~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(1) socialism or proletarism ?
(2) transparency and the coming meltdown
(reply to Samyabad)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hi everyone,

Last week I said that I would post comments that were made about
our proposed mission statement and program of action. I think
that some comments were made on our old wiki (which because my
computer software is very old and unstable I am not yet able to
read). And one set of comments was made by Samyabad (which I
include below as an appendix) using the form and micro-forum
associated with the web page at http://mediaweapon.com .

I will use the few minutes I have right now to briefly reply to
Samyabad's comments in the micro-forum and also his May 30 post.

Samyabad--May 30:
> I thank Ben for his latest post. Even though
> I need to understand much of your views,
> concepts and theoritcal perspectives, I have
> a general impression that you are pointing
> toward evolutionary trends rather than
> revolutionary quantum leap

I have sketched this out in my main installments of the
anarcho-leninist debate on the state. The political revolution
in which the working class overthrows bourgeois rule might be
relatively quick matter (it might take only a few years--or
less). Between now and then there will likely be a much
lengthier period in which the working class builds up its
organizational ability, resources and confidence. After the
political revolution it will likely take several decades for the
victorious working class to create a functioning moneyless
economy (ie: an economy that is not based on commodity
production). It is the moneyless economy that will be the basis
for a classless society and which will eliminate the need for a
state machine.

> I believe socialism is the transitional stage
> between the capitalism and communism.

Well, so do many people. In my view, however, before we can "act
today to raise the banner of socialism throughout the globe" we
need to be able to explain, in an intelligent and non-evasive way
(ie: give public responses to public questions) what "socialism"
is with greater clarity than this. Particularly in the wake of
the failed repressive regimes that developed in the Soviet Union
and China (ie: police-state regimes in which a single
organization held a monopoly of political power and suppressed
all opposition) and which represent "socialism" to most
people--we must be able to show how our goal is a society that
would be _better_ than ordinary market-based bourgeois rule.

The regimes which developed in the Soviet Union and China
represented the development of a new ruling class. This is
probably the primary reason that so many tens (or hundreds) of
thousands of anarchist-minded progressive youth today oppose
"socialism". The theoretical challenges which anarchist-minded
activists throw up against what they see as "marxism" or
"leninism" therefore play (in my view) a useful role. Everything
that is bankrupt must be exposed. The working class will not in
their millions support a movement for the overthrow of bourgeois
rule until all the ideological cesspools have been drained.

The Russian activist, Grigory Isayev (as I mentioned in my weekly
focus # 9) has advanced the thesis that the term communism should
be abandoned as the name of the movement aimed at the overthrow
of bourgeois rule--and replaced by the term "proletarism". The
precedent for this is Lenin's advocacy, following the great
betrayal of 1914, that the term "social democracy" be abandoned
in favor of the term "communism". The revisionist betrayal of
Lenin's 1917 revolution by a corrupt strata of self-serving
feudal lords, argues Isayev, is fully comparable to the 1914
betrayal by the workers' parties which abandoned the interests of
the working class and sided with their own bourgeois rulers at
the outbreak of the first world war.

So if Isayev is correct--we should not be raising the banner of
"socialism" or of "communism" -- but rather the banner of
"proletarism". My mind on this is not made up. But I am
determined to develop discussion on the theoretical (and
practical) issues involved. Most political trends are afraid of
touching the deeper issues here. But I am convinced that, on the
contrary, we must confront them.

> Regarding the destruction of communist party , I was
> referring to death of the communist organization
> for which you worked for long time. My intention
> was to express the concern that you could not make
> the party viable.

The organization I supported, the MLP,USA dissolved itself as a
result of an internal crisis in 1993. This crisis, in my view,
was a direct result of the organization failing to confront the
crisis of theory. Without theory to guide the
organization--there was no way to resolve opposing views on the
way forward and the nature of the tasks which were decisive.

My hope had always been that the members and supporters of the
MLP would continue working as principled revolutionary activists
and work together to lay the basis for some type of less formal
organization. This did not happen. Approximately two-thirds of
the several dozen party activists became completely passive
politically. About half of the remainder created a sectarian
organization (ie: the communist voice organization at
http://communistvoice.org ) that creates great anti-war agitation
but is neither willing nor able to confront the deeper
theoretical issues which have led to the paralysis of the
revolutionary movement.

As the principle of political transparency becomes recognized and
practiced within the revolutionary movement--I believe this
principle will lead to the dissolution of those organizations
which are built on reformist or sectarian foundations. This
would include, in my view, the majority of those organizations
listed at http://broadleft.org . It is a concern of all serious
revolutionary activists that this process not result in the
dissipation of revolutionary forces. Even organizations that
have been deeply corrupted by the sectarian and reformist
diseases often include within the ranks of their supporters many
activists with genuinely revolutionary convictions. It will
become very important that these activists understand that
revolutionary activity is not a waste of time but on the contrary
will continue to be of immense value in the struggle of the
working class. It is the forces of transparency which will
eventually plunge most of these organizations into crisis and
dissolution. But it will also be the forces of transparency that
will help the better activists in these organizations understand
that genuinely revolutionary activity is possible on a far more
useful and productive basis than has ever been possible before.

Sincerely and with revolutionary regards,
Ben Seattle
----//-// June 6, 2004
http://struggle.net/Ben (my elists / theory / infrastructure)

------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix: Samyabad's response to proposed
mission statement and program of action
------------------------------------------------------------

• Monday • 31-May-2004 • 2:34 am • # 210-9003

• Samyabad • On the development of an Organisation

• It is the combination of our will, action and the objective
reality that will give a shape , content and life to our emerging
but very important organisation. There is no need to be secretive
specially in west where capitalism itself guarantees freedom of
speech. However in repressive countries like Nepal, to ensure the
survival of the group the memebers need to be careful and
secretive in operation. Our aim is clear, I believe. TO overthrow
the Bourgeois rule and establish the rule of the toiling class.
It is a noble goal aspired by the conscious individuals of the
world.

• likes: good Proposal
• don't like: Everything is worth serious consideration
• question: How will this community relate itself
with fraternal communist parties ?
• comments on proposed mission statement:
Extensive work in organisational sphere
• comments on paragraph (i): all available media
• comments on paragraph (ii): The IT is the good means
to educate the workers and just loving people of the world
• comments on 1. build channels: Nice proposition
• comments on 2. puncture reformism: OK
• comments on 3. crisis of theory:
We need to resolve crisis theory as well as the crisis
in developing and maintaining organisation
• comments on 4. unity and transparency:
Transparency is but the basis of healthy unity. It is futile to
block it and is very much harmful for revolutionary movement.
• comments on Structure of community:
That is how an organisation works.
• comments on communication system: OK