Criticism of Kasama 's social-democratic mission statement

The Kasama group appears to have eliminated
the class struggle and class politics from
its mission statement in a bid to be "respectable"
and acceptable to a strata of social-democratic activists

Hi folks,

Recently Zerohour replied [1] to my comments [2] on Kasama's mission statement. I will reply to him soon. In the meantime, I am starting a clean thread on this topic with some of the key quotes at the top.

1) First, the closest thing I could find [3] to a mission statement for Kasama

2) Below are my December 4 comments on it this mission statement [2]:

3) Here is the key paragraph from Zerohour's comments:

I intend to reply to Zerohour soon.

Ben Seattle
http://struggle.net/ben/

--- Notes: ---
[1] Zerohour posted (December 20, 2009 at 11:49 pm) to the Kasama blog and "threads" forum here: http://mikeely.wordpress.com/about/ and here: http://z11.invisionfree.com/Kasama_Threads...p?showtopic=983
[2] I posted (December 4, 2009 at 10:54 pm) to the thread above
[3] I looked at the only doc I could find giving an overview of how the Kasama group sees its role (ie: “Contributing to Revolution’s Long March” from February 2009) which gives what we can consider to be Kasama’s mission statement. It is here: http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/09/20/ka...y-road-with-us/

I intend to add some comments soon. In the meantime, here is a political cartoon which may help provide perspective
on the important and decisive question of whether or not revolutionary politics is based on the class struggle:

Hi folks,

I will attempt to make this short and sweet. This topic is central to why many of us are here. But it is also not that complicated.

(1) Readers should understand that this is fundamentally a disagreement about which group of people will be the base and backbone of the revolutionary movement:

(a) a strata of "progressive" media personalities,
opinion leaders and so forth who are in orbit
around the left wing of the Democratic Party --or--

(b) the working class and oppressed

(2) This is a disagreement about the goal of the revolutionary movement.

Zerohour does not agree that the goal of the revolutionary movement is the overthrow of the class rule of a particular social class (ie: the bourgeoisie) and the replacement of bourgeois rule with the rule of society by a different social class (ie: the proletariat).

To oppose this idea (which is as fundamental to marxism as you can get) Zerohour says it is: (1) economic determinism, (2) sociology and (3) teleology.

Zerohour also notes that overthrowing bourgeois rule does not guarantee the rise of a society without exploitation (ie: "more egalitarian"). He is correct in this. The revolutions in Russia and China of 1917 and 1949 eventually resulted in the rise of a new ruling class and the oppression of the workers in a different form (with lots of red flags fluttering in the wind).

Zerohour raises an important point. In the wake of both the Soviet and Chinese revolutions the ruling party degenerated before it could bring about the rule of society by the working class.

(3) So what conclusions can we draw from this?

I believe our conclusion must be that the goal of the revolutionary movement cannot simply be the overthrow of bourgeois rule and its replacement with the rule of a single party--but rather must be replacing bourgeois rule with the rule of the working class as a class. This is something that has never happened. And this is why we need theoretical clarity, so that activists who are considering becoming revolutionaries will have a goal that is worth fighting for. In order for the working class to exercise its rule as a class it will (1) need the ability to know what is going on so that it will be able to (2) apply the weight of its experience, influence and authority on any issue or struggle, large or small, that has impact on society. For this reason it will be necessary that the fundamental democratic rights of speech and organization will be extended to all of society (even to those who will work for a return to capitalist rule).

With this understanding we have a fundamental resolution of the crisis of theory that has paralyzed the revolutionary movement and left it easy prey for charlatans, clowns and cults (ie: Avakian and a host of lesser charlatans).

(4) If our movement is based on the working class and oppressed, then our work must put, front and center, the central organizing idea that is the key to understanding everything else. This central organizing idea is that it is the class struggle that moves everything forward in society--and the goal of the class struggle is the replacement of the rule of the bourgeoisie with the rule of the proletariat (something that has never been done).

(5) Without this central organizing idea, without class struggle and class politics, the Kasama mission statement amounts to "we will work to make everything better" (ie: a vague description that is acceptable to social-democratic intellectuals but leaves the working class and oppressed without the vital weapon of class analysis they need in order to understand the world). Throwing in meaningless, empty phrases like "communist" or "forcible overthrow" means nothing in the absence of class struggle, class analysis and class politics.

(6) And this gets to the essential nature of the Kasama project: militant-sounding reformism wrapped in a sea of red flags (look at the banner at the top of this page) and cargo-cult Leninism.

Kasama has inherited from its parent (ie: the RCP) this essential nature.

I cannot exclude the possibility that the Kasama project and community might evolve in a revolutionary direction. How likely this is would be another question. More likely is that revolutionary elements will find their way here and, in some cases, find a certain amount of clarity in a sea of social-democratic prejudices.

For insight on what these prejudices look like and where they can lead, I offer two items below: (1) a link to the Kasama thread summing up the "World Can't Wait" experience and (2) my cartoon (from 2005) on the same topic.

http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/02/10/el...utionary-hopes/



(7) Finally, it is likely that my conclusions will offend many members of this community. That is ok with me. We live in a world in which the truth is often unpleasant. My responsibility is to report the truth as I see it. In the long run, this will serve the movement.

-- Ben

Hi folks,

It has been more than week since I posted this criticism. If no one from the Kasama team has replied to it, it may be because this criticism is accurate and is difficult to refute. Or maybe they are all too busy discussing anti-imperialist actions on other planets (actually, I saw Avatar and it is one heck of a cool movie, in spite of whatever flaws it has).

I will be offline for a while. If anyone wants my attention or would like me to respond to something--I often hang out at RevLeft. You can see my blog there at this location: http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?u=15414

sincerely and revolutionary regards,
Ben Seattle
http://struggle.net/ben/

Ben, I want to participate in this discussion. But it takes a little more time for me because my English Language skills don’t allow me read and express any faster.

And, naturally, I have to clock in everyday (Monday to Friday) in my job. So, please, don’t leave this forum unattended.

Thanks.

Hi Ben, I’m back to this forum.

I’ve read several times – with a dictionary at hand –, all your posts on “Criticism of Kasama’s social-democratic mission statement.” And before to tell something (right or wrong), I need to explain why I want to participate in this discussion.

1. I need a minimal understanding of the society where I ‘m living. It’s not only an intellectual requirement, but a practical (behavioral) one.

2. I consider myself as belonging to the working class. My opinions – even if wrong – might account for improve the thread of this discussion. If I can tell or do something that might help to build a better world to live in, I want to tell or do so.

3. I have formed my concepts and opinions critically studying, analyzing works and words of other people. It includes live discussion... as it worth it.

4. I think that expressing our own opinions, concepts, ideas and so on, in the heat of a good discussion is a useful way to improve them.

5. I expect this might be an important way to improve my English language skills to communicate and express myself.

It’s likely to set up more – and better – reasons for me to participate in a such discussion, but these maybe enough to tell also some “Nos” reasons.

1. I’m not replying because I’m part of Kasama’s team. The only I know about Kasama project is what is posted in “About Kasama” blog by Mike E. Even I’ve not idea what RCP is – which you claim as Kasama’s parent. I’ve not idea who Avakian, Bob or anybody else are –who you criticize.

2. I’m not pretending to be right on any point. The spirit of my participation is to share my opinions to improve them. If in doing that I contribute to improve the vision of a social movement for a better world to live in, I will be rewarded twice... and surprised.

3. I’ve not idea who you –or Zerohour – are, and what you or him think. I’m just restricted to the words and quotes you posted here. If I agree with you on some point, it does not mean that I disagree with Zerohour on all his points. And vice versa.

4. I could not find in my dictionary the meaning of “egalitarian.” So, I took it in its context: “more egalitarian” society as a synonym of “cooperative society.” It may looks no so important for you, but it’s so for me: wasting time looking for the meaning of a word which is not in my dictionary, is a big deal for me. Naturally it’s nobody fall.


This discussion starts from the mission statement like quote: “Kasama is a communist project that, in theory and practice, fights for the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.” And, after reply that we are living in a society where “communist project,” “revolutionary,” and “the phrase about the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions” are meaningless, you claim that there are no class politics in this mission statement. Immediately you continue telling that “Any fundamental change of existing social conditions will require a forcible overthrow of the system of rule by a specific social class – the bourgeoisie.” So, you are using the same words and phrases just claimed as meaningless. It looks for me that you think these words are meaningless as they are not linked to class politics. And it looks like you view that all existing conditions (which stands in the mission statement), and the system of rule by a specific social class (which stands in your critic) are two different – even opposite – things.

A class, in general, is a group defined by some characteristic or property. The integer number, for example, is a class of numbers defined over the real numbers set. It means that all integer numbers share some properties which make them to belong to the integer number class. The mathematicians can make this by a much more strict – and elegant – way, but the point I want to make here is: a social class, in the modern society, as I can understand it from the Marxist Political Economy, is a group of person of the society, defined by the relation these persons have with the means of social production.

Kids – for example – under the fifteen years old may be regarded as a social group for a census, but they are not a social class for the political economy since they have any relation with the means of social production. Full time students may be regarded as a social group (even as a political group) but they are not a social class for the political economy... no matter if many politician or sociologists refer students as the student class. The same for women regarded only as gender – a woman may belong to a social class, and other woman belong to another (i.e. the gender is not a characteristic that defines a social class for the political economy).

That relation with the means of social production is conditioned by the property relation. You belong to a social class if you are the owner of the means of social production (and therefore the owner of the production profits), and you belong to another social class if you have not production means, and you have to sale your productive force as a merchandise in work force market, or other class if you are part of the property (as a production tool) of a landlord, or other class if you have property enough to produce your life by yourself.

What makes this classification interesting for the politics, and the understanding of class struggle, is that the interests of one class (proletariat) are irreducibly opposed, irreconcilable, antagonistic with the interests of other class (the bourgeoisie). The oppressed people is a general terms used to refer people belonging to a different classes – proletariat or workers, peasants, artist and other who make their live selling their own work force either directly, or indirectly in some product or service form. There is a lot more to tell about these terms: means of production is not only the production tools and machinery or the soil, and not all tools are social means of production, even not all production of goods or services are social.

When Zerohour says that a focus on class as an identity, smacks of economic determinism, I think he is telling that the human behavior and personal identification is not directly determined by their social class. But, it looks evident that a social class... smacks of economic determinism.

I agree with Zerohour when he says that “working class” and “bourgeoisie” are not political positions by itself. But the political interests of the working class and the political interests of the bourgeoisie (as classes) are different and irreconcilable... not matter if they know it or not.

