly = waisted wto=20 marches that brought togather what youve spent over 7 years = ensuring was=20 gone forever, by ....see parenthesis above...

more on = struggle for=20 sobriety ...
Posted by: Ben = Seattle at=20 Sep 08, 2008 21:44

It is good that my post has drawn a few comments.

"You = don't=20 really want to know that" (Ydrwtkt) asserts that my criticism of = SAIC is=20 based on insults rather than political arguments. I will get back = to this=20 shortly.

Cargo Cultist asserts that I have done nothing=20 significant in ten years except to "tear down" the work of others. =

Burrr defends me and argues that my efforts are directed = at=20 constructive criticism.

First, in reply to Cargo Cultist: = my=20 criticism is directed at a particular organization: the Seattle=20 Anti-Imperialist Committee (SAIC). My work helped to bring this=20 organization into existence: specifically, I helped an energetic = young=20 activist to break from the suffocating orbit of the RCP and helped = to=20 introduce him to another, much more experienced activist. These = two=20 activists then founded SAIC. Of course it is possible that, in the = absence=20 of my work, these two activists would have eventually found one = another.=20 But even if this is true--my work helped to speed up this process. = So it=20 is not accurate to claim that I have done nothing. Furthermore, = this style=20 of criticism (ie: "Who are you to dare to make a criticism? What = have you=20 accomplished?") is not a very good one.

The criticism from = Ydrwtkt, by comparison to that of cargo cultist, strikes me as = much more=20 thoughtful. I disagree with ydrwtkt but I appreciate his effort to = present=20 his views with conviction and clarity.

Ydrwtkt argues that = my tone=20 is not serious or sincere because I have supposedly used = dismissive labels=20 and insults instead of political arguments. However my post is = centered on=20 a political argument. I argue that the six specific measures I = advocate=20 for SAIC are realistic and practical. I point out that Frank's = estimate of=20 the time required for these measures (ie: more than 24 hours a = day, every=20 day) is not realistic and I give my own estimates (ie: XX hours = per week=20 for this and YY hours per week for that--which are based on = practical=20 experience).

Ydrwtkt argues that my estimate for the time = required=20 to manage an email list is not realistic. I don't know what = experience=20 Ydrwtkt has in managing email lists. I manage several. I do not = have very=20 much time and, over the years, I have developed methods of running = email=20 lists that do not require a lot of time. I discussed one of the = methods I=20 use in my post: my main list (pof-200) limits subscribers to one = or two=20 posts per week (ie: people who march in antiwar actions get two = posts per=20 week and everyone else gets one post per week). This simple = measure, by=20 itself, has eliminated 95 percent of all problems. I also rely on=20 subscribers who have volunteered to moderate the lists. My rules = for the=20 list are simple, effective and easy to enforce.

And I have = offered=20 to assist SAIC in the measures I advocate. I believe that the = supposed=20 impracticality of the measures I advocate--is a myth used to = justify=20 rejection of these measures. I believe this myth-making reflects a = profound uneasiness with political transparancy and the concept of = creating an open political community.

Ydrwtkt asks if, by = making=20 such constructive criticism, I am being a boss or a co-worker. And = he asks=20 that I let others find their own path.

I am a co-worker, = of=20 course. I assist SAIC on this basis (and not only with = criticism--but in=20 other ways). Of course everyone finds their own path in the = movement. But=20 we also help one another. SAIC, for example, helps activists = develop=20 clarity on the treachery of the Democratic Party and its = imperialist=20 nature and the special role the Democratic Party plays in = sabotaging and=20 undermining the antiwar movement. The reformist big shots (and the = flunkies who defend them) heap abuse on SAIC for this. But SAIC is = completely correct to participate in the war of ideas within the = movement=20 and to bring clarity and consciousness to activists who seek to = sum up=20 their experience. I also participate in the war of ideas. Some = people like=20 my ideas and some do not. Does this mean that I have some magic = ability to=20 supposedly prevent anyone from finding their own path? How could I = do such=20 a thing--even if I was so stupid as to make the attempt? It would = be=20 easier to emulate the Persian king who went to the shore and = commanded the=20 waves to stop.

Our movement needs criticism. Real = criticism. Not=20 cynical criticism--but sincere criticism; thoughtful criticism; = criticism=20 based on hard work and humility. My arguments stand by themselves. = SAIC=20 could easily set up an email list. Or I could do it for them. Or = SAIC=20 could use one of my email lists. The time required for SAIC to = manage the=20 email list is not the problem. The problem is that the experinced = core at=20 the heart of SAIC is profoundly uneasy about the forces that such = an email=20 list might unleash. That's certainly how it looks to me--and I = would be=20 dishonest, at this point, to hide my opinion from my readers.=20

Ydrwtkt says:

> I think that someone could = argue for=20 transparency
> without using dismissive labels, if one = wanted to=20
> actually create the trust and forbearance needed
> = for a=20 mass revolutionary organization which has
> transparency = and the=20 space for honest discussion
> of disagreements.

I = disagree=20 with Ydrwtkt that I have been dismissive or insulting (and even = less that=20 my post is centered around insults). I dealt with Frank's = _specific_=20 arguments (ie: 24 hours a day vs. a few hours per week). The terms = I use=20 are scientific in nature. Cargo cult, for example, is a scientific = term=20 (look it up--the term was popularized, in part, by Richard = Feynman). And,=20 never before have I been accused of being insulting because I = argued for=20 the need for discipline (a rather traditional word). =

Ydrwtkt=20 argues that there is a more skillful way to argue for political=20 transparency in the context of a mass revolutionary organization = with open=20 and sincere discussion of disagreements.

My reply to = Ydrwtkt is=20 simple. Please show us how this is done. You have my attention.=20

All the best,
Ben Seattle
http://struggle.n= et/ben/2008/saic-sobriety.htm=20

Where to=20 begin?
Posted by: YDRWTKT at = Sep 10,=20 2008 01:46

"Ydrwtkt argues that my estimate for the time required to = manage an=20 email list is not realistic. I don't know what experience Ydrwtkt = has in=20 managing email lists."

I've managed discussion and news = lists for=20 several years, and currently help administer three. I won't name = them=20 since I'm not here as a personality, but as a voice. (One concern = with=20 making such lists of anti-imperialists is the ease with which such = lists=20 can be used against us.)

"I manage several. I do not have = very=20 much time and, over the years, I have developed methods of running = email=20 lists that do not require a lot of time. I discussed one of the = methods I=20 use in my post: my main list (pof-200) limits subscribers to one = or two=20 posts per week (ie: people who march in antiwar actions get two = posts per=20 week and everyone else gets one post per week). This simple = measure, by=20 itself, has eliminated 95 percent of all problems. I also rely on=20 subscribers who have volunteered to moderate the lists. My rules = for the=20 list are simple, effective and easy to enforce."

