Conscious Forces Will Bring Us Certain Victory, (How we will win in the period ahead)

Conscious Forces Will Bring Us Certain Victory

How, in the coming period of intensified class struggle,
activists will use open communities and information war
to win ever-increasing attention and support and create
the conscious forces that will bring us certain victory

Hi Folks,

My annual report is now online, along with a substantial essay
giving my views on the fundamental forces that will be shaping
the evolution of the progressive and revolutionary movements,
in the years ahead, in countries like the United States.

I am very much interested in your thoughtful and considered opinions.

The essay is posted at:
http://struggle.net/ben/2009/conscious_forces.htm

The table of contents is listed below.

The essay is lengthy at more than 13 thousand words. Nearly a quarter
of the essay describes the Kasama project and community, including
my experience with it and my view concerning the nature of the
principal barriers which may be blocking Kasama's forward development.

I am not posting the essay itself here, as doing so at this time
might be viewed as being unnecessarily provocative and result
in the deletion of this post. For similar reasons, it may
not be possible, at this time, to discuss here the parts of my
essay where I give my views on the next steps forward for Kasama.

However I am confident that other parts of my essay can be
discussed here if anyone finds them to be of interest.

And, of course, everyone is welcome to join me on my email list
where discussion is not restricted in the way it is here.

Sincerely and revolutionary regards,
Ben Seattle


Contents:

---------------------------------------------------------
My annual report
---------------------------------------------------------
(1) What I have done in the past year
(2) What I plan to accomplish in the coming year
(3) Problems that came up and solutions that were developed

---------------------------------------------------------
Overview: Conscious Forces Will Bring Us Certain Victory
---------------------------------------------------------
A background of economic crisis and imperialist war
The objective factor
The subjective factor
The CPUSA was a revolutionary mass party
The degeneration of the CPUSA
Groundhog Day
The good news today -- conditions are maturing
The emergence of conscious forces
Ever-increasing amounts of oxygen
The hangman and the priest
.... (media control in modern society)
The emerging power of open communities
Conscious forces will focus on building
.... a healthy revolutionary movement
We are only as sick as our secrets
.... (ie: the need to speak out)
Conscious forces will be invincible
How open communities of struggle
.... will lead to the emergence of
.... a revolutionary mass organization
So how exactly will this happen?
My experience in four communities of struggle
-- 0 -- The RevLeft community
-- 1 -- The Media Weapon community-in-embryo
-- 2 -- The Seattle Anti-Imperialist Committee (SAIC)
-- 3 -- The local marxist study group
-- 4 -- The Kasama blog
Fiery collisions and eventual merger
Conclusion: the Alkali Lake Band of Indians

I have created a wiki page with a description of this essay at:
http://mediaweapon.wetpaint.com/page/Ben%2FConscious_Forces

Any reader can leave a comment at the bottom of the wiki page.

sorry to hear about your personal loss. I understand how difficult and painful that can be.

I did read your annual report as well as the report on the conflict within the SAIC. Several things struck me right away. As I understand it you have been hard at work for years in your community but have had enormous trouble finding a group that appreciated your contribution and was willing to try your ideas. From the section on Kasama I take it that you are especially angered at the way in which moderation was done on this site because

"the interests of the working class require that we do not fuck with your ability to communicate with other members of our community and we recognize that you have a fucking right to communicate with other activists who are here."

In this case I read "you" as being "Ben Seattle" since the complaint was against the way your posts were handled.

Instead of cursing Kasama, why not take a new path? You have plenty of material launch your own blog site and if your insights inspire a response than that could be the basis for your own list. Both the blog and the follow on discussion list would be devoted to modeling the new forms of organization and struggle that you are committed to. You would be the moderator and could run it anyway you want. This is precisely the method that Louis Proyect has used to build the Marxmail list and it has worked quite well for him.

