( From Louis Proyect's marxmail.org list )

-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Seattle <left-transparency@...>
To: Marxism (LP) List <marxism@...>
Cc: jorn.andersen@...; Johannes.Schneider@...;
jpmonteiro@...; mstainsby@...
Date: Monday, August 06, 2001 7:38 AM
Subject: Genoa, the black bloc and the labor aristocracy


Genoa, the black bloc
and the labor aristocracy


Louis Proyect, the moderator of this forum, has said that we must
close down this thread but that everyone can make one final post
on the topic. I am disappointed that this thread must be closed
down precisely at the point where, from my perspective, it was
getting interesting. I will, however, acknowledge that Louis has
built one of the most useful and interesting forums in
cyberspace. There are some very good people gathered together
here. This list has both a high volume and, more importantly, a
high signal-to-noise ratio. Whatever the weaknesses in his
ideology (more on that in just a bit) Louis has performed a very
valuable service to the progressive community by pouring his
heart, day after day, into the development of this list. I hope
that, eventually, it will be possible to create a forum that is
even better. But that appears to be a task for the future.

This thread caught everyone's attention because of different
attitudes towards what has been called the "black bloc" (a
relatively small section of the anarchist movement that has been
given to tactics at the anti-globalization demos that are
spirited and militant but sometimes adventurist and
counter-productive).

The culmination of this was Louis Proyect's proposal on July 31
that these large spirited actions enforce:

> a permanent ban on those black masks which represent
> one of the most egregious challenges to the kind
> of movement we are trying to build that is imaginable.

But Louis Proyect's proposal would be a blueprint to divide and
weaken the anti-globalization movement--for intensifying mistrust
and division between different sections of this movement. How
would Proyect's proposed ban be enforced? Thru force. Some of
these kids want to wear masks and will defend their right to do
so. And sometimes these kids have a legitimate need to protect
their identities (ie: others have pointed out that picking up a
tear gas canister and throwing it back at the police lines is a
crime and anyone photographed committing such a "crime" is
subject to prosecution). And physical fighting within our ranks
(ie: that would likely result should efforts be made to enforce
Proyect's silly ban) would only provide another excuse for the
police to wade into crowds with their trucheons swinging. Wasn't
it in Barcelona that the police attacked a crowd as a result of a
scuffle? And didn't it turn out that this scuffle had been
staged by police provocateurs precisely to provide this kind of
excuse? So into whose hands would Proyect's proposal play?

* * * * * *

My knowledge of the anti-globalization movement is anemic. I did
witness first-hand the treachery of the trade union bureaucrats
(TUB's) in the streets of Seattle as they actively worked (and
succeeded) in keeping thirty thousand enthusiastic marchers from
coming to the assistance of those who were blockading the
streets. But my ability to understand and keep up with this
movement is quite weak. There is no way, for example, that I
could write a post that provides the depth of background and
analysis provided by João Paulo or Mac. I can say that their two
posts [1] were the best I have seen on this topic and I found
them to be both inspiring and to have reinforced my conviction
that it is the destiny of electronic discussion forums to
eventually become a powerful weapon in the hands of militant
activists and the working class.

I will also say that I was very impressed by posts by Jørn
Andersen, Johannes Schneider and Lou Paulsen. In particular, I
believe the following lines from Jørn crystallize the problem we
face:

> I think there are two major problems with this obsession
> about distancing ourselves from the "ultra-lefts":
>
> 1) The minor point is [...]
>
> 2) The major problem is that it fails to address why
> the "ultra-lefts" are attractive to quite a lot people.
> ...
> My point is that there is a reason why the individualist
> type of action has some attraction, and that is the
> non-confrontative attitude of the "NGO-type" and
> TU-bureaucrat leaders.
> ...
> But responsibility for this is, I think, with those leaders
> who pretend to be taking on global finance capital,
> but fail to advance a strategy and tactics that can win.
>
> So I think the *small* problem is the adventurists.
> The *big* problem is to win the political leadership
> for the need to confront the enemy - instead
> of trying to persuade them.
-- Jørn Andersen -- July 31

The essence of the division on this list over Genoa and the black
bloc consists, in my view, of the following:

Louis Proyect and his fellow thinkers believe that some of us are
pandering to the black bloc. On the other hand, some here
believe that Proyect and others are systematically shielding the
treachery of the labor aristocracy in general and the TUBs in
particular.