I'm sure = simple=20 rules are simple to enforce, and that rule enforcement is a = serious issue=20 where consent is not present. How were these rules obtained or = arrived at?=20 What level of discussion is possible if everyone is limited in = scope of=20 their communication? It's easy to have a news list (only admin = posts) and=20 avoid traffic overload, too. But it's not easy to allow = transparency when=20 everyone only has a limited voice on the channel. That's not = transparency=20 if you're the only one with the leisure time to read, digest, and = respond.=20 I do like the idea that organizers have more voice than = kibbitzers,=20 though. How do you differentiate?

"I disagree with Ydrwtkt = that I=20 have been dismissive or insulting (and even less that my post is = centered=20 around insults)."

Then re-read the paragraph above where = it was=20 perfectly clear to you that your rules and assumptions were the = only ones=20 which are valid. And then look back at your original post, where = you=20 clearly were dismissive and labeling of your opponents. You might = think=20 that is criticism, but you apparently learned critique from those = who=20 label and blame in place of reason. Just because you have reasons, = does=20 not make your arguments reasonable. Just because your arguments = seem right=20 for you, does not mean that YOUR vision should control MY work. = Let your=20 vision guide YOUR work, and build an open transparent org outside = of the=20 channels you see as non-transparent. That will take far less = energy than=20 overwhelming the resistance of those you think "are not doing it = right."=20 No one knows how to end Capitalism and Imperialism, or it would be = finished already. We're all wandering toward solutions on this. =

"I=20 dealt with Frank's _specific_ arguments (ie: 24 hours a day vs. a = few=20 hours per week). The terms I use are scientific in nature. Cargo = cult, for=20 example, is a scientific term (look it up--the term was = popularized, in=20 part, by Richard Feynman)."

WOW. Classic classism. You = have the=20 time, why don't you enlighten us as to YOUR meaning for Feynman's = racist=20 term? I don't know, and do not care to research, what google or = wikipedia=20 might mean by the term you use. I see it as a label, and a racist = one at=20 that, referring to Pacific Islanders who hoped that the Imperial = US=20 Marines would again resupply them with fetish objects. How do you = mean=20 that term? Why does it apply to the people you say you're = critiquing? Why=20 would you want to work with these people if you hold them in such = utter=20 contempt?

"And, never before have I been accused of being=20 insulting because I argued for the need for discipline (a rather=20 traditional word)."

Never heard that before... so, does = that imply=20 that it's not valid?

Yeah, 'traditional' is a great = argument to=20 make to a fellow revolutionary. Discipline on whose terms? Yours? = Do you=20 use corporal punishment, or censure, or fines, or what? Do you = seriously=20 mean that I'm supposed to swallow "discipline" as if it means the = same=20 thing to you as it means to me? My dad used to discipline me by = lifting me=20 bodily by my left ear. Is that what you have in mind? Or perhaps = you mean=20 self-discipline and the ability to withstand discomfort. But by = itself,=20 the word means little in the context given, except to imply that = people=20 you criticize have none.

"Ydrwtkt argues that there is a = more=20 skillful way to argue for political transparency in the context of = a mass=20 revolutionary organization with open and sincere discussion of=20 disagreements."

"My reply to Ydrwtkt is simple. Please = show us how=20 this is done. You have my attention."

I'm not going to = explain to=20 you how to respect people and say what you want to happen in a = positive=20 way (This is what I would do) rather than a destructive way (Those = people=20 don't really want to play nice, their morals are suspect and = they're=20 really 'Cargo Cultists.') since you are presumably more than 15 = years old.=20

Look to Olympia for innovative techniques in how to have = these=20 discussions; they call it consensus process I think - and it tends = to work=20 better than the traditional discipline model in my personal = experience.=20

Check the definition of the word Hubris sometime. =

What's with = the=20 name?
Posted by: SAIC at Sep = 10, 2008=20 01:48

SAIC=3DSpecial Agent in Charge
SAIC=3DScience Applications=20 International Corporation (A surveillance support company owned by = the=20 employees formerly of the FBI technical services bureau). =

I'm not=20 sure what SAIC the anti imperialist group meant by it, but when = IAC chose=20 that moniker for International Anarchist Conspiracy, it did raise = some=20 eyebrows. Just sayin'

let's = continue the=20 discussion (reply YDRWTKT)
Posted by:=20 Ben Seattle at Sep 10, 2008 21:17

hi YDRWTKT,

Since we are discussing important questions = related=20 to creating a movement and mass democratic organization, why not = conduct=20 our conversation in a forum better suited to the kind of = discussion which=20 unfolds over weeks (ie: with time to give thought between posts) = rather=20 than here on the Indymedia newswire (ie: where posts fall off the = front=20 page and into obscurity after a few days total) ? =

Subscribers to=20 pof-200 are not limited in "scope" (ie: what they discuss). They = are=20 limited only in how often they can post. There is a sister list = (ie:=20 pof-300) which allows unlimited posting. Each list has its = strengths and=20 weaknesses. On pof-200 (with 220 subscribers) sometimes you have = to wait=20 to post. On the pof-300 list (with 30 subscribers) there is = sometimes a=20 lot of noise. Both lists have public archives, searchable by = friend and=20 foe alike.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * = * * * *=20 * * * * * * * * * *

You say:

> One concern with = making=20 such lists of anti-imperialists
> is the ease with which = such lists=20 can be used against us.

We need a security culture. But = this=20 cannot be used as an excuse to avoid doing what is necessary so = that we=20 can understand the nature of the society in which we live and the = nature=20 of our tasks which are decisive. We are hurt a thousand times more = by our=20 own ignorance than by police battons or arrests. Certain = time-sensitive=20 tactical information (ie: how we might plan to outmanuever the = police at=20 next week's mass action) might be best discussed in person. But = the=20 revolution in communications will prove to be a weapon of power = immense=20 beyond imagination--once we learn to use it with skill to forge=20 connections to one another and build an unbreakable channel to the = masses.=20

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * = * * * *=20 * * * * *

You ask why I would want to work with people = whom I=20 (supposedly) hold in "contempt"?

The comrades involved = have great=20 strengths and equally great weaknesses.

They understand = the need=20 to openly, consistently and skillfully oppose the treacherous = influence of=20 the imperialist Democratic Party (and its flunkies and allies) in = the=20 movement. Many or most activists _think_ they understand this. The = SAIC=20 comrades _prove_ they understand this by their _actions_ (for = example:=20 consistent agitation which exposes, with clarity and concision, = the=20 manuevers of the Democratic Party on the basis of current items in = the=20 news). SAIC stands up to the bullying of the propped-up reformist=20 big-shots and their system of sleazy and corrupt alliances (and = illusions)=20 which dominate the movement and hijack the energy of activists. =

It=20 is not true that I have contempt for the comrades. I have contempt = only=20 for the political disease which obscures their vision and = undermines their=20 own effectiveness. I respect these people enough to tell them the = truth=20 that they (sometimes) do not want to hear. I believe they will = eventually=20 thank me. I have walked in their shoes.