If you are unable to attract a following for your ideas, then perhaps the fault is not the moderation of Kasama or the decision making process of RevLeft, but rather the way you are expressing your yourself and engaging with your audience. If your ideas are, indeed, critically important to the working class than I am sure you will find a way to distribute them successfully and use them as a way to effectively organize for revolution. If your work is that important then surely others will be drawn to them and give you both the recognition and support that you need. In that case what happens on Revleft or Kasama is immaterial to what you will be able to achieve on your own.

What are our principles of victory?

------------------------------------------------------------
The principles of "open community"
and "political transparency"
will prove to be powerful weapons
in the struggle of Kasama
and other communities of activists
to create a revolutionary mass organization
capable of leading the working class and oppressed
in the overthrow of bourgeois rule
------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Stiofan and others in the Kasama community,

First, I would like to thank Stiofan for taking the time to look at my annual report and associated essay on the nature of the conscious forces which I believe will be shaping the revolutionary movement in the decades ahead.

Stiofan has some criticisms of me and, before going any further, I would like to acknowledge his criticisms:

This is an argument that, if I believe that certain principles are powerful, I should attempt to apply these principles in practice in my own projects and prove their value instead of hanging around Kasama where (he hints) I am a nuisance.

In other words I am alienating readers here because I am simply "talking at" readers and not making a reasonable effort to engage.

I do not agree with Stiofan's conclusions, but out of respect for him and for the many readers who may find his logic and arguments reasonable I should reply.

Activists who are familar with my work know that the center of gravity of my work is not with Kasama and that I have, over the years, made reasonable efforts to help build an open community (ie: the Media Weapon community) based on the principles (such as "political transparency") which I serve. It is natural that readers might ask: "If these principles are, indeed, as powerful as Ben claims--then why have Ben's efforts, so far, come to so little? Why have not more activists come to join his efforts and created some kind of visible success to give visible proof of the supposed power of these principles?"

This question, in effect, is also the core of Stiofan's argument.

I call this argument the "Ozymandias argument" (see the poem below for why) and I run into it almost any time I criticize any collective effort. Of course I am not the only person who runs into this argument--because (just to give one example) this is also the core _real_ argument that the RCP uses against the Kasama project. The RCP, in effect, says to its supporters: "We have a newspaper and a distribution machine. We write and distribute large numbers of very good articles and so forth while the Kasama project only has a blog and a pamphlet or two. Therefore we know how to build revolutionary organization while the Kasama project will never amount to much."

The RCP also used this argument against me when I criticized the reformist orientation of their hysteria about fascism that became the "World Can't Wait" campaign. After all, they had built a powerful machine with hundreds of supporters while I was simply a sideline critic and a pointy-headed intellectual.

Revolutionary activists understand that there is often a correct material basis to arguments of this kind (ie: it is a scientific principle that "you shall know the tree by its fruit" -- or practice is the criteria of truth). But revolutionary activists also understand that this argument is often misused to justify all kinds of bankrupt practices. So it is good to approach this kind of argument with caution.

To answer readers who may ask why my own projects have, so far, amounted to very little, I will simply reply that all of my efforts have, so far, failed to achieve a critical mass of support by experienced activists. Without this nothing much is going to happen.

The principles (ie: such as the power of open communities and political transparency) which I struggle to popularize do not belong to me. I did not discover these principles and I do not own them. I simply recognize their significance. These principles are immense, like the ocean. In comparison, my efforts to do something with these principles are paltry, like a grain of sand. The power of these principles will be recognized by activists in the course of time on the basis of their _own_ experience--not because of anything I do. All of my efforts to popularize and argue for these principles, at best, are only likely to speed this objective process up by a tiny amount.

For example, I was arguing for the significance of the revolution in communications (ie: things like the internet and the cheap easy-to-use devices that access the internet) in the early 1990's. The potential of the internet for use by political activists is more widely recognized today--but it is not because of my work. It is because activists have seen with their eyes the power of the internet.

So understanding the correct principles is not some magic solution that creates instant success. Rather, when we understand correct principles we can position our work so that we can grow in the right direction.

I know that readers get tired when I write long posts so I will conclude. We need a revolutionary mass organization that has the ability to mobilize the working class and the oppressed in their millions for the overthrow of bourgeois rule. We cannot create such an organization in the context of modern conditions without making use of the principles of "open community" and "political transparency". This is my conclusion.