I’ll continue soon.

Ben,

I personally appreciate your attempts to engage with what we got goin on. But don't assume you're correct or better than any of us because your polemic hasn't been replied to. Get over yourself.

Hi Doxus

I must congratulate you on your determination to read my long-winded comments.

The concept of social-democracy is critical in understanding how politics works in modern society. But this phrase is not easy to understand on the basis of any definition--any more than one can understand the word "chess" by reading a defintion of it. Understanding chess requires playing chess. Understanding social-democracy requires encountering it and fighting it in the class struggle. In the class struggle, one learns how social-democracy works to systematically cool down the struggle and return everything to business as usual.

One phrase is concrete and specific while the other is vague and can mean anything.

Vague phrases are sometimes called "weasel words" and are often used for political deception--when a person or trend wants people to believe it is taking a stand on the basis of some principle--but does not want to take such a stand.

Social-democracy, as a political trend (and it is a very large trend, with left and right wings) evolved, historically, out of the need of the bourgeoisie to tame and pacify the struggles of the oppressed. As such, social-democracy is a political trend that is fundamentally based on illusion.

Illusion and political deception are very common in politics.

The Kasama mission statement amounts to saying "we will make everything better". Radicals can look at this statement and think it means overthrowing bourgeois rule. Left-liberals can look at the same statement and think it is something safe and innocuous.

Is this a problem?

Yes, it is.

Here is why:

An organization that is genuinely based on class politics will understand and act on the principle that it must take class politics to its readers. It must, by its work, raise the consciousness of workers and the oppressed concerning the class nature of our society--and the fact that the class struggle is ultimately the motor force pushing everything forward. It must be able to analyse events in the news from the perspective of the irreconciliable material interests of contending classes. It must train its readers to think in terms of classes and class interests so that they can be class conscious.

By having a vague and meaningless mission statement that can mean one thing to radicals and something else to left-liberals, Kasama reveals the nature of its intended project: an alliance of radicals and left-liberals.

Such an alliance can be either good or bad, useful or useless, depending on how it is done.

I do not think it is a very powerful (or revolutionary) alliance if the left-liberals have veto power in this project. And that is how it looks to me.

If the mission statement cannot take a clear stand on the need for class politics--then Kasama has already surrendered to the liberal need for respectibility. I did not want to come to this conclusion. I came to it relunctantly. My responsibility is to report the truth.

Certainly some good things may come out of the Kasama project. The blog runs interesting articles and there is often good and useful discussion. But I do not agree with what I consider a misrepresentation of the character of the project because I believe that, in a country such as the U.S. where Kasama is primarily based, only class politics are genuinely revolutionary politics.

What Zerohour means by the term "economic determinism" is unclear. He clearly considers it as a faulty and mistaken way of thinking. Individuals, of course, have the ability to determine their own thinking. For example Marx and Engels came from a background of privilege--but came to support the struggles of the working class. But, in the larger picture, it is the struggle of classes with irreconcilable material interests that drives everything forward. I believe that Zerohour is not comfortable with this idea and considers it "simplistic" and opposes it. And, most likely, the activists who run the Kasama site have similiar views as Zerohour.

These are very large topics and I do not feel that I can explain matters very well in one (or several) posts. Activists usually learn things like this the hard way--as a result of bitter experience.

This thread may be useful in illustrating some key principles and attitudes:
http://kasamaproject.org/2008/02/10/electi...utionary-hopes/

I sent you an email via the forum software. If you reply then I will have your email address. I like to keep in touch with revolutionary-minded activists. The problems of the revolutionary movement are complex and we need to help each other figure things out and keep one another honest.

all the best,
Ben

Hi Rawthentic,

Good point. The lack of a reply from Mike or Kasama certainly does not prove I am correct. And, even if I was correct, that would not make me "better" than anyone else. I have seen situations where comrades who were more determined, dedicated and disciplined than me were mistaken. It happens all the time. I believe that part of the reason for this is the crisis of theory that has paralyzed the revolutionary movement and led to the proliferation of all kinds of nonsense.

In any event, I do hope that the more serious and revolutionary-minded comrades around Kasama give thought to the basic questions I have raised about Kasama's fundamental orientation as an alliance of radicals and left-liberals which, unfortunately, is only lukewarm, at best, about class politics. It is understandable that there is a lot of excitment about struggles on imaginary planets (I saw Avatar, and thought it was great) but we also need to focus on the more difficult questions concerning what it means to be revolutionary here on planet earth--and particularly here in the U.S.

Hi Ben, I already had these three paragraphs written when saw your reply. I don’t want throw it away so I’ll post it anyway. I’ll analyze your reply and I’ll try to keep the thread of the discussion at the point where you reply.

This is – in my view – an interesting and key question held by Zerohour: “Is it not the case that any struggle to transform society away from capitalism is going to be based on the working class by default?” It’s interesting because leads to a series of other questions worth to think about. Why the working class? Telling the working class by default is not somewhat teleological? What is transform society away from capitalism?... and other.

When we speak about a capitalist society, capitalist system, capitalist economy or simply capitalism, I assume we are talking about the capitalist system of social production. That system of production is the material base of the capitalist society. The base determines all other social relations in each historical moment... even when such a determination may occur indirectly, and we have not a clear idea of it. The capitalist system of production stands for the profits. And that profit comes from the value added by the productive forces – the workers. So, any change to that production system must involve the working class. The nature of the capitalist system of production, its inner contradictions, pushes the working class into the center of the social movement scenario. It is not a moral or intellectual issue. If that movement is made conscious, organized, and directed forward to a social revolution, or not, it’s another issue.

The capitalist production system has underwent multiple transformations since it appeared. Crisis after crisis, worker rebellion after worker rebellion, worker’s social requirements after worker’s social requirements, science and technology development after science and technology development... but, to transform society away from capitalist production system (which means as much as to change the property relations over the means of social production), is a revolution. If such a revolution happens, it must involve the working class... by default. It does not mean that only the working class is involved and interested in such a revolution.

Hi Doxus,

I had considered quoting that sentence by Zerohour when I replied to him--but decided not to do so because my reply had already become too long.

The issue here is the same as I dealt with above in relation to the central issue of class struggle. Zerohour is essentially saying that since everyone knows the struggle will be based on the working class--there is no need to say it out loud.

The opposite is true.

Not everyone knows.

The decisive question in the movement concerns whether to base the struggle on the working class and oppressed--or to base it instead on a social stratum (ie: liberal-labor politicians, trade union bureaucrats, religious misleaders, poverty pimps, "progressive" media personalities and professional "opinion leaders", etc) that is in orbit around the left wing of the imperialist Democratic Party.

This social stratum, essentially, consists of people who have a career that is dependent on their having an ideology that serves bourgeois interests.



As long as the movement is based on this corrupt social stratum--then it will be weak and ineffective--because that is the price that must be paid to these misleaders for their "support".

The struggle of the various mass movements to break away from the influence of this stratum of misleaders--and to instead base themselves on the working class and masses--is the heart and soul of the struggle. This struggle for independence from bourgeois influence is the center of the struggle for ideas in the movement.

Zerohour, essentially, says we do not need to worry our pretty heads about this struggle for ideas--because everything is supposedly "obvious". This is a formula for maintaining the status quo.

:huh:

Ben -

I haven't had time to respond to your comments more extensively, though from what I can see, they amount to little more than an elaborate proof of my argument that you reduce politics to sociology. You started with: "Readers should understand that this is fundamentally a disagreement about <b>which group of people</b> will be the base and backbone of the revolutionary movement:" I thought it was about class politics, but you seem to be unable to make that distinction.

More disturbingly, you're skewing my arguments:

""Zerohour, essentially, says we do not need to worry our pretty heads about this struggle for ideas--because everything is supposedly "obvious"."

Not only do I not say this, I say the exact opposite: "I don’t think we can assume anything about how people understand communism", "There must be political struggle all the way through the process among the people." For further evidence: http://kasamaproject.org/2009/09/24/kasama...erence-nov-5-8/, comment #11.

"Zerohour does not agree that the goal of the revolutionary movement is the overthrow of the class rule of a particular social class (ie: the bourgeoisie) and the replacement of bourgeois rule with the rule of society by a different social class (ie: the proletariat)." Here is what I said: "As far as not mentioning a specific social class – as I understand it, communism refers to the abolition of class society in general, not just the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, but more importantly, we must be committed to abolishing all oppressive social relations." To state it another way, we do believe in the need to overthrow bourgeois rule, but as a step in the larger process of eliminating all class society in general. Is there really a communist who does not want class society abolished?

And another example: "I believe that Zerohour is not comfortable with this idea and considers it "simplistic" and opposes it."

You misrepresent my positions, put words in my mouth, and insinuate a tone of elitism. I find this method of argumentation careless at best, and dishonest at worst.

If you find my arguments vague or confusing, you can either interpret them in ways convenient for your polemical purposes, or you can do something truly radical and ask me to clarify.

"If no one from the Kasama team has replied to it, it may be because this criticism is accurate and is difficult to refute."

Or perhaps because you are more concerned with "winning" the argument than engaging in people's actual positions.

I appreciate that you systematized your thinking on a broad array of questions that we do need to struggle with if we are going to build a serious revolutionary movement, but if you want a genuine exchange of ideas, a productive dialogue, then perhaps you should consider shedding the bad habit of tin-eared, inflexible discourse that is part of the "cargo cult Leninism" you claim to reject.

I'd like to work through some of your ideas with you and others, but not if I have to spend half my time disputing positions you claim I hold that I don't. I don't believe many other people have patience for this either.

Hi folks,

First, in reply to Selucha:

The word "communism" does not mean today, in the minds of readers, what it has meant in the past.

The reason for this is simple: the history of massive betrayals. The Soviet and Chinese parties, for example, degenerated and created police states which oppressed the working class. And here, in the U.S., the CPUSA has become one of the biggest supporters, within the mass movements, of the imperialist Democratic Party. This is a textbook case of class collaboration.

Yes, Marx used the phrase about the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions in the Communist Manifesto--but at the same time he also spoke explicitly, and at great length, about the various social classes--including the need to overthrow the class rule of the bourgeoisie.

Second, in reply to Zerohour:

My responsibility is to summarize your line, accurately and concisely for readers, to the best of my ability.

I believe I have done that.

Your arguments are in opposition to Kasama, in its mission statement, making clear that its goal is the overthrow of bourgeois rule.