* * * * * * * * * = * * * *=20 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Is the = term=20 "cargo cult" racist?

Or does this term contain profound = content=20 which the left must confront?

We disagree.

You = assert that=20 I have the time to explain this term to you.

You are = mistaken.=20

I have precious little time.

I have written about = cargo=20 cults and cargo-cult Leninism for many years. If you are = interested you=20 can start here:

http://struggle.n= et/Ben/2007/cargo-4-cults.htm=20

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * = * * * *=20 * * * * *

I wrote of the need for discipline in the = context of=20 opposing bullshit estimates for how many hours it takes to run and = participate (in a meaningful way) in an email list. =

Discipline, in=20 this context, means things like refusing to give attention to = people who=20 are aggressively clueless, word-twisting, time-wasting, = know-it-alls --=20 and reserving one's limited time and attention for those who are = serious,=20 have humility and are determined to build a movement. So the = discipline I=20 describe is not imposed by me--but rather is imposed externally by = the=20 nature of the society in which we live--and the nature of our = tasks. I'm=20 only the messenger. If my informing you of this leads you to be = resentful=20 of me -- this is your issue to deal with (or not) as you choose. =

*=20 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * = * * * *=20

If you want to continue this discussion, you are certainly = welcome=20 on the pof-200 and pof-300 lists. I (and, I am certain, others) = would like=20 to learn more about your experience and your conclusions which are = based=20 on your experience. Creating an open political community requires=20 activists like yourself.

I will be online and checking the = POF=20 lists until end-of-day Saturday. Then I will be offline for a = month or two=20 as part of my political sabbatical.

sincerely,
Ben = Seattle=20

** Information war wants to be free to serve the working = class=20
** in the struggle to overthrow bourgeois rule

http://struggle.net/Ben/ - = general=20 index to my work
http://mediaweapon.com/ - the = Media=20 Weapon community-in-embryo and the pof-200/300 lists =

postscript
Posted=20 by: Ben Seattle at Sep 10, 2008 21:30

> Look to Olympia for innovative techniques
> in how = to have=20 these discussions; they call
> it consensus process=20

Consensus has its value--and also some very real = limitations when=20 sharp struggle emerges. We need methods of open, public struggle.=20

> I'm not going to explain to you how to respect people =
> and say what you want to happen in a positive way =

I do=20 not want to see an explanation. I would like to see you show (ie: = by your=20 actions) how you assist the SAIC comrades to see the value of = being part=20 of an open political email list and a long-term open political = community.=20 (I rather suspect they will only come to this conclusion on the = basis of=20 events that will compel them to do so.) It is easy to be = "respectful" and=20 avoid offending anyone--if you don't really have anything to say.=20

a few=20 points
Posted by: an SAIC = member at=20 Sep 11, 2008 13:30

I am not surprised that Ben will cling to his "cargo cult" = terminology=20 in spite of everything else. Nor is it surprising that he equates = using=20 "scientific" terminology with actually being scientific. These are = the=20 tried and true methods of Ben Seattle, and I do not expect them to = change=20 anytime soon. However, there are a few outstanding issues on this = thread=20 which I'd like to clarify for anyone who may be curious. =

1. Ben=20 writes: "My work helped to bring this organization into existence: = specifically, I helped an energetic young activist to break from = the=20 suffocating orbit of the RCP and helped to introduce him to = another, much=20 more experienced activist." <--This is a lie which Ben has = repeated to=20 himself and anyone who'll listen so many times that he probably = now=20 believes it. He gives himself, and his wooden (and completely=20 unconvincing) critique of reformism, far too much credit. More, he = has had=20 the falsity of this particular claim pointed out to him over and = over=20 again but that does not seem to deter him from constantly = repeating it.=20 And that says a lot.

2. Anyone who has ever spoken to = anyone in=20 SAIC for even a couple of minutes can see through Ben's lie that = we do not=20 "encourage discussion of decisive issues." However, I hope that = Ben will=20 continue to repeat this claim so that anyone who has ever had any=20 interaction with SAIC can see the clear difference between reality = and=20 Ben's claims.

3. Of course, if one (Ben) equates = "encourag[ing]=20 discussion of decisive issues" with setting up websites, email = lists, etc.=20 dedicated to "discussion," then that's another matter altogether. = But I=20 don't see why there needs to be yet another space on the internet = for such=20 discussion. Frankly, there are no lack of "left" message boards = and email=20 lists for discussing these matters. The world does not, at this = point,=20 need yet another one administered by SAIC. Therefore, it would be = a=20 complete waste of time for our small, overworked organization to = delve=20 into such a project (which would generate very little interest at = this=20 time). If conditions changed, and we felt there was a real need, = then=20 perhaps we'd change our minds. But this change, if it were to take = place,=20 would be relative to the needs of the situation and our priorities = in=20 relation to the situation (in another words, not because of = adherence to=20 an abstract "principle" supposedly good for all time).

4. = Ben=20 still shamelessly uses the resignation of a particular woman = comrade to=20 promote a political line that she herself continues to despise. = Ben may=20 not even be aware of this, because he has never really paid much = attention=20 to her or what she thought. That's why it's all the more galling = to read=20 him write things like "...the possibility that this woman's = resignation=20 did not so much reflect on her lack of consciousness as it did on = SAIC's=20 distorted priorities and excessively narrow conception of its = tasks." In=20 fact, she explained the reasons for her resignation in a private = letter to=20 SAIC. SAIC doesn't need to guess about the reasons, because = they're not a=20 mystery. Ben doesn't know the reasons, even though he has the = ability to=20 contact, and ask, her. Please note that "sober" Ben has not done = this. For=20 all his dramatic bluster, his only concern regarding her is what = he sees=20 as an opportunity to promote his old, bankrupt views on internet=20 "information war."

by the=20 way
Posted by: an SAIC = member at Sep=20 11, 2008 13:40

I would also like to thank Ben for the following line:=20

"Discipline, in this context, means things like refusing = to give=20 attention to people who are aggressively clueless, word-twisting,=20 time-wasting, know-it-alls -- and reserving one's limited time and = attention for those who are serious, have humility and are = determined to=20 build a movement."

Now perhaps "refusing to give attention = to" is=20 taking matters a bit too far, but in general I completely agree = with the=20 overall thrust of what Ben is putting forward here. And, in fact, = this is=20 precisely the reason why SAIC members are not lining up to join = Ben's=20 email lists, repeatedly debate Ben about Ben's "information war" = theories,=20 etc., etc.