I cannot prove this conclusion here in a few sound bytes. I have argued for this conclusion, at great length, in many articles to which I sometimes link (when my posts are not deleted). If my limited and restricted participation on this forum helps one or two readers to think about these principles--then my efforts here have been worthwhile. With the wrong principles in command--the revolutionary movement ends up in the sewer, where it is today. With the correct principles in command--we will win.

I am not cursing Kasama, as Stiofan asserts. I am helping Kasama. I want to see the Kasama project and community help to lay the foundation for the revolutionary mass organization that we need. My discussion of the distinction between a paternalistic community and an open community--and how this relates to Kasama and its mission cannot be posted in this forum. However any readers who may be interested are welcome to read my essay (which includes the most serious criticism of Kasama of which I am aware): "Conscious Forces Will Bring Us Certain Victory" at: http://struggle.net/Ben/2009/conscious_forces.htm

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


From "Ozymandias":
------------------

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

-- Shelley, 1817

I will respond only once more to this thread and beyond that you are welcome to email me off list.
I read your report carefully and thoughtfully and I believe you should re-read the section concerning the Kasama Project. It was from that section that I quoted and I will paraphrase that same quote to better express the source of your obvious anger at the project in general and Mike in particular:

"...the interests of the working class require that the moderators at Kasama do not fuck with Ben Seattle's ability to communicate with other members of this community and Kasama recognizes that Ben Seattle has a fucking right to communicate with other activists who are here."

Yes comrade, you did indeed curse Kasama and your anger was palpable because of the fact that some of your posts had been deleted and because you felt that there was a threat to exclude you from the site. This is why you were obviously upset when you wrote that section. I know you believe there are general principles of openness and transparency that are at issue, but the specific cause of your critique was the way you had been treated. Your political work is not just about promoting democratic decision but is instead centered on your own historical analysis of the way the revolutionary process should be structured and implemented to bring about radical transformation.

In no way did I ridicule or mock your ideas or work by depicting you as an Ozymandias type character. Read Shelly again and you will see that he is attacking the vainglory and egotism of tyrants. Your anger and frustration are clearly based on knowing so clearly what needs to be done but being unable to implement your ideas in any meaningful way.

Comrade, the end of your own original post points the best, most productive path for you:

"...everyone is welcome to join me on my email list
where discussion is not restricted in the way it is here."

Hi Stiofan,

Thanks for your reply.

I know that you have put a lot of thought into your reply but I believe that, all the same, you are mistaken on a number of points:

(1) Your paraphrase is not an accurate portrayal of my views.

The problem that emerged was not that my posts were deleted and I was threatened and so forth. My conclusion was that this was a symptom of a larger issue.

The problem is that, by using this method against activists (ie: not just me) Kasama is undermining its potential to become a gathering place in which independent activists can help Kasama sort out the revolutionary road forward.

It is vitally important, in my view, that activists can come to Kasama and help it find its way forward. All of us are human and our knowledge is limited. And the human tendency toward self-deception, unfortunately, exists as much within the revolutionary movement as anyplace else. So it is both valuable and necessary that Kasama seek help from activists. Kasama has sought help--as evidenced by their leaflet asking for this help. But this process is undermined when the moderation process is wrapped in unnecessary secrecy and misjudgements by moderators (ie: such as making unproductive threats) are kept hidden from the Kasama community. These misjudgements would be less likely in conditions of political transparency.

So my complaint is not at how I was treated--it is that Kasama is taking a path that recoils from the necessary work of training the community to participate in and help guide the moderation process--as part of building the community and raising the consciousness of the community in the course of practical work.

Everything here centers around the need for an open community. We cannot build the revolutionary mass organization we need without an open community that surrounds this organization and provides innumerable links to activists and the masses. That is why this is not a minor question or a nice-to-have. This is essential if Kasama is to fulfil its potential.

