~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Weekly focus # 13 --
(1) List activity and development
* the struggle for signal-to-noise * 2 posts per week max
(2) How will unity of the left develop?
* struggle against reformism * 21st century "newspaper"
* text, radio, video, bandwidth costs * Indymedia
(3) "open source" revolutionary politics
* open debate on competing agendas * practical struggle
(4) Communism vs. Proletarism
* four essential characteristics of proletarist movement
(5) Who will overthrow US imperialism?
* do we tell the truth to the workers?
(6) Futility of Chinese censorship of text messages
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hi everyone,

It has been a month since I have posted here. For those
new to this list who may not know me--I usually post here at
least once a week and make an effort to comment on the most
important posts--and the list activity that may be related to the
development of a powerful and healthy movement for the overthrow
of bourgeois rule in the U.S. (where I live) and in all the
countries on earth.

I have been extremely busy recently but I hope that I will soon
be able to return to a schedule of weekly posts. For those who
may have an interest in my earlier weekly posts--they are all in
the public archives of this list available online at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pof-200/messages

and they are also in the public archives of the theorist list
(where they may be a bit easier to find because the theorist list
consists only of posts by me) at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theorist/messages

1. List activity and development
---------------------------------

This lists is steadily growing and I am unable to comment on all
of the dozens of posts that have been made in the last four
weeks--but I would like to say that I am greatly encouraged by
the recent activity on this list. Discussion and focus on the
most decisive topics may be gradually developing.

As the list develops it is certain that problems will emerge--and
be overcome. One issue that I hope we can all keep in mind is
the importance of a constant struggle for a high signal-to-noise
ratio on the list. We now have 62 subscribers and this means
that every time you post--your message goes into the inbox of 62
different people. And as the number of subscribers grows--the
struggle to maintain a high signal-to-noise ratio will become
more intense. So we want to do everything possible to keep every
post valuable and full of insight. What can we do to help
accomplish this?

The most important thing will be for everyone to limit the number
of their posts. Eventually this list will have a formal rule
limiting subscribers to one or two posts per week. This rule
cannot be put into effect immediately because before we do so we
must take steps to make the wiki at:

http://mediaweapon.net

easier for people to use--so that the energy of subscribers and
their healthy desire to express themselves and interact with one
another has an alternative outlet that does not involve adding to
the inbox of dozens of subscribers. Once I have time to set up
my new computer I will be able to modify the wiki (I cannot do
this using my current, obsolete computer) and will make the wiki
easier to use.

In the meantime I am asking everyone (even though it is not yet a
formal rule) to make an effort to voluntarily limit your posts
to two a week. (If, in some unusual situation, two posts a week
may not be enough--then please make an effort to limit yourself
to four posts a week.) This way we will have fewer posts--but
more thoughtful posts. More than this--such a measure will help
to prevent the list traffic from being dominated by those
subscribers who simply happen to have the most free time--or the
greatest need to engage in casual conversation. Ultimately, a
higher signal-to-noise ratio will allow our list to have a larger
(and deeper) membership (ie: better quantity and quality--more
subscribers--and a higher percentage of serious and dedicated
activists who have years of experience in building revolutionary
organization) because serious activists have very limited
time--do not have time to read a lot of relatively shallow
comments.

I am aware that asking everyone to limit themselves to a few
posts per week runs against the normal email culture that is
common on nearly all lists. However this list is not like most
lists. Our aim here is something more than a casual discussion
list. We want to develop this list into a _weapon_ that will
help in the development of a powerful and healthy mass movement
for the overthrow of bourgeois rule. And this means that we must
learn how to discipline our activity.

Also--we should avoid "one-liners" (ie: posts that consist of a
single sentence). It is unusual for any single sentence to have
enough content to be worth the attention of 62 people.

Also--it is important that, in the absence of compelling
evidence, no one here accuse anyone else of working for the CIA
or FBI. No serious list will tolerate accusations (or
speculation--as was posted here last month in response to a post
that was overly enthusiastic about "guerilla warfare" in the US)
of this type because it promotes paranoia and in general is a
waste of everyone's time (including the time of moderators--who
must intervene to place matters in perspective). In many
countries people are killed if they are believed to be police
agents (ie: in Palestine today--or in South Africa under
Apartheid where informers were "necklaced" with a tire full of
gasoline placed around their neck and set on fire).