So I conclude that either you disagree with this goal--or are in favor of not talking about it.

If you do not support talking about it--I believe the reason is that you are not comfortable with the idea--or do not believe it is important.

It is common, in the context of political disagreements, for one or both sides to believe that their views have been misrepresented. I have tried, when I summarized your views, to do so after first quoting you--so that readers would have an opportunity to read your views in your own words and decide for themselves whether or not my summation was accurate or rendered you a disservice.

I understand that you believe that you support the overthrow of the bourgeoisie. I agree that you do support this goal--in your mind. Unfortunately, you appear to oppose this goal--in your actions.

I know that my words may sound harsh, Zerohour. It would be good if we could discuss the principles at stake more than we have so far found ourselves able to do. But I must also report the truth, as I see it, to readers. And sometimes it is better, and cleaner, to leave out the sugarcoating.

hi folks,

I am going to be more or less offline for the rest of the month. I will check back here in early February.

Some of the discussion here appears to be more about the messenger rather than the message (ie: whether or not I have sufficient humility, or am working hard enough to engage others or, in general, whether I have the right attitude).

I know that there are a lot of intelligent and dedicated people around the Kasama project and my hope is that more of them will recognize that this thread raises important issues that are deserving of attention and engagement.

sincerely,
Ben

I think it's pretty obvious that we all see class as a social condition that needs to be forcibly overthrown. By extension that means overthrowing the class that imposes these social conditions. You're turning an argument of semantics into an argument over line, and accusing us of being social democrats despite all the evidence to the contrary. Yes, class is still the primary contradiction, but I think Mike pointed out correctly in a different discussion that revolution is not a battle where workers line up on one side and the bosses on the other. There will be a lot of working class people that join the reactionaries, and there will be a section of the ruling class that will hedge its bets on the revolution. What's wrong about acknowledging that fact?

You are very obviously distorting what Zerohour is saying. It's not hard to see when you accuse him of saying something that he very clearly doesn't. I wouldn't be surprised if he does not respond further, seeing as how he has already addressed everything of substance in your criticism. You have some good ideas Ben; I liked the idea you posted on RevLeft about individualized wikis on particular topics. Unfortunately, your dogmatic insistence on narrow workerism limits your horizons.

Hi Selucha,

First, what is important in this discussion? I would say two things:
(1) productive and healthy exchanges between the people involved and
(2) a clear and clean discussion of the decisive principles.

Since my comments on Zerohour's views have caused problems, not only for Zerohour, but also for you--I will make an effort to be as careful as possible in describing his views, your views, and so forth. This thread will be more useful if we focus on principles rather than people.

That is the problem. Something may ("by extension") mean one thing to one group of readers and something entirely different to another group of readers. That is why it is important to be as clear and explicit as possible and avoid ambiguity in our public statements. There is an important principle at play here:

<important principle>
. . . . . . . . Ambiguity always favors the ideology of the ruling class.
</important principle>

At the risk of being tedious, I would like to express this in a different way:

We all have certain beliefs in our head. We also are all involved in various ways in posting and defending certain views. For example a person may hold views A, B and C in his head, but only post and defend view C. In situations like this the views that are important are the views that readers actually see.

And sometimes the views that readers actually see fit together (ie: like a part of a jigsaw puzzle) with other views. I described this (and drew diagrams about it) when I first publicly criticized what became the RCP's "World Can't Wait" campaign:


(click here to see full-sized image along with article)

You raised a related issue in your previous post. The Kasama mission statement talked about "overthrowing all existing conditions". Karl Marx said the same thing in the manifesto. Are Kasama's readers supposed to think that (1) Kasama says "A" and (2) Marx also said "A" in a book printed more than 160 years ago and (3) in that same book Marx also said "B" and so therefore (4) Kasama may have said "A" but they really (by extension) must have meant "B"?

I think that is a somewhat convoluted (and silly) way of understanding the nature of the online war of ideas.

The bourgeois (and social-democratic) ideology that saturates our society is like armor plate. In order to penerate this armor we need to use armor-piercing bullets (ie: clear, explicit and non-ambiguous statements).

If we need the masses (and our audience) to understand that:

(1) the class struggle is the motor force of development
. . . and progress and
(2) there can be no fundamental change in our society
. . . until the class rule of the bourgeoisie is overthrown

... then we need to actually say these things rather than imply these things or hint at these things.

Otherwise the existing views which readers have (ie: the views which are dominant in society, the views taught in school and in all mass media; the views which reflect the ideology of the ruling class) will remain unchallenged. There was a slogan popular (I think) during the cultural revolution that went something like: "The dust will not be removed except where the broom sweeps". A lot of things were fucked up in the cultural revolution but I always rather liked this slogan.

It is not enough to be opposed (in principle) to dust. Being opposed to dust means nothing unless we are willing to use the broom. Similarly, being in favor of overthrowing bourgeois rule means little unless we recognize the need to say it out loud in statements which are intended to define the core principles which will guide a project like Kasama.

If we need to explicitly say these things--what better (and more logical) place than our mission statement? It is the mission statement which, more than any other kind of statement, is supposed to reflect and concentrate the most fundamental mission of a project or organization.

There is one circumstance, however, in which it would be wrong to talk about the class struggle or the need to overthrow bourgeois rule in your mission statement: if these things (ie: the class struggle and the overthrow of bourgeois rule) are not really the core of your mission. Because if these things are not really the core of your mission--then it would be political deception to claim otherwise.

So I am not saying that it is necessarily wrong for Kasama to leave this out of its mission statement.

Rather, I assert that if class politics are not part of Kasama's mission statement--it is because they are not a core part of Kasama's mission.

And if class politics are not at the core of Kasama's mission--then Kasama is not centered around revolutionary politics as I believe revolutionary politics must be understood.

You assert that this is an argument over semantics rather than an argument over line. But in a project or organization based on the public war of ideas--the core ideas which you take to your readers--is the manifestation of your line. If you fail to talk about XYZ in a clear way--then it is because your line is not to talk about XYZ in a clear way.

There is nothing wrong with acknowledging this fact. But is this fact (ie: an obvious truism disputed by no one) supposed to be some kind of powerful argument against the idea that the heart of revolutionary politics in a country like the U.S. will always be class politics centered around the need to overthrow bourgeois rule? It is not only the working class that will be in the revolutionary movement. The working class will have allies. But it is the working class that must be the central and leading force in this movement in order for it to win.

As near as I can determine, it is because I argue that class politics must be the heart of revolutionary work that you have argued that I am (supposedly) dogmatically insisting on what you call "narrow workerism".

I would like our exchanges to be productive, so I will end things here. If you have comments, questions or criticisms of my arguments I will be happy to respond. If you do not want to do this that is ok also. Many activists require years of bitter experience to develop a deep understanding of how social-democracy works to undermine consciousness. I hope that we can maintain contact over the long term.

I am glad that you took note of my advocacy of wiki-like tools on the RevLeft thread. I believe that projects based on information war (understood as a war of ideas organized on a mass scale) will draw together all the healthy forces of the left. These kinds of projects, I believe, will, in the long-term, offer many opportunities for activists like you and me to work together.

Ben,

Let me attempt to explain to you the understanding behind our mission statement. Most socialist groups, after newly coming together, sit down and write out a long statement over everything they believe, and then proclaim it to the world. We wanted to try something different. What we wanted to do was unite around shared questions, not shared answers. Therefore, to us, it was necessary to pare down the mission statement / statement of unity to the bone, to the smallest possible statement and yet still be unambiguous in our intent.

We are a communist group which seeks to overthrow all existing social relations. Most people understand what "communist" means and "all" is pretty unambiguous. The sentence is a direct reference to the Manifesto, which all comrades should have read by now.

Perhaps we failed in the execution of our intent, but it doesn't reflect a social democratic mindset. It may be that we aimed at the wrong audience, i.e., comrades who already understand what communist politics mean. Partly, this may reflect part of our hope to rebuild the communist movement, to regather many of the comrades who have fallen by the side along the way.

I see your argument, that by failing to explicitly speak of the worker class as the driving force of socialist revolution, it might open us up to the charge that we look to other class forces to carry it out. But, Ben, in the United States, what other class is there capable of making the revolution? There is no peasantry. The lumpen strategy that some Third Worldists promote has proven to be an even greater failure than organizing the proletariat. The middle class may be a fertile group for recruitment, but no one suggests it will be the engine of revolution.

Only the worker class is capable of carrying out the transformation of society in this country. No one but a fool would think otherwise, and I'm not sure we're all that interested in attracting fools. So I think your argument, while technically correct, serves no purpose.

Right now, Kasama is just a network of comrades, not an organization seeking to recruit. Perhaps when the Kasama Project becomes an organization, it might be necessary to state more explicitly class politics. But the audience to whom we speak right now understands implicitly what we mean.

Hi Chegitz,

Thanks for your comments. I appreciate the fact that you have given attention to this topic and given some background concerning the history and thinking that went into Kasama's mission statement.

As the revolution in communications matures, activists will increasingly expect groups which want credibility to be accountable for their statements and actions. This means that supporters of these groups will be expected to make the time to reply to questions and criticisms.

I have read your post several times and intend to reply in the near future. I would like my reply to be relatively clear and concise and not waste your time or the time of readers. This means that I must take a little time to sort out which principles should be the focus of my reply.

Ben

Hi Chegitz,

I have been giving thought to what principles should be central in my reply to you.

While thinking about this, I prepared some graphics (see below) that (hopefully) illustrate why revolutionary activists should do their best to avoid ambiguity in their political work. I created this graphic (actually a series of three) because the issue of deliberate ambiguity seems to come up quite often--in many contexts other than my criticism of Kasama. In addition to this,, I am experimenting with the use of graphics to convey complex political ideas in a simple way. Many young people, new to political life, are becoming active and I am interested in developing ways to connect with them.

I hope to complete my reply to you soon.

All the best,
Ben

Warning to readers without high-bandwidth connection: 300 KB of graphics follow.

Damnit, internet ate my response. :ooo:

Comrade Seattle,

I think you may have misunderstood me. I agree, absolutely with your point, ambiguity serves only the ruling class. In fact, I think when we are explicit, we may find more support than we suspected. This weekend a couple comrades and I held a banner on a busy road, "CAPITALISM SUCKS." We got a lot more support than I would have guessed. As much friendly waves and honks as people cursing at us and telling us to "Go the fuck back to Cuba!" :D

I think, however, when you consider our intended audience, our message *is* explicit. Comrades not only know what "communist" and "all existing social relations" mean, they know where the paraphrase comes from.