(2) Your repeated references to my "anger" appear to me to be unhelpful and inappropriate because my actions are based on politics. If I am angry at incompetence and denial it is because my emotions are in the service of my politics--which center on what we must do to build a revolutionary mass movement and organization. I think it is better to focus on the politics. I know that you have made efforts to treat me with respect but, in my experience, it is usually unhelpful to make reference to the emotions of the person with whom you are arguing. Cults use this method to belittle their opponents and we must, in my view, exercise great caution on this.

You are not in a position to know my emotions and speculating on them in this way is a distraction from the principle that Kasama must take steps to encourage independent activists to come and be part of the community.

(3) I believe you misunderstand the significance of the "Ozymandias argument". You did not ridicule or mock me and I apologise for failing to be more clear about this. The reference is to the attitude of those who use this argument. For example, imagine a vain and cultish supporter of the RCP saying: "Look on our impressive newspaper and distribution machine and despair" as a way to deflect criticism. The point is that their impressive newspaper and machine will, in the long run, come to nothing at all because they cannot face up to and resolve their internal contradictions.

And this brings me to the internal contradiction which the Kasama group appears to be unwilling to confront:

If the Kasama group wants to make it clear that they welcome independent activists--they cannot do this by declarations alone. Talk is cheap. So are leaflets which claim to understand the need to listen.

The real attitude of the Kasama group will be shown by their actions.

-- Ben

Hey Ben,

There is a lot to say here. I am planning to read the entirety of your essay soon, but for now let me respond to the section about Kasama. I'm going to try to address it point by point, and hopefully we can work through some of thee contradictions and issues. As I'm sure you're aware, I don't speak for the Kasama Project, only for myself.

Regarding the RCP and WCW:

*You write that "After all, Kasama only has: (1) open discussion on a blog and (2) a criticism of the RCP which more or less proves that the RCP has become too much of a cult to ever find its way back to planet earth." This is a overwhelmingly simplistic perspective. For one, criticism of the RCP no longer plays a major role within the Kasama Project. There has been nothing posted about the RCP or WCW for months, and while it is often brought up by some people around Kasama, including myself on rare occasion, it is a) used largely as a reference point or a negative example from which to put forward new ideas, and b) nothing that we have significant control over. The Kasama Project has not been fanning the flames of the "rivalry" and we cannot be held accountable for the comments people post that may reference that experience. That's part of the cost of having an open discussion. Nothing written by affiliates of Kasama about the RCP has been posted since April, which was 8 months ago, and I think we've done a solid job of moving past that experience. Secondly, your point negates other work being done by Kasama. We started a site to develop theory, we've attended and held conferences, we're developing ties with intellectuals, we have a podcast, and some of our people got together to form FIRE Collective in Houston. This is not just the work of a blog.

Also, if you go back to the post entitled Expulsions and Accusations: From the Steering Committee of World Can't Wait, you'll see that there was more disagreement and criticism than just the fact that they were too idealistic and voluntaristic. Your criticism to me seems rather baseless, and I don't think you can assume that nobody mentioning the fact that they may or may not have (I don't really know) gave platform to Democrats implies agreement with that policy. There was significant criticism of the overall way the group was structured, as well as their tactics and aims, which I think includes that, but that's an issue that people can address further that have more experience with WCW, though I think there is a general sentiment that working with institutional liberals is bad line.

Also, I'd like you to clarify what you mean by "left-wing social democrats", because based on what I understand that to be, I haven't seen ANY of that except among certain posters that are not deeply involved with Kasama. Certain individuals, such as Carl Davidson, are very much left-wing social democrats, but are you suggesting that we don't allow them to comment on our posts? Even as most of us have very strong disagreements with him, he does bring up points worth engaging from time to time.

Moving on....

You wrote that: "Mike and the people who make up the Kasama organization want to create a revolutionary mass organization". Having been involved with the Kasama Project since February, I can say that I have read or heard nothing to suggest that it is our intention to create such an organization. We are a theoretical project, first and foremost, and are working for reconception of revolutionary theory and practice. I personally uphold that the best role for Kasama is as a collaborative theoretical umbrella for various revolutionary collectives, not as a mass organization, a pre-party formation or a party itself.