All kinds of silly stuff will find its way onto this list because
many young people (14 years old and so forth) learn about this
list from the site at http://communism.org and come here with
lots of enthusiasm but zero practical experience in the
progressive movement. If you believe that a subscriber here is a
police agent of some kind--please send your concerns off-list to
the moderators (ie: DJ Dialectic, 8thFloor and me) before
engaging in public speculation.

(And, by the way, anyone who has questions or concerns about the
eventual transition from legal to illegal work may want to check
out the essay I wrote to discuss this topic: "A scenario for the
overthrow of bourgeois rule in the U.S. in the middle of the 21st
century" at http://struggle.net/ALDS/part_03_content.htm )

Eventually we can set up a web page for new subscribers to read
prior to making their first post--and that page will better
explain how this list is different from most lists.

What is most important to grasp, however, is that the pof-200
list is doing _very well_. I hope that my comments above
do not overshadow what I believe are the emerging strengths
of this list.

Most important is that subscribers here treat one another with
respect--and listen carefully to one another. And the list is
doing very well in this so far (certainly better than I
expected). As the list grows and is joined by spirited partisans
of revolutionary views that are in opposition to one
another--some subscribers will on occasion lose sight of the
great necessity of calm discussion. At that time I hope that
other subscribers will play an active role to remind those who
get easily excited of the importance of calm and serious
discussion and debate.

2. How will unity of the left develop?
-------------------------------------

There were a number of posts on this topic so I thought I should
briefly comment.

Plank 4 of the proposed "program of action" for our "media weapon
community" is focused on unity:

> 4. Unite revolutionary, progressive and working class
> activists into a politically transparent revolutionary
> mass movement that is deserving of the respect and
> attention of the working class and has the ability
> to mobilize tens of millions for victory against
> the bourgeoisie.

However this says very little concerning how such unity may come
about.

I am confident that this unity will happen. The demands of the
struggle and the rising consciousness of the masses will
eventually tend to isolate individuals and organizations that
fail to work for principled cooperation and unity with others.
As this process unfolds it is likely that many organizations that
consider themselves to be "revolutionary" will collapse as a
result of internal crisis (ie: loss of confidence by their
members and supporters).

At the same time I would like to emphasize that the struggle for
the unity of the working class movement will prove to be
inseparable from the struggle against the influence of the
reformist ideology and the reformist social strata (ie: trade
union bureaucrats, religious leaders, poverty pimps, progressive
journalists and professional opinion leaders, etc) which imposes
this ideology on the working class and which presents itself, in
a highly skilled and treacherous manner, as the natural "friends
and allies" of the working class. The working class will never
be able to create organization which is independent of bourgeois
influence without turning its back on these false friends who
represent, above all, a Trojan Horse in the service of the
bourgeosie

DJ Dialectic (see section III of his June 21 post) noted that
Lenin's "What is to be Done?" was focused on the development of
an all Russian socialist newspaper. Sean Cowen (in his 2nd post
on July 14 and several more recent posts) discusses the role that
a "national newspaper" might play in the development of a united
left.

I believe that such a "newspaper" will also be decisive in the
development of the unity of the left. Except, in the conditions
of the 21st century, this "newspaper" will actually be a "news
service" that exists (in its core) in the form of a publically
accessible database of news articles, analysis, comments and
filters. (Also--it will be local and international as much as it
is national.)

Printed material (leaflets, pamphlets, newspapers, magazines and
books) will exist primarily as a delivery system for some of the
most important items. But access via the web (including making
use of various forms of mass-based filtering as well as filters
that are created by competing revolutionary organizations) will
be at least as important as printed distribution.

The fact that the core of this news service will exist in the
form of an electronic database will solve many of the problems
that emerge when competing leftist groups cooperate on such a
project. Paper, for example, costs money to print. A web site,
in comparison, is practically free. Paper has a limited
capacity. An electronic database, in comparison, is practically
unlimited.