Now, an organization which desperately needs this critique is my other organization, the Socialist Party USA. It has been one long fight for an explicitly revolutionary Marxist message, and we've suffered a setback with the election of a social democrat as male Co-Chair. That shouldn't have happened, but often times people vote for personal rather than political reasons in the SP. :angry:

Hi Chegitz,

First, thank you for finding the time to reply. I have been attempting to get your attention for the last two years, starting with my comments on your thread: "Rescuing Lenin from the Leninists" at: http://kasamaproject.org/2008/03/02/rescui...-the-leninists/

Now that I have your attention I would like to exercize enough humility to make possible productive engagement.

> Damnit, internet ate my response.

I always write my replies in notepad, saving frequently. Then I paste to the web forum. Technology _always_ fucks up.

> I think, however, when you consider our intended audience,
> our message *is* explicit. Comrades not only know what
> "communist" and "all existing social relations" mean,
> they know where the paraphrase comes from.

(emphasis above added by Ben)

In order for me to reply to you in an intelligent way I need to better understand your thinking. There are many questions I would like to ask you--but I know your time is valuable so I will only ask you two:

(1) Who is "our intended audience"?

Mike and the Kasama team have certainly worked hard to attract a lot of readers. The two graphics below (from Mike's Aug 2009 post celebrating the millionth pageview) show site stats and the international distribution of the readership:





My question (more specifically) is this: In your estimation, how many of the readers who visit Kasama once a month or more clearly understand that there can be no fundamental change in a country like the U.S. without the overthrow of the class rule of the bourgeoisie?

Very roughly, would you estimate the percentage of the readers who understand this as being:
(a) less than 20%, (b) more than 80% or (c.) somewhere in-between?

(2) How did it happen that you took an interest in this thread?

Is your interest in this thread a result of private discussion with people who play a leading role in the Kasama project? Or did you discover this thread independently and found the topic to be of interest?

I ask the above because, in order to respond to you in an intelligent way, I need to better understand the source of your motion.

Ben Seattle
http://struggle.net/ben/

You've actually had my attention for years, Ben. :) I was just suffering some pretty crippling depression for all of that time, so I could only rarely get my energy up for discussion (though I'd have good days, occasionally). Something changed recently, and all of a sudden I find myself energetic, positive, looking to the future and ready to take on the world. So here I am. ROAR!

I checked out the thread because you emailed me.

Now, regardless of our intended audience, it's clear that our message goes far beyond what we had dared to hope in 2008. I think that an explicit reference to class would not be wrong. Nonetheless, it's impossible to know who is reading our site, except for the small, self-selected group of posters. Going on that basis (a thoroughly unscientific one), I'd argue that 80% of our audience is our intended target. The truth is probably somewhere between 20% and 80%.

Comrades,

Well, for what it's worth, I never read the Kasama mission statement as an abandonment of class struggle. But then, I encountered the Kasama Project site through the essay on the GPCR by the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Study Group ... It's hard to reconcile that essay with any sort of social democratic orientation.

But I agree as well, Comrade Seattle may have a point about being explicit on this question.

I do have a question, though, and I dont ask this to be in any way argumentative. I've been reading through this thread, closely following Comrade Seattle arguments, paying particular attention to his views on the state and the vanguard party. And so, with regard to what he proposes as the "dictatorship of the proletariat with immune system", I ask:

Why would the victorious revolution alllow the bourgeois parties to reconstitute themselves politically?

Hi Chegitz and Tantivy,

First, I would like to thank both of you for taking an interest in this thread. It is not unusual for me to feel isolated, but it is better if I can see visible support for some of my positions:

Chegitz:

> I think that an explicit reference to class would not be wrong.

Tantivy:

> I agree as well, Comrade Seattle may have a point
> about being explicit on this question.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


It is good to hear from you Chegitz. It is good that you are back in action. I hope to add some further comments in the near future (including what I have learned from my own related experience). In the meantime I will say that strong connections between comrades will prove to be valuable.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Tantivy:

> I encountered the Kasama Project site through the essay
> on the GPCR by the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Study Group
> ... It's hard to reconcile that essay with any sort
> of social democratic orientation.

My view, Tantivy, is that these are very big questions and they will be sorted out in the course of time and struggle as we, so to speak, forge a common language. The immense pressure of the social-democratic ideology, methods, traditions and social strata makes itself felt everywhere in the movement. No individuals or organizations are immune to this pressure. I view this pressure (to use an analogy) as being like the pressure of water we would feel if we were working two miles under the surface of the ocean. It penetrates everything and is everywhere.

There is certainly revolutionary energy, enthusiasm and spirit here in the Kasama community. The problem (as I see it) is that this project is on a road that generally leads to the dissipation and loss of revolutionary energy. Once the key principles are abandoned, enthusiasm gives way to demoralization in the face of this immense pressure.

(I will not try to detail that all out in this post but I could go into it more if you would like. You may also be interested in this exchange on Kasama's "Khukuri" theoretical site: http://www.khukuritheory.net/uncategorized...e-to-khukuri-2/ )


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


For now it appears that the three of us may agree that it might be better if the mission statement of the Kasama community was used to help raise the consciousness of community members about the class struggle.

As I see it (and the two of you may agree with me) the class struggle is central to almost everything important that takes place in our society and the class struggle must lead to the overthrow of the class rule of the bourgeoisie and to its replacement with the class rule of the proletariat.

I don't think that is the orientation of Mike or any of the others who are in the leadership group here. Views like mine (and maybe also yours) are described as "narrow workerism" (as if workers are, by their nature, not capable of looking beyond their narrow personal interests and running society as a class).

My efforts to challenge Mike (or any of the leading thinkers here) to debate on questions like this has led nowhere except for charges that I am basically causing problems, being disrespectful, irritating, unproductive and so on.

I believe I have made every reasonable effort to respect everyone here and engage others in a productive way. But even if (for the sake of argument) it were true that I was personally disrespectful and so on--what reason could possible justify the fact that something as important as Kasama's mission statement--was simply announced without any effort (of which I am aware) to organize debate around it and use the debate as a tool to raise the consciousness of community members concerning the core principles that must guide the community?

After all, a year and a half ago John Steele appeared to recognize the need for debate:

http://kasamaproject.org/2008/08/27/steele...etical-project/

These are pretty words. But my conclusion is that, behind these pretty words, there is no conviction.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Tantivy:

First, Tantivy, I would like to thank you for giving attention to my views on the nature of working class rule.

Second, even though you are familiar with my chart (from the CPUSA thread) I will reproduce it here so that other readers will be able to refer to it:



Now, to your question (re-phrased for clarity):

Why (after the period of revolutionary martial law that may be necessary in the aftermath of a possible civil war) would the working class allow bourgeois parties to exist?

Because it will be neither practical nor necessary to prevent these parties (or organizations) from being created.

Let's take a look at this:

(1) Why will it be necessary to prevent a section of society that wants to return to bourgeois rule from creating their own organizations? The workers' state has the solid and stable support of the majority of society. What, specifically, is the danger in allowing backward and reactionary elements from creating their own organizations?

Yes, you can quote a half sentence from Lenin about the "necessary suppression of the exploiters" (ie: from the CPUSA thread at http://z11.invisionfree.com/Kasama_Threads...topic=666&st=30 ). But a half sentence quote, torn out of context, is not much of an argument. Lenin was writing in the context of specific conditions that corresponded to the period of stabilization in my chart above (ie: revolutionary martial law, or the DoP-Embryonic) rather than, as you ask about, the normal, or developed, period of working class rule (ie: the DoP-with Immune System).

The worker class will effectively combat the influence of bourgeois organizations in two ways:

(a) the workers' state will regulate and restrict everything about these organizations that involves the flow of money and resources. In particular (and most important) the state will regulate and restrict all media production, distribution and expression that involves paid labor.

So bourgeois organizations will exist--but they will not be able to amplify their voice (ie: the way they do today, under bourgeois rule) with money and other resources to buy (or exchange favors for) slick media productions that are shoved in front of everyone's face all the time.

Essentially, the state will cut these organizations down to size, so that they will have to compete, so to speak, on a level playing field with the working class organizations which will outnumber them a hundred to one (or a thousand to one, or more) in terms of support, energy and visibility. The bourgeois organizations will be able to create web sites and leaflets with unpaid, volunteer labor (ie: just like everyone else) -- but not TV stations or newspapers that carry advertizing (ie: because the state will regulate and restrict anything that involves the flow of money or similar resources--including, in particular, paid labor).

The principle here is the separation of speech and property:

Only media that is created with volunteer labor will be free of state regulation.

Media created with paid labor (ie: slave labor) will be regulated and restricted.

(b) The masses themselves, individually and through large numbers of organizations, will combat the influence of bourgeois ideology (and organizations) in millions of encounters every day. This will be quite effective because of the role of the state (above) in first cutting these organizations down to size and preventing them from using bourgeois money or resources (to the limited extent that such may still exist at the time) to artificially amplify their voices.

(2) It will not be practical for the state to become involved in deciding what organizations are allowed to exist or what ideas are allowed to be written about or read.

We live in the modern world. This means that everyone is going to have internet access. This is not a bad thing. It is a good thing.

The problem with the state becoming involved in deciding what organizations can exist or what ideas you are allowed to know about--is that it prevents the working class from self-organizing.

And the problem with this is that it is the self-organization of the working class that will effectively combat the incompetence, hypocrisy and corruption of the people and principles that will inevitably appear even in the workers' state.

So we need self-organization. The working class needs self-organization in order to rule as a class. For example if the working class party that has organized the revolution becomes corrupt--then the working class will throw the corrupt party in the shitcan and create a better party (or parties) to replace it.

This is the key principle:

Only the working class, ruling as a class, will be able
to prevent a bourgeois restoration. And in order to rule
as a class, the workers will need the full democratic rights
of speech, organization and mass action.

But that is not the end of the story. We must also recognize that there can never be any realistic way that the state can prevent bourgeois organizations from existing without, at the same time, restricting the necessary and fundamental democratic rights of the working class.