Clarifies a = bit....
Posted by: Ydrwtkt = at Sep 11,=20 2008 19:59

Well, thanks for the links, Ben. I'm better informed of what = you think=20 about the Cult of Lenin, but that term would have been just as = short and=20 would have meant a lot more to me than your specialist / insider = term=20 (Cargo Cult). So much for being objective, open, accessible, etc. = But at=20 least I know you meant something real, and specific, about it and = that=20 counts for a lot.

I'm also a refugee from the "Old Left" = who has=20 had my share of infights and outfights with those who chant mantra = better=20 than me (and pronounce it more correctly). I sympathize to some = extent=20 with what you're arguing. But we disagree about the need for yet = another=20 open discussion list. I'm not (at this time in our history in the = United=20 States) willing to send young folks directly into the lists of = those who=20 supervise and catalog our personalities for later 3am-6am visits = or long=20 term surveillance. Let us not forget that DARPA invented the net, = not our=20 allies. We don't control who has copies of our interpersonal = arguments=20 when we put them online. They remember this stuff far longer than = we do.=20

Security Culture is fine for tactical discussions, but you = limit=20 its use to just that instance. That all goes out the window if the = identities of the people having the discussion are known, and the = face to=20 face discussion is supervised with a through the wall listening = device=20 (often a microwave tuned to reflect off of voice modulated = materials=20 within a meeting space). We know the FBI used just this technology = in the=20 Backfire cases, and thus should expect it to be used against us in = pre-RNC, pre-DNC situations. Being even more secret (not making = e-traffic=20 lists and membership lists in the first place) and having = discussions in=20 public places where supervision is less likely to be effective = (lots of=20 covering sounds, spurious reflectors closer to sound sources, etc) = is=20 better tradecraft in the current environment. But what would I = know? I=20 read history and search warrant applications so I know what I = know, you=20 know?

Your need for open communication is admirable and = one of the=20 reasons I don't practice anonymous politics in my own watershed. = But here=20 in Seattle, I'm anonymous if I'm present at all. Not my area of=20 responsibility, you know? So no, I won't be joining your list for = further=20 hash/rehash of the specific SAIC controversy. I'm on enough lists = anyway.=20

Soon, an organization which will coordinate the direct = action=20 opportunities in our Salish Sea area will be born, and I hope you = watch=20 for that. I don't know what kinds of outreach / infowar it will = end up=20 supporting, but it will be a venue where more of this kind of = political=20 scene (the Seattle scene) is involved. So my voice might be heard = in that=20 neck of the woods with a name and a history attached to it, soon. = Maybe=20 we'll meet. Who knows?

Watch out for Burr, we think she's = "mop=20 head" of OSOT.

Ben replies = to "SAIC=20 member"
Posted by: Ben = Seattle at Sep=20 11, 2008 23:48

A SAIC member writes:

> 1. Ben writes: "My work = helped to=20 bring this organization
> into existence: specifically, I = helped an=20 energetic young
> activist to break from the suffocating = orbit of=20 the RCP and
> helped to introduce him to another, much more = experienced
> activist." and anyone who'll listen so many = times=20 that he probably now
> believes it. He gives himself, and = his=20 wooden (and completely
> unconvincing) critique of = reformism, far=20 too much credit.
> More, he has had the falsity of this = particular=20 claim pointed
> out to him over and over again but that = does not=20 seem to
> deter him from constantly repeating it. And that = says a=20 lot.

Since a SAIC member has (again) called me dishonest, = I will=20 reply. My account (above) consists of two parts:

part 1: =
>=20 I helped an energetic young activist to break
> from the=20 suffocating orbit of the RCP

part 2:
> and helped = to=20 introduce him to another,
> much more experienced activist. =

The SAIC member does not bother to say which of the two = parts is=20 supposedly a lie. I know readers are busy and "he said/she said" = stuff is=20 tedious and boring. So I will be concise (and entertaining). =

In=20 January 2005 I met a young activist (whom I will call X9) at an = antiwar=20 demo. This young man was passing out a leaflet from the RCP that = promoted=20 hysteria about supposedly imminent fascism--and that laid the = groundwork=20 for the RCP's infamous alliance with a section of the imperialist=20 Democratic Party (ie: the "World Can't Wait" campaign).

X9 = was=20 clearly more thoughtful than most of the kids around the RCP and = he asked=20 me some intelligent questions. So I told him his leaflet was = bullshit and=20 asked him to look at my website where I would write an article = explaining=20 it in more detail [1].

Over the next five months or so I = met X9 at=20 various mass actions and explained to him that the RCP refuses to=20 seriously fight the treacherous influence of the Democratic Party = in the=20 antiwar movement. During this period the trajectory of the RCP = toward a=20 section of the Democratic Party was becoming more clear.=20

Eventually, X9 said that he agreed with me on this--and at = this=20 point I helped X9 to see the need for a clean break from the RCP: = Yes=20 Avakian can tell an entertaining story and all that--but the = organization=20 is a bankrupt cult and has no chance of overcoming its problems. =

I=20 told X9 that it was important for him to make a _public statement_ = critical of the RCP's rightist campaign--and X9 did so in a July = 2005 post=20 on Seattle Indymedia [2]. This post attracted the attention of = Frank, who=20 made a comment on it.

X9 and I exchanged email discussing = Frank's=20 comment and X9's planned reply to Frank (we had also previously = discussed=20 Frank and I had informed X9 that Frank was without question the = best=20 activist in the city). I wrote to X9 and urged him to contact = Frank and=20 emphasized to X9 that he must understand that his reply to Frank = must be=20 "part of developing a solid relationship with a serious and mature = revolutionary activist". X9 then made contact with Frank. =

The=20 above is what I mean when I say that I "helped introduce" X9 to = Frank.=20

My description is now being called a lie. However it = should be=20 clear that my personal intervention, at several points, helped = this=20 process along. I helped X9 to break from the RCP and I helped him=20 understand the importance of making a public statement opposing = the RCP's=20 campaign. X9's contact with Frank came as a result of the public=20 statement. And I helped X9 to understand the importance of Frank. = No one=20 is in a position to dispute this.

Our SAIC comrade = continues:=20

> 2. Anyone who has ever spoken to anyone in SAIC =
> for=20 even a couple of minutes can see through Ben's
> lie that = we do not=20 "encourage discussion of decisive
> issues." However, I = hope that=20 Ben will continue to
> repeat this claim so that anyone who = has=20 ever had
> any interaction with SAIC can see the clear =
>=20 difference between reality and Ben's claims.

When this guy = claims=20 that I "lie" -- this is just a dramatic way of saying that he = disagrees=20 with me.