The ability to create news services of this nature with very
little money is important because money is extremely corrosive of
trust (especially in any project that requires collaboration
between organizations that are barely able to engage in the most
minimal cooperation). Money is the most corrosive and corrupting
substance known.

Sean has raised the topic of "advertising" in printed editions
which carry content from our news service. It is unclear to me
if Sean is discussing commercial advertizing (ie: content which
is carried in exchange for money) or political advertizing (ie:
political messages carried for free--much like the short blurbs
that I stick between readers' comments on the site at
http://communism.org ). My view is that commercial advertizing
should be avoided but political advertizing is fine.

It should be clear that many different (and competing) print
versions could exist which draw their content from a common
electronic database and which direct readers back to this
database for deeper background, analysis and discussion of the
articles they find of interest.

The general perspective would be that each news article or
analysis would be one small piece of an integrated and
comprehensive picture of the world which is focused, above all
else, on the need for the working class to overthrow the system
of bourgeois rule and to then steadily build an economy which is
not dependent on commodity production. The general overview here
is given in the "rocket" diagram on my website at
http://struggle.net/ben .

There has also been some discussion of the best avenues for the
news and cultural channels that the revolutionary movement will
create: electronic text, printed text, radio, video, etc.

All of these channels will eventually become very important but I
am of the view that the most strategic medium at this time--the
core of our effort--must be focused on electronic text.

Bandwidth costs for text are close to free at this time.
Bandwidth costs will eventually go down--and computing device
costs will go down even faster in accord with Moore's Law (ie:
doubling in power or halving in cost every two years). So
eventually, as all this unfolds, it will become possible for
small groups to create and distribute many forms of media for
very little money. But until we master the effective use of text
as a revolutionary weapon--we will not be in a position to make
effective use of the potential of higher bandwidth.

Incidently, I wrote an essay in July 2001 which explores this
topic in greater depth. It is titled "Nine Theses on the
Emerging Revolution in Communications" and can be seen as theses
9 thru 17 of a larger work at: http://Struggle.net/17 . The last
thesis is focused on the principle that: "It is an electronic
news service that will become the fundamental means of
collecting, concentrating and refining the forces which will
organize a mass revolutionary party."

I considered (and am still considering) adding to the proposed
"program of action" for our community an explicit recognition
that such a news service will be the great vehicle that will
allow serious activists opportunities to form powerful
relationships with one another and lead to the eventual formation
of a revolutionary organization which includes many competing
currents and which wages transparent and democratic "internal"
struggles that enlist the assistance of the masses to oppose the
influence of reformism and maintain the integrity of the
organization.

The closest I have come to this is the first plank of our
proposed program of action:

> 1. Build interactive and democratically-run channels
> of communication (including news, discussion and
> inclusive indices of revolutionary, or would-be
> revolutionary, organizations, projects and forums)

We must also note that, for all its many problems (for example
the Seattle indymedia site is currently promoting John "send more
troops" Kerry), the network of Indymedia news sites represents
the most significant effort, to date, by which activists are
attempting to create a news service which serves the progressive
movement. I believe that we must focus on creating a news
service which is independent of the Indymedia projects. At the
same time, however, I believe that it will eventually become
necessary to play a role in assisting the more serious section of
indymedia activists to recognize the principles that are decisive
for the development of a news service which stands independent of
bourgeois influence.

3. "open source" revolutionary politics
---------------------------------------

Unity of the left will not come about without a great amount of
struggle. Ultimately, there will be powerful debates concerning
the tasks which are decisive for the development of a powerful
and healthy movement for the overthrow of bourgeois rule.

Our proposed "program of action" (see http://MediaWeapon.com )
represents my views concerning what tasks are decisive. What is
different about this program of action (in comparison to that of
many organizations) is its commitment to open struggle and debate
concerning the decisive tasks. If any representative of any
revolutionary political trend believes that his or her
organization has a revolutionary agenda which better addresses
the needs of building a revolutionary mass movement--they are
welcome to join this list and engage in calm and principled
discussion and debate on this topic. We want to encourage this.