This is true for (approximately) three reasons:

(1) People with backward, reactionary or bourgeois views will not necessarily be carrying little blue flags to identify themselves as reactionary, etc. Rather, the question of what views are backward and so forth is too complex and important to be determined by either a single organization or the state. This sorting out must be done by the entire working class. If a single organization or the state is allowed to determine what ideas are allowed to circulate--it will only be a matter of time before this power is used to suppress the circulation of legitimate criticism and revolutionary views

(2) A section of the working class itself will have backward views. It will be up to other sections of the working class (ie: not the state--not in the form of coercion) to confront this section and raise its consciousness, as necessary

(3) Any suppression of the voices of bourgeois organizations or individuals with reactionary views -- is automatically a suppression of the rights of the entire working class to know about the views of the suppressed people and organizations. The working class needs to know about the backward views that exist in society. Attempts to suppress the circulation of these backward ideas essentially disarm the working class and deprive it of the essential knowledge it needs in order to combat these backward views.

Please let me know, Tantivy, if my comments make any of this more clear, or if there are any part of my views that still do not appear to make sense or conform to the material interest of the working class or the stability of its rule.

My conclusion is that one of the biggest ideological factors in the immense influence of the social-democratic ideology is that the revolutionary movement is paralyzed by a crisis of theory that boils down to not having a concept of workers' rule that amounts to anything more than a dysfunctional and corrupt police state.

If we want hundreds of thousands of activists to understand the need to get rid of the class rule of the bourgeoisie--then we need to give them an alternative to bourgeois rule that actually makes sense and that conforms to the material conditions of modern society.

Ben Seattle
http://struggle.net/ben/

Lenin, State and Revolution

From the context, it is clear that Lenin is talking about the entire period of rule by the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, not just the period of turbulence that you talk about.

You assume that the suppression of the bourgeois class happens through the simpleminded police-state crushing of all of their organizations. But instead, it happens through the continued class struggle, led by the working class. You limit the actions of the working class organized as the ruling class far too much. You talk of the state enforcing regulations, and the workers having “millions of encounters every day”. By putting it this way, you make it sound like the politics of individual moral action – boycotts, etc. This fits with your general suspicion of organization, and your “information war” ideology in this period, in which individuals and groups organize boycotts of factories that poison the environment. Hardly a radical stand, for all your posturing.

Neither of these methods is the main way the working class will suppress the ruling class. They will mainly do it through organized struggle, organized political attacks. And such struggle won’t mainly be effective because the state has outlawed spending money on political speech. It will be effective because the working class is organized, and in motion, and because the state will generally fight on the side of the working class, just as today it fights on the side of the capitalist class.

Hi folks,

First, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome Eric to the Kasama message board. I believe it is very useful for activists to participate in public forums such as this one. I believe that Eric's participation here will be useful for the Kasama community and useful for Eric.

Eric appears to have a lot of enthusiasm for this topic. So much enthusiasm, maybe, that he may have overlooked the value of introducing himself. I will, therefore, introduce Eric. I have known Eric, as an activist, for more then twenty years. I consider Eric to be person of great conscientiousness and high integrity. Any shortcomings which Eric may have, in my view, are primarily a symptom of the theoretical crisis which has paralyzed our movement and left it easy prey for all kinds of dysfunctional practices and traditions.

In recent years, I have known Eric as both a collaborator in local political work and as a polemical opponent on theoretical issues. Most of my exchanges with Eric are indexed here.

Although Eric's post (above) is his first on this forum, Eric's presence and work have been reflected here indirectly. For example, both:

(1) the chart I created on the transition to classless society and
(2) the series of images explaining why, in political discourse, ambiguity always favors the ruling class

were created as part of my preparation for replying to Eric's most recent polemic.

That's my intro. Now let's take a quick look at what Eric has to say.

-- 1 --

Eric:

That is Eric's opinion. Consider the very first words of the passage that Eric quotes (my bold-faced emphasis below):

The fact that Lenin is talking about the rule of the vanguard of the oppressed rather than the rule of the working class makes it clear to me that Lenin was focused on the immediate period following the seizure of power. (Lenin, incidently, wrote these words in hiding only months before the Bolsheviks took power.)

This bring up an important issue. We cannot, of course, ask Lenin what he was thinking about when he wrote this. Nor can we ask Lenin if he would like to correct some imprecise formulations which might have been perfectly adequate in 1917 but are not adequate more than 90 years later--in the wake of the betrayal, on the most massive scale imaginable, of both the Soviet and Chinese revolutions.

What we can do, however, is to do what Lenin did--which is to think for ourselves. This means that rather than basing our views on a few words which different people interpret in different ways--we analyze the concrete conditions of the world in which we actually live.

-- 2 --

I wrote a criticism, by the way, seven months ago, of the passage by Lenin in "State and Revolution" that Eric quotes. My criticism is posted here.

I have considered posting sections of that criticism here on the Kasama message board--but it is necessary that I be cautious, because Mike warned me that such action (ie: posting lengthy quotes from material I had previously written) would be considered "spamming" and I could lose my ability to post here at all. If any readers find my criticism deserving of discussion--please let me know. If I posted it here and it was followed by discussion--then I doubt that Mike would have a problem with it.

-- 3 --

Eric:

The problem with a statement like this, in my view, is that it is too wishy-washy. It reads like something intended to be ambiguous.

I don't think that is helpful. I believe we need clear ideas and clear language.

I would like to reply to Eric but I do not believe I can do so in an intelligent way until Eric makes his position clear.

I have said that, after the conclusion of a temporary period of turbulence in the wake of a possible civil war, the working class state will have no need to outlaw people from openly advocating a return to capitalist society. Nor would the state have a need to prevent organizations of like-minded people from advocating the same. I have said that these ideas (and organizations) would be effectively opposed by the workers (and a large number of worker organizations) -- without the state (ie: the coercive force) needing to prevent reactionary organizations from existing.

This is an important distinction. When the state prevents people or organizations from advocating certain ideas--it means the police may show up at someone's door in the middle of the night and take them away. The problem, of course, is that if the state can arrest reactionaries in the middle of the might for advocating their ideas--then the state can also arrest you in the middle of the might for advocating your ideas.

It looks to me, Eric, like you believe I am mistaken. If so, I believe it would be helpful for you to come right out and say it. Have the courage of your convictions.

If you believe, Eric, that our movement's view of the dictatorship of the proletariat should be that of a state where the police will be able to arrest someone for speaking their ideas or writing leaflets or putting up web pages or working with other like-minded people to do the same for the purpose of winning public opinion--then why not simply say so? Why no get it out in the open? I would think that would be the healthy thing to do. The movement benefits when we clearly express our views, not in ambiguous, wishy-washy formulations that could mean this or might mean that--but in bold, clear and clean colors.

There should be no need to beat around the bush. How can we mobilize millions if we are afraid to openly proclaim our views?

Ben Seattle
http://struggle.net/ben/

I like Ben's analysis here, though I think there are a couple other elements I'd like to take into consideration:

1) Foreign influence / 'intervention'
2) Digging into the question of the multi-party state and the institutions of power of the proletariat

I'd like to get into the second one first, primarily by pointing out that there is a discussion on the forms of the socialist state going on on the main site right now. Secondarily, while I think your overall perspective on this question is correct (in terms of the post-revolutionary 'stability' and what will be allowed during that era), I'd like some clarification from you on how the revolutionary people should confront any resurgence of power in the restorationist camp. If we permit them to have their own organizations (though still within the framework of a socialist state) and their own voice, do we similarly also allow them access to the political process? Do we allow them electability? I don't have a well-defined answer here, so I don't mean this as a "answer my question so I can refute you" type of thing, I'm genuinely interested and "in the market", if you will, for ideas on this subject.

One of the most fundamental issues with this whole contradiction, as you noted, is that most reactionaries in the socialist state are not going to be wearing a pin or a flag pointing them out as such. Reactionary ideas will (I think) generally take the form of a Christian fundamentalist with a Che shirt: left in form, ultra-right in essence. So ultimately, in order to expose these reactionary ideas, it will be necessary for the revolutionary people to excavate them, which I think requires institutions independent of the proletarian state apparatus to do. I dislike the concept of centralizing the battle over ideas, centralizing the line struggle into a hegemonic party (or even a non-hegemonic party, for that matter), and so here I think I largely agree with you. If the proletariat isn't being exposed to reactionary ideas, how will we combat them? If the only exposure is state-sponsored caricatures of reactionary ideas, how will the people be able to take notice of them when they are masqueraded as revolutionary ones?

Still, I think this process, especially early on, will require a certain "authoritarianism". Not from the state, but from the people at large. Denunciations of former oppressors, actively "calling out" reactionaries and regressive ideas, etc. I feel are all very necessary parts of the socialist process and rooting out the latent bourgeoisie. Perhaps the state will allow the bourgeoisie the organize itself, but should the people on the ground? Like nowadays, for example, when Neo-Nazis march, the bourgeois state allows it, but radicals and progressives counter-march and actively combat the display of reaction. Now obviously this isn't a perfect analogy as the character of the state will be completely transformed, but still it's an interesting concept to entertain.

Now back to the first one. This has obviously been a huge issue in the socialist experience thus far, even if it became the object of reductionism in the USSR wherein all dissent was a direct result of foreign intervention. Quite simply, we don't want to go down that road. But I don't think we can reduce the issue to "we won't allow foreign influence" (not saying that you were doing that). There needs to be a recognition on our part that, so long as the bourgeoisie exists somewhere, they will have some power everywhere. We may restrict the modus operandi of the reactionaries and their access to resources, but if the UK is still capitalist, for example, I'm quite sure that our erstwhile rulers will not have a problem accessing all the equipment and funds they need. How will we deal with this?

For the record, I'm mainly just thinking out loud in this post.

Hi Selucha,

First, I would like to thank you for your reply. I believe these are important topics and thoughtful and considered comments are always helpful--both in exploring new ideas and making more clear the kinds of questions that readers have on their minds--so that these questions can be addressed.

And this brings me to make an important public announcement:

--------------------------------------------------------------------
READERS -- if you have been reading this thread but
have not made any comments, please consider doing so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, back to our regular programming:

I have not had time, Selucha, to carefully read your post, so I will only make some quick comments now and I may add some further comments later. I find that it often takes me a few days to think about a post before I can make an intelligent and focused reply.

Unfortunately, Mike made it impractical for me to participate in that discussion. I actually made the first comment on that thread, more than 8 hours before anyone else (I have quoted it below). That was more than 32 hours ago. My post remains invisible to other readers. My post might be allowed to be visible in a day or two--after interest in the thread dies down.

My time is precious, at least to me. If my posts to the blog are going to be held up like this for no good reason--then it is time for me to end my participation on the Kasama blog. There is simply no point if it is going to take two or three days for my comments to get through--no one will see them. I believe it should be clear that this is basically Mike's decision--not mine.