Next, you wrote "I will discuss the other problem in Kasama in a moment but first want to mention that Mike created a blog posting out of my article "How to Build the Party of the Working Class" [23] and, while I was happy to see this article get some attention--I was disappointed in the reception it received and the discussion which followed."

There were 32 responses to your piece (higher than average) and I felt that the discussion was very substantive. Frankly I didn't know existed until now seeing as how it was written before I was around. But what I'm seeing as a problem here, comrade, is that you seem to think you have the answers already in the forms you've developed. You don't seem to value the process of revolutionary reconception, a collective process, and you become frustrated when others don't agree with your opinions. I haven't had a chance to read through the piece, seeing as how I just saw it and browsed through the comments, but the discussion was very civil and lively, with people engaging with much of what you wrote in a critical way. The fact that there is such opposition to your ideas, as you make it seem, perhaps is less of a reflection on us and more of a reflection on you. I'm not saying your ideas are wrong, because I haven't engaged with them to say one way or another, but it doesn't seem that you are willing to engage in any form of self-criticism or rethinking your currently held ideas. I self-criticize regularly, because I am regularly wrong. Once you get in the habit of it, and being able to identify your own shortcomings as well as those of others, it becomes second nature. This is something I'd like to discuss more with you, because I think there is more to your point about being disappointed by the reception than I am grasping right now.

Regarding moderation, I can't really speak on it since I didn't see any of the stuff you posted nor did I have any communication with Mike about it, but I would like to hear Mike's side of the story here as well. I'm personally open to the idea of more open moderation, but there could be issues in play here that I am unaware of. One of our shortcomings is that the threads have not really taken off as a means for communication and sharing information. People rarely post here, which is unfortunate, but we are taking steps to remedy that. Another problem that exists is that we need a more active moderating and writing staff. Too much of this work is unfairly placed on Mike, and this causes problems I think both on the main page and the threads. One of the issues that exists is that, seeing as how Kasama is not a party or structured organization, it requires that people volunteer to step up and assume roles, which doesn't always happen. Most of us are involved with other projects outside of Kasama and can't always make the commitment. This is something, especially with writing, that we are going to have to figure out how to deal with more effectively in the coming future. To reiterate though, I don't know the nature of the moderation issues you are talking about, so I don't want to talk out of my ass. All I know is what I'm hearing from you, which I am inclined to believe is not the full story, though it is an important part of it.

That's all I got for you now Ben. Throughout the course of writing this I've posed some questions and concerns of my own about your method, as well as some things I feel Kasama needs to work on. Hope to hear from you.

-Luis V.

Hi Luis,

First, I would like to thank you for a very thoughtful post.

You raise a number of important topics:
(1) Kasama's overall direction and what it may do to help the revolutionary process,
(2) the need for theory,
(3) WCW,
(4) social-democracy,
(5) revolutionary mass organization,
(6) the need for humility when engaging others,
(7) the need for self-criticism,
(8) moderation and
(9) (implicitly) what constitutes productive engagement with others.

I will not be able to make a substantive reply right away. First I need to reread your post more carefully and then I may need a few days to give it some thought. However I do plan to reply in a few days or so.

However I will say now that I appreciate your calm tone and struggle for objectivity. This is encouraging to me and it tells me that there are thoughtful activists in the Kasama community with whom I may be able to make a meaningful connection.

Sincerely and revolutionary regards,
Ben

For sure. I just wanted to make one clarification to what I wrote, rereading it just now... Regarding your piece on the mass party we brought up, I'd like to point out that I didn't mean to suggest you were engaging people in an unprincipled fashion in the discussion, and I felt that you were very thoughtful in the way you responded to people's points. I only meant to suggest that there always needs to be room for self-criticism and thinking through new ideas, something that is missing with a whole lot of the revolutionary left. We get comfortable with certain ideas and concepts (democratic centralism, the Leninist party, the party-state, etc.) and take them as given instead of putting them up to critical evaluation. All I'm suggesting is that, if you find a lot of opposition to your ideas, don't necessarily be entirely disappointed with others, take the time to evaluate your own position as well from a critical standpoint. Often, other people ARE wrong and dogmatic, but often you, me and the next guy are as well.