In part 1 of this essay (July 17) I advocated = that SAIC=20 should:

> (10) Encourage discussion and debate = concerning=20
> how society can exist and function without the
> = political=20 and economic system of imperialism
> (and the capitalist = system of=20 production for
> profit which makes imperialism inevitable) = in=20
> order to help overcome the universal belief that
> = the=20 only alternative to the existing system of
> bourgeois rule = is a=20 corrupt police-state, such
> as the former Soviet Union or = China,=20 where a
> single party holds a monopoly of power and can =
>=20 suppress the voice of its opponents.

SAIC does not = encourage=20 public discussion of this question (ie: what is probably the most=20 important theoretical question of our time). If SAIC did encourage = public=20 discussion of this question--there would be links to such = discussion on=20 their website.

Our movement can never overthrow the = corrupt views=20 on these topics without public discussion of them.

> I = don't=20 see why there needs to be yet another
> space on the = internet for=20 such discussion.

The issue is not to "set up a space" for=20 discussion. The issue is for the discussion to take place in a = democratic=20 way and in public--where activists struggle to confront the = issues--and=20 readers have access to the views from all sides.

An = example of a=20 non-democratic space for discussion is the website of the = "Communist Voice=20 Organization" (CVO). This website gives readers an opportunity to = read an=20 article by a local SAIC supporter, Eric, which opposes my = views--but hides=20 my reply to Eric from its readers [4].

> 4. Ben still=20 shamelessly uses the resignation of a
> particular woman = comrade to=20 promote a political line ...

Note the use of the word=20 "shamelessly". These people actually believe I should be ashamed = of=20 thinking for myself instead of being mired in groupthink. =

> she=20 explained the reasons for her resignation in
> a private = letter to=20 SAIC. ... Ben doesn't know
> the reasons, even though he = has the=20 ability to
> contact, and ask, her. Please note that = "sober"=20
> Ben has not done this.

Yes, the sober thing to do = would=20 be for me to contact the woman and ask her about her views and = experience.=20 And this is what I did.

I exchanged private email with the = woman=20 in July. I did my best to draw out her reasons for resigning. She = gave me=20 an explanation that was somewhat vague and generalized--but which = was=20 consistent with my own conclusion that she had recognized that = SAIC was=20 failing to have an impact sufficient to justify the sacrifice she = was=20 making to support its work. I expressed my view to her that there = was a=20 need for a conscious discussion and public summary of experience. = I was=20 unable to persuade her of the value of making her views public. =

It=20 would also be "sober" for the SAIC member to refrain from publicly = claiming (falsely) that I did not contact the woman involved. This = is so=20 weird. Why make these kinds of claims? And, for that matter, why = post as a=20 "SAIC member" rather than as a _person_ who is part of SAIC? Does = SAIC (as=20 an organization) take responsibility for falsely claiming I did = not=20 contact this woman? Presumably not. But, if that is the case, this = would=20 be more clear (to other readers) if the person who posts used a=20 psuedonym--to help indicate that responsibility for this kind of = bullshit=20 stupidity is his own and not SAIC's.

So much for the "he = said/she=20 said" stuff and the talk of (supposed) "lies". Let's talk about = what is=20 important:

Our movement has gone to hell because key = principles=20 were abandoned. Only when our work, once again, revolves around = these key=20 principles will we be able to organize the salvation of our = movement. One=20 of these principles is the need for public discussion, public = cricitism=20 and public struggle. The SAIC comrades are obviously uncomfortable = with=20 this. This is why they call me "a liar and demagogue" [5] and all = the=20 usual cheap talk about being "shameless" and so forth. This is = more=20 comfortable to some of them than struggling with principles. =

Ben=20 Seattle

--Information war wants to be free to serve the = working=20 class
--in the struggle to overthrow bourgeois rule =

notes:=20

[1] See: Crying "Wolf" over Fascism
- Hysteria about = "fascism"=20 serves to hide
the essential role of the Democratic Party in =
the=20 political and economic system of imperialism
http://struggle.= net/Ben/2005/rcp_cries_wolf.htm=20

[2] A Response to "Drive Out the Bush Regime" Statement =
http://seat= tle.indymedia.org/en/2005/07/246938.shtml=20

[3] See part 1 of this essay (July 17) posted at:
http://struggle.n= et/Ben/2008/saic-sobriety.htm=20

[4] See: Workers' Rule: Is it Dead or Alive?
Ben = Seattle=20 replies to Eric Gordon - May 16, 2008
http://str= uggle.net/Ben/2008/eric/moment_of_truth.htm=20

The CVO has a webpage with links to various articles = opposing=20
my views but refuses to give its readers a link to my replies. =
http://home.fl= ash.net/~comvoice/00SeattleBen.html=20

[5] See: "Ben is a liar and demagogue" - Frank, July 25 =
http://struggle.n= et/Ben/2008/saic-sobriety.htm=20

2nd reply = to Ydrwtkt=20
Posted by: Ben Seattle at = Sep 12,=20 2008 00:04

I understand your concern about 3 am visits. The problem is = that you=20 appear to be so focused on this concern that you fail to see the = potential=20 of open communications.

In many countries the 3 am visit = (ie: by=20 police or by death squads) is a daily reality. And this may be a = reality=20 here in the U.S. some years down the road. But we have the ability = to=20 openly (ie: legally) organize today and, in my view, would be = foolish to=20 give up the opportunity to fully do so due to fear of what may = happen=20 tomorrow.

It is our actions _today_ that are the best = defense=20 against all the ugly things that may happen tomorrow.

So, = on this=20 question, my motto is: "Make Hay While the Sun Shines".

By = the=20 way, the political police can fairly easily track whoever posts = (or even=20 reads) Indymedia, if they think it is important enough. The issue = is that=20 it is _more_ important for us to openly communicate with one = another. If=20 we fail to do this because of fear--then they have already _won_.=20 Activists in countries where death squads are part of daily life = would be=20 amazed by the attitude that (while we have so many legal = opportunities to=20 take action) we must scurry around and think like mice. =

Ben=20

Related articles (for your reference):

[1] A = scenario for=20 the overthrow
of bourgeois rule in the U.S. in
the middle = of the=20 21st century
http://struggle.net= /alds/part_03_content.htm=20

[2] "Make Hay while the Sun Shines"
Building the = movement=20
on a solid foundation requires
accountability and = political=20 transparency
http://struggle.= net/Ben/2006/520-to-michael.htm=20

you'
Posted by: Black Star at Sep 12, 2008 13:01 =

Yes, yes, Ben is a genius. Too bad that uneasy fact is lost in = his own=20 wordiness and formality. Ben, if you could just stop the buzzword = machine,=20 stop trying to make others say "uncle," truly confront and oppose = your own=20 obviously patriarchal, privileged attitudes, TREAT OTHERS AS YOUR = EQUALS,=20 and for the love of Lenin, SIMPLIFY your epistles, you'd be heard. =

You'll have an audience when you stop seeing us as your = audience.=20 You'll have real comrades when you stop seeing us as potential = followers.=20 You have great points. But lose the pedestal, and stop the = condescension.=20 Your ego-driven attitude, not others' lack of "humility" and = "sobriety"=20 (and other such moralistic, vague, judgmental buzzwords) is your = primary=20 and perhaps your only impediment.