Mike works hard to build interest and discussion of these topics. But his silly and spiteful moderation methods tend to undermine his own hard work. Who will want to work hard to build a community here--when it is a paternalistic community with these kinds of petty annoyances?

It is better to put energy into building a community of activists where this kind of counter-productive foolishness will not be possible.

Ben's invisible post to the thread on the multi-party state:

That's my rant. You deserved to know why I will no longer be participating in the blog portion of this site.

Let's get back to your comments, Selucha:

This is an excellent question.

The main condition, as I see it, for the "normal" dictatorship of the proletariat is the stable support of a majority of the population. This is essential. Everything revolves around this. When we understand this I believe that everything else will fall into place.

If the working class state does not have the stable support of the majority--then it would still be in what I call the period of turbulence and full democratic rights would not be extended to the entire population.

Once the state enjoys the stable support of the majority then the emergency measures would no longer be necessary and even openly reactionary organizations would be allowed to exist and have the democratic rights of speech and organization.

You ask if they would have access to the political process.

Once they have these rights--they would automatically be part of the political process--at least inasmuch as they would have the ability to influence public opinion.

Would they be able to run in elections? I would imagine so in many or most cases. This is a decision that would be made by the workers' state--but to exclude the reactionaries would probably work to their advantage. All of the undemocratic methods of suppression (ie: whether arresting in the middle of the night for exercizing free speech or excluding from democratic processes) are methods which are used by states which are weak (in terms of popular support). When a state is strong and enjoys abundant support--then it has no need for undemocratic measures (which always carry with them a serious price and represent a risk of abuse of power).

The basic principle is that the greater the level of activity and support for the reactionary organizations--the greater would be the organized popular response against them.

It is like the way your immune system fights disease. A few bad bacteria are easily neutralized and do not merit a big response. A massive infection, however, would kick your entire immune system into high gear.

Defeating the influence of the reactionary organizations would require the mobilization of the masses and a clear and clean confrontation over the principles at stake.

I think that is well put.

I have discussed the democratic rights to speech and organization. There is also the issue of mass action (ie: large groups of people marching--and sometimes blocking streets or factory gates, etc). I think the basic idea would be to prevent the reactionary or counter-revolutionary political currents from gaining the kind of momentum that would make such things possible. But if things reach that point--then it would be time for the largest possible mass mobilizations.

More than ten years ago I wrote a few words examining the contrast between the suppression of the Tien An Mein protests in 1989 and the disturbances at Tsinghua University during the Cultural Revolution in July 1968.

from: http://www.mail-archive.com/marxism-thaxis...u/msg00459.html

The principle, in my view, is that if the reactionary currents are able to gain enough support to create disturbances on a scale large enough to threaten working class rule -- then the state may need to step in--but it would do so in the form of mass mobilizations rather than arresting people in the middle of the night for exercizing their right to speech and organization.

The two main reasons the form of mass mobilizations would be important are:

(1) It would require deep and serious ideological work to raise the consciousness of the masses about the nature of the reactionary political currents--and it would give the masses confidence in their ability to confront and defeat reactionaries.

(2) It would help prevent the abuse of power. It would be difficult, for example, to mobilize the masses against a group that was actually revolutionary.

Good question. First, if necessary, the workers' state could place a 100% tax on any equipment and funds given to reactionary organizations from the bourgeoisie in another country. This is part of what I call "cutting them down to size". Now it would still be possible for the foreign bourgeoisie to create slick and expensive media productions on behalf of their allies (ie: reactionary political trends in the country ruling by the working class).

This could easily be countered, however, by effective counter-propaganda (created by volunteers with commitment and passion rather than paid actors and talking heads) aimed at the particular media created by the foreign bourgeoisie. An example of counter-propaganda that targets a specific media production (ie: a Chick tract opposing evolution) was posted by Andrei Mazenov here: http://z11.invisionfree.com/Kasama_Threads...p?showtopic=610

By the way, for those unaware of Chick (a Christian fundamentalist who creates comic-book style pamphlets with simple stories and the famous light-bulb headed god) -- he is a master of his form (which I think he copied from leftist propaganda tracts popular in South America). I created my own comic series partly inspired by Chick and more directly based on the Lloyd Dangle's "Troubletown". My comic book style work can be seen at Politics as Usual: A Cartoon Guide to the Left in Seattle.


(above) Chick's famous light-bulb headed god

Unfortunately, I have (again) exceeded the time I intended to take to reply--so I need to end now.

And--READERS! -- Please consider adding your thoughtful and considered comments to this thread. This thread is what you make it. Those of us who spend our minutes putting together these strings of words--do it for you--and we need your help in sorting out the decisive principles for the revolutionary movement.

Ben Seattle
http://struggle.net/ben/

Ben said: I actually made the first comment on that thread, more than 8 hours before anyone else (I have quoted it below). That was more than 32 hours ago. My post remains invisible to other readers. My post might be allowed to be visible in a day or two--after interest in the thread dies down."

[Moderators Note]: Ben, you were put on moderation which is why your comment, along with those of others, was held up. It has been approved, the comment has posted.

Despite your insinuation, there is no concerted effort to diminish the impact of your comments.

Regarding Ben’s post of Feb 22 2010, 06:29 AM:

Ben: I don’t appreciate your introducing me to the list, because by doing so you introduce a lot of questions that aren’t relevant to the current discussion. I didn’t “forget” to introduce myself; I didn’t consider it relevant to the topic at hand.

=========

The topic that I raised is that Ben criticizes someone for using “a half sentence quote, torn out of context”, and then proceeds to pronounce what that same half-sentence, still torn out of context, says, using simple assertion (not much of an argument).

I provided a long quote so that everyone could see what Lenin’s context was. The context is a general discussion by Lenin on the historical materialist transition from capitalism through socialism, to communism. He describes in general terms the need for the working class to suppress the former ruling class. He says “The dictatorship of the proletariat, the period of transition to communism, will for the first time create democracy for the people, for the majority, along with the necessary suppression of the exploiters, of the minority”. Then he talks about the state withering away. Then he discusses “the period of transition from capitalism to communism”. Then he uses the phrase in question: “the necessary suppression of the exploiters”, the phrase originally in question. In other words, Lenin explicitly says that he is talking about the period of transition to communism. Ben’s response? That that is only my opinion (not much of an argument).

Lenin didn’t tend to say one thing and mean another, but Ben asserts that Lenin really meant a brief period of a few months to a year or so immediately after the revolution. Ben’s argument to back his assertion is another half sentence, torn out of context: He says that Lenin used the phrase “vanguard of the oppressed”, therefore he meant the period immediately after the revolution (again not much of an argument).

(Ben also pulls another sentence out of context, when he criticizes me for the sentence, “You limit the actions of the working class organized as the ruling class far too much.” The paragraphs from which that sentence is pulled make the meaning clear, and Ben is raising it simply to muddy the air and distract from the point.)

Ben tries to drag our polemic in another context into this discussion, to raise the weak and unsupported accusation that I have a hidden program for post-revolutionary police state repression of political speech. He provides no citations to back this accusation, because he can’t find any. Why? Because I don’t hold such beliefs. He knows full well that I do not believe that, as I have made abundantly clear in the polemic he links to above.

As I say there, members of the working class may, for a time, support political groupings that are objectively bourgeois, or have bourgeois or petty-bourgeois stands. And the full democratic freedom of the working class means that these organizations must be able to continue to organize, so long as they don’t work to directly disrupt proletarian rule (that is, sabotage, etc.).

(By the way, besides being complex, and completely made up of out his head, Ben’s scheme is also extremely anti-democratic. For example: 1) Ben argues that the new post-revolutionary state can murder any person who criticizes any of its policies -- even those who only speak against it -- just as long as it doesn’t do so for too long, 2) Ben opposes majority rule as tyrannical to the minority, and 3) Ben sees the working class’s own party as the greatest threat to its rule, and spends the majority of his effort scheming ways to limit the power of the working class’s own organization. See my last entry in that polemic for quotes and citations: The proletarian party, democracy, and planning under workers' rule.)

But I’m getting into the content of the polemic with Ben, and distracted from the topic here.

Hi Selucha and other readers,

I will reply to Zerohour in a future post. For now I will only say that I found his reply to be evasive inasmuch as it avoids confronting, in a positive way, the contradiction which much be resolved in order for me to participate in the Kasama blog.

I will also reply to Eric's most recent post (ie: directly above) in another future post. I believe it is a good thing that Eric has replied. Eric may not find my writing on this topic to be useful--but I have found Eric's writing to be useful to me--inasmuch as it helps to illustrate the need for a clean focus on the important topics.

Selucha (my emphasis below):

It is good that you have an interest in this important question and, furthermore, I believe I may (hopefully) be able to assist you with this if you have specific questions inasmuch as I have studied this question for a long time and have written about it.

For example, Timo asks (from the recent blog posting on the single-party state):

Timo's reconstruction of Lenin's attitude (in my view) is completely accurate. The article to which Timo refers may quite possibly be one that I wrote. I quoted from this article on a Kasama blog posting two years ago (when I had the ability to fully participate in discussion--before I was subject to moderation).

The blog posting was titled: How Do People Rule and Criticize After the Revolution? and was based on my criticism of a section of the "Nine Letters". My participation of that thread (in terms of both inspiring it and participating in discussion), by the way, provides an example of why I believe that discussion of these kinds of topics will be improved if I am allowed to paticipate. (I eventually ran out of time and was unable to reply to all questions/challenges on that thread--but I was able to reply to Mike and, while I had time to participate, that thread had some life.)

Here (from comment # 4 on that thread) is Lenin's view on this topic, along with my argument (based on the famous science author, Issac Asimov) for why this "interview" should be considered reliable.

In my opinion, these two sentences by Lenin, second-hand which they may be, are more valuable than the entire article by Bhattarai which Celticfire recommends.

Also, Selucha, to help illustrate my writing on this topic, I include (below) an image from my polemic with Eric:

(Click image above to go to article)

I did take a quick look at your exchanges, Selucha, with Joseph Ball (a hard core cargo-cult Leninist) on the recent blog posting on the single-party state. His most recent argument (like all his arguments) is full of holes. Let me know if you want any suggestions concerning which principles might be most effective in replying to him.

Ben Seattle
http://struggle.net/ben/

Hi Zerohour,

First, thanks for your reply.

Yes, Zerohour, I was aware that my comments were held up because of moderation. I mentioned that in my post, along with giving my opinion that the kind of moderation used against me was foolish and counter-productive from the point of view of building interest in the discussion topics and building a self-moving community.