* * * * * *

I hope that the serious readers of this forum can understand that
these are complex and deep issues. We will not resolve, here or
at this time, the contradiction that has surfaced in the black
bloc thread. This contradiction has deep roots and emerged
explosively on the world scene in 1914.

Nor (I would like to make clear before anyone accuses me
otherwise) I am advocating that we all put white hats and black
hats on one another and melt down Louis Proyect's fine list in
the cyberspace equivalent of a barroom brawl.

What I would like to see is the development, over time, of a
deeper understanding of the contradiction that has emerged. I am
glad that this list has a high signal-to-noise ratio. Louis
Proyect has kicked off of this list people who act like jerks and
hurl insults at real or imagined "mensheviks". Generally, I am
in complete agreement with Louis' policy because it has made
possible principled debate and discussion of a kind that could
not exist otherwise. I consider it a privilege to post to this
list and hope that this can continue.

* * * * * *

Historically, the biggest tectonic fault within the left has been
between those who consider the biggest danger to come from the
left and those who consider the biggest danger to come from the
right. While nearly everyone agrees that both sectarianism and
reformism represent serious diseases that plague the left, some
believe that sectarianism is the worst disease while others
believe that the worst disease is reformism.

The essence of the contradiction that has emerged is that some on
this list are on one side of this fault line and some are on the
other. But, again (just so there is less room for
misunderstanding), I am not advocating that we engage in
provocation against one another and destroy the calm and useful
discussion that is gradually unfolding. I am advocating that we
work to better understand this fault line. As we understand this
fault line better we will be in a better position to understand
the real divisions that plague our movement and how to overcome
these divisions and advance the class struggle.

* * * * * *

In particular I believe that those (like myself) who consider
reformism to be the biggest disease that plagues the left have
much work to do if we are to be able to explain, in clear and
understandable language (with a large number of typical examples
drawn from life) what reformism is and how it works. Many do not
understand this. In fact many (even on a list like this)
consider "reformism" to be synonymous with the struggle for
reforms. Just to illustrate, there are two definitions of
reformism on the net of which I am aware. The Encyclopedia of
Marxism has a glossary with one definition [2] and my own site
has a (much smaller) glossary with another definition [3]. But
both of these definitions (including my own) are inadequate.
Sooner or later those with experience in the struggle against
reformism will need to find ways of combining their efforts to
produce web sites and similar resources to assist serious and
militant activists to understand what reformism is and how it is
used by the bourgeoisie to steal the initiative of the mass
movements, undermine the militancy of the mass movements and lead
the mass movements into stagnation and paralysis.

I do not believe that we can understand reformism if we fail to
see it as an ideology promoted by a particular (and extremely
influential) strata of society that I call the labor aristocracy.

Again, however, even the term "labor aristocracy" is poorly
defined. This strata includes more than the TUBs. It includes
many progressive political figures (Jesse Jackson, Ralph Nader
and innumerable others). I had a confrontation three years ago
with Louis Proyect that was, essentially, centered on this
question. Louis described as "independent" some organizations in
the US that I consider to be on a bourgeois leash [4].

The essence of how the labor aristocracy works is as a vehicle
for the transmission of bourgeois influence into the mass
movements. Step by step, organizations that are on a bourgeois
leash will work to tame and bring under bourgeois control other
organizations which will, in turn, act to transmit pressure
further down the line--until there are no significant
organizations left in society that are truly independent of
bourgeois influence or control. Organizations which "play ball"
and capitulate to the pressure of bourgeois respectability
receive hundreds of kinds of benefits (favorable press, the
cooperation of other respectable
organizations/institutions/personalities, contributions, grants
of money and, in general, the keys to the magic kingdom). What
constitutes "bourgeois respectability"? Bourgeois respectability
revolves around being "responsible". And what constitutes the
boundaries of being "responsible"? The boundaries are determined
by what is effective in raising the consciousness of the masses
and mobilizing them for struggle. If you keep the masses
_passive_ then you are "responsible". For example the TUBs that
kept thirty thousand enthusiastic demonstrators from coming to
the aid of those who were blockading the streets of Seattle on
November 30, 1999 were responsible.