Ben, if you could make = your=20 points in fewer words, fresher words, and without the overweening = EGO, I'd=20 listen, and so would others.

The rest of you? See past the = ego,=20 and you might see some good points. His ego, and yours as well. We = do not=20 have time for this infighting.

Now let's all get some = fresh air=20 today, and prepare ourselves for real battles in the real world = REAL SOON.=20 We'd better get past our tiffs and grudges and paranoia, and pull = it=20 together. We do not have time to waste on personal attacks, nor do = we have=20 energy to waste on endless rehashing of wordy wanks.

you're all = a pack of=20 cards
Posted by: Black Star = at Sep 12,=20 2008 13:05

Yes, yes, Ben is a genius. Too bad that uneasy fact is lost in = his own=20 wordiness and formality. Ben, if you could just stop the buzzword = machine,=20 stop trying to make others say "uncle," truly confront and oppose = your own=20 obviously patriarchal, privileged attitudes, TREAT OTHERS AS YOUR = EQUALS,=20 and for the love of Lenin, SIMPLIFY your epistles, you'd be heard. =

You'll have an audience when you stop seeing us as your = audience.=20 You'll have real comrades when you stop seeing us as potential = followers.=20 You have great points. But lose the pedestal, and stop the = condescension.=20 Your ego-driven attitude, not others' lack of "humility" and = "sobriety"=20 (and other such moralistic, vague, judgmental buzzwords) is your = primary=20 and perhaps your only impediment.

Ben, if you could make = your=20 points in fewer words, fresher words, and without the overweening = EGO, I'd=20 listen, and so would others.

The rest of you? See past the = ego,=20 and you might see some good points. His ego, and yours as well. We = do not=20 have time for this infighting.

Now let's all get some = fresh air=20 today, and prepare ourselves for real battles in the real world = REAL SOON.=20 We'd better get past our tiffs and grudges and paranoia, and pull = it=20 together. We do not have time to waste on personal attacks, nor do = we have=20 energy to waste on endless rehashing of wordy wanks.

"Sober"=20 assessment
Posted by: Eric = (SAIC=20 supporter) at Sep 12, 2008 19:53

In Ben=E2=80=99s reply to Frank, he has shown that his program = would not take=20 24 hours a day to implement. But that is not really the question, = is it?=20 The question is, how much of what we are already doing would we = have to=20 give up to implement his program? Well, looking at Ben as a = consummate=20 example of carrying out the Ben-ist program with =E2=80=9Ca = disciplined approach=E2=80=9D,=20 it appears that we would have to essentially resign from the = concrete=20 immigrant rights, health care, anti-war, and anti-police state = struggles=20 -- given that Ben takes almost no part in these struggles. We = would have=20 to produce only one or two leaflets a year, rather than the 8 to = 10 we do=20 produce -- given that Ben produces very little agitation for = distribution.=20 We would have to drop the analysis of current events that we do to = write=20 these leaflets -- given that what Ben does write on the current = struggles=20 consists of spouting a few =E2=80=9Dcatchy phrases=E2=80=9D and = generalities, and contains=20 almost no analysis of current events. We would have to drastically = cut=20 back on distributing the tens of thousands of leaflets we = distribute in=20 demonstrations and in working class neighborhoods each year -- = given that=20 Ben engages in little or none of this work.

When = challenged on his=20 lack of participation in various political activities, his pat = response is=20 that it is a matter of setting priorities. I prefer our = priorities.=20

As for the details of Ben=E2=80=99s = =E2=80=9Cprogram=E2=80=9D for SAIC:

> (1)=20 make a commitment to building an open community of supporters =

SAIC=20 does everything in its power to create a community of supporters. = We focus=20 on supporters in Seattle, since we are a Seattle based = organization. I=20 don=E2=80=99t know what Ben means we should do beyond what we do, = but I am pretty=20 sure it involves organizing on the internet. We prefer flesh and = blood=20 supporters, since the struggle must be carried out in the real = world. We=20 aren=E2=80=99t fighting to end imperialism in Second Life, after = all.

>=20 (2) make greater use of internet forums on a national level =

SAIC=20 is a Seattle-based organization. We are doing everything we can to = build=20 the movement in Seattle, because we are based in Seattle. We are = too few=20 to take on a national program. As individuals, we do participate = in=20 various forums and discussions around the world, but at a = manageable=20 level. Ben spends almost all of his time on =E2=80=9Cinternet = forums=E2=80=9D, and by his=20 own admission, even spending that much time he has had no success. = And he=20 wants us to throw over our program to implement his?

> = (3) be=20 more politically transparent,

When Ben goes on and on = about SAIC=20 being =E2=80=9Ctransparent=E2=80=9D, the net effect is to make it = sound as if SAIC is a=20 totally undemocratic organization, which makes all sorts of = decisions=20 behind closed doors. This is pure demagoguery, and Ben knows it. = SAIC is=20 the most democratic organization I have ever been a part of. In = practical=20 terms, what it turns out that Ben means is a series of things = that, if=20 examined, are somewhat absurd (more on this under pts 5 - 10 = below).=20

> (4) take a long-term view of its tasks, including = those=20 theoretical tasks which are decisive for the revolutionary = movement.=20

We are a coalition, with points of unity crafted to = include=20 anarchists, Trotskyists, Maoists, Stalinists, Leninists, and = radical=20 reformers. Tackling revolutionary tasks, or even coming to = agreement on=20 these tasks, is outside the scope of this coalition. It = isn=E2=80=99t a=20 proletarian organization, and it is not intended to be. If we were = to=20 address them, we would limit our effectiveness as a coalition. All = members=20 engage in one way or another in tackling these tasks, including = intensive=20 study of past failed revolutions and the class struggles that were = going=20 on as these degenerated, including study of modern revisionism = (the=20 revision/gutting of Marxist ideas to justify reliance on classes = other=20 than the proletariat to carry out the decisive tasks) and its = current=20 manifestations, and other topics. We just don=E2=80=99t do it = through SAIC because=20 we understand that is not an appropriate place to do so. =

> (5)=20 distribute a political summary of its work to activists and = activist=20 organizations
> at least once a year (making wide use of = electronic=20 forums) and ask for and
> publish feedback and advocate = that other=20 organizations create, publish and
> discuss similar = summaries of=20 their own experience
>
> (6) maintain a public email = discussion list
>
> (7) publish summaries of their = public=20 meetings in postings on their blog, so that
> readers can = more=20 easily understand (and publicly comment on) SAIC's priorities =
> and=20 the confrontation of agendas which is inevitable in any genuinely = mass=20
> organization.
>
> (8) Give all members and=20 supporters of their organization the right to some form
> = of=20 representation on its web site -- so that the politics of the = people and=20 political
> trends within SAIC can be public and the SAIC = web site=20 can represent and function
> as the union of its members' = politics=20 rather than the intersection or "least common
> = denominator"=20 everyone can agree with.
>
> (9) Post drafts of = their=20 leaflets as these leaflets are developed, along with
> = summaries of=20 the related discussion (to the extent that time allows) so that =
>=20 other activists can better understand how high-quality political = agitation=20 is created
> and participate in this process.