The Party of the Working Class
will emerge from struggle against
the immense pressure of
the social-democratic ideology

Hi Luis,

I have taken the time to read your replies several times and gave some thought to what may be the most important issues you have raised.

I will start at the beginning.

I am in this world to fight. I was born into a class divided society, ruled by a social class, the bourgeoisie, attached to the circulation and expansion of capital. I am here on this earth to help the working class organize itself for the overthrow of bourgeois rule so that the working class can bring into existence a world of peace, abundance and genuine community for all.

The Kasama community may include within itself a number of revolutionary-minded activists who are also interested in overthrowing the system of bourgeois rule and creating revolutionary organization for this purpose.

I participate in the Kasama community for the purpose of linking up with these activists and assisting motion in this direction.

My engagement with you, Luis, began in the context of your reply to the section of my Conscious Forces essay that criticized Kasama. Your initial impulse has been to defend Kasama. However, as part of our engagement you have raised a number of important topics related to Kasama's potential to meaningfully assist revolutionary theory and practice:

(1) what is social-democracy and whether the social-democratic
ideology has much influence within the Kasama community

(2) the role of humility and self-criticism in productive
engagement between activists in the Kasama community

(3) whether or not the Kasama group is (or should be) interested
in creating a revolutionary mass organization

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kasama is saturated with social-democratic ideology
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Your question about social-democracy was prompted by my comments on the reformist "World Can't Wait" (WCW) fiasco and the following passage in my essay:

Kasama, in my view, is saturated with the social-democratic ideology. I know, Luis, that this is not your view--but you and I mean very different things when we use the term "social-democracy". You correctly note that Carl Davidson is a social-democrat. However I do not consider Carl to be a "left-wing social-democrat", as you call him. I consider Carl to be more in the mainstream or even right-wing of social-democracy. To me, social-democracy is a very large political trend which includes within itself a range of sub-trends over a wide spectrum. The right-wing of social-democracy includes people who are in the imperialist Democratic Party itself, like Tom Hayden (ie: someone that Carl appears to look to for leadership). On the left-wing side of social-democracy we have people who may call themselves revolutionaries. I consider Louis Proyect (mentioned above by Stiofan) to be a left-wing social democratic. I view the RCP, itself, as a trend, to be at the extreme left-wing of social-democracy. The fact that the RCP waves red flags and talks about r-r-r-revolution and has strong cult-like features does not mean that they do not have intense social-democratic features in their ideology.

I gave the example of WCW. You comment that:

There is sometimes little distinction, Luis, between working for the devil and being the devil. It does not really make any difference whether or not you agree with the Democratic Party if you wear their leash and promote their influence. Giving them a "free ride" is promoting their influence. What is a "free ride"? It is when they speak and no one on stage speaks up afterward to refute their imperialist lies. The most bloodstained lie of our time is that the Democratic Party can be transformed into a party of peace that serves the masses if only we fucking liquidate the antiwar movement and tell activists that instead of marching in the streets they should be ringing doorbells for saviors from within the establishment. And the left-wing Democrats promote this lie simply by appearing on the WCW stage. Yes, there may be circumstances where it serves the movement to allow someone from this imperialist party to speak--but only if they do not get a "free ride" when they do so.

Check out the thread [1] where this is discussed on Kasama. I believe it shows that Mike and other Kasama supporters fail to understand this.

And there is more. 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:

This statement, in my view, reflects a social-democratic worldview. The phrase "communist project" means absolutely nothing, just like "revolutionary" (we live in a society where a new kind of toothpaste is called "revolutionary"). And the phrase about the forcible overthrow of "all existing social conditions" is similarly meaningless. There are no class politics in this statement. Any fundamental change of existing social conditions will require a forcible overthrow of the system of rule by a specific social class--the bourgeoisie. Why not talk about the "overthrow of bourgeois rule" instead of something so meaningless?