It is the job of the labor aristocracy to gain the leadership of
and derail any movement that represents the aspirations of the
masses. It is the job of the labor aristocracy to suck the life
out of any force that refuses to crawl on its knees before
bourgeois rule. I am aware that this may sound strange or
bizarre to some readers here, as if I am describing some kind of
weird conspiracy theory.

Partly, the fault here is my own. My ability to describe this is
inadequate. And partly the fault is the low level of political
ferment and struggle that exists in society. Because this
dynamic (ie: thru which bourgeois influence and control is
transmitted) only springs into action and, so to speak, becomes
visible as the class struggle heats up. We see a hint of this in
the wake of the Genoa events:

> I would describe our problem in a nutshell as the following:
> Marxists are making googly eyes at the White Overalls, while
> the White Overalls are making googly eyes at the Black Bloc.
> Down with googly eyes!!!
-- Louis Proyect -- July 30

Louis describes how we must work to tame the black bloc. Put
pressure on the White Overalls. Once the White Overalls "turn"
then they will put pressure of the black bloc. Kind of reminds
you of how the cops will go after a drug kingpin. You start with
the low-level guy on the street, pressure him until he leads you
higher, and you climb the ladder rung by rung.

Of course such an analogy can also be highly misleading. The
analogy of cops and drug gangs is a quite poor one. The system
of transmission belts that transmit bourgeois influence and
control function as part of a process that is very heavily
_ideological_. Underline that word. There is an _ideology_
behind this. People, even sincere and dedicated and militant
activists are mobilized to play their role by virtue of
_ideology_. This ideology consists of hundreds and thousands of
prejudices, emotions and deeply programmed _instincts_ concerning
how society works and how the class struggle works. This
ideology consists of hundreds and thousands of _illusions_ of
various kinds. This is why Louis Proyect can believe that we
should try to pressure the bourgeoisie into giving a trillion
dollars (that's trillion with a "t") to the world's poor ("funded
by cuts in military spending") if only we can first crush the
spirit of that section of the movement that (however misguided or
tactically inept or counter-productive) is inspiring millions of
young people in Europe and North America.

This is the perpetual reformist illusion. Titanic forces will
assist us in our fight against the bourgeoisie if only we give up
our independence and militancy and toss in the trash the idea
that our job is to bring to the masses a consciousness of the
irreconcilable contradiction between their interests and those of
the bourgeoisie.

Louis decided to cut this discussion short when Johannes
Schneider used the "r" word (ie: "reformism"). This signified,
to Louis, that the thread was in danger of generating "more heat
than light".

To anyone who has felt they were struggling to understand the
issues in this thread, I hope that you will consider the argument
I have made an effort to calmly present. And if anyone would
like to take this discussion further, off-list, please write to
me.

Those who, like me, believe that reformism and the influence of
the labor aristocracy are the major problem of our movement have
our work cut out for us. We need to develop the ability to
resist provocation and to clearly and calmly present our views in
forums such as this one. And one corollary of this is that we
must find ways to combine our efforts. We must recognize one
another and we must _talk_ to one another. This thread, by
definition, cannot go further here and now. But this issue will
not go away. It will emerge again and again and again because
only by understanding this issue will we be able to overcome the
split in the working class movement.

Sincerely and with revolutionary regards,

Ben Seattle
----//-// 6.Aug.2001
http://Leninism.org
http://egroups.com/group/theorist/

<>--<>--<>--<>--<>--<>--<>--<>--<>--<>--<>--<>--<>--<>
How will economics, politics and culture work
when the working class runs modern society?
http://struggle.net/proletarian-democracy
<>--<>--<>--<>--<>--<>--<>--<>--<>--<>--<>--<>--<>--<>

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

---[1]---

João Paulo and Mac's "last post" on this thread:

From: João Paulo Monteiro
Subject: My last word on the Black Bloc
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 08:42:20 -0700
http://www.mail-archive.com/marxism@lists.panix.com/msg24779.html