Ben = sends out=20 an annual summary of his activities, and has done so for years. It = is the=20 most self-serving, self-aggrandizing, sickening tripe that I have = occasion=20 to read each year.

As has been pointed out in this thread, = there=20 are plenty of public email discussion lists out there. At some = point we=20 may decide to do so, but not because Ben claims that we are=20 anti-democratic if we do not do so. If we do it, it will be = because we=20 have examined the political climate in Seattle and nationally, and = decided=20 that it would be a useful tool for building the movement. =

The=20 discussions in SAIC meetings are of limited interest to the=20 anti-imperialist masses, or the masses in general.

As for = posting=20 leaflet drafts publicly, we post our finalized leaflets and get = one or two=20 comments over a period of months, usually general things like = =E2=80=9Cyou guys=20 are on the right track=E2=80=9D. And, the editing process, rather = than being a=20 period of months, is a period of days. The movement is not at a = point=20 where people are chomping at the bit to participate in this way, = and no=20 matter how much Ben pretends that it were so, our simply posting = drafts is=20 not going to change the level of the movement.

> (10) = Encourage=20 discussion and debate concerning how society can exist and =
>=20 function without the political and economic system of imperialism = (and the=20
> capitalist system of production for profit which makes=20 imperialism inevitable) in
> order to help overcome the = universal=20 belief that the only alternative to the
> existing system = of=20 bourgeois rule is a corrupt police-state, such as the former =
>=20 Soviet Union or China, where a single party holds a monopoly of = power and=20
> can suppress the voice of its opponents. =

Again. SAIC=20 is an anti-imperialist coalition. Our points of unity do not and = should=20 not include agreement on the nature of the post-revolutionary = society we=20 envision. We want to be open to anarchists, communists, and = general left=20 anti-imperialists. As individuals we all engage in discussion and = debate=20 on post-revolutionary society through other, more appropriate = forums.=20

Returning to the original topic of this dispute, Ben = wrote:=20

> I am in the position of a messenger who delivers bad = news=20 that Frank
> (and others) do not want to hear. In one = amusing=20 incident at SAIC's July
> public meeting (no one could make = this=20 stuff up) a supporter of the
> Communist Voice Organization = bellowed so loudly that I was a "class
> enemy" who made = him feel=20 the need to vomit--that the librarian had to
> come = upstairs and=20 close the meeting room door in order to avoid further
> = disturbing=20 everyone else in the building. And Frank now writes that I am =
> a=20 "liar" because I had written that the recent resignation of a SAIC = member=20
> did not result in "a single moment of sober reflection".=20

Ben=E2=80=99s assertion that we did not spend =E2=80=9Ca = single moment of sober=20 reflection=E2=80=9D is not in the least accurate. This is the = substance of Frank=E2=80=99s=20 statement that Ben is a liar.

Ben is not a member of SAIC, = so he=20 has only a very limited view of the discussions and reflection = that goes=20 on, but he doesn=E2=80=99t let this prevent him from making = categorical statements=20 that the resignation =E2=80=9Cdid not result in a single moment = reflection=E2=80=9D. How=20 does he know that we didn=E2=80=99t reflect soberly, just because = we didn=E2=80=99t spend=20 a great deal of time at that meeting? In point of fact, every one = of us=20 had numerous discussions with her about her level of activity, = whether=20 there were activities that would capture her excitement, and so = forth. We=20 also had discussions before and after her resignation abut the = reasons for=20 her resignation. Frank pointed this out, and Ben=E2=80=99s = response? To ignore it.=20

But let=E2=80=99s look at Ben=E2=80=99s notion of a = =E2=80=9Csober assessment=E2=80=9D a little=20 more closely. Ben writes:

> My description, however, = remains=20 correct: the reflections of Frank, and
> other SAIC = members, were=20 not sober if they failed to consider the possibility
> that = this=20 woman's resignation did not so much reflect on her lack of =
>=20 consciousness as it did on SAIC's distorted priorities and = excessively=20
> narrow conception of its tasks.

According to = Ben=E2=80=99s own=20 words then, a =E2=80=9Csober assessment=E2=80=9D starts with his = conclusion: that SAIC has=20 =E2=80=9Cdistorted priorities=E2=80=9D and an =E2=80=9Cexcessively = narrow conception of its=20 tasks=E2=80=9D. To him, the only question to = =E2=80=9Cassess=E2=80=9D is whether =E2=80=9Cthis woman=E2=80=99s=20 resignation=E2=80=9D was a result of those (supposedly) screwed up = priorities or=20 something else. If that is a =E2=80=9Csober assessment=E2=80=9D, = then I plead guilty. I=20 didn=E2=80=99t spend even a moment starting with the conclusion = Ben wanted to=20 prove, and then twisting the facts to support that conclusion.=20

an SAIC = member replies=20 to "Ben Seattle"
Posted by: = an SAIC=20 member at Sep 12, 2008 20:51

1. Here Ben has simply "give[n] himself, and his wooden (and = completely=20 unconvincing) critique of reformism, too much credit" once again. = The=20 moral of the story is to be careful about who you speak to at mass = actions=20 because you never know who'll actually try to claim credit for = your future=20 political trajectory (while getting most of the details wrong in = the=20 process).

2. Note Ben's peculiar definition of = "encourag[ing]=20 discussion of the decisive issues." Since SAIC has not put a link = on the=20 SAIC website with a conversation on that particular topic (which = Ben=20 claims is "the decisive issue"), it must not "encourage discussion = of the=20 decisive issues"! I think what I wrote in the first #2 still = stands.=20

3. I have no idea what their actual reason for the lack of = a link=20 is, but I do have some personal ideas on the subject, now that I = think=20 about it. (Disclaimer: I do not spend a lot of time thinking about = this=20 particular topic. Please believe me.) There are several links to = your page=20 from the CVO website (probably too many). More importantly, I = think they=20 have exhausted the debate at this point. The fact that you can = repeat the=20 same points using new language (and pretexts) does not entitle you = to=20 unlimited linkage.