In the same way that the open source software movement believes
that its code will ultimately be better than proprietary code
because anyone can look at it--so we believe that the
revolutionary agenda (ie: the list of decisive tasks) that the
working class supports must be the product of a process of open
discussion and debate and we invite/challenge all revolutionary
trends to come here and debate our agenda with us--and also to
eventually establish their own forums on their own websites to
invite and respond to serious criticism of their views and
practice.

DJ Dialectic--June 21:
> i think that "our proposed mission state and program
> of action" and its goal of democratically run
> interactive sites is extremely important and good,
> but I do not feel like I'm in a position to evaluate
> its priority in terms of advancing the class struggle.

It is good to consider that there may be more important
priorities. Before activists can have a lot of confidence in the
program of action that we may adopt they will want to see some
"fruits" of this program (ie: results of some kind that inspire
confidence) and there will need to be open discussion and debate
concerning the program. This may take a few years.

> partly, i wonder if such sites are not more a cart
> drawn by the horse of struggle than the other way
> around, and if so, if we shouldn't be concentrating
> on the horse more so than the cart. it's still very
> much an open question to me.

DJ raises a good point. It is our engagement in the practical
class struggle that (a) gives us valuable experience and (b)
moves the progressive movement forward. The question then
becomes how much emphasis to put on this in our proposed program
of action. My experience, after being involved in many
struggles, has led me to focus on those tasks which are largely
being ignored at the present time and which are decisive to move
things forward. And I have tended to simply assume that
other tasks (which are not being ignored) do not need emphasis
because so many activists and groups are already engaged in such
a wide variety of struggles.

The issue for me is not that practical struggles are not taking
place--but that they tend to be isolated from one another and the
lessons of these struggles (often acquired at a very high price)
are not being summed up and learned from. On the other hand--for
many who lack political experience--there is no substitute for
becoming involved in a variety of practical struggles. It is the
difference between reading about riding a bicycle--and riding a
bicycle.

Plank 1 does include this brief phrase:

> (a) mobilize popular support for the current
> struggles of the working class and oppressed

But maybe it needs more. The proposed program of action will
likely evolve over time. In the meantime I will give thought to
this and hope that others will also. Comments are always
welcome.

4. Communism vs. Proletarism
---------------------------------

I asked (in my weekly posts of June 6, 12 and 20) whether the
movement for the overthrow of bourgeois rule should call itself
the "communist" or "proletarist" movement. My question was based
on consideration of a proposal made in 1999 by the Russian
activist Grigory Isayev (excerpts from a translation of Isayev's
proposal are contained in Appendix 2 to my June 20 post). Those
who are late to this discussion may find it useful to look at
these posts (which are in the public archives of the pof-200 and
theorist lists).

DJ Dialectic--June 21:
> (there's a middle class lobbying group in DC
> that calls socialism "economic democracy".)

My experience is that such groups as you describe are social
democratic (ie: reformist) and oppose the concept of the
overthrow of bourgeois rule. Such groups want to hide the word
"socialism" because such a word lacks bourgeois respectability.

Isayev is in favor of breaking from the "communist" movement from
the left--rather than from the right--and proposes abandoning the
words "socialism" and "communism" because decades of corruption
and betrayal have rendered these words unable to convey the
concept of rule of society by the working class.

> the decisive test of all things is practice. this is
> an important question, but one i fear is too
> abstract given that we are not even a group...
>
> following on that point: lenin was in a position
> to rename the movement.

The revolutionary movement is without effective leadership at
this time. There is no one at this time with Lenin's clarity of
mind to point the way forward. However, by making skilled and
careful use of the emerging forums (such as this one) we can
combine our experiences and begin to overcome our ignorance.

> the hard task is to explain what [insert name here]
> is and to link it to the workers. once we start talking
> about whatever name we use, the question will come
> up: "that sounds like communism!" in other words,
> we [are] going to have to confront all the baggage
> the word "communism" has.

Yes--but at least it will be easier to make it clear that we
advocate something different from the police states that grew out
of the Russian and Chinese revolutions.

Those who oppose communism because they defend bourgeois
interests will, naturally, continue to oppose us.