From: Les Schaffer
Subject: (fwd from Mac) What is next for anti-globalisation?
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 08:42:40 -0700
http://www.mail-archive.com/marxism@lists.panix.com/msg24780.html

>From João's introduction:
> This whole anti - capitalist/globalization movement was
> kick-started by black bloc type folks: autonomists,
> anarchists, zapatistas, rage-against-the-machine cultists,
> cyber-warriors, etc., etc.. Without them, we wouldn't have
> the movement as you know it now. They made it HAPPEN, where
> there was nothing. This is what created the mass mobilization
> in the first place. People came to the streets because
> something was on. Without the (oh, so obnoxious) street
> fighting tactics of the anarchists, the world leaders
> wouldn't be now meeting in bunkers (guarded by tens of
> thousands of riot police agents) or running for cover to
> the canadian hills and the arab deserts.

>From João's conclusion:
> As things stand at the moment, isolating the anarchists is
> nothing short of decapitating the movement (purging it of
> its radical edge) and giving it away on a silver plate
> to the social-democrats. Then things could finally go back
> to normal. The G8 leaders could meet in peace, whenever
> and wherever they would want. The peaceful manifestations
> formed on these occasions would start to drip away slowly,
> as some reformist leaders are co-opted into the highest
> summits of decision-making and the best assurances are
> given to all social partners and the most respectable
> Third World leaders.

Excerpt # 1 from Mac:
> TINA was (and is) widely felt around the entire world after
> the USSR disappeared. This new movement, by it's simple
> defiance in the face of the policies of TINA, is allowing
> the realisation across the planet of what many always knew:
> That history does not end and there is indeed a point to
> struggle today. Beyond that, people have also come to a
> sense of urgency- and considering the state of our
> environment, the bubble economy and the facile pats on
> the head that come from the media, is their any purpose
> in telling them not to be anxious? We need to promote
> precisely this kind of anxiety. Doing so is not to neglect
> the ideas of better organising- it is to celebrate that
> we now have a new chapter before us- and it is not one
> that is basing itself on compromise.

Excerpt # 2 from Mac:
> The marchers in Seattle were set to come downtown and join
> the peaceful Anarchist blockades that shut down the meeting
> of the WTO. At the last moment- and with many hours to go
> before the Black Bloc emergence, let there be no mistake
> about this- Union leaders sent marshals to the intersections
> a pair of blocks away from the demonstration that was being
> ruthlessly attacked by the police. From the vantage point of
> being someone who had intended to go through both marches,
> I can attest that by 1:00pm the most constant refrain- over
> and over- was: "When are the unions going to get here?"
>
> We kept trying to tell the time, guess how long it would be.
> For myself and many others in that crowd, hopelessly naïve
> about Trade Union Bureaucrats- we never stopped expecting
> their appearance at a later point. In retrospect, it is a
> simple class analysis that our naïvete was lacking. TUB's
> are not part of the working class in the same way as many
> of their fellow travellers deem. They have positions
> underneath them that are wholly rocky, should the workers
> take independent action.

---[2]---

Reformism definition # 1
------------------------

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/r/e.htm

> To cause change to occur within a government without
> threatening the government in its vital class interests; to
> ammend the way a government represents its class interests.
> Trade and Labour unions are working class examples of
> reformist organisations in favor of making the working class
> more comfortable while under the yoke of capitalism, while
> ensuring that capitalist system survives.
>
> Reformists are politically between revolutionaries and
> reactionaries; they are revolutionary in the sense that they
> want to change laws and institutions to adhere to emerging
> social-relations. They are reactionary in the sense that
> they want to maintain the present government, keeping intact
> the present class structure, and maintaining their own power
> within that structure.
>
> Most Socialists and Communists (with the exception of
> ultra-leftists), while not reformist, involve themselves
> with reformism as one transitionary form of the struggle for
> the revolutionary emancipation of the working class. One
> example of this is involvement with labour unions when large
> sections of the working class are a part of trade unions;
> involving themselves to advance revolutionary aims (whether
> through increased working class organization, international
> workers solidarity, education, etc.), from which reforms
> will inevitably be a byproduct.