4. I am happy to admit and apologize = for my=20 error. The error was based on assumption that, if Ben had actually = contacted the comrade in question, he would realize that his = insinuations=20 regarding her resignation were utterly baseless and would, at the = very=20 least, lay them to rest. It turns out that he HAS contacted her, = only he=20 thinks he's found something in her "vague and generalized" = explanation=20 ("vague and generalized" because she did not wish for her = resignation to=20 be used as ammo in Ben's "information war" against SAIC, most = likely) to=20 support his views! "This is so weird," Ben. What's even more weird = is how=20 you top it off with a speech about "principles." God forbid we = call you a=20 "demagogue."

Ozymandias = and=20 groupthink (reply to Eric)
Posted by:=20 Ben Seattle at Sep 13, 2008 13:16

-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Seattle
Sent: = Saturday,=20 September 13, 2008 1:08 PM
To: 'pof-200'
Cc: 'pof-300'; = 'theorist'=20
Subject: The Ozymandias argument and
the culture of = groupthink=20 (reply to Eric)

Hi folks,

After today I will be = offline=20 for a month or two again as
part of my political sabbatical. =

I=20 thought, before I sign off, I would make a comment on the =
reply to me=20 from Eric (SAIC and CVO supporter) from the
recent Seattle = Indymedia=20 thread at:
http://seat= tle.indymedia.org/en/2008/09/268695.shtml=20

*** I advocated that SAIC make a commitment to building an =
open community of supporters.

Eric replies that "SAIC = does=20 everything in its power to
create a community of supporters."=20

Eric then goes on to explain that this community is mainly =
restricted to Seattle and does not make use of the internet. =
Eric=20 also fails to deal with the concept of the community
being = "open".=20

I don't believe that Eric (or SAIC) understand the concept =
of=20 an open community. It should be possible (for example)
for = anyone who=20 reads a SAIC leaflet to go to the SAIC
website and, from = there, be=20 able to learn about (and make
contact with) any supporters of = SAIC who=20 want information
about their views (or political work) to be = public.=20 An
example of how this can be done is the wiki page listing =
some=20 of the members of the media weapon community-in-embryo
at: = http://mediaweapon.wetpaint.com= /=20

The central idea behind any genuine community is that the=20
members of that community have abundant opportunity to =
interact=20 with one another without permission or control by a
guiding = center. I=20 don't think SAIC understands this. For
example, SAIC maintains = a=20 MySpace page--but their website
does not link to it. You can = only find=20 this page if you are
"in the know" or search google. =

The=20 concept of an open community is alien to cargo cultists =
because they=20 would not be able to _control_ it. However a
genuinely mass=20 anti-imperialist organization would
understand that an open = community=20 of supporters would be
essential to reaching activists and = developing=20 the influence
of the organization.

*** I advocated = that SAIC=20 take a long-term view of its
tasks, including those = theoretical tasks=20 which are decisive
for the revolutionary movement. Central to = these=20 tasks is
encouraging discussion and debate concerning how = society can=20
exist and function without the political and economic system =
of=20 imperialism. This question is important because the
dominant = view in=20 our society is that the only alternative to
our current = political=20 system is a repressive police state
and the rule of single = party.=20

Eric replies that, since SAIC's points of unity do not =
require=20 agreement with any particular view of the nature of
the=20 post-revolutionary society, any and all discussion,
debate or = mention=20 of this topic must be avoided entirely.

A genuinely mass=20 anti-imperialist organization would not, of
course, require = its=20 members to have agreement on this topic.
But it would = recognize that=20 this is an important question
and it would take practical = steps to=20 encourage discussion
aimed at developing our confidence that a = better=20 world,
without imperialism, is possible.

*** I won't = deal with=20 everything Eric says, but will add
that the guiding spirit of = Eric's=20 remarks is captured in his
introduction:

> In Ben's = reply=20 to Frank, he has shown that his
> program would not take 24 = hours a=20 day to
> implement. But that is not really the question, =
>=20 is it? The question is, how much of what we are
> already = doing=20 would we have to give up to
> implement his program? Well, = looking=20 at Ben as
> a consummate example of carrying out the = Ben-ist=20
> program with "a disciplined approach", it
> = appears that=20 we would have to essentially resign
> from the concrete = immigrant=20 rights, health care,
> anti-war, and anti-police state = struggles --=20
> given that Ben takes almost no part in these
> = struggles.=20 We would have to produce only one or
> two leaflets a year, = rather=20 than the 8 to 10 we
> do produce -- given that Ben produces = very=20
> little agitation for distribution. We would
> have = to drop=20 the analysis of current events that
> we do to write these = leaflets=20 -- given that what
> Ben does write on the current = struggles=20 consists
> of spouting a few "catchy phrases" and
>=20 generalities, and contains almost no analysis of
> current = events.=20 We would have to drastically cut
> back on distributing the = tens of=20 thousands of
> leaflets we distribute in demonstrations and = in=20
> working class neighborhoods each year -- given
> = that Ben=20 engages in little or none of this work.

Eric's argument is = a good=20 example of the phenomenon often
called "groupthink", common in = political cults of all kinds.
I call this kind of argument the = "Ozymandias argument" (see
the poem below for why). To see = what is=20 wrong with it,
consider how this argument might be applied by = an RCP=20
supporter to defend the RCP from a critic who says that the =
RCP=20 does a lot of good and useful work--but that the cult of =
Avakian stuff=20 is a real problem.

The RCP supporter can point to all the = articles=20 (some of
which are quite good) in the RCP's newspaper and the=20
hundreds of thousands of copies that are distributed. The =
RCP=20 supporter can then ask: "And what are you doing except
for = sitting on=20 your rear end?". With a triumphal smile the
RCP supporter can = then=20 declare that if the RCP did what the
critic was doing--it = would not be=20 writing articles and
distributing its newspaper.

The = problem=20 with the Ozymandias argument is that it is
mainly a way for = supporters=20 of a cult to feel good about
what they are doing while failing = to=20 seriously confront
criticism.

Ben Seattle
http://struggle.net/ben/ -- = my web=20 page
Exchanges on how to build revolutionary organization: =
http://struggle.net/mass-dem= ocracy/=20

From "Ozymandias" (Shelley, 1817):

And on the = pedestal,=20 these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings, =
Look on=20 my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. = Round the=20 decay
Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
The lone = and=20 level sands stretch far away.

seattle indymedia center

Convention Coverage

Get Involved

Search

Information

IMC Network

Seattle Anti-Imperialist Committee and the = struggle for=20 sobriety (part 2)