However those who oppose communism because they oppose the
corruption of the feudal-style ruling classes that established
police states in Russia and China--will have a better chance of
understanding that we are also in opposition to this kind of
corruption and hypocrisy and do not have our heads shoved in a
place that cannot be reached by sunlight.

> in sum, i do think that a name change might be useful,
> but that other matters--such as how to present and
> work with [insert name]--are more important. And
> in doing so we may get a better idea of the name
> question.

I hope that our clarity on this will develop over time. If we
can attract a number of experienced anti-revisionist activists to
this forum their comments would be useful.

Again, those who are late to this discussion are encouraged to
read at least my June 20 post. And, in the meantime, I offer
what I would consider to be four essential characteristics of the
proletarist movement and proletarist activists:

a) A clear focus on the rule of the working _class_
(as opposed to the rule of a single organization
which claims to represent the interest of the class)
and the recognition of the need for the essential
democratic rights of speech and organization
that the workers will need to exercise their rule
as a class
b) A serious attitude about theory and a determination
to assist our movement to overcome the crisis of theory
c) Committed to political transparency as a weapon
to organize the struggle against bourgeois rule and
as a weapon to maintain workers' rule after
bourgeois rule has been overthrown
d) Serious opposition to all the _bullshit_ that
has accumulated in the name of "communism"
in the last 80 years.

For more on point (d) see below.

5. Who will overthrow US imperialism?
----------------------------------------

kadri--June 18:
> i want to ask you a most pertinent question that is
> the role of the third [world] in any proleterian revolution .
> let's be simple. [is it] the periphery where capitalism
> can be defeated or in its centre?

The basic question here is whether class questions are more
important than national questions. US imperialism was defeated
in Vietnam primarily by the struggle of the Vietnamese people.
But the struggle of the Vietnamese people was greatly helped by
the antiwar movement here in the US which increasingly moved in a
revolutionary direction as it developed.

So the first point is that we must recognize the necessity of
alliance of the oppressed of the world (including the working
class of the imperialist countries) against imperialism.

But there is a further point. US imperialism was defeated in
Vietnam but it was not destroyed. However it will be destroyed.
It will be overthrown. And it will be overthrown by the US
working class. This is the historic mission of the working class
in the US and this is what all activists in the US must never
lose sight of.

The talk of the "embourgeoisment" of the US working class
contains various particles of truth but it also leads many
activists in the US to lose sight of the historic destiny of the
US working class and of the need to base their actions and
tactics around raising the consciousness of the class.

If we are serious about raising the consciousness of the class
then, to begin with, we must _always_ tell the workers the truth.

Not _sometimes_. Not when it is _convenient_.

Always.

I gave an example in a previous post. The Workers' World Party
(WWP) here in the US had an article describing the role of the
trade union bureaucrats (TUB's) in the November 1999 Anti-WTO
demonstrations in Seattle. This article, unfortunately, failed
to mention that these hacks formed a physical barrier that
prevented thirty thousand marchers from coming to the aid of (or
even knowing about) the heroic actions of a smaller group of a
few thousand activists who were physically blocking the movement
of WTO delegates.

The WWP in effect covered up the treachery of the trade union
bureaucrats. Why did the WWP cover up this treachery? Because
the WWP has an alliance with the TUB's. The WWP does not want to
jeopardize this alliance--even if it means promoting illusions in
their press about the "progressive" nature of this treacherous
strata of society.

The WWP's attitude is a reflection of an ideology which fails to
grasp the revolutionary character of the US working class. After
all--why jeopardize their alliance in order to tell the truth to
a class which has no revolutionary character?

This basic question (ie: do we tell the workers the truth?) is
also reflected in DJ Dialectic's reply to Samyabad:

DJ Dialectic--June 23:
> I want to thank Samyabad for again contributing
> his views. Though I disagree with some of what
> he said, I found it clear and useful for furthering
> our understanding.
>
> He asks an important question, "I wonder by
> condemning them outrightly being police state,
> aren't we serving the main enemy, the Imperialist
> state of America and Its running dogs around the world?"
>
> The answer to this is a simple and resounding "no!"
> Communists must tell the truth, and if they are police
> states, they are police states. Furthermore, not
> calling them what they are will only confuse the
> proletariat who do not want to live in a police state!
>
> Of course, this can be perverted to serve imperialism,
> which we must expose, but lieing or covering up
> the truth will win us no friends and will not advance
> the struggle. Also, we must not link condemnation
> of police states to military support for imperialism
> conquering them as some do--that would be the
> real problem.