Because, in my view, such talk would not be acceptable to many of the forces that the Kasama group apparently intends to gather together.

You are also correct, Luis, in asserting that Mike and the Kasama group are not interested in creating a revolutionary mass organization. I had thought otherwise and gave them the benefit of the doubt. However this document cleared that up for me.

I will get back to the question of a revolutionary mass organization in a bit--but first I want to talk about the role of humility in productive engagement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Does humility require a lack of confidence in our views?
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Luis:

I am going to deal with this question because I run into it a lot. Any serious revolutionary activist is going to run into this line a lot. We get asked: How can we be so sure that we need to:

(1) oppose the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan? or
(2) fight for the rights of women to get abortions? or
(3) turn our back on the Democratic Party? or
(4) get rid of this wonderful capitalist system?

Yes, it is necessary that we have humility. Humility is what allows us to see and understand the world with clarity. Humility is what allows us to understand how little we know and how easy it is to deceive ourselves. Humility is what allows us to understand our limitations.

But humility is not the same as a lack of confidence in one's views. For example, both Darwin and Einstein were well-known for their humility. But they also had confidence in the ideas they developed--which shook up established thinking. Should we have expected either of them to criticize themselves for daring to think that they were on to something?

On the other hand, there is also the problem of false confidence. The left is saturated with cult-like organizations which can hardly speak to one another. I used to support Mao. I used to support Stalin. I used to think that Albania was socialist. I used to think that a small group could grow and become a mass party. Many people on this forum used to think that Bob Avakian made historic contributions to marxist thought.

It is easy to fool ourselves.

One of the safeguards against false confidence is a willingness to recognize how easy it is to be wrong and therefore to carefully consider opposing arguments and be willing to calmly, patiently, respectfully and publicly consider and reply to opposing arguments. It means we must be willing to answer questions and be accountable to public opinion when someone believes there is a problem or flaw in our reasoning. If we cannot explain something very well--it usually means that we do not understand it ourselves.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
We cannot overthrow bourgeois rule
without a revolutionary mass organization
-----------------------------------------------------------------

I think that a collaborative theoretical umbrella for revolutionary collectives or individuals would be useful. Kasama has potential for this although, after my experience here, my hopes are not high.

However the need for a revolutionary mass organization will not go away. The Kasama leadership and most of the Kasama community do not appear to understand this. At least that is my conclusion at this time based on the low level of interest I have seen on this topic. Maybe this will change as the contradictions in society become more intense.

If we recognize that we need a revolutionary mass organization--then the question of how we can bring such an organization into existence--will be also be seen as more important.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Let's stay in touch
-----------------------------------------------------------------

I hope, Luis, that you will see me as being responsive to the most important issues you have raised. I have not responded to everything. We have different views on a number of important issues: mainly the role of social-democracy and the need for class-based politics.

In light of my experience, I may not be posting much on Kasama. I hope, Luis, that we can stay in touch. I have sent you email via the forum software. If you reply, then we will have one another's email address. My experience is that activists like us develop our views over lengthy periods of time and that staying in touch and comparing notes over the long term can be very valuable.

I have also done a lot of theoretical work on some of the more central questions and if you look at any of it and have any questions that you would like to ask me I would be happy to reply.

sincerly and revolutionary regards,
Ben

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------------

[1] The debate over RCP's "World Can't Wait" fiasco
(featuring Mike Ely, Frank Arango, Autocritique, Ben Seattle and others) can be seen here:
http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/02/10/el...utionary-hopes/

Ben, your ideas have definitely caught my attention and I'm going through your site to learn more about what you've got to say, but unfortunately navigating your site(s?) is an enormous pain in the ass. This sucks because I know there's some worthwhile content there.

I mean no offense by this, but your site seriously looks insane. Clashing colors, diagrams and charts everywhere, inconsistent headings, and absolutely no organizational structure... My first impression was to ask myself "is this guy serious?". I think a coherent presentation would be a big step forward in having your ideas taken into serious consideration by a reader.

I would suggest losing the outrageous color scheme and stick to a book-like organizational structure with an index presenting all of your work by subject.