---[3]---

Reformism definition # 2
------------------------

http://Leninism.org/terms/terms.htm#contents

> Reformism is the belief that the domination of society by
> the bourgeosie can be broken, and the rule of the working
> class can be established, via a series of achievable
> reforms.
>
> Reformism is NOT the struggle for reforms or partial
> demands. To the contrary, historical experience shows that
> revolutionary methods of struggle are more effective in
> achieving reforms than reformist methods of struggle.
> Revolutionary methods of struggle center around working to
> mobilize the masses into action and raising the
> consciousness of the masses about the class nature of
> society. Reformist methods of struggle involve restricting
> activity to methods which do not directly threaten (or raise
> the consciousness of the masses about) the fundamental
> underpinings of bourgeois class rule.
>
> The bourgeoisie, particularly in periods of mass
> revolutionary upsurge, give decisive support to the
> political trends which preach reformism and carries out a
> defacto alliance with such trends in order to divert the
> masses from the path of revolutionary struggle.
>
> Reformism often results from unprincipled (as opposed to
> principled) cooperation with political trends such that
> violations of fundamental principle are not openly
> confronted and openly opposed. Such practice, in modern
> society, inevitably leads to the domination of bourgeois
> politics and ideology in the workers movement and reduces
> the movement to a plaything in the hands of the bourgeoisie.
>
> Reformism does NOT refer to the struggle for worthwhile
> reforms. Reformism represents an ideology in which all
> struggles for reforms and progress must be conducted
> according to what is acceptable (ie: "responsible" and
> "respectable") to the bourgeoisie. Inevitably this means
> within the limits of what will not directly threaten
> fundamental bourgeois class interests.
>
> Most fundamentally, reformism is a struggle for political
> progress that confines itself to what is possible within the
> confines of the capitalist system and the class rule of the
> bourgeoisie. Reformism in particular tends to avoid forms of
> struggle oriented around raising the consciousness of the
> masses (something generally unacceptable to the bourgeoisie)
> such as mass actions and mass struggle. Reformism will
> sometimes use mass sentiment and the threat of mass actions
> as a "bargaining chip" in negotiations over reforms with
> bourgeois representatives--but will view and use such mass
> actions as a last resort in the face of bourgeois
> intransigence instead of as the pivot of all development.
>
> Reformism (as a struggle for progress limited by those
> methods and goals which are acceptable to--and do not
> challenge the class interests of--the bourgeoisie) is also,
> for historical reasons, often called social-democracy.
> Reformism is maintained thru a vast system of carrots and
> sticks maintained at one end (of a highly complex system of
> tranmission belts)--by the bourgeoisie, which doles out
> favors (ie: support, assistance, cooperation and media
> attention) to those political trends which it regards as
> behaving in a "responsible" or "respectable" manner or which
> promote ideologies or conceptions which urge the masses to
> rely on the "powers that be" and remain passive.
>
> The reformist ideology is extremely widespread (in fact
> nearly universal) in capitalist society because reformism
> presents itself (and is seen) as the alternative to the
> misery, injustice, racism, militarism, etc. that exist
> nearly everywhere.
>
> Communist tactics towards reformist trends often may involve
> common work towards clearly defined objectives but also
> involve a complex struggle to raise the consciousness of
> activists about the necessity for tactics oriented around
> drawing the masses into struggle and fighting for
> independence from bourgeois tactics, ideology and politics.
>
> Communist tactics towards individuals under the influence of
> reformist ideology involve working to win such people to
> break with reformism. In periods of ebb in the class
> struggle (such as currently) the bankruptcy of reformist
> tactics often does not make itself very clear except over an
> extended period of time. Communists, being materialists,
> also recognize that certain individuals have a materialist
> basis (ie: a job or social position) that locks them into
> permanent orbit around bourgeois politics.
>
> When the influence of reformist politics and ideology are
> broken, the bourgeoisie will be left standing, naked and
> defenseless, before the power and the determination of a
> united working class.

---[4]---

My confrontation with Louis Proyect:

Reformism and the split in the working class movement
38 Posts on Marxism-International -- April 1998
http://Leninism.org/stream/98/reformism.htm

----//-//