The point I was making is that it is not practical for me to participate in discussion on the Kasama blog because of the delay (typically one to three days) between the time I post and time my comments appear. There are three problems with this delay:

(1) it greatly limits the number of exchanges that are possible
(2) many (or most) readers will not even see my comments because
most readers look at the bottom of a thread to see what is new
and any comments I have made will appear squeezed between
existing comments that have already been read and so will be hard
for (most) readers to find
(3) similarly, the left column of the blog site will not show
my comment as a new comment because by the time my comment
is approved it is no longer new.

Your post describes this problem as if you and the Kasama leadership team have no responsibility for creating it; as if my being on moderation was an "act of God" (like an earthquake) unavoidable by human actions. You even use the passive voice (ie: I was "put on moderation") without any mention of who put me on moderation or why or what path might exist for me to get myself off moderation so that I could participate on the Kasama blog on the same basis as everyone else.

I would like to make a positive suggestion that we work together to resolve this problem.

Mike's concern (as I understand it) is more or less that I will "spam" the blog and drive away readers from the site. I would like to address Mike's concern so that I can get off moderation. The problem is that I cannot simply agree not to "spam" the site because there is not any simple or clear definition of what this means. Similarly, I cannot agree that my posts will not be "too long" or "too short" or "too authoritative" or contain "too many" links unless there can be some agreement concerning what these things mean.

My positive suggestion is that you and I (or Mike and I, etc) discuss this in the thread devoted to moderation and make a reasonable effort to see if your concerns can be addressed while also addressing my concern that your requirement of "respecting the Kasama culture" is so vague and subjective that it represents a quicksand of future conflict.

I would like this discussion to take place on a public thread for two reasons:

(1) My experience has led me to the conclusion that Mike and you and others will be on best behavior (and more inclined to act in a productive way as professional revolutionaries) when your comments are on a public thread.

That is a polite way of expressing my experience.

(2) In principle it is far better if disputes of this nature are resolved under the effective supervision of the entire Kasama community. Having these exchanges on a public thread will represent a real step in this direction.

In the long run, building the Kasama community as a conscious, self-moving community means taking steps that will give community members an opportunity to better understand many practical issues (ie: such as moderation) that are important to building the site as a center of revolutionary consciousness and (eventually, hopefully) action.

I would like, Zerohour, to hear back from Mike or you with a positive response to my suggestion.

Ben Seattle
http://struggle.net/ben/

Hi Eric,

First, thanks again for replying. To tell you the truth, I did not expect you to reply. So this is a surprise (in a good way) just as your original response was a surprise.

I have read both of your posts here many times, making an effort to understand your motion--so that I could link up with this motion and engage with you in a productive way.

You are here for a reason, a good reason, I believe (and so am I). Therefore it follows that there is no reason we should not be able to engage with one another in a productive way.

The Kasama blog has a quote at the top that changes every few days. Today it is a quote from Stephen Covey: "The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing".

I have always liked that quote. I even created a graphic last month for my
RevLeft blog with a similar theme (as it relates to online discussion):



I would like to apply this principle, now. So, let's consider: what is the main thing we must keep in mind if we are to engage with one another in a productive way?

Eric:

Yes, the topic that you raised -- is that I am (supposedly) a hypocrite because I (supposedly) did the exact same thing for which I criticized Tantivy concerning taking a sentence out of context, etc.

The thing is--I am not going to go down that particular rabbit hole. Whether or not Ben Seattle is a hypocrite is not something I consider a very interesting topic. I doubt that other readers of this thread consider it an interesting topic either. To tell you the truth, I suspect that even you (who raised the topic--and appear to want to talk it) do not find the topic very interesting.

I think the main thing we must struggle to keep in mind--is this:

We have the ability to provide clarification and context
concerning decisive principles -- and (therefore) we
have a responsibility to do everything within our ability
to create a clean and compelling focus on the principles
that are decisive for the revolutionary movement.

That is why I am not going to go down that rabbit hole. It is not productive to do so. It is not important. I am not so important a personality that anyone really gives a fuck whether or not I am a hypocrite.

Yes, it is true (as you brilliantly note) that I did not give much of an argument for my interpretation of Lenin. Guess what? I do not give full arguments for a lot of things I say. Do you know why? Because, if I did, my posts would be so fucking long-winded that no one with a life or with important work to do would bother to read them. That's why. If I want people to read my posts (and I do--that is why I write them) I must meet people halfway and make my essential points clearly and concisely.

It is not important (or decisive) for us to squabble over what Lenin meant in his quote. Lenin was a brilliant man--but he was human and fallible. Unfortunately, Lenin's writings have been turned into a religion by decades of sincere and dedicated activists who argue over what he meant by this phrase or that.



What Lenin had to say is, of course, important. But it is more important to learn to think for ourselves. Therefore I will not talk to you about Lenin until after we have first talked about what is more important.

What is more important?

What is more important is this:

Will workers will have the democratic rights
of speech and organization during the period
of the dictatorship of the proletariat?

I have asked you this question many times. I have asked your mentor, Joseph Green, this question many times. I have never gotten a straight answer. Not from Joseph. Not from you.

What I have gotten (instead of a straight answer) are "political positions" saturated with double-talk and caveats; positions which are ambiguous (whether as a result of intention or simply confusion).

Joseph, asserted that my discussion of democratic rights was a "liberal shibboleth". You asserted that I limit the power of "the working class organized as the ruling class" (ie: a phrase that is usually used to refer to the power of the state, according to the arcane and stupid codebook of arcane and stupid marxist-leninist catchphrases). Maybe you folks are simply confused about these issues? It is not a crime to be confused.

Some readers, by the way, may not know what is meant by the term "caveat". It means (in this case, at least) an "escape clause". For example, when the first treaty between the colonialists and native americans was signed--it said that all land between the two rivers would belong to the native americans "as long as the wind blows and the grass grows (or 90 days, whichever comes first)". The part in parentheses is the caveat. It is designed to make everything else meaningless.

So you assert that, under the DoP, independent organizations will be allowed to exist:

That is a caveat.

The phrase "work to directly disrupt proletarian rule" can mean a lot of things. Any organization openly dedicated to returning to capitalist rule is, by definition, working to disrupt proletarian rule.

Furthermore, the word "sabotage" can also mean all kinds of things. When the Russian activists A. B. Razlatsky and Grigory Isayev (founders of the Party of the Proletarian Dictatorship) in Samara, Russia (babelfish translation of their site here showing, by the way that, whatever their faults, they still appear to be active and in the middle of things) organized strikes among foundary workers, I am sure this was considered sabotage by the Soviet authorities.

Razlatsky and Isayev were arrested in 1981 and sentenced to the camps under article 70, defined in part as "propaganda or agitation with the purpose of undermining or weakening of the Soviet power".

Maybe there is a difference between "working to directly disrupt" and having "the purpose of undermining or weakening". Or maybe there is not. I think this is kind of like "90 days, whatever comes first".

What I would like (if possible) is a clear (and unambiguous) statement from you on the democratic rights of speech and organization -- without any slippery caveats.

My concern (as I have attempted to explain on countless occasions) is not that you or Joseph have some kind of secret agenda to arrest anyone who speaks out when god comes down from heaven and hands you state power. The problem is from a very different direction:

You are failing to do the necessary work (ie: today) needed to give activists a clear and realistic idea of the democratic rights that will exist under workers' rule. This kind of work is needed to rescue the idea of workers' rule from the sewer where it currently sits because it is identified in the popular mind with a police state.

In other words, the main problem here is not the "bad" ideas in your head--it is your failure to take necessary action in your political work (ie: agitation) today. (Of course, your ideas are also an issue--but only inasmuch as they relate to your failure to take action today for necessary ideological clarification.)

I illustrated this concept in my series on ambiguity (you and Joseph were a big part of the inspiration for this series). I will not repost the entire series of images--but will excerpt here (again) only this key image:



See, the problem (at least as I see it) is that you and your organization, the CVO, are using a flyswatter against a tank.

We need something more powerful.

We need clear and unambiguous language. Not an armful of caveats.

If someone murders people or bombs property--there are laws for that in capitalist society. These laws do not (generally) restrict free speech or organizing. Similarly, I have concluded that the "normal" dictatorship of the proletariat (ie: as it will be understood as something distinct from any relatively short period of revolutionary martial law in which emergency undemocratic measures may be necessary) will be based on (and will require) that the democratic rights of speech and organization to be extended to essentially everyone.

What I want from you is simple: I want you to recognize, here and now, without caveats about "disruption" or "sabotage", that this is a correct position.

If you believe it is not a correct position--I would like you to advance calm and clear arguments why you believe it is not.

If you are not certain--I would like to know that also.

And if (as a matter of some weird principle in the poor polemical tradition in which you are immersed) you consider it somehow wrong to give a direct reply to a direct question--then I believe it would be helpful for you to simply say so rather than simply disregard the question.

I look forward, Eric, to a direct and unambiguous reply from you. I believe you can give me a direct reply. I believe you can understand that a direct reply is helpful, not simply to me, but to the process of activists sorting out these kinds of complex questions.

Once we have sorted out this question--then I will be happy to respond to any questions which you may have for me.

Ben Seattle
http://struggle.net/ben/

Ben –

I am not going to rehash the polemic that we've engaged in elsewhere, here. Readers, if they are interested, can find that polemic. You have provided a link to your “index” of the polemic above, but since it is really confusing the way you've organized it, and your commentary surrounding the links is slanted, I'll supply all of the links here:

What would socialist health care be like?
A comment on the CVO's article on "socialist health care"
Reply to Ben Seattle on health care
Powerful Agitation Requires Confronting the Crisis of Theory
Once again on Ben Seattle, planning, and the role of the proletarian party
Workers' Rule: Is it Dead or Alive?
The proletarian party, democracy, and planning under workers' rule

That polemic is just fine where it is. When you reply to my latest contribution, then I will consider whether there is anything in it which warrants a reply.

(To be clear to the readers who don't wade through that polemic: Ben to the contrary, in it I make very clear that the period of proletarian rule will be a period of vast expansion of democratic rights for the workers, the poor, those oppressed by bourgeois society. For some reason Ben likes to insinuate that the Communist Voice Organization (CVO) is somehow a group of closet police-state oppressors. When confronted to provide citations to support this ridiculous idea, he retreats from this broader assertion to arguing that the problem is that CVO just doesn't say enough about how democratic rights will expand for the workers. On the contrary, CVO talks about it extensively. This can be seen in the above polemic -- especially the last two entries -- for one among many examples. I stand by what I've said there, and it is quite clear that I hold that workers rights will expand during this period. In fact, I believe that the best measure of whether the revolution is on track is in fact whether the workers' political and economic rights are continually expanding in a real way.)