Hi there mediated abstraction,

Thanks for your feedback. I am glad that my ideas caught your attention and that somebody is at least attempting to read some of my articles.

I guess it is good that you did not visit my site before I drastically simplified it about two weeks ago.

My original home page is now posted here:
http://struggle.net/ben/comprehensive.htm

You will probably agree that what I have now is an improvement over that.

One of the basic problems is that I have created new articles and website project ideas faster than I could create and maintain a common format to display them.

My work and many websites were created over the last 15 years. I experimented with a lot of different formats. Some formats were unfortunate. Some of the early pages were created to be readable in Netscape Navigator 2.0 which did not have the ability to render colors within tables in the way that is common today. One reader wrote to me to say that one of my pages was the most poorly designed and laid-out web page he had ever seen (and he had seen a lot).

I am an individual and not an organization and my time is limited right now. I will reformat all my work in a common format sometime in the future after I decide on what platform to use. Some of my articles are too lengthy to comfortably read on the web at all--and really need to be printed out.

I know of many sites that are well-laid out. Check out for example my polemical opponents at http://CommunistVoice.org . It all looks very professional. The only problem is the nature of the content.

My assumption is that, to the extent that any of my work may have lasting value, it will be reformatted by other activists who know what they are doing.

Please let me know what articles you find useful and why. I deal with a number of topics and different activists find different articles useful.

all the best,
Ben

Ben -

When I have more time, I'd like to address the issues you bring up in your thread [and your post on the Kasama blog], but for now I'd like to deal with this point:

"This statement, in my view, reflects a social-democratic worldview. The phrase "communist project" means absolutely nothing, just like "revolutionary" (we live in a society where a new kind of toothpaste is called "revolutionary"). And the phrase about the forcible overthrow of "all existing social conditions" is similarly meaningless. There are no class politics in this statement. Any fundamental change of existing social conditions will require a forcible overthrow of the system of rule by a specific social class--the bourgeoisie. Why not talk about the "overthrow of bourgeois rule" instead of something so meaningless?"

I should make it clear here that I'm speaking for myself my remarks should not be taken as representing an "official line" or a collective position.

I find it difficult to understand why you think calling oneself "communist" is meaningless given the entrenched anti-communism in this country. Among most Marxists, this phrase is avoided because the US state has effectively associated it with Stalin, and they have simply conceded the term. Few even use the term "revolution" not because it's hackneyed or commercialized but because it's still a hot potato in left politics.

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. We can infer that the abolition of classes [by definition] means the end of women's oppression, racism, colonialism, etc., but I don't think we can assume anything about how people understand communism.

A focus on class as an identity, smacks of economic determinism. Why do we need to specify class as a rallying point? 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? Why does this also have to be the singular point of political identification? This seems to be confusing politics with sociology, as if "working class" and "bourgeoisie" were political positions. In my view, class politics is primarily about class society in general, and secondarily about specific classes struggling with each other. Overthrowing the bourgeoisie does not automatically mean that a new, more egalitarian, cooperative society will arise. To assume this is to adopt a teleological view of history. There must be political struggle all the way through the process among the people. I use this term the way it is used by Mao and even the Paris Commune. "The people" are the exploited, the oppressed and anyone else who wants to work for a better society, and that includes sympathetic elements from the former petty and "high" bourgeoisie.

Also, you make statements about the community in and around Kasama but what are they based on? As far as I can tell, only two things: using the responses [or lack thereof] to your own posts as benchmarks for political seriousness and reading others' posts. I don't think you or anyone else is well-served by this method.

Hi Zerohour,

Thanks for your comments.

It was beginning to look like no one had any interest in my criticism of Kasama's mission statement and its lack of class politics.

I intend to reply to you soon. In the meantime, since this is an important topic, I thought I should create a new, clean thread for it. The new thread is here:

http://z11.invisionfree.com/Kasama_Threads...?showtopic=1011

I hope that you, and possibly others here in the Kasama community, may find this topic to be of interest and join me there.

sincerely,
Ben Seattle