Samyabad's confusion on this question (which, unfortunately,
reflects the views of the majority of activists who consider
themselves to be communists) reflects his inability to understand
the revolutionary character of the working class. If we
understand that the working class, even in the US, has a
revolutionary character and is destined to overthrow the
bourgeoisie--then it also follows that it is our responsibility
to raise their consciousness about their revolutionary
destiny--and to assist them in understanding how _they_ can run
society _better_ than the bourgeoisie. But all such efforts are
_sabotaged_ if we refer to the existing corrupt revisionist
police states as "socialist". In effect such misguided attitudes
tell the workers that they have a choice between continued
bourgeois rule and a police state. This is just another way of
saying that there is no alternative to bourgeois rule (because
workers understand correctly that, under modern conditions, a
police state would be worse than ordinary bourgeois rule).

There can never be a healthy and powerful mass movement for the
overthrow of bourgeois rule until this kind of bullshit is
repudiated on a mass scale--until hundreds of thousands of
militant, serious activists have a clear and solid theoretical
understanding of the distinction between the rule of the working
class and the rule of a parasitic feudal-style class which
suppresses the independent political life of the workers.

6. Futility of Chinese censorship of text messages
--------------------------------------------------

8thFloor (a while back) posted an article on the efforts of the
corrupt Chinese revisionist regime to censor the internet.

In the long run (or maybe sooner) these efforts are bound to
fail.

The Wall Street Journal (ie: along with the New York Times the
flagship mouthpiece of the US bourgeoisie) carried an editorial
(July 6) gloating about how this censorship will eventually
collapse:

"... China's censors are targeting telephone text messages ...
But ... it's too late to stop their spread ... more than 220
billion test messages were sent in China last year - more than
half the world's total. And the numbers continue to rise ... in
2003 text messages in China were up 160% from a year earlier and
will rise by more than 40% this year. That's far too many for
even China's cyber censors to control. Nor does [this] stand
much chance of success. The plan involves adopting new
technology to filter key terms that the party dislikes. But
similar keyword search methods have been easily subverted by
Chinese cyber dissidents, who can get their message across simply
by misspelling words or avoiding sensitive terms on Internet
bulletin boards. If anything, Internet censorship has merely
made Chinese subversives smarter and more creative. ... The
Communist Party has taken on a battle it is bound to lose."

This editorial contains a lot of truth. Simply because the US
bourgeoisie is gloating--does not mean that they are mistaken.
Any government in China (or elsewhere) that attempts to censor
the internet _is_ bound to lose.

Let the US bourgeoisie gloat. They do not realize that, as a
revolutionary mass movement here in the US learns to make
effective use of the internet--the US bourgeoisie will find that
it, also, will be waging a battle that it cannot win.

Sincerely and with revolutionary regards,
Ben Seattle
----//-// July 20, 2004
http://struggle.net/Ben (my elists / theory / infrastructure)

Send email to: pof-100-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
No Spam!--Just 2 emails a year to keep you updated about my work

-------------------------------------------------------------
Do you have ideas--or do ideas have you?
The ultimate in thought control is that we are unable
to conceive of victory ---- http://struggle.net/ALDS
-------------------------------------------------------------
** A scenario for the overthrow of bourgeois rule
in the U.S. in the middle of the 21st century
** Politics, Economics and the Mass Media
when the Working Class Runs the Show
** The Future Transparent Workers' State:
Will a workers' state be a brutal police state
or a machine controlled by workers?
** Finding the Confidence to Build the Future --
How will the working class keep supply chains running
and bourgeois apologists from flooding the airwaves
on the morning after bourgeois rule is broken?
-------------------------------------------------------------