So back to the current discussion:

Ben, you really are a master of misdirection. To illustrate, a brief history of our back-and-forth in this thread:

• You criticized Tantivy for taking the phrase “necessary suppression of the exploiters” out of context and drawing conclusions about what Lenin meant. Then you took that same phrase and drew your own conclusions about what Lenin meant. Your only support for this assertion is that “Lenin was writing in the context of conditions that corresponded to the period of ... revolutionary martial law”. This is the period in your scheme where you believe the post-revolutionary state has almost unlimited power to suppress workers' organizations and murder its critics.
  
  But your explanation is nothing more than misdirection. When Lenin was writing doesn't change what he wrote, though you imply that it does. He wrote in the passage containing the phrase in question, of “... the transition from capitalism to communism”, “only in communist society...”, “the state withers away”, “democracy begin[s] to wither away”, “... the period of transition to communism ...”. All of these phrases indicate clearly that he is discussing the whole period between capitalism and communism, and when he was writing has no bearing on the matter.

• I stepped in to quote several paragraphs from Lenin leading up to the half-sentence in question, containing the above-quoted phrases. My point was to show that your assertions are incorrect. I said that the passage shows that he is discussing the broad period of transition between capitalism and communism. This is the period during which the capitalist class and all of the remnants of class society are crushed out of existence by the working class organized as the ruling class.

• You dismissed what I raised, saying, “That is Eric's opinion”, without examining or analyzing the overall passage I quoted. Your justification? One phrase from that passage, from five paragraphs earlier: “the vanguard of the oppressed”. You asserted that this shows that Lenin is talking about your “period of stabilization”.
  
  Again, this is misdirection. Despite your assertion, nothing about the phrase “vanguard of the oppressed” says that Lenin was discussing a brief period immediately post-revolution. In fact, the sentence in which that phrase appears makes it clear that he is just using a synonym for the dictatorship of the proletariat, which applies to the whole period of socialism, the whole period between capitalism and communism: "And the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the organization of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of suppressing the oppressors, cannot result merely in an expansion of democracy." Lenin joins the phrases “dictatorship of the proletariat” and “the organization of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class”, with “i.e.”, which means “in other words” or “that is to say”.

• Next, I pointed out the inconsistencies between what you're saying and what Lenin actually says in the passage in question. I also briefly summarized my position re democratic rights, that I take in the above-mentioned polemic, so that your insinuations don't go unchallenged.

• Now, in your latest, you say you just won't go on at all on the topic of what Lenin meant even though it seemed quite important to you when you were making unsupported assertions about it before I stepped in.
  
  Once more, misdirection. When challenged in a way you can't answer, you belittle the question as being beneath you and change topics, hoping no one will notice.

Beyond your penchant for misdirection, you also make some odd points, such as seeming to argue that the proletarian state mustn't fight to combat sabotage. And your reasoning is laughable: Because the thoroughly revisionist, state-capitalist Soviet Union of the 1980's claimed that a group organizing strikes was engaging in “undermining or weakening” the capitalist state, therefore it is illegitimate for a communist to assert that the proletarian state will fight sabotage? Are you really going to argue that the proletarian state, during the period when there are still bourgeois, and therefore still the need for a state, will not put down actual attempts at sabotage against society?

A second odd point your the citation of Seldes as proof that Lenin envisioned two Bolshevik parties. What is odd about it is that Seldes was anything but a reliable reporter. For example, he wrote:

This is utterly kooky, and frankly I'd be embarrassed to cite anything Seldes wrote to bolster any argument other than that bourgeois ideologists can get pretty far out there. Yet you have cited this same Seldes quote several times since 2007, always to make the same argument: “Seldes says Lenin said it, and because I (Ben) believe it to be true, Lenin must have said it”. Why not simply say that you believe that there will be a two-party system after socialism is consolidated? Because you think that claiming that Lenin said it gives it more weight, and you can't find anywhere where Lenin said it in his writings.

Hi Folks,

This thread appears to be winding down. It has been a useful thread in many ways, with a number of contributions from many people, including Doxus, Selucha, Chegitz, Tantivy and, most recently, Eric. With the conclusion of this thread, I will be shifting my focus more to the community at RevLeft. If anyone wants my attention or has any questions for me, go ahead and post to this thread--I have subscribed myself to it and it will send me an email.

Kasama Project:
social-democratic orientation + paternalistic community

This thread began with my description of a problem with the mission statement created to guide the Kasama project and community. This mission statement represents (in my view) an orientation similar in many ways to that of the RCP (without the extreme Avakian cult): left social-democratic traditions, influences and worldview combined with revolutionary enthusiasm and a sea of red flags. This mission statement was created without public discussion or public debate. Nor is such public discussion or debate of the mission statement much encouraged on this site (although, to be fair, it has so far been allowed--as shown by this thread).



The paternalistic attitude toward community building here at Kasama is also reflected in the way that the Kasama community is not allowed to participate in or discuss a number of practical issues related to running the site: most significantly specific disputes concerning moderation. (I cannot say much more about this--without a risk of being banned from the Kasama community.)



The decisive theoretical question of our time

This thread also featured a number of exchanges concerning what I have concluded is the decisive theoretical question of our time: the nature of democratic rights following the successful overthrow of bourgeois rule.



In response to Tantivy, who asked me about my views, I summarized my arguments for why the stability and success of proletarian rule will require that the entire population (including reactionaries) will have the fundamental democratic rights of speech and organization. This drew some interest from Selucha and also some posts by Eric.

Unfortunately however, Eric appears to have little interest in discussing or debating this decisive question. Eric's only interest appears to be on a subset of this question related to Lenin's intent when he wrote about this topic, in 1917, on the eve of the October Revolution.

Of course, what Lenin had to say on this question is important. I wrote about this at some length last July, with the conclusion that Lenin's discussion of democratic rights in "State and Revolution" is totally inadequate for the needs of the revolutionary movement in the modern world. I offered (see my post for February 22) to start a new thread here at Kasama to discuss these conclusions--but explained that I would first need some kind of commitment from other readers to engage in discussion on the thread because otherwise, as someone posting previously written material, I could be permanently banned from the Kasama community for "spamming". Eric, unfortunately, did not take me up on my offer because, it would appear, he is interested only in the question of what Lenin thought--and not in discussing whether Lenin's thoughts themselves might be inadequate to guide the revolutionary movement today in the wake of the crisis of theory flowing from the colossal failures of the Russian and Chinese revolutions to give workers control of society.

The irony here is that Lenin himself had contempt for this kind of slavish attitude (ie: nothing is interesting except what Lenin thought). Lenin did not figure out what to do in a situation by simply repeating the words of earlier revolutionaries in similar situations; he studied these words, of course, but he also thought things through for himself. Today, if we want to do what Lenin did, if we want to be loyal to Lenin--we must do the same thing: think things through for ourselves.

Eric, unfortunately, does not consider this question (ie: whether workers rule will be based on the right to speech and organization) to be important enough to bother replying to my question about this.

That is understandable. It is probably clear to many readers that Eric does not have confidence that he could defend his views--which appear to be that workers would have the right to speech and organization except when the central authority decides that such rights represent a problem (ie: an attempt at "disruption").

Eric: "Let them eat cake"

Eric dismisses the importance of the need for the working class to have the rights of speech and organization by claiming, essentially, that these rights are irrelevant because the workers will (supposedly) have a more important right: the right to control the politics and economy of society.



The problem here is probably obvious to many readers: you cannot have one without the other. Just as you cannot build railroads without steel and you cannot build modern computers without chips, neither can the working class control the politics and economics of society without the more basic, concrete and elementary democratic rights of speech and organization.



Eric's dismissal of the need for the "lower" democratic rights of speech and organization in favor of a fantasy world with the "higher" democratic right to control politics and economics is undoubtedly sincere--but comes off as totally clueless. This kind of smug complacency and arrogance (in the face of the crisis of theory that has led to the paralysis of the revolutionary movement) is as brilliant in its own way as Marie Antoinette's infamous comment when told that the peasants were unhappy because they had no bread: "Let them eat cake!"

-- Ben Seattle
Information war wants to be free
to serve the struggle to end bourgeois rule

Ben writes:

"The paternalistic attitude toward community building here at Kasama is also reflected in the way that the Kasama community is not allowed to participate in or discuss a number of practical issues related to running the site: most significantly specific disputes concerning moderation. (I cannot say much more about this--without a risk of being banned from the Kasama community.)"

There is an element of double-think here:

1) Ben knows as well as anyone that there is a thread for discussing moderation:
http://z11.invisionfree.com/Kasama_Threads...p?showtopic=427

We don't allow people to clog other threads with complaints about moderation. And, in fact, constantly whining about moderation (here in this thread) is a violation of our rules (as ben understand).

2) Ben claims to be afraid to speak his mind for fear of being banned. But if you look over the post where he expressed that fear.... it is obvious that he has full freedom to speak his mind.

I mean: he called this thread "Kasama's Social Democratic Mission Statement" and has endlessly denounced us in this thread for months.

Obviously: any talk of "fear of banning" is posturing and bullshit.

3) As for the main Kasama site: Ben tried to endlessly and constantly "copy and paste" his own (very old) materials and made comments in threads that consited of simply links to his own various writings (WITHOUT making new substantive points.)

That kind of spamming is not OK in our main site (for obvious reasons). We explained that he can include a link or two to himself (in his comments), but there HAS TO BE A COMMENT with some substance (beyond the link).

Ben can spam all he wants here.

If anyone wants to explore Ben's complaints further, feel free to discuss it in our moderation thread (see above).

Cheers to all.

Hi folks,

It is good that Mike has taken time from his many responsibilities to comment on this thread. Maybe it was my portrayal of Mike as the lightbulb-headed god that finally attracted his attention.

I have written a reply to Mike and posted it to my blog on RevLeft. Everyone here is of course welcome to comment and criticize.

Why did I post my reply there rather than either this thread or the thread supposedly devoted to discussing moderation?

Click and learn:
Kasama: Reply to Mike Ely on social-democracy and paternalistic community

Ben, you do seem to be going out of your way to be creating conflict where none need exist. :)

Hi Chegitz,

Your comments are always welcome
and provide for me a window into the thinking
of many comrades in the community here.

I would like to better understand your thinking.

Could you elaborate a little?

Sincerely,
-